| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Monday, 28 Tevet, 5778 · January 15, 2018Torah Reading:
Bo: Exodus 10:1-11
Bo: Exodus 10:1 Adonai said to Moshe, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have made him and his servants hardhearted, so that I can demonstrate these signs of mine among them, 2 so that you can tell your son and grandson about what I did to Egypt and about my signs that I demonstrated among them, and so that you will all know that I am Adonai.” 3 Moshe and Aharon went in to Pharaoh and said to him, “Here is what Adonai, God of the Hebrews, says: ‘How much longer will you refuse to submit to me? Let my people go, so that they can worship me. 4 Otherwise, if you refuse to let my people go, tomorrow I will bring locusts into your territory. 5 One won’t be able to see the ground, so completely will the locusts cover it. They will eat anything you still have that escaped the hail, including every tree you have growing in the field. 6 They will fill your houses and those of your servants and of all the Egyptians. It will be like nothing your fathers or their fathers have ever seen since the day they were born until today.’” Then he turned his back and left.
7 Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How much longer must this fellow be a snare for us? Let the people go and worship Adonai their God. Don’t you understand yet that Egypt is being destroyed?” 8 So Moshe and Aharon were brought to Pharaoh again, and he said to them, “Go, worship Adonai your God. But who exactly is going?” 9 Moshe answered, “We will go with our young and our old, our sons and our daughters; and we will go with our flocks and herds; for we must celebrate a feast to Adonai.” 10 Pharaoh said to them, “Adonai certainly will be with you if I ever let you go with your children! It’s clear that you are up to no good. 11 Nothing doing! Just the men among you may go and worship Adonai. That’s what you want, isn’t it?” And they were driven out of Pharaoh’s presence.
---
Today in Jewish History:
• Birthday and Passing of Shimon (1567-1447 BCE)According to sources cited in Seder Hadorot, Tevet 28 is both the birthday and the day of passing of Shimon the son of Jacob; other sources place the date as Tevet 21. (See the entry for Tevet 21).
• Sadducees ejected from Sanhedrin (81 BCE)
Shimon ben Shetach successfully completed the expulsion of the Sadducees (a sect which denied the Oral Torah and the authority of the Sages) who had dominated the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court), replacing them with his Torah-loyal Pharisaic disciples, on the 28th of Tevet of the year 3680 from creation (81 BCE).
• Rebbetzin Chana Born (1879)
Rebbetzin Chana Schneerson (1879 (O.S.) - 1964), mother of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, was born on Tevet 28.
Link: A biography of Rebbetzin Chana
Daily Quote: Said Rabbi Eliezer: "Repent one day before your death." His disciples asked him, "Does a person then know which day he will die?" Said he to them, "How much more so should he repent today..." (Talmud, Shabbat 153a)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Bo, 2nd Portion Exodus 10:12-10:23 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Exodus Chapter 10
12The Lord said to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, and they will ascend over the land of Egypt, and they will eat all the vegetation of the earth, all that the hail has left over." יבוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה נְטֵ֨ה יָֽדְךָ֜ עַל־אֶ֤רֶץ מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ בָּֽאַרְבֶּ֔ה וְיַ֖עַל עַל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וְיֹאכַל֙ אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֣שֶׂב הָאָ֔רֶץ אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר הִשְׁאִ֖יר הַבָּרָֽד:
for the locusts: For the plague of the locusts.
בארבה: בשביל מכת הארבה:
13So Moses stretched forth his staff over the land of Egypt, and the Lord led an east wind in the land all that day and all the night. [By the time] it was morning, the east wind had borne the locusts. יגוַיֵּ֨ט משֶׁ֣ה אֶת־מַטֵּ֘הוּ֘ עַל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ וַֽיהֹוָ֗ה נִהַ֤ג רֽוּחַ־קָדִים֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ כָּל־הַיּ֥וֹם הַה֖וּא וְכָל־הַלָּ֑יְלָה הַבֹּ֣קֶר הָיָ֔ה וְר֨וּחַ֙ הַקָּדִ֔ים נָשָׂ֖א אֶת־הָֽאַרְבֶּֽה:
the east wind: The east wind bore the locusts because it [the east wind] came opposite it [the locust swarm], for Egypt is southwest [of Israel], as is explained elsewhere (Num. 34:3).]
ורוח הקדים: רוח מזרחית נשא את הארבה, לפי שבא כנגדו שמצרים בדרומית מערבית היתה, כמו שמפורש במקום אחר:
14The locusts ascended over the entire land of Egypt, and they alighted within all the border[s] of Egypt, very severe; before them, there was never such a locust [plague], and after it, there will never be one like it. ידוַיַּ֣עַל הָֽאַרְבֶּ֗ה עַ֚ל כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם וַיָּ֕נַח בְּכֹ֖ל גְּב֣וּל מִצְרָ֑יִם כָּבֵ֣ד מְאֹ֔ד לְ֠פָנָ֠יו לֹא־הָ֨יָה כֵ֤ן אַרְבֶּה֙ כָּמֹ֔הוּ וְאַֽחֲרָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־כֵּֽן:
and after it, there will never be one like it: And the one [the locust plague] that took place in the days of Joel, about which it is said: “the like of which has never been” (Joel 2:2), [from which] we learn that it was more severe than that of [the plague in the days of] Moses-namely because that one was [composed] of many species [of locusts] that were together: arbeh, yelek, chasil, [and] gazam; but [the locust plague] of Moses consisted of only one species [the arbeh], and its equal never was and never will be.
ואחריו לא יהיה כן: ואותו שהיה בימי יואל, שנאמר (יואל ב ב) כמוהו לא נהיה מן העולם, למדנו שהיה כבד משל משה כי אותו של יואל היה על ידי מינין הרבה, שהיו יחד ארבה ילק חסיל גזם, אבל של משה לא היה אלא של מין אחד, וכמוהו לא היה ולא יהיה:
15They obscured the view of all the earth, and the earth became darkened, and they ate all the vegetation of the earth and all the fruits of the trees, which the hail had left over, and no greenery was left in the trees or in the vegetation of the field[s] throughout the entire land of Egypt. טווַיְכַ֞ס אֶת־עֵ֣ין כָּל־הָאָ֘רֶץ֘ וַתֶּחְשַׁ֣ךְ הָאָ֒רֶץ֒ וַיֹּ֜אכַל אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֣שֶׂב הָאָ֗רֶץ וְאֵת֙ כָּל־פְּרִ֣י הָעֵ֔ץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹתִ֖יר הַבָּרָ֑ד וְלֹֽא־נוֹתַ֨ר כָּל־יֶ֧רֶק בָּעֵ֛ץ וּבְעֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה בְּכָל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם:
no greenery: Heb. יֶרֶק, green leaf, verdure in French.
כל ירק: עלה ירוק וירדור"א בלעז [ירק]:
16Pharaoh hastened to summon Moses and Aaron, and he said, "I have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. טזוַיְמַהֵ֣ר פַּרְעֹ֔ה לִקְרֹ֖א לְמשֶׁ֣ה וּלְאַֽהֲרֹ֑ן וַיֹּ֗אמֶר חָטָ֛אתִי לַֽיהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֖ם וְלָכֶֽם:
17But now, forgive now my sin only this time and entreat the Lord your God, and let Him remove from me just this death." יזוְעַתָּ֗ה שָׂ֣א נָ֤א חַטָּאתִי֙ אַ֣ךְ הַפַּ֔עַם וְהַעְתִּ֖ירוּ לַֽיהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֑ם וְיָסֵר֙ מֵֽעָלַ֔י רַ֖ק אֶת־הַמָּ֥וֶת הַזֶּֽה:
18So he [Moses] left Pharaoh and entreated the Lord, יחוַיֵּצֵ֖א מֵעִ֣ם פַּרְעֹ֑ה וַיֶּעְתַּ֖ר אֶל־יְהֹוָֽה:
19and the Lord reversed a very strong west wind, and it picked up the locusts and thrust them into the Red Sea. Not one locust remained within all the border[s] of Egypt. יטוַיַּֽהֲפֹ֨ךְ יְהֹוָ֤ה רֽוּחַ־יָם֙ חָזָ֣ק מְאֹ֔ד וַיִּשָּׂא֙ אֶת־הָ֣אַרְבֶּ֔ה וַיִּתְקָעֵ֖הוּ יָ֣מָּה סּ֑וּף לֹ֤א נִשְׁאַר֙ אַרְבֶּ֣ה אֶחָ֔ד בְּכֹ֖ל גְּב֥וּל מִצְרָֽיִם:
west wind: Heb. רוּחַ-יָם, a west wind. — [from targumim]
רוח ים: רוח מערבי:
into the Red Sea: I believe that the Red Sea was partly in the west, opposite the entire southern boundary, and also east of the land of Israel. Therefore, a west wind thrust the locusts into the Red Sea [which was] opposite it [the west wind]. Likewise, we find this [written] regarding the boundaries [of Israel] that it [the Red Sea] faces the east [of Israel], as it is said: “from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines” (Exod. 23:31). [This signifies] from east to west, because the sea of the Philistines was to the west, as it is said concerning the Philistines, “the inhabitants of the seacoast, the nation of Cherithites” (Zeph. 2:5). [Rashi is apparently referring to the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Eilat, which are both branches of the Red Sea and thus are included in the expression “Red Sea.” The latter is the eastern boundary of the Holy Land, while the Gulf of Suez is Egypt’s eastern boundary. Since the Philistines dwelt on the Mediterranean seacoast, the Red Sea mentioned in that context was surely the Gulf of Eilat. The Red Sea mentioned here is the Gulf of Suez, where the locusts were deposited.]
ימה סוף: אומר אני שים סוף היה מקצתו במערב כנגד כל רוח דרומית וגם במזרח של ארץ ישראל, לפיכך רוח ים תקעו לארבה בימה סוף כנגדו. וכן מצינו לענין תחומין שהוא פונה לצד מזרח, שנאמר (שמות כג לא) מים סוף ועד ים פלשתים, ממזרח למערב, שים פלשתים במערב היה, שנאמר בפלשתים (צפניה ב ה) יושבי חבל הים גוי כרתים:
Not one locust remained: Even the salted ones [locusts] which they [the Egyptians] had salted for themselves [to eat]. — [from Exod. Rabbah 13:7; Midrash Tanchuma, Va’era 14]
לא נשאר ארבה אחד: אף המלוחים שמלחו מהם:
20But the Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go out. כוַיְחַזֵּ֥ק יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְלֹ֥א שִׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
21The Lord said to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand toward the heavens, and there will be darkness over the land of Egypt, and the darkness will become darker." כאוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה נְטֵ֤ה יָֽדְךָ֙ עַל־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וִ֥יהִי ח֖שֶׁךְ עַל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וְיָמֵ֖שׁ חֽשֶׁךְ:
and the darkness will become darker: Heb. וְיָמֵֹש חֹש, [signifies] and the darkness will become darker upon them than the darkness of night, and the darkness of night will become even darker (וְיַאֲמִישׁ).
וימש חשך: ויחשיך עליהם חשך יותר מחשכו של לילה, וחשך של לילה יאמיש ויחשיך עוד:
will become darker: Heb. וְיָמֵשׁ, [should be interpreted] like וְיַאִמֵשׁ. There are many words which lack the “aleph” ; since the pronunciation of the “aleph” is not so noticeable, Scripture is not particular about its absence, e.g., “in and no Arab shall pitch his tent (יַהֵל) there” (Isa. 13:20), יַהֵל is] the same as וְיַאִהֵל; “For You have girded me (וַךְתַּזְרֵנִי) with strength” (II Sam. 22:40) is like וַךְתְּאַז ְרֵנִי (Ps. 18:40). Onkelos, however, rendered it וְיָמֵשׁ as an expression of removal, similar to “He did not move (לֹא-יָמִישׁ) ” (Exod. 13:22): [Onkelos thus understands the verse to mean] “after the darkness of night turns away,” when it approaches the light of day. But [according to Onkelos] the context does not fit with the “vav” of וְיָמֵשׁ because it is written after “and there will be darkness” [and the darkness will turn away, and there will be darkness]. The Aggadic midrash (Exod. Rabbah 14:1-3) interprets it וְיָמֵשׁ as an expression [related to] “grope about (מְמַֹשֵשׁ) at noontime” (Deut. 28: 29), for it [the darkness] was doubled, redoubled, and thick to the degree that it was tangible.
וימש: כמו ויאמש יש לנו תיבות הרבה חסרות אל"ף לפי שאין הברת האל"ף נכרת כל כך אין הכתוב מקפיד על חסרונה, כגון (ישעיהו יג כ) ולא יהל שם ערבי, כמו לא יאהל, לא יטה אהלו. וכן (שמואל ב כב מ) ותזרני חיל, כמו ותאזרני. ואונקלוס תרגם לשון הסרה, כמו (שמות יג כב) לא ימיש בתר דיעדי קבל ליליא, כשיגיע סמוך לאור היום. אבל אין הדבור מיושב על הוי"ו של וימש, לפי שהוא כתוב אחר ויהי חשך. ומדרש אגדה פותרו לשון (דברים כח כט) ממשש בצהרים, שהיה כפול ומכופל ועב עד שהיה בו ממש:
22So Moses stretched forth his hand toward the heavens, and there was thick darkness over the entire land of Egypt for three days. כבוַיֵּ֥ט משֶׁ֛ה אֶת־יָד֖וֹ עַל־הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַיְהִ֧י חֽשֶׁךְ־אֲפֵלָ֛ה בְּכָל־אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם שְׁל֥שֶׁת יָמִֽים:
and there was thick darkness… for three days, etc.: Thick darkness in which they did not see each other for those three days, and another three days of darkness twice as dark as this, so that no one rose from his place. If he was sitting, he was unable to stand, and if he was standing, he was unable to sit. Now why did He bring darkness upon them [the Egyptians]? Because there were among the Israelites in that generation wicked people who did not want to leave [Egypt]. They died during the three days of darkness, so that the Egyptians would not see their downfall and say, “They too are being smitten like us.” Also, the Israelites searched [the Egyptians’ dwellings during the darkness] and saw their [own] belongings. When they were leaving [Egypt] and asked [for some of their things], and they [the Egyptians] said, “We have nothing,” he [the Israelite] would say to him, “I saw it in your house, and it is in such and such a place.” -[from Jonathan; Tanchuma, Bo 3; Tanchuma, Va’era 14; Tanchuma Buber, Bo 3]
ויהי חשך אפלה שלשת ימים וגו': חשך של אופל שלא ראו איש את אחיו אותן שלשת ימים. ועוד שלשת ימים אחרים חשך מוכפל על זה, שלא קמו איש מתחתיו. יושב אין יכול לעמוד, ועומד אין יכול לישב. ולמה הביא עליהם חשך, שהיו בישראל באותו הדור רשעים, ולא היו רוצים לצאת, ומתו בשלשת ימי אפלה כדי שלא יראו מצרים במפלתם ויאמרו אף הן לוקין כמונו. ועוד שחפשו ישראל וראו את כליהם, וכשיצאו והיו שואלין מהן והיו אומרים אין בידינו כלום אומר לו אני ראיתיו בביתך ובמקום פלוני הוא:
three days: Heb. שְׁלשֶׁתיָמִים, a triad of days [a group of three consecutive days], terzeyne in Old French, and similarly, שִׁבְעַתיָמִים everywhere means a seteyne of days [a group of seven consecutive days].
שלשת ימים: שלוש של ימים טירציינ"א בלעז [קבוצה של שלשה ימים רצופים] וכן שבעת ימים בכל מקום שטיינ"א של ימים [קבוצה של שבעה ימים רצופים]:
23They did not see each other, and no one rose from his place for three days, but for all the children of Israel there was light in their dwellings. כגלֹֽא־רָא֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־אָחִ֗יו וְלֹא־קָ֛מוּ אִ֥ישׁ מִתַּחְתָּ֖יו שְׁל֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וּלְכָל־בְּנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָ֥יָה א֖וֹר בְּמֽוֹשְׁבֹתָֽם:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 17
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Monday, Tevet 28, 5778 · January 15, 2018
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 17
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
אם לא מי שהוא רשע באמת
This is true of everyone except he who is truly wicked — that is, not the Beinoni who is considered “like arasha,” but one who is truly a rasha; in his case it cannot be said that his mind is master over his heart.
כמאמר רז״ל, שהרשעים הם ברשות לבם ואין לבם ברשותם כלל
On the contrary, our Sages state1 that the wicked are under the control of their heart but their heart is not under their control at all — they are unable to master the desires of their heart, for their mind has no active control over it.
This also resolves an apparent contradiction. The statement, “Tzaddikim have control over their heart,” indicates that anyone of a lesser rank, including a Beinoni, is not in control of his heart, while the statement that only the wicked are “under the control of their heart,” implies that anyone outside the category of rasha — even a Beinoni — is in control of his heart. Where, then, does the Beinoni actually stand? The previous discussion of the mastery of mind over heart explains this point. There are actually not two alternatives — of either being in control of one’s heart or controlled by it — but three. The tzaddik controls his heart. He can arouse a love of G‑d in his heart, directly, without resorting to his mind as a medium of influence. The rasha, on the other hand, not only does not control his heart, but is controlled by it. The Beinoni, although not in control of his heart, as is a tzaddik, rules his heart by way of his mind, which is under his control. To a certain extent, then, i.e., as regards the practical effect of his heart on his thought, speech, and action, the Beinoni does in fact control his heart. Therefore the Alter Rebbe says of the rasha “his heart is not under his control at all,” emphasizing that he is unable to influence his heart even by means of his mind.
The author previously stated that the ability of the mind to master the heart is natural and inherent in the mind. Why, then, do the wicked (resha‘im) lack this capacity? He answers:
וזה עונש על גודל ועוצם עונם
This is a punishment for the enormity and potency of their sinfulness.
However, this raises another question: If they have in fact lost the ability to master their heart, how can it be “very near” to them to observe the mitzvot “with their heart”? In answer, the author states:
ולא דברה תורה במתים אלו שבחייהם קרוים מתים
The Torah does not speak of the dead, that is, those wicked ones who are considered dead2even during their lifetime.3
כי באמת אי אפשר לרשעים להתחיל לעבוד ה׳ בלי שיעשו תשובה על העבר תחלה
Indeed, it is impossible for the wicked to begin to serve G‑d, that is, to observe the mitzvot out of a feeling of love and fear of G‑d, without first repenting for their past,
לשבר הקליפות, שהם מסך מבדיל ומחיצה של ברזל המפסקת בינם לאביהם שבשמים
in order to shatter the kelipot that were created by their sins, which form a sundering curtain and an “iron wall” that interposes between them and their Father in Heaven.4
על ידי שבירת לבו ומרירת נפשו על חטאיו
How are these kelipot shattered? — By means of contriteness of heart and bitterness of soul over one’s sins.
כמו שכתוב בזהר על פסוק: זבחי אלקים רוח נשברה לב נשבר וגו׳ שעל ידי לב נשבר, נשברה רוח הטומאה דסיטרא אחרא
As the Zohar interprets the verse,5 “The sacrifices to the Almighty (Elokim) are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart…,” to mean that through one’s breaking his heart the unclean spirit of the sitra achra (the kelipot) is broken, and this is the sacrifice that we offer to the Divine Name,Elokim.
When speaking of the sacrifices and the laws pertaining to them, the Torah mentions only the Divine Name Havayeh (as in the oft-repeated phrase describing the sacrifices: “an appealing fragrance to G‑d (Havayeh)”). No mention is made of a sacrifice to the Divine Name, Elokim. What, asks the Zohar, does constitute a sacrifice to that Name? The Zohar interprets the previously quoted verse as answering this question. “The sacrifice to Elokimis a broken spirit” (i.e., breaking the spirit of the sitra achra; and this is accomplished by means of) “a broken and contrite heart.”
(עיין שם פרשת פינחס דף ר"מ, ופרשת ויקרא דף ח׳ ודף ה׳ עמוד א׳, ובפירוש הרמ״ז שם)
6(See Zohar on Parshat Pinchas, p. 240, and on Parshat Vayikra, p. 8 and p. 5a, and the commentary of Rabbi Moshe Zacuto thereon.)
Returning now to his original point, that the wicked cannot begin serving G‑d with love and fear before repenting their sins, the Alter Rebbe says:
והיא בחינת תשובה תתאה, להעלות ה׳ תתאה להקימה מנפילתה שנפלה אל החיצונים
This is the lower category of repentance, whereby the lower letter hei is raised up from its fall into the forces of evil, the kelipot.
Teshuvah (repentance), spelled הבושת, forms the words “returning the hei”; this implies that repentance “returns” the hei of the Divine Name, Havayeh (yud hei vav hei), to its proper place. The higher category of teshuvah returns the “higher” (the first) hei to the yud preceding it, while the lower form of teshuvah returns the “lower” hei to the vav preceding it. The teshuvah mentioned earlier as a prerequisite for a love and fear of G‑d, is of the lower category.
שהוא סוד גלות השכינה, כמאמר רז״ל: גלו לאדום שכינה עמהם
This fall of the lower hei of the Divine Name into the kelipot is the mystery of the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) in exile, as our Sages have said:7 “When the Jews were exiled to Edom, the Shechinah went into exile with them.”
דהיינו כשאדם עושה מעשה אדום, מוריד וממשיך לשם בחינת וניצו׳ אלקות המחיה את נפש רוח ונשמה שלו
In a spiritual sense, in terms of one’s service to G‑d, this statement means that when one acts like “Edom”, the embodiment of evil, when he sins, he degrades and draws down to Edom, to the kelipot,the Divine spark which vitalizes his Nefesh, Ruach, and Neshamah with G‑dly, holy life. In this way, the Shechinah within him is drawn into exile.
המלובשים בנפש הבהמית מהקליפה שבלבו שבחלל השמאלי, המולכת בו בעודו רשע ומושלת בעיר קטנה שלו
What constitutes “exile” in this case is the fact that the Divine spark gives life to his G‑dly soul which is clothed in the animal soul of kelipah situated in the left part of his heart; and as long as he remains wicked, the animal soul reigns over him, dominating his “small city,” his body. Thus the Divine spark within his G‑dly soul is in exile in the kelipah of his animal soul.
ונר״נ כבושים בגולה אצלה
The Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah are thus held captive in exile under it.
A captive not only lacks the freedom to act as he wishes, but is also forced to carry out the wishes of his captor. The Divine spark within the soul, however, although in exile, is still not in captivity. It has merely lost its ability to affect the person with its G‑dly vitality.
וכשנשבר לבו בקרבו, ונשברה רוח הטומאה וסיטרא אחרא, ויתפרדו כו׳
When the heart of the rasha is broken within him, and thereby the spirit of uncleanliness and of the sitra achra are broken, and the forces of evil are dispersed,
היא קמה מנפילתה וגם נצבה, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
then the lower hei of the Divine Name — the Shechinah — rises from its fall and stands firm, as discussed elsewhere.
Only when he repents and thereby frees the Shechinah from exile, and allows the Divine spark within him to affect his soul and body, may he begin to serve G‑d with love and fear.
* * *
In summary: It is indeed “very near” to us to love and fear G‑d, for we are able to create at least an “intellectual emotion” by means of our mind, which is under our control even if our heart is not. However, this does not apply to the rasha, who is a slave to the desires of his animal soul, and must repent before beginning to serve G‑d with love and fear.
——— ● ———
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Bereishit Rabbah 34:10; 67:8. |
| 2. | Berachot 18b. |
| 3. | The Rebbe notes that in the following sentences the Alter Rebbe addresses a difficulty which arises from his previous statement concerning the rasha: If indeed, the mind of the rasha is under the control of his heart, and if the heart is naturally inclined, not toward love and fear of G‑d (in any form, not even a love which remains hidden in the mind) but toward material pleasures, then (a) It is not only “far”, but in fact impossible for him to acquire a love or fear of G‑d; (b) It will remain impossible for him forever, G‑d forbid, for what will arouse him to love and fear once he has lost control over his mind, which is the medium of influence on the heart?Indeed, answers the Alter Rebbe; in his present state, it is in fact impossible for the rasha to attain a love or fear of G‑d. But it is in his hands to change this state of affairs — through repentance, which destroys the evil in his heart.In this way, the rasha tackles the problem at its source. Once his heart rules him no longer, his mind is free to influence it, and to arouse a love and fear of G‑d. |
| 4. | Cf. Yeshayahu 59:2. |
| 5. | Tehillim 51:19; Zohar II, 116b. |
| 6. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 7. | Cf. Megillah 29a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassMonday, Tevet 28, 5778 · January 15, 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
Negative Commandment 157
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
"He shall not profane his word; he shall do according to all that issues from his mouth"—Numbers 30:3.
It is forbidden to violate one's verbal pledge, whether that pledge was worded as an oath or not.
Examples of such pledges:
- "If so-and-so occurs, or if I do this-and-this, all fruit – or fruit from this city – will become forbidden for me."
- "Wine/milk/fish are forbidden for me."
- The pleasure of my wife's [intimate company] is forbidden for me."
- Any pledge to bring a sacrifice or give an amount of money to charity or to a synagogue.
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
Negative Commandment 157
Translated by Berel Bell
The 157th prohibition is that we are forbidden from violating any verbal obligation we have made, even if it was not said as an oath.
These obligations are known as nedarim (vows); for example, when a person says, "if a certain event occurs" or "if I do a certain act" then "all fruit will be forbidden to me" or "the fruit of this country [will be forbidden to me]" or a certain food, such as milk, fish, etc. "will be forbidden to me"; or when he says, "deriving pleasure from my wife is forbidden to me"; or any similar verbal obligation, as explained in tractate Nedarim. In all these cases he must carry out his vow, and violating it counts as a prohibition.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "He must not yachel ("break") his word. He must do everything that he stated verbally."
Our Sages explained the phrase, "He must not yachel his word" as meaning, "he must not make his word profane (chullin)," i.e. to obligate himself and then not fulfill his promise.2 As tractate Shavuos puts it, "vows comes under the prohibition, 'he must not break (yachel) his word.' "
The Sifra3 says [regarding a case where someone promised to bring a sacrifice and did not do so], "The verse, 'He must not break' teaches us that he violates the prohibition of not breaking one's word and that of not delaying as offering." This means that if a person vowed to bring a sacrifice, and three holidays have passed by and he still did not do so, then he is guilty of transgressing the prohibition of not delaying [the offering]4 and of not breaking his word.
The same applies to anything resembling a sacrifice, such as promising a gift to the fund of the Holy Temple,5 to charity, to a synagogue, etc.
One who transgresses this prohibition by doing something he has promised not to, is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are completely explained in tractate Nedarim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 30:3.
2.The verse can therefore be translated, "He must not break his word."
3.See Kapach 5731, note 84.
4.N155.
5.Bedek haBayis.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Shabbat Shabbat - Chapter Three
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassShabbat - Chapter Three
1
It is permissible to begin the performance of a [forbidden] labor on Friday, even though the labor is completed on its own accord on the Sabbath itself,1 for the prohibition against work applies only on the Sabbath itself. Moreover, when a task is carried out on its own accord on the Sabbath,2 we are permitted to derive benefit from what was completed on the Sabbath.
א
מותר להתחיל מלאכה בערב שבת אע"פ שהיא נגמרת מאליה בשבת. שלא נאסר עלינו לעשות מלאכה אלא בעצמו של יום. אבל כשתעשה המלאכה מעצמה בשבת מותר לנו ליהנות במה שנעשה בשבת מאליו:
2
What is implied?3 We may open an irrigation channel to a garden on Friday, causing it to continue to fill throughout [the Sabbath] day. We may place [burning] incense under garments, causing them to continue to be made fragrant throughout the entire Sabbath. We may apply salve to an eye or a bandage to a wound, causing them to continue to heal throughout the Sabbath.
We may mix ink with herbs before night and let the mixture soak4 throughout the entire Sabbath. We may place wool into a vat5 or strands of flax into an oven6 so that their [color] continues to change throughout the entire Sabbath.
We may lay out snares for wild beasts, birds, and fish at nightfall so that they continue being captured throughout the entire Sabbath. We may load the beams of an olive press or the round stones of a grape press7 at nightfall so that the liquids will continue to flow throughout the entire Sabbath. Similarly, we may light a candle or a fire [before] evening so that it continues to burn throughout the entire Sabbath.
ב
כיצד פותקין מים לגנה ערב שבת עם חשיכה והיא מתמלאת והולכת כל היום כולו. ומניחין מוגמר תחת הכלים והן מתגמרין והולכין כל השבת כולה. ומניחים קילור על גב העין ואספלנית על גבי המכה ומתרפאין והולכין כל השבת כולה. ושורין דיו וסמנין עם חשיכה והן שורין והולכין כל השבת כולה. ונותנין צמר ליורה ואונין של פשתן לתנור והם משתנין והולכין כל השבת כולה. ופורשים מצודות לחיה ולעופות ולדגים עם חשיכה והן ניצודין והולכין כל השבת כולה. וטוענין בקורות בית הבד ובעגולי הגת עם חשיכה והמשקין זבין והולכין כל השבת כולה. ומדליקין את הנר או את המדורה מבערב והיא דולקת והולכת כל השבת כולה:
3
A pot may be placed over a fire, or meat may be placed in an oven or over coals [on Friday], so that they continue to cook throughout the Sabbath [with the intent] that they be eaten on the Sabbath.8 With regard to this matter, however, there are certain restrictions that were enacted lest one stir the coals on the Sabbath.
ג
מניחין קדרה על גבי האש או בשר בתנור או על גבי גחלים והן מתבשלים והולכין כל השבת ואוכלין אותה בשבת. ויש בדבר זה דברים שהן אסורין גזירה שמא יחתה בגחלים בשבת:
4
What is implied? When food has not been cooked to the extent that it is ready to serve,
water has not been boiled,
or food has been cooked to the extent that it is ready to serve,9 but the longer it cooks the better it tastes,10
it may not be left over a fire on the Sabbath11 even though it was placed there before the commencement of the Sabbath, lest one stir the coals to complete the cooking process or to cause it to cook more thoroughly.
Accordingly, it is permissible to leave [food cooking] if one removed the coals one covered the coals in the range12 with ash or with thin chips from the combing of flax,
the coals burned low, for then they are covered with ash, or
the fuel used was straw, stubble, or the feces of a small animal, for then no coals will remain.
[In these instances, it is obvious that] the person has diverted his intention from this food. Hence, a decree was not [enacted forbidding food to be left on the fire] lest he stir the coals.
ד
כיצד תבשיל שלא בשל כל צרכו וחמין שלא הוחמו כל צרכן או תבשיל שבשל כל צרכו וכל זמן שמצטמק הוא יפה לו אין משהין אותו על גבי האש בשבת אע"פ שהונח מבעוד יום גזרה שמא יחתה בגחלים כדי להשלים בשולו או כדי לצומקו. לפיכך אם גרף האש או שכסה אש הכירה באפר או בנעורת פשתן הדקה או שעממו הגחלים שהרי הן כמכוסות באפר או שהסיקוה בקש או בגבבא או בגללי בהמה דקה שהרי אין שם גחלים בוערות הרי זה מותר לשהות עליה. שהרי הסיח דעתו מזה התבשיל ואין גוזרין שמא יחתה באש:
5
When does the above apply? With regard to a range13 whose heat is minimal. With regard to an oven,14 in contrast, even if one removed the coals,15 covered them with ash, or used straw or stubble as fuel,16 we are not allowed to leave food in it or on it. Similarly, one should not put food close to it.17
[This applies to] food that was not cooked to completion or was completely cooked, but will benefit from continued cooking. Since [an oven] is very hot, a person will not divert his attention [from the fire]. Hence, we suspect that he will stir the small fire that remains, even if it is straw or stubble, or even if it is covered.
ה
בד"א בכירה שהבלה מועט. אבל התנור אף על פי שגרף האש או כסה באפר או שהסיקוהו בקש או בגבבא אין משהין בתוכו ולא על גביו ולא סומכין לו תבשיל שלא בשל כל צרכו או שבשל כל צרכו ומצטמק ויפה לו. הואיל והבלו חם ביותר אינו מסיח דעתו וחוששים שמא יחתה בזו האש המעוטה אף על פי שהוא אש קש וגבבא או מכוסה:
6
Why did [the Sages] forbid leaving food in the oven even if the fire was removed? Because a person can remove only the majority of the coals and their most intense [heat]. It is impossible to remove the entire fire so that not even a spark remains. Since [an oven's] heat is very warm, we suspect that he will stir [the fire] so that the sparks that remain in the oven will burn more.
ו
ולמה אסרו לשהות בתנור אף על פי שגרוף. מפני שהגורף אינו גורף אלא רוב האש ועצמה. ואי אפשר לגרוף כל האש עד שלא תשאר ניצוץ אחת. מפני שהבלו חם שמא יחתה כדי לבער הניצוצות הנשארות בתנור:
7
A kopach18 is warmer than a range and not as warm as an oven. Therefore, if wood or gefet19 is used as fuel,20 it is considered equivalent to an oven, and we are not permitted to leave food within it, upon it, or next to it if it was not completely cooked, or even if it was completely cooked, but will benefit from continued cooking. This applies even if the fire was removed or covered with ash.
If straw or stubble was used as fuel,21 it is bound by the same rules as a range that was fueled with straw or stubble, and [food] may be left [cooking] on it. What is a range and what is a kopach? A range is a place with an opening for two pots. A kopach is a place with an opening for a single pot.22
ז
הכופח הבלו רב מהבל הכירה ומעט מהבל התנור. לפיכך אם הסיקוהו בגפת או בעצים הרי הוא כתנור ואין משהין בתוכו ולא על גביו ולא סומכין לו תבשיל שלא בשל כל צרכו או מצטמק ויפה לו אף על פי שגרף או כסה באפר. ואם הסיקוהו בקש או בגבבא הרי הוא ככירה שהוסקה בקש וגבבא ומשהין עליו. ומותר לסמוך לכירה מבערב ואף על פי שאינה גרופה וקטומה. ואיזו היא כירה ואי זו כופח כירה מקום שפיתת שתי קדרות. כופח מקום שפיתת קדרה אחת:
8
When food has not been cooked at all23 or has been cooked to completion, but will be impaired by further cooking,24 it is permitted to leave it cooking whether on a range, a kopach, or an oven. Similarly, even when food has been cooked, but has not been cooked to completion, or when it has been cooked to completion, but will benefit from further cooking, it may be left on the fire if one placed an uncooked piece of meat25 in it shortly before nightfall, for the whole dish is considered to be entirely uncooked. [This applies] although one has not removed or covered the coals, for he has diverted his attention [from this food] and will not stir the coals.
ח
תבשיל חי שלא בשל כלל או שבשל כל צרכו ומצטמק ורע לו מותר לשהותו על גבי האש בין בכירה וכופח בין בתנור. וכן כל תבשיל שבשל ולא בשל כל צרכו או בשל כל צרכו ומצטמק ויפה לו אם השליך לתוכו אבר חי סמוך לבין השמשות נעשה הכל כתבשיל חי ומותר לשהותו על האש אע"פ שלא גרף ולא כסה. מפני שכבר הסיח דעתו ממנו ואינו בא לחתות בגחלים:
9
[The following rules apply] whenever a person left food [on a fire] in a situation where he was prohibited against doing so: If he transgressed and left [the food cooking intentionally],26 he is prohibited to eat it27 until Saturday night, and must wait until enough time passes for it to have cooked.28 If he forgot [to remove it from the fire on Friday, greater leniency is allowed.] If the food was not completely cooked [before the commencement of the Sabbath], it is forbidden to eat it until Saturday night.29 If it was completely cooked, but further cooking will benefit it,30 it is permitted to be eaten immediately31 on the Sabbath.
ט
כל תבשיל שאסור לשהותו אם עבר ושיהה אותו אסור לאוכלו עד מוצאי שבת וימתין בכדי שיעשו. ואם שכחו. אם תבשיל שלא בשל כל צרכו הוא אסור עד מוצאי שבת. ואם תבשיל שבשל כל צרכו הוא ומצטמק ויפה לו מותר לאכלו מיד בשבת:
10
Whenever [food] is permitted to be left on a fire,32 if it was taken from [the fire] on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to return it to its place.33 [Food[34 may be returned only to a range from which the coals have been removed or covered35 or to a range or a kopach that was heated with straw or with stubble.36
[This leniency is granted] provided the food was not placed on the ground.37 If it was placed on the ground,38 it may not be returned even to a range whose coals were removed or covered. Similarly, [food] may not be returned to an oven39 or to a kopach that was heated with gefet or wood, despite the fact that one has removed or covered the coals, for they are very hot.
Whenever food should not be returned [to a cooking surface], it should also not be placed next to it40 [to warm].41
י
כל שמותר לשהותו על גבי האש כשנוטלים אותו בשבת אסור להחזירו למקומו. ואין מחזירין לעולם אלא על גבי כירה גרופה או מכוסה או בכירה וכופח שהוסקו בקש וגבבא. והוא שלא הניח הקדרה על גבי הקרקע אבל משהניחה על גבי קרקע אין מחזירין אותה. ואפילו על גבי כירה גרופה או מכוסה. ואין מחזירין לתנור ולא לכופח שהוסקו בגפת או בעצים אף על פי שגרף או כסה מפני שהבלן חם ביותר. וכל שאין מחזירין עליו אין סומכין לו בשבת:
11
It is forbidden to insert a ladle into a pot to remove [food] while it is on a fire on the Sabbath, because while doing so, one stirs it.42 [Stirring] is one of the activities necessary for cooking,43 and thus one will be cooking on the Sabbath.
It is permissible to shift a pot from one range to another,44 even when the heat of the first range is not as great as the heat of the second range. One may not, however, take food that was on a range and cover it to maintain its heat,45 or take food that was covered to maintain its heat and place it on a range.46
יא
אסור להכניס מגריפה לקדרה בשבת והיא על האש להוציא ממנה בשבת מפני שמגיס בה וזה מצרכי הבישול הוא ונמצא כמבשל בשבת. ומותר להחזיר מכירה לכירה אפילו מכירה שהבלה מועט לכירה שהבלה מרובה אבל לא מכירה לטמינה ולא מטמינה לכירה:
12
A person should not fill a pot with peas or beans or a jug with water and place them in an oven on Friday before nightfall and leave them [to cook]. Even when the above and other foods like them were not cooked at all, they are considered to be food that was not completely cooked, because they do not require a substantial [amount of time to] cook.47 Therefore, the person will continue to pay attention to them, for he intends to partake of them immediately. Accordingly, it is forbidden to leave them in an oven [unless they are completely cooked].48
If one transgressed and left them in an oven, it is forbidden to partake of them until Saturday night. [Even then,] one must also wait the amount of time necessary for them to cook.
יב
לא ימלא אדם קדרה עססיות ותורמוסין או חבית של מים ויתן לתוך התנור ערב שבת עם חשיכה וישהה אותן. שאלו וכל כיוצא בהן אף על פי שלא בשלו כל עיקר כתבשיל שלא בשל כל צרכו הן מפני שאינן צריכים בישול הרבה ודעתו עליהן לאוכלן לאלתר. ולפיכך אסור לשהותן בתנור. ואם עבר ושהה אסורין עד מוצאי שבת וימתין בכדי שיעשו:
13
[The following rules apply when] meat was placed in an oven before nightfall and left [to roast49] on the Sabbath: If the meat is from a kid or it is other [tender] flesh,50 it is permitted. [Such meat] requires only the warmth of the fire itself, and if one stirs the coals the meat will char. If the meat is from a goat or an ox, it is forbidden, lest he stir the coals to cause it to cook [faster].51
If, however, one sealed the opening of the oven closed with clay, [roasting even the latter meats] is permitted, for if one opens the oven to stir [the coals], the wind will enter and cause the meat to harden and spoil. The oven will cool [suddenly] and the meat will spoil.52
יג
תנור שנתן לתוכו בשר מבעוד יום ושהה אותו בשבת אם בשר גדי הוא וכיוצא בו מותר. שאם יחתה כגחלים יתחרך הבשר שאינו צריך אלא חמימות האש בלבד. ואם בשר עז או בשר שור הוא אסור שמא יחתה בגחלים לבשלו. ואם טח פי התנור בטיט מותר. שאם בא לפתוח התנור ולחתות תכנס הרוח ויתקשה הבשר ויפסד ויצטנן התנור ויפסיד הבשר:
14
Similarly, whenever something would be spoiled by the wind, we do not decree [against its being heated], because someone might open [the oven] and stir [coals]. For this reason, we may place strands of flax into an oven [to bleach] before nightfall, for if one opens the oven, they will spoil.53
יד
וכן כל דבר שהרוח מפסדת אותו אין גוזרין עליו שמא יגלהו ויחתה. ומפני זה נותנין אונין של פשתן לתוך התנור עם חשיכה שאם גלהו יפסדו:
15
If one placed an entire kid54 into an oven, [the situation] is governed by the laws applying to meat from a goat or an ox, and it is forbidden, lest one stir the coals, unless one seals the oven [closed].
[If the fourteenth of Nisan falls on Friday,] it is, however, permitted to hang the Paschal lamb into an oven directly before nightfall,55 even though it is not sealed closed. The members of the company [gathered to eat the sacrifice] are careful.
טו
נתן גדי שלם לתוך התנור הרי הוא כבשר עז או כבשר שור ואסור לשהותו שמא יחתה בגחלים אלא א"כ טח התנור. ומותר לשלשל כבש הפסח לתנור עם חשיכה ואע"פ שאינו טח מפני שבני חבורה זריזים הן:
16
Meat,56 onions, or eggs should not be roasted over an [open] fire,57 unless they can be roasted before nightfall to the point where they are fit to be eaten.58 [If they are roasted to this extent before the commencement of the Sabbath], it is permissible to leave them on the fire on the Sabbath to be roasted further.
[The rationale is] that [increased heat] will impair their taste. Since they are being cooked over a fire, if one stirs [the coals] they will char.
For this reason, we are allowed to leave incense under clothes before nightfall [to perfume them]. For if one stirs the coals, the incense will burn and the clothes will be [damaged by] the smoke.
טז
אין צולין בשר ובצל וביצה על גבי האש אלא כדי שיצולו מבעוד יום ויהיו ראויין לאכילה. ואם נשארו אחר כן על האש בשבת עד שיצולו הרבה מותר מפני שהן כמצטמק ורע לו שאם יחתה יחרוך אותן שעל גוף האש הם. ומפני זה מניחין מוגמר תחת הכלים עם חשיכה שאם יחתה בגחלים ישרף המוגמר ויעשן הכלים:
17
From the above, we can conclude that all the prohibitions mentioned in this context were not enacted because [the cooking] was completed on the Sabbath.59 Instead, they are Rabbinic decrees [enacted] lest one stir the coals. Accordingly, wool should not be placed into a vat [to dye] unless it was removed from the fire, lest one stir the coals. Similarly, the vat should be sealed close with clay, lest one stir [the dye] after nightfall.
יז
הא למדת שכל דבר שאנו אוסרין בענין זה אינו אסור משום שהוא נעשה בשבת אלא גזירה שמא יחתה בגחלים. לפיכך אין נותנין צמר ליורה אלא א"כ היתה עקורה מעל האש שמא יחתה בגחלים. והוא שיהיה פיה טוח בטיט שמא יגיס בה משחשיכה:
18
We should not place bread in an oven [directly] before nightfall, nor should we place a cake on coals unless [there is time] for the surface attached to the oven or [the side of the cake60] facing the fire to crust.61 [Should this be done,] it is permissible to leave it to continue baking afterwards, for if one stirs [the coals], one will spoil the bread.62
[The following rules apply when one places bread in an oven] before nightfall and there is not sufficient time for its surface to crust before nightfall. If one did so with a deliberate intent to violate [the above ruling], it is forbidden to partake of the bread until Saturday night, after sufficient time for it to bake has passed.63If one did so unknowingly, it is permitted to remove bread64 for the three Sabbath meals.65 When one removes the bread, one should not remove it using a baker's peel as one does during the week.66 Instead, one should use a knife or other similar utensil.
יח
אין נותנין את הפת בתנור עם חשיכה ולא חררה על גבי הגחלים אלא כדי שיקרמו פניה שהם מודבקים בתנור או באש. ואם נשארו אחרי כן עד שיגמור אפייתן מותר שאם יחתה יפסיד אותן. ואם נתן סמוך לחשיכה וחשכה ועדין לא קרמו פניה. אם במזיד אסור לאכול מהן עד מוצאי שבת וימתין בכדי שיעשו. ואם בשוגג מותר לו לרדות ממנה מזון שלש סעודות של שבת. וכשהוא רודה לא ירדה במרדה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול אלא בסכין וכיוצא בה:
19
A person may make a fire from any substance he desires,67 regardless of whether] he kindles it on the ground or in a torch holder. When he lights it before nightfall, he may use its light, or warm himself from it on the Sabbath.68
He must, however, kindle the majority of the fire before nightfall to the extent that the flame rises up on its own accord.69 If he did not kindle the majority of the fire, it is forbidden for him to benefit from it on the Sabbath, lest he stir or move the wood so the flame rises up.70 If he [desires to] burn a single piece of wood, he must kindle the majority of its thickness and the majority of its circumference before nightfall.
יט
עושה אדם מדורה מכל דבר שירצה בין על גבי קרקע בין על גבי מנורה ומדליקה מבעוד יום ומשתמש לאורה או מתחמם כנגדה בשבת. וצריך שידליק רוב המדורה קודם חשיכה עד שתהא שלהבת עולה מאליה קודם השבת. ואם לא הדליק רובה אסור ליהנות בה בשבת גזירה שמא יחתה בה ויניד העצים כדי שתעלה השלהבת. ואם הדליק עץ יחידי צריך להדליק רוב עביו ורוב היקפו מבעוד יום:
20
When does the above apply? Outside the Temple premises; but in the Temple, it is permissible to light a fire in the Chamber of the Hearth71 directly before nightfall.72 We do not suspect that anyone will stir the coals, for the priests are careful.73
כ
במה דברים אמורים בגבולין אבל במקדש מאחיזין את האור בעצים במדורת בית המוקד עם חשיכה ואין חוששין שמא יחתה בגחלים שהכהנים זריזין הן:
21
If a fire was made of reeds or of seeds, it is not necessary for the majority of it to be kindled before the Sabbath. Instead, since it caught fire before [the commencement] of the Sabbath, its use is permitted, for the fire will spread quickly through [these substances], and there is no necessity for one to stir it.
Therefore, if the reeds were bound together or the seeds were placed in palm baskets, the same laws applying to wood apply, and the flames must be powerful enough to rise up on their own accord before [the commencement] of the Sabbath.74
כא
היתה מדורה של קנים או של גרעינין אינו צריך להדליק הרוב אלא כיון שהתחיל בהן האש קודם השבת מותר להשתמש בה. מפני שהאש נתלית בהן במהרה ואינו צריך לחתות. לפיכך אם אגד הקנים או הניח הגרעינין בחותלות הרי הן כעצים וצריך שתעלה בהן שלהבת מאליה קודם השבת:
22
When a fire is fueled with tar, sulfur, oily substances, wax, straw, or stubble, it is not required that the majority be kindled before the commencement of the Sabbath, because these substances catch fire quickly.75
כב
מדורה של זפת או של גפרית או של רבב או של קירה או של קש או של גבבא אינו צריך להדליק רובה קודם השבת מפני שהאש מדלקת אותם במהרה
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 252:1) emphasizes that this leniency applies even when one is certain that the forbidden labor will continue on its own accord on the Sabbath, as mentioned in the examples cited by the Rambam in the following halachah.
Having outlined the general principles governing the Sabbath laws in the first chapter, and the situations when leniency can be permitted because of a danger to life in the second chapter, the Rambam begins his discussion of the Sabbath laws themselves. He starts with an explanation of activities that are begun before the Sabbath actually commences.
[Significantly, although the Mishnah (Shabbat, Chapter 1) starts with a different concept, it also mentions many of the laws quoted by the Rambam towards the beginning of its treatment of the Sabbath laws.]
2.
Shabbat 18a explains that these laws reflect a difference of opinion between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. The School of Shammai maintains that just as a person is required to have his servants and livestock rest on the Sabbath, so, too, is he required to have his utensils rest. They may not be used for work on the Sabbath. The School of Hillel does not accept this thesis, and their opinion is adopted as halachah. (See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.)
3.
The Rambam exemplifies the principle mentioned in the previous halachah, describing forbidden labors that are initiated by a person before the commencement of the Sabbath and continue without additional input from the person on the Sabbath. These examples are taken from the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:5-9) and the explanation of these mishnayot in the Talmud.
4.
Note the Rambam's description of the preparation of ink in Hilchot Tefillin 1:4:
One collects the vapors of oils, of tar, and of wax..., [causes it to condense,] and kneads it together with tree sap and a drop of honey... . When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the ink] in gallnut juice or the like.
5.
To dye the wool another color. Note, however, the restrictions on this practice mentioned in Halachah 17.
6.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 1:5, the Rambam writes that flax would be soaked, mixed with ash, and then heated in an oven to bleach it. (See also Halachah 14.)
7.
The process of preparing both olive oil and wine involved crushing the fruit and then pressing heavy weights over the olives or the grapes to extract the remaining liquids.
8.
The Rambam is explaining that according to the Torah itself, leaving food over a fire to cook would resemble all the activities mentioned in the previous halachah. For although cooking is a forbidden labor, the cooking would continue without any further activity. Nevertheless, as is explained in the subsequent halachot, our Sages enacted certain restrictions because they were afraid that a person might stir the fire to cause the food to cook faster.
9.
The Rambam's view is also shared by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and other Sephardic authorities and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:1). Rashi (Shabbat 37b) and the Ashkenazic authorities who followed him are more lenient and maintain that when half (or according to others, a third - see Chapter 9, Halachah 5 and notes) of the cooking process has been completed, food may be left on a fire even when its taste is improved by continued cooking. The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that it is customary to follow this view.
10.
Even according to the Rambam, if continued cooking will impair the taste of a food or if food was not cooked at all, we are allowed to leave it on a flame, for it is unlikely that the person will continue to stir the flames to make it cook more, as will be explained in Halachah 8.
11.
The contemporary Rabbinic authorities explain that these rules also apply to electric and gas ranges. In these instances as well, it is possible that a person may desire to turn the flame up to have the food cook faster or more thoroughly.
12.
In contemporary terms, covering a stove top with a blech, a piece of metal, serves this purpose. If this is done, food that has not been cooked thoroughly may be left to continue cooking throughout the Sabbath.
13.
We have used a contemporary translation for the word kirah. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:3), the Rambam describes a kirah as "a place built into the ground with openings for two pots. The fire is placed under both of them in a single place."
14.
Rabbenu Nissim states that the ovens of his time were constructed differently from those of the Talmudic era. Their heat is not as intense, and they are governed by the rules that apply to a range. This leniency is also accepted by the Ramah. Although the construction of ovens has changed further in contemporary times, most authorities continue to accept his ruling with regard to household ovens. (With regard to commercial ovens, there is a difference of opinion.)
15.
The reasons why restrictions are mentioned even in such an instance are explained in the following halachah.
16.
There are authorities (see Mishnah Berurah 253:22) who maintain that the Rambam would allow food to be left in an oven if it was fueled with straw and stubble and the fire was removed. Although the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:1) do not make such a distinction, the Mishnah Berurah explains that there is room for leniency.
17.
The food may not be placed at any point where the heat is warm enough to scald a child's hand. In terms of modern measure, the Rabbis define this term as 107.8 degrees Farenheit.
18.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:3), the Rambam explains that a kopach is "built over the fire with a place for one pot. Fire is placed below it.... The heat of a kopach is greater than that of a kirah, because in a kirah the fire is dispersed beneath two pots and there is a greater exposure to the air."
19.
The residue remaining after olives were pressed (ibid.).
20.
These materials are substantial and will supply heat over a lengthy period of time.
21.
These materials are not substantial and will be consumed by the flames in a short period. Hence, there is no need to suspect that the person will stir the flames.
22.
See also Hilchot Keilim 16:13, 17:4,6,7.
23.
Since the food has not been cooked at all, stirring the coals to intensify the fire will not bring much immediate benefit. By the following day, the food will cook sufficiently even without stirring. Hence, there is no need for safeguards (Rashi, Shabbat 18b).
24.
In such a situation, the person will not desire to stir the coals to intensify the fire.
25.
If, however, one places vegetables in the food that is cooking, this leniency does not apply. Meat takes a long time to cook, while vegetables cook quickly (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 253). See also the Kessef Mishneh.
26.
The Rambam's ruling is based on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Shabbat 38a. Both the Ra'avad and the Tur (Orach Chayim 253) have different conceptions of that passage and hence raise objections. The Rambam's rulings are accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:1). The Ramah and the Ashkenazic authorities who follow prefer the Tur's interpretation, although as will be explained, in practice the differences between them concern only food that was not cooked to the point of completion before the commencement of the Sabbath.
27.
The Merkevet HaMishneh notes that the Rambam's wording implies that only the person who left the food cooking is forbidden to eat it, but others are permitted. Rabbenu Asher, however, rules that the food is forbidden to be eaten by others as well. His view is accepted by the Magen Avraham 253:11 and the later authorities.
28.
The requirement to wait until the food could have cooked on Saturday night was instituted so that the person would derive no benefit from the forbidden act. Therefore, he will have no motivation to do so again.
29.
Shabbat (loc. cit.) states that normally there would be no reason to forbid this food from being eaten. It transpired, however, that many people were intentionally leaving food to cook, and if admonished would excuse themselves by claiming that they forgot. Accordingly, the Sages placed restrictions on those who forgot as well, forbidding them to partake of the food until Saturday night. (See the exception to this rule mentioned in the notes on Halachah 18.)
There is a question whether it is necessary to wait until the food has time to cook on Saturday night or not. From the Rambam's wording, it appears that this is unnecessary. Rabbenu Asher, however, rules that it is necessary to wait. His view is accepted by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:12. (See the Mishnah Berurah 253:32.)
30.
Theoretically, according to Rabbenu Asher's interpretation of the passage in Shabbat cited above, such food should be prohibited until Saturday night. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Asher subscribes to the lenient view mentioned in note 9, which states that after food has been half- (or a third-) cooked, it may be left on a fire on the Sabbath even if it will benefit from continued cooking. Hence, in practice, he - and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities - do not differ with the Rambam on this point.
31.
Rav Kapach notes that this word is not included in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The intent is also difficult to understand.
32.
The Ra'avad questions the appropriateness of the Rambam's choice of the word "permitted." The Maggid Mishneh states that this refers to foods that were totally uncooked, or foods into which an uncooked piece of meat was placed, as stated in Halachah 8. Although they are permitted to be left on a fire, once they are removed it is forbidden to return them. Surely this prohibition applies to foods that have not been cooked completely and, according to the Rambam, are forbidden to be left on a fire. Even the Ashkenazic authorities who allow such foods to be left on a fire, forbid their return if they were removed.
33.
Returning food to a cooking surface causes it to cook, and cooking is one of the forbidden labors. Therefore, if the cooking process of a food has not been completed, it may not be returned to a cooking surface even when that surface is covered (Ramah, Orach Chayim 253:2). Even when the food has already been completely cooked, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against cooking it further, as the Rambam writes in Chapter 9, Halachah 3.
Other authorities (Rabbenu Nissim, Sefer HaMaor) mention that it is forbidden to return food to a cooking surface, because of the impression it might create. An observer might think that one is cooking. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:15 also mentions the possibility that one may stir the coals.
34.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 253:2) mentions that the food must still be boiling hot. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:18-19 and the Mishnah Berurah 253:54 allow leniency, provided the food has not become cooled totally.
The Magen Avraham 253:20 also mentions that the food may not be returned to a range if it has been transferred from the pot in which it was originally contained.
35.
In contemporary situations, placing a piece of metal (a blech) on a stove-top causes the fires to be considered as covered. In such a situation, food may be returned to the blech if:
a) originally, it was placed on the blech in a manner that was permitted;
b) it is completely cooked;
c) one did not divert one's attention from it.
36.
According to the Rambam, food is allowed to be returned in these instances because there is no possibility of the food cooking more. Hence, there is no reason to suspect that one will stir the coals. Others explain that the leniency was granted, because this is not the normal manner in which food is cooked. One is liable for the performance of a forbidden labor only when it is performed in an ordinary manner. Hence, in this instance, there is no reason for a Rabbinic decree.
(According to Rabbenu Nissim who maintains that returning food is forbidden because of the impression it creates, the reason for this leniency can be explained as follows: Since one may return the food only when one does not release it from one's hands, the probability that an observer will think that one is cooking is lower.)
37.
Based on Shabbat 38b, the Tur emphasizes that one must have removed the food from the range with the intent of returning it. Otherwise, it is considered as if one is placing on the fire anew. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view without mentioning this factor. The Ramah quotes the Tur's view. The Be'ur Halachah emphasizes, however, that there is room for leniency in this regard, even according to Ashkenazic authorities.
38.
Many contemporary authorities allow one to return a pot to a covered range if one placed it on a table, provided one held the pot at all times. See Mishnah Berurah 253:56.
39.
As mentioned in note 14, most contemporary authorities maintain that our household ovens are governed by the laws applying to ranges.
40.
The Magen Avraham 253:5 states that this refers to placing - or returning - food near a source of heat on the Sabbath itself (Rabbi Akiva Eiger). One may, however, leave food near a source of heat on Friday so that it will remain warm on the Sabbath.
The Ramah [based on the Tur (Orach Chayim 253:5)] allows one to place food near a source of heat on the Sabbath as long as it was completely cooked previously.
41.
This refers to a place which is יד סולדת בו (it is too hot to touch; alternatively, its heat could cause the food to become too hot to touch, see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:21 and the Kuntres Acharon).
42.
The Ra'avad protests against the Rambam's statements, for although stirring food is prohibited, here the person is merely removing food and he is not intentionally stirring. The Maggid Mishneh explains that if the food is not completely cooked, one is not allowed to stir the pot. Hence, removing food is forbidden. If, however, the food is completely cooked, there is no prohibition from the Torah in stirring it. Therefore, there is no Rabbinic prohibition against removing food.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo takes a much more stringent position. He accepts the Rambam's ruling without question. Furthermore, he adds that the same decision would apply even when the pot was removed from the fire as long as it is still boiling hot, and this is the ruling he states in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:18). The commentaries (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 318:30 and the Mishnah Berurah 318:117), however, state that as long as the food has been cooked completely and it has been removed from the fire, one may remove it with a ladle.
43.
For by stirring, one speeds the cooking process. See Chapter 9, Halachah 4 and notes.
44.
The Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 4:3, quotes Rabbi Yehoshua, "When I attended Rabbi Chiyya, the great, I would take hot water from the lower storey and bring it to the upper storey and put it on the range."
45.
One may place food in objects (e.g., pillows or blankets) that preserve its heat for the Sabbath before the Sabbath, but not on the Sabbath itself (Chapter 4, Halachah 3). In the instance at hand, even though the food was being heated on the Sabbath, covering it to preserve its heat is forbidden.
This applies only when one covers the food entirely. If one leaves the top of the pot uncovered, one may cover the bottom to preserve its heat.
46.
Even when the food is boiling hot, it is forbidden to put it on a source of heat on the Sabbath.
47.
According to the Rambam, the principles mentioned in Law 8 do not apply here, because these entities are different. That halachah pertains to foods that require substantial time to cook - hence, the person cooking will divert his attention and not stir the coals. In contrast, the entities mentioned in this halachah do not require substantial time to cook, and there is the possibility that one will stir the coals.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:8) quotes the Rambam's words almost verbatim, and this interpretation is accepted by the later authorities. Nevertheless, Rashi (Shabbat 18b) and many authorities differ in their interpretation of this passage, noting that Beitzah 25b states that these beans must be cooked seven times before they are prepared to eat.
See also the Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 254), which juxtaposes the Rambam's position with Rashi's, explaining that the Rambam is talking about an instance when the beans have already been cooked six times. Hence, only a slight amount of further cooking is necessary. Rav Kapach substantiates this interpretation, explaining that beans with a similar name are still eaten in Yemen today. After having been cooked several times, these beans cook very fast.
48.
As mentioned above, according to Ashkenazic authorities, it is sufficient that they be half (or a third) cooked.
49.
Previously, the Rambam had been speaking of meat that was cooked in a pot or roasted in a pan. This halachah describes meat roasted in an oven over a fire, which cooks faster. Hence, there is reason to suspect that one would stir the coals (Maggid Mishneh).
50.
Needless to say this leniency applies to fowl. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 254:1.)
51.
The ovens of the Talmudic period opened on top. At times, the opening was sealed closed to allow for faster and more effective cooking. According to the Rambam (and the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), the above clauses of the halachah deal with meat that is roasted with the oven open. Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss on Shabbat 18b) interprets these laws as applying when the oven is closed, but not sealed. According to his view, if the oven is open, there is always reason to suspect that one will stir the coals. The Tur and the Ramah follow this interpretation.
52.
The latter phrase is lacking in the authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and appears redundant.
Because opening the oven will cause the meat to spoil, we do not suspect that one will do so to stir the coals.
53.
As mentioned in Halachah 2, this law follows the principles of the School of Hillel. In this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying that in contrast to food which is being cooked for the Sabbath, there is no need for a Rabbinic prohibition either.
54.
When the body of an animal or fowl is intact, the meat is not exposed to the heat of the fire on both sides. Therefore, its cooking process is slower, and there is reason to suspect that one will stir the coals.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 254:1) states that the entire body of the animal need not be intact. This law applies even when the head and the internal organs are removed, provided its rib cage remains intact.
55.
The Paschal sacrifice is a lamb which must be roasted totally intact. Since this sacrifice could be offered only after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, and many thousands of lambs were brought, when that date fell on Friday it is possible that a company would not have time to have their sacrifice roasted before nightfall. Nevertheless, since the sacrifice must be eaten by an entire company, we assume that all the members of the company will remind each other. Hence, there is no need for a safeguard (see Rashi, Shabbat 19b).
56.
This applies to all meat, even that of a kid or fowl.
57.
In contrast to the previous two halachot, this halachah speaks of roasting food over an open fire and not within an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:2) explains that in such an instance, a person is primarily concerned that the food cook rapidly and does not care that some becomes charred.
58.
This does not mean completely cooked but rather cooked כמאכל בן דרוסאי - "as the food of ben D'rosai." Ben D'rosai was a notorious criminal who was constantly being chased and would eat his food before it had been completely cooked in his haste to avoid detection. As mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 5, according to the Rambam it must be half-cooked on both sides. According to Rashi, it is sufficient that it is one-third cooked.
Rav Moshe Cohen of Lunil questions why the Rambam differentiates between roasting - where he allows food that is partially cooked to continue cooking - and cooking in a pot - where he requires the food to be completely cooked and that further cooking will not benefit it. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) explains that cooking in a pot requires more time and there is a greater possibility that one will stir the coals. See also the Merkevet HaMishneh.
59.
With this statement, the Rambam refers to the principles he had mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. There it was explained that the halachah follows the School of Hillel, which allows us to benefit from forbidden labors that are completed on the Sabbath on their own accord. Nevertheless, there are certain restrictions instituted against leaving food to cook, lest one stir the coals, as explained.
60.
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the interpretation of the Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim, 254.
61.
In the Talmudic period, bread was baked by attaching a loaf to the side of the oven. This surface would crust first. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for the bread to be considered to be baked before the commencement of the Sabbath.
It must be emphasized that this ruling represents a reversal of opinion for the Rambam. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 1:10, he rules that the outer surface must crust before the Sabbath. (The latter ruling also conforms to his thesis regarding cooked food: that it must be completely cooked before the commencement of the Sabbath.) It must be emphasized that the version of this halachah found in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah are in accordance with the ruling in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 254:5) follows the more lenient ruling.
62.
I.e., cause it to burn.
63.
This resembles the ruling of Halachah 9 regarding food that was left to cook over a fire.
64.
Not only is the person who baked the bread allowed to remove it himself, he may invite others to remove bread as well, as stated in Chapter 22, Halachah 1.
65.
Here the ruling is far more lenient than the ruling in Halachah 9 regarding food. The commentaries (Rabbenu Nissim, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 254:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 254:33) explain that the fundamental element of all meals is bread, and if the person does not have bread he will not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of eating three Sabbath meals. From this, one can postulate that if a person has no food other than that which has been left on a fire on the Sabbath, he is allowed to partake of that food so that he will not be required to fast on the Sabbath.
66.
Since the removal of bread is forbidden, it should be done in an abnormal manner. The commentaries question whether one is required to remove the bread in an abnormal manner only when it was placed in the oven later than the desired time, or whether this is necessary even when the bread was permitted to be left baking.
From the Maggid Mishneh's notes on Chapter 5, Halachah 19, and from the simple interpretation of Chapter 22, Halachah 1, it would appear that one is always required to remove the bread in an abnormal manner. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Nissim maintains that this stringency applies only when one placed the bread in the oven after the desired time. If one placed the bread inside earlier, there is no necessity to deviate from one's ordinary practice. The Mishnah Berurah 254:36 accepts this ruling when there is no way that one can remove the bread in an abnormal way.
It must be emphasized that the above discussion applies only to the ovens of the Talmudic period. At present, our ovens are constructed in a different manner, and the loaves of bread are not stuck to the sides of the oven. Accordingly, any bread that is required for the Sabbath itself can be removed in an ordinary manner. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 254:9 and the Mishnah Berurah 254:42-43.)
67.
As is mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachot 5-8, there are certain substances that may not be used as wicks or fuel for a candle on the Sabbath. These restrictions apply only with regard to a candle, for it is a single light. (See Chapter 5, Halachah 7.) In contrast, greater leniency can be shown with regard to a fire. (See Rashi, Shabbat 21a and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 255:1.)
68.
See the Turei Zahav 275:6, which states that even in such a situation, one should not sit very close to the fire, lest one tend to it.
69.
I.e., without the assistance of other fuels, blowing with a bellows, or kindling wood (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 1:11).
70.
This prohibition continues to apply even if the fire catches afterwards to the extent that there is no need to worry that a person will stir the coals. Since it was lit in a forbidden manner, one is forbidden to benefit from it (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 255:2 and the Mishnah Berurah 255:5).
71.
The Chamber of the Hearth was a large structure at one of the side entrances to the Temple Courtyard where the priests would sleep at night. (See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:10-11.)
72.
Even if there is not sufficient time for the fire to catch thoroughly.
73.
We do not suspect that they will stir the coals. See Halachah 15.
74.
The Rambam's rulings follow Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Shabbat 20a. Rabbenu Asher and the Tur (Orach Chayim 255) reverse the two decisions.
75.
Hence, there is no reason to suspect that one will stir the fire.
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 7, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 8, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 9
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassNedarim - Chapter 7
1
When two people are forbidden - by vow or by oath - to derive benefit from each other, they are allowed1 to return a lost article to each other, because doing so is a mitzvah.2 In a place where it is customary for the person who returns a lost article to receive a reward, the reward should be given to the Temple treasury.3 For if [the person who returns the lost article] will take the reward, he will be receiving benefit.4 If he does not take it, he will be giving the other person benefit.5
א
שנים שנאסרה הנאת כל אחד מהן על חבירו בין בנדר בין בשבועה הרי אלו מותרין להחזיר אבידה זה לזה מפני שהוא מצוה ובמקום שדרכן שנוטל שכר המחזיר את האבידה יפול השכר להקדש שאם יטול שכר נמצא נהנה ואם לא יטול נמצא מהנה:
2
They are [both] permitted [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by the entire Jewish people,6 e.g., the Temple Mount, its chambers, its courtyards, and a well in the midst of a highway.7 They are forbidden [to make use of] those entities that are owned jointly by all the inhabitants of that city,8 e.g., its marketplace, its bathhouse, its synagogue, its ark, and its holy texts.
ב
ומותרין בדברים שהם בשותפות כל ישראל כגון הר הבית (והלשכות) והעזרות והבאר שבאמצע הדרך ואסורין בדברים שהם בשותפות כל אנשי העיר כגון הרחבה שבעיר והמרחץ ובית הכנסת והתיבה והספרים:
3
What can they do so that they will be permitted to use these entities? Each one of them should sign over his portion to the nasi9 or to another person and have him acquire that portion through the medium of another person.10 Thus when either of them enter a bathhouse belonging to all the members of the city or to the synagogue, he is not entering the property of the colleague [from whom he is forbidden to benefit], for each of them has relinquished his share of the place and given it away as a present.
ג
וכיצד יעשו כדי שיהיו מותרין בדברים אלו כל אחד ואחד משניהם כותב חלקו לנשיא או לאחד משאר העם ומזכה לו בחלקו ע"י אחר ונמצא כל אחד מהם כשיכנס למרחץ שהוא לכל אנשי העיר או לבית הכנסת אינו נכנס לרשות חבירו אלא לרשות אחרים שהרי כל אחד מהם נסתלק מחלקו שבמקום זה ונתנו במתנה:
4
[The following laws apply when] they are both partners in a courtyard.11If it can be divided,12 they are forbidden to enter it unless it is divided and each person enters his portion. If it cannot be divided,13 each one should enter his house, saying: "I am entering my property."14 Regardless,15 they are both forbidden to place a mill or an oven there or to raise chickens in this courtyard.16
ד
היו שניהם שותפין בחצר אם יש בה דין חלוקה הרי אלו אסורין להכנס לה עד שיחלוקו ויכנס כל אחד לחלקו ואם אין בה דין חלוקה כל אחד ואחד נכנס לביתו והוא אומר בתוך שלי אני נכנס ובין כך ובין כך שניהם אסורים להעמיד רחיים ותנור ולגדל תרנגולין בחצר זו:
5
When two people are partners in a courtyard17 and one of them takes an oath that the other may not benefit from him, we force the person who took the oath to sell his portion.18
If he took an oath not to benefit from the other person, he is permitted to enter his home, for he is entering his own domain.19 He may not, however, make any other use of the courtyard, as explained [in the previous halachah].20
ה
שנים שהיו שותפין בחצר ונדר אחד מהן שלא יהנה בו השני כופין את הנודר למכור חלקו נדר שלא יהנה הוא בשני הרי זה מותר להכנס לביתו מפני שברשותו הוא נכנס אבל אינו יכול להשתמש בחצר כמו שבארנו:
6
If a person from outside was forbidden to benefit from either of [the owners of the courtyard],21 he may enter the courtyard,22 for he tells [the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit]: "I am entering your colleague's domain, not yours."
ו
היה אחד מן השוק אסור בהנאת אחד משניהם הרי זה מותר להכנס לחצר מפני שהוא אומר לו לתוך של חבירך אני נכנס איני נכנס לתוך שלך:
7
When a person forbids himself from benefiting from one of the nations, he is permitted to buy [an article] from them at more than the market price and sell to them at less than the market price.23 If he forbids them from benefiting from him, if they are willing, it is permitted for him to purchase from them for less than the market price and sell to them at more than the market price.24 We do not issue a decree forbidding him to sell [at less than the market price], lest he purchase [at less than the market price].25 [The rationale is that] he did not take a vow concerning only one individual, in which instance such a decree would be appropriate, but concerning an entire nation and if it is impossible for him to do business with one person, he will do business with another.26 Therefore, if he forbade himself from benefiting from them, he may lend both articles and money to them, but may not borrow either of these from them.27
ז
מי שאסר הניית אומה מן האומות על עצמו הרי זה מותר ליקח מהן ביותר ולמכור להן בפחות אסר הנייתו עליהם אם שומעין לו שיקח מהן בפחות וימכור ביותר מותר ואין גוזרין כאן שלא ימכור גזירה שמא יקח שהרי לא נדר מאיש אחד כדי שנגזור עליו [אלא] מאומה כולה שאם אי אפשר לו לישא וליתן עם זה ישא ויתן עם אחר לפיכך אם אסר הנייתן עליו הרי זה משאילן ומלוה אותן אבל לא ישאל מהם ולא ילוה מהן:
8
If he forbade them from benefiting from him and himself from benefiting from them, he should not do business with them, nor may they do business with him.28 He may not borrow an article from them or lend an article to them, nor borrow money from them or lend money from them.
ח
אסר הנייתו עליהן והנייתן עליו לא ישא ויתן עמהם וכן לא ישאו הן ויתנו עמו ולא ישאיל להן ולא ילוה מהם ולא ילוה אותן:
9
If he forbade himself from benefiting from the inhabitants of a city, he is forbidden to ask the sage of the city for the repeal of his vow.29 If, however, he did ask him and he released the vow, the vow is released, as explained.30
ט
אסר על עצמו הניית בני העיר אסור להשאל על נדרו לחכם מבני אותה העיר (ההיא) ואם נשאל והתיר לו הרי נדרו מותר כמו שבארנו:
10
When a person forbade himself from benefiting from any other people, he is permitted to derive benefit from leket, shichechah, pe'ah31 and the tithe for the poor that is distributed in the granaries,32 but not that [which is distributed] from one's home.33
י
מי שאסר הניית הבריות עליו הרי זה מותר ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני המתחלק בגרנות אבל לא בתוך הבית:
11
When a person forbade priests or Levites from benefiting from his property, they may come and take the gifts [to be separated from his produce]34 against his will.35
If he says: "These priests and these Levites [are forbidden to benefit from my property,]" they are bound by the prohibition.36 He should give his terumah and tithes to other priests and Levites. Similar laws apply with regard to the gifts for the poor37 and the poor.
יא
מי שאסר הנייתו על הכהנים ועל הלוים הרי אלו באין ונוטלין מתנותיהם על כרחו ואם אמר כהנים אלו ולוים אלו הרי אלו אסורין ויתן תרומותיו ומעשרותיו לכהנים ולוים אחרים והוא הדין במתנות עניים עם העניים:
12
When it is forbidden for a person to benefit a colleague and that colleague has nothing to eat, the person may go to a storekeeper and say: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do."38 It is permitted for the storekeeper to go and give [food] to the colleague and take [payment] from that person.39
יב
מי שהיתה הנייתו אסורה על חבירו ואין לחבירו מה יאכל הולך אצל החנוני ואומר איש פלוני אסור בהנייתי ואיני יודע מה אעשה אם הלך החנוני ונתן לו ובא ונטל מזה הרי זה מותר:
13[Similar laws apply]40 if it is necessary to build [that colleague's] house, put up a fence for him, or harvest his field. If the person from whom it was forbidden to benefit approached workers and told them: "So-and-so is forbidden to benefit from me and I don't know what to do,"41 They may then perform these activities, go back to that person, and he may pay them. For he is paying the debt of the colleague and we already explained42 that a person [from whom one is forbidden to benefit] may pay a debt for his colleague.יג
היה ביתו לבנות גדרו לגדור שדהו לקצור והלך אצל פועלים ואמר איש פלוני אסור בהנייתי ואיני יודע מה אעשה והלכו הן ועשו עמו ובאו לזה ונתן להן שכרן הרי זה מותר שנמצא זה שפרע לו חובו וכבר בארנו שזה מותר לפרוע לו חובו:
14
If the two43 were traveling on a journey and [the person who is forbidden to benefit from his colleague] does not have anything to eat, [that colleague] may give [food] to another person as a present and [the person who is forbidden] is then permitted to partake of it.44 If there is no one else with them, [the person whose property is forbidden] should put [food] on a stone and say: "This [food] is considered ownerless for everyone who desires it."45 The other person may then take it and eat.46
יד
היו מהלכין בדרך ואין לו מה יאכל נותן לאחר משום מתנה והלה מותר בה ואם אין עמהם אחר מניח על הסלע ואומר הרי הן מופקרין לכל מי שיחפוץ והלה נוטל ואוכל:
15
If, [however,] he gives a colleague a present [of a feast] and tells him: "This feast is given to you as a present. Let so-and-so who is forbidden to benefit from me come and eat with us," this is forbidden.47 Moreover, even if he gave the present without saying anything, but afterwards48 said: "Do you want so-and-so to come and eat with us?" it is forbidden if it appears that initially, he gave the present solely so that ultimately so-and-so could eat with them. For example, it is a large feast and he wants his father, his teacher, or the like to partake of the feast. For [the size of] the feast indicates that he did not intend to give it to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
טו
נתן לאחד מתנה ואמר לו הרי סעודה זו נתונה לך מתנה ויבא פלוני שהוא אסור בהנייתי ויאכל עמנו הרי זה אסור ולא עוד אלא [אפילו] אם נתן לו סתם וחזר ואמר לו רצונך שיבא פלוני ויאכל עמנו אם הוכיח סופו על תחלתו שלא נתן לו אלא על מנת שיבוא פלוני ויאכל אסור כגון שהיתה סעודה גדולה והוא רוצה שיבוא אביו או רבו וכיוצא בהן לאכול מסעודתו שהרי סעודתו מוכחת עליו שלא גמר להקנות לו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
16
Any present that, were it to be consecrated [by the recipient], the consecration would not be effective, is not considered as a present.49
Whenever a person gives a colleague a present with the stipulation that he transfer it to another person, that other person acquires ownership at the time the first [recipient] transfers it to him.50 If the first recipient does not transfer it to that other person, neither the first, nor the second [recipient] acquires it.51
טז
כל מתנה שאם הקדישה לא תהיה מקודשת אינה מתנה וכל הנותן לזה מתנה על מנת להקנותה לאחר הרי זה האחר קנה בעת שיקנה לו הראשון ואם לא הקנה לו הראשון לאותו אחר לא קנה לא הראשון ולא השני:
17
[The following principle applies when a person's son-in-law is forbidden to benefit from him and he desires to give his daughter money so that she can benefit from it and spend it as she desires.52 He should give her a present and say: "This money53 is given to you as a present on the condition that your husband has no authority over it.54 Instead, it shall be used for what you put in your mouth, what you cloth yourself, and the like."55 Even if he said: "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it. Instead, it shall be used for whatever you want to do with it,"56 the husband does not acquire it and she may do what she desires with it.
If, however, he gave her a present and told her. "...on the condition that your husband has no authority over it," but did not specify the purpose for which the present was being given or even did not say that it was intended for whatever she desires, the husband acquires it to derive benefit from it.57 This would be forbidden, because he is forbidden to benefit from his father-in-law.58
יז
מי שנאסרה הנייתו על בעל בתו והוא רוצה לתת לבתו מעות כדי שתהיה נהנית בהן ומוציאה אותן בחפציה הרי זה נותן לה ואומר לה הרי המעות האלו נתונין לך במתנה ובלבד שלא יהא לבעליך רשות בהן אלא יהיו למה שאת נותנת לפיך או למה שתלבשי וכיוצא בזה ואפילו אמר לה על מנת שאין לבעליך רשות בהן אלא מה שתרצי עשי בהן לא קנה הבעל ומה שתרצה תעשה בהן אבל אם נתן לה מתנה ואמר לה על מנת שאין לבעליך רשות בהן ולא פירש שתהיה המתנה הזאת לכך ולכך או למה שתרצה תעשה בהן הרי קנה אותה הבעל לאכול פירותיה ודבר זה אסור שהרי הוא אסור בהניית חותנו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
And since they are allowed, they are obligated.
2.
For he is not returning it as a favor to him, but instead, in fulfillment of the Torah's command [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:2).
3.
Or, in the present age, to charity. This is preferable to destroying it.
4.
I.e., he will be returning it for the sake of the reward and not for the sake of the mitzvah (ibid.).
5.
For ordinarily the person would pay a reward for the return of the lost article.
6.
Technically, the other person has a share in these places, for they are owned communally. Nevertheless, since each person's individual share is so small, these places are considered as if they are ownerless and not as communal property (see ibid. 5:4).
7.
I.e.., a well built for the pilgrims' journey to Jerusalem from Babylon for the pilgrimage festivals (ibid.).
8.
For in this instance, each person's share is greater and more distinct.
The Ramban and the Ran object to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that this ruling does not apply with regard to an entity like a synagogue that cannot be divided. In such an instance, it is considered as a communal entity and the person who took the vow is allowed to make use of it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 224:1) quotes both views. See the Lechem Mishneh and the Turei Zahav 224:1 who elaborate in support of the Rambam's position.
9.
The leader of the Jewish people. He is mentioned, because it is very unlikely that he will forbid a member of the people from using his property (Nedarim 48a).
10.
I.e., the person acquiring the portion need not know about his acquisition. We follow the principle that a person can acquire property without his knowledge if it is to his benefit to do so (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2).
11.
In the Talmudic era, it was common that several houses would open up to a courtyard that was the combined property of the homeowners. In this halachah, we are speaking of an instance where two of those homeowners took vows forbidding them to benefit from each other.
12.
See Hilchot Shechenim 2:1 which states that if after the division of a courtyard, each of the homeowners will receive a plot of land four cubits by four cubits as his individual property, the courtyard should be divided if one of the neighbors requests that this be done.
13.
I.e., if it were to be divided, the homeowners would not receive a portion of land that size.
14.
Rabbenu Nissim explains this ruling based on the principle of bereirah, i.e., retroactively, it becomes apparent that when he enters the courtyard, he is entering property that was designated as his. We are forced to accept this definition (even though generally, the principle of bereirah is not followed in questions of Scriptural Law), for there is no alternative in this instance. The person has a right to the courtyard and he cannot be forbidden from using his own property. See Siftei Cohen 226:4, Turei Zahav 226:1.
15.
Whether it cannot be divided or whether it can be divided, but was not divided yet.
16.
Bava Batra 57b relates that partners in a courtyard have the right to prevent each other from performing such activities. Although most partners do not exercise this right, in this instance, by failing to exercise the right, one is providing benefit to the other person (Rabbenu Nissim).
17.
I.e., a courtyard to small for the owners to divide.
18.
His vow imposes unnecessary hardship on the other person who has a legitimate right to the property. Hence, we compel him to sell his share of the courtyard rather than put his colleague in a situation where he might transgress.
19.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:2) states that the person who took the vow is forbidden to enter the courtyard. The rationale is that the Rambam's understanding is accepted, except that an additional stringency is applied, lest the person remain in the courtyard for other purposes besides entering and departing his home (Siftei Cohen 226:10).
20.
We do not force him to sell his portion of the courtyard because he is causing difficulty only to himself and he is willing to abide by his prohibition (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, citing Nedarim 46a as support for his understanding. He mentions that the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5:2) appears to support the Rambam's interpretation, but states that we should abide by the principle that whenever there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the perspective of the Babylonian Talmud should be followed. See the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh who try to reconcile the differences in the positions of the two Talmuds. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's understanding, but is even more stringent.
21.
This is speaking about a courtyard that is too small to require division (Radbaz).
22.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 226:1) states that this applies only when the other owner of the courtyard needs that person. Otherwise, he is forbidden to enter.
23.
For thus he is suffering a loss every time he deals with them.
24.
For they are suffering a loss every time they deal with him.
25.
As a decree was made with regard to an individual. See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
26.
I.e., with regard to one individual, there is room for stringency, but this stringency is not required with regard to an entire nation, for there is (Radbaz).
27.
I.e., we do not make a decree like we do with regard to an individual (Siftei Cohen 227:7).
28.
For one of them, either they or he will be benefiting from the sale.
29.
For this is a benefit that he is receiving.
30.
For when a sage releases a vow, it is as if it never existed. Hence, it is as if he were never forbidden to approach the sage. See Chapter 4, Halachah 13, and notes.
31.
Leket refers to crops that drop from a reaper's hand in the field. He is forbidden to pick them up again, but instead must leave them for the poor (Leviticus 19:10). Shichechah refers to crops or bundles forgotten in the field by accident. The harvesters may not return and collect, but must instead leave them for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:19). Pe'ah refers to a corner of the field which must be left unharvested, so that it could be harvested by the poor (Leviticus 19:9). See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim chs. 1,4, and 5 where these mitzvot are discussed.
32.
In the third year of the six-year agricultural, instead of taking the second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of holiness, it is given to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim ch. 6). The person who took the vow is allowed to benefit from these crops, because the owner of the field is not considered as giving him anything of his own. Instead, he is fulfilling a mitzvah.
33.
Nedarim 83-84a explains this distinction. When the tithe for the poor is distributed in the granaries, it may be taken by a poor person without asking. The owner does not have the right to decided to whom he will give it. If, however, he has already brought produce from the tithe for the poor home, he has the right to choose to whom to give it.
34.
I.e., the tithes that must be given to the Levites and terumah which must be given to the priests.
35.
Since he is obligated to give these presents to the priests and Levites, he has no choice in the matter and must make these gifts. Generally, a person is allowed to decide which Levite and which priest, he desires to give these gifts to. In this instance, however, since he forbade all priests from benefiting from his property, there is no one to whom he can give it. Hence his right to decide is taken from him and any priest or Levite can come and take the portions.
36.
Since the terumah and tithes may be given to others, there is no reason to take away the person's right to distribute them as he desires, for that right is of financial value (Nedarim 84b).
37.
E.g., those mentioned in the previous halachah. See Siftei Cohen 227:9 and Turei Zahav 227:3 who rule that this concept also applies with regard to charity.
38.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:8) is even more lenient and states that he may say: "Anyone who sustains so-and-so will not suffer a loss," for he is still merely intimating that one should support him. He may not say: "Whoever hears my voice should sustain so-and-so," for that it a direct command. Nor may he tell one person: "If you sustain so-and-so, you will not suffer a loss," for then it appears as if he is appointing him as an agent for this purpose.
39.
Since the person did not charge the storekeeper with providing the colleague with food, he is not responsible for the account [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 221:8)]. If he, nevertheless, chooses to pay it, he is not considered to have given benefit to that colleague.
40.
The Kessef Mishneh states that the two instances are not entirely analogous, for the first involves providing the person with food necessary for his livelihood, while the second involves the performance of a task that is important, but not vital for him. Perhaps this is the reason why in the preceding halachah, the Rambam stated: "The person may go to a storekeeper," i.e., he is permitted as an initial and preferred option. In this halachah, by contrast, he states: "If the person... approached workers," i.e., the Rambam is describing a law that applies after the fact, but not initially.
41.
The Radbaz explains that although the previous law was mentioned, it is also necessary to state this law, because it is uncommon for workers to extend credit on money do them. This is, by contrast, a common practice for storekeepers.
42.
Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
43.
I.e., a person who took a vow not to benefit from a person and that person.
44.
Giving a present is not permitted in the situations described in the previous halachot, because there are other alternatives. Hence it is considered as too great a leniency. In this situation, there is no other alternative and therefore it is permitted. See Siftei Cohen 221:52.
45.
Generally, according to Rabbinic Law, there must be three people present when an object is declared ownerless. In this instance, however, since there is no other alternative, we do not require anything more than required by Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 221:53).
46.
For then he is not partaking of the property of the person from whom he is forbidden to benefit, but from ownerless property.
47.
For he is obviously making this gift solely so that the other person may partake of it. If it is a large feast, it is obvious that a person is not preparing it for the sake of giving it to a colleague. Nedarim 48b gives as an example, an instance where a person's father was forbidden to benefit from him. When he made a wedding feast for his son, he tried to employ this tactic to enable his father to attend.
48.
The Kessef Mishneh states that there are opinions that maintain that this law applies only when the statements were made immediately after giving the feast. The wording chosen by the Rambam, however, indicates that the law applies even if he makes the statements later. The interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:5).
49.
I.e., the giver tells the recipient: "I did not give you the present so that you could consecrate it."
Nedarim, loc. cit., states this principle in continuation of the above story. After the son gave the wedding feast to a colleague so that his father could attend, that colleague consecrated it. When the giver, protested saying that he had not given it to him for that purpose, the recipient complained that he was not going to serve as a medium to allow the first person to break his vow. When the Sages were asked to rule about this situation, they stated the principle mentioned by the Rambam here.
50.
I.e., we do not say that since the first recipient is going to give to the second, the second acquires it when it is acquired by the first. This is not a situation where the first recipient is acting as an agent for the second. Instead, he acquires it first on his own behalf and then transfers it to the other person.
51.
The first does not acquire it, because it was given to him only on condition that it be transferred to the second. Since that condition was not fulfilled, his own acquisition is not binding (see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:6). The second person does not acquire it, because ownership was never transferred to him.
52.
Ordinarily, whatever a woman acquires immediately is given to her husband's jurisdiction. While she remains the legal owner, he has the legal right to control it and use the profits as he sees fit. In this instance, this would be forbidden for the son-in-law is prohibited against benefiting from his father-in-law, as the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah.
53.
If he gives her the food itself, it is not necessary to make any stipulations (Radbaz, Siftei Cohen 222:1).
54.
Tosafot Yom Tov (Nedarim 11:8) states that from Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13, it appears that the inclusion of this part of the statement is not an absolute necessity. As long as he specifies that the present is being given for a specific purpose alone, the husband does not acquire rights to it. Rav Yosef Caro does not accept this option, however, in his Kessef Mishneh and quotes the Rambam's wording from this halachah in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1; see Siftei Cohen 222:2).
55.
Since the father has designated the money for a specific purpose, it may be used only for that and thus the son never acquires a right to it. The rationale is closely related to the concept of a vow. Just as a vow can determine how property may be used even after it leaves the domain of the person who took the vow, so, too, the father can determine how his property may be used even after it leaves his domain.
This ruling teaches that even though it is to the husband's benefit that his wife eats or is clothed - indeed, he is responsible to provide for these needs of hers - the husband is not considered to have benefited from this present (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 11:8).
56.
In this instance, even though the specific purpose for which the present was given was not stated at the outset, when the woman decides what she desires to do with the present, retroactively, it is as if it was given for that purpose alone.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, noting that although the law stated in the first clause is accepted by all authorities, the one stated in this clause is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages Rav and Shmuel in Nedarim 88b. The Rambam's ruling follows the opinion of Shmuel although generally, with regard to matters involving the Torah's prohibitions, the halachah follows that of Rav. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that other Rishonim also follow Shmuel's perspective and give logical support for it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 222:1) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.
57.
See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:13. The rationale is that the giver does not have the prerogative of negating the rights given the husband by the Rabbis.
58.
Nevertheless, the present is binding. The husband should purchase something that brings income with the money. That article belongs to his wife. He should give the proceeds to charity, since he is not allowed to benefit from them (Radbaz)
Nedarim - Chapter 8
1
When a person takes a vow or an oath and at the time of the vow or the oath specifies a stipulation for which he is making the vow, it is as if he made the vow or the oath dependent on that matter. If the stipulation for which he took the oath is not fulfilled, he is permitted [to act is if the oath had never been taken].1
א
מי שנדר או נשבע ופירש בשעת נדרו דבר שנדר או נשבע בגללו הרי זה כמי שתלה נדרו או שבועתו באותו דבר ואם לא נתקיים אותו דבר שנשבע בגללו הרי זה מותר:
2
What is implied? If he took an oath or vow saying: "I will not marry this-and-this woman whose father is evil" or "I will not enter this house, because there is a harmful dog within it," if they died or the father repented, he may [do so]. This is comparable to someone who says "I will not marry so-and-so..." or "...not enter this house unless the harmful factor is removed."2 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ב
כיצד נדר או נשבע שאיני נושא אשה פלונית שאביה רע שאיני נכנס לבית זה שכלב רע בתוכו מתו או שעשה האב תשובה הרי זה מותר שזה כמי שנדר או נשבע ואמר שלא אשא פלונית ולא אכנס לבית זה אלא אם נסתלק ההיזק וכל כל כיוצא בזה:
3
[A different rationale applies] when one takes a vow or an oath: "I will not marry so-and-so who is ugly," and it is discovered that she is beautiful,3 "...who is dark-skinned," and it is discovered that she is light-skinned, "...who is short," and it is discovered that she is tall, or "I am taking a vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, because she took my wallet and beat my son," and it was discovered that she did not take it or beat him. He is permitted, because the vow was taken in error. It is included among the category of inadvertent vows that are permitted.4 This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept.5 For the reason for which the vow was taken never applied. Instead, it was an error [of perception].
ג
אבל הנודר או הנשבע שאיני נושא פלונית הכעורה ונמצאת נאה שחורה ונמצאת לבנה קצרה ונמצאת ארוכה קונם שאין אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסי ושהכתה את בני ונודע שלא גנבה ושלא הכתה הרי זה מותר מפני שהוא נדר טעות והוא בכלל נדרי שגגות שהן מותרין ואין זה כתולה נדרו בדבר ולא נתקיים הדבר שהרי הסבה שבגללה נדר לא היתה מצויה וטעות היה:
4
Moreover,6 even if a person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you,"7 but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and his brothers, they are permitted [to partake of them]. Even though he did not explicitly state the reason why he took a vow [forbidding] them, it is as if he did. For it is obvious that he forbade his produce to them only because he thought they were people at large.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ד
ולא עוד אלא מי שראה אנשים מרחוק אוכלים תאנים שלו ואמר להן הרי הן עליכם קרבן כיון שקרב אליהם והביט והרי הן אביו ואחיו הרי אלו מותרין אף על פי שלא פירש הסבה שהדירן בגללה הרי זה כמו שפירש שהדבר מוכיח שלא אסר עליהם אלא שהיה בדעתו שהן זרים וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
5
When a person took a vow or an oath and then a factor came up that was not in his mind at the time he took the oath or the vow, he is forbidden [in the matter] until he requests a sage to release his vow.
What is implied? A person forbade himself from benefiting from so-and-so or from entering this-and-this place and that person became the city scribe9 or a synagogue was made at that place.10 Even though he said "If I knew that this person would become the scribe or that in this place a synagogue would be made, I would not have taken the vow or the oath," he is forbidden to benefit [from the person] or enter the place until he has his vow released, as we explained.11 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ה
מי שנדר או נשבע ונולד לו דבר שלא היה בלבו בשעת השבועה או בשעת הנדר הרי זה אסור עד שישאל לחכם ויתיר את נדרו כיצד אסר את עצמו בהניית פלוני או שלא יכנס למקום פלוני ונעשה אותו האיש סופר ואותו מקום בית הכנסת אף על פי שהוא אומר אילו הייתי יודע שזה נעשה סופר ובמקום זה יעשה בית הכנסת לא הייתי נודר או נשבע הרי זה אסור ליהנות ולהכנס עד שיתיר נדרו כמו שבארנו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
6
Whenever a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.12 This law also applies with regard to oaths.
What is implied? A person saw from a distance that people were partaking of his figs and he said [concerning] them: "They are like a sacrifice for you," but when he came close to them and looked [at them], he saw that they were his father and people at large. Since his father is permitted [to partake of them],13 they are all permitted.14 Even if he said: "So-and-so and so-and-so are forbidden and my father is permitted, they are all permitted.15
If, however, when he reached them he said: "If I would have known that my father is with you, I would have said: 'You are all forbidden [to partake of my produce], except my father,' they are all forbidden except his father. For he revealed his intent was not to release a portion of his vow,16 but to make a vow as he did, but to make a stipulation concerning his father.17
ו
כל נדר שהותר מקצתו הותר כולו והוא הדין בשבועה כיצד ראה אנשים מרחוק אוכלין פירותיו ואמר הרי הן עליכם קרבן וכשהגיע אליהם והנה הם אביו ואנשים זרים הואיל ואביו מותר כולן מותרין ואפילו אמר אילו הייתי יודע כן הייתי אומר פלוני ופלוני אסורין ואבי מותר הרי כולן מותרין אבל אם אומר כשהגיע אליהן אילו הייתי יודע שאבי ביניכם הייתי אומר כולכם אסורין חוץ מאבי הרי כולן אסורין חוץ מאביו שהרי גלה דעתו שלא התיר מקצת הנדר אלא כמו שנדר היה נודר ומתנה על אביו:
7
Similar [laws apply] when one says: "Wine is like a sacrifice18 for me, because wine is bad for digestion," but he was told: "Aged wine is good for digestion." If he said: "Had I known, I would not have taken the vow" or even: "Had I known, I would have said: 'Fresh wine is forbidden, but aged wine is permitted,' he is permitted [to drink] both fresh wine and aged wine.19 If, however, he said: "Had I known, I would have said: 'All wine is forbidden for me except aged wine,' he is permitted [to drink] only aged wine.20Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ז
וכן האומר היין קרבן עלי מפני שהיין רע לבני מעיים ואמרו לו הרי המיושן יפה לבני מעיים אם אמר אילו הייתי יודע לא הייתי נודר ואפילו אמר אילו הייתי יודע הייתי אומר החדש אסור והישן מותר מותר בישן ובחדש אבל אם אמר אילו הייתי יודע הייתי אומר כל היינות אסורין עלי חוץ מן המיושן הרי זה מותר במיושן בלבד וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
8
Whenever a person takes a vow or an oath, we consider the motivating factor for the oath or the vow and extrapolate from it what the person's intent was. We follow his intent, not the literal meaning of his words.21
What is implied? He was carrying a load of wool or of linen and was perspiring, causing a foul odor. If he took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool or linen upon him again, he is permitted to wear woolen or linen clothes and cover himself with them. He is only forbidden to carry them on his back like a burden.
If he was wearing woolen clothing and became aggravated because of these garments and took an oath or a vow that he would never have wool upon him again, he is forbidden to wear [woolen clothes], but is permitted to carry wool and to cover himself with woolen spreads. For he intended only [to forbid] woolen clothes. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ח
כל הנודר או נשבע רואין דברים שבגללן נשבע או נדר ולמדין מהן לאי זה נתכוון והולכין אחר הענין לא אחר כל משמע הדבור כיצד היה טעון משא של צמר או של פשתים והזיע והיה ריחו קשה ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר או פשתים לעולם הרי זה מותר ללבוש בגדי צמר או פשתים ולכסותן ואינו אסור אלא להפשילן לאחוריו היה לבוש בגדי צמר ונצטער בלבישתן ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר לעולם אסור ללבוש ומותר לטעון עליו ומותר להתכסות בגיזי צמר שלא נתכוון זה אלא לבגד צמר וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
9
[Similar laws apply if] people were asking him to marry his relative,22 but he refused and they pressured him, so he took a vow or an oath that she could not benefit from him forever. Alternatively, a person divorced his wife and took an oath that she would never benefit from him. These women are permitted to derive [ordinary] benefit from him. His intent was that only [to prevent himself from] marrying them.
ט
היו מבקשין ממנו שישא קרובתו והוא ממאן ופרצו בו ונדר או נשבע שלא תהנה בו לעולם וכן המגרש את אשתו ונשבע או נדר שלא תהנה בו לעולם הרי אלו מותרות ליהנות לו שאין כוונתו אלא לשם אישות:
10
Similarly, if a person called to his friend, [inviting him] to eat at his [home] and he took an oath or a vow not to enter his home or even drink cold water of his, he is permitted to enter his home and drink his water. His intent was only that he would not eat and drink with him at that feast.23 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
י
וכן הקורא לחבירו שיסעוד אצלו ומיאן ונשבע או נדר שלא יכנס לביתו ולא ישתה לו טפת צונן הרי זה מותר להכנס לביתו ולשתות לו צונן שלא נתכוון זה אלא שלא יאכל וישתה עמו בסעודה זו וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
11
When a person takes a vow or an oath, telling a colleague: "I will never enter your house" or "...buy your field," and [that colleague] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is permitted to enter the house or purchase the field from the heir or from the purchaser.24 His intent [when establishing the prohibition] was only for the time they belonged to [the original owner].25
If, by contrast, he said: "I will never enter this house" or "I will never purchase this field," even if [the original owner] dies or sells [the property] to someone else, [the person who took the vow] is forbidden.26
יא
האומר לחבירו קונם לביתך אני נכנס ושדך אני לוקח בין בנדר בין בשבועה ומת או מכרן לאחר הרי זה מותר להכנס לבית וליקח השדה מן היורש או מן הלוקח שלא נתכוון זה אלא כל זמן שהן ברשותו אבל אם אמר לבית הזה איני נכנס ושדה זה איני לוקח ומת או מכרן לאחר הרי זה אסור:
12
[The following laws apply when a person] asks a colleague: "Lend me your cow," he answers him: "She is not free," and [the first person] takes an oath or a vow,27 saying: "I will never plow my field with it." If he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, he is forbidden to plow [his field with that cow], but any other person is permitted to plow [his field] with it.28 If he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, both he and everyone else is forbidden to plow [his field] with it.29Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יב
האומר לחבירו השאילני פרתך אמר לו אינה פנויה נשבע או נדר ואמר קונם שדי איני חורש בה לעולם אם היה דרכו לחרוש בידו הוא אסור וכל אדם מותרין לחרוש לו בה ואם אין דרכו לחרוש בידו הוא וכל אדם אסורין וכן כל כיוצא בדברים אלו:
13
When a person takes an oath or a vow that he will marry a woman, purchase a house,30 depart with a caravan, or set out to sea, we do not obligate him to marry, make the purchase, or set out immediately. Instead, he may wait until he finds something appropriate for himself.
An incident occurred concerning a woman who took a vow that she would marry anyone who asked her to marry him. Men who were not appropriate for her jumped at the opportunity. Our Sages ruled that her intent was [to marry] anyone from among those appropriate for her who asked her. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יג
מי שנשבע או נדר שישא אשה או שיקנה בית או שיצא בשיירא או יפרוש בים אין מחייבין אותו לישא אשה או לקנות או לצאת מיד אלא עד שימצא דבר ההגון לו מעשה באשה שנדרה שכל מי שיתבע אותה תנשא לו וקפצו עליה בני אדם שאינן הגונין לה ואמרו חכמים לא נתכוונה זו אלא לכל מי שיתבע אותה מן ההגונין לה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
14
When a person administers a vow to a colleague or takes an oath telling him to come and take a kor of wheat or two barrels of wine for his son, [the colleague] can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "Your intent was only to honor me.31 It is a greater token of respect for me not to take [the gift].32 I already received the honor that you desired to give me through your vow."
Similarly, if one took an oath or a vow: "You may not derive any benefit from me until you give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, he can release the vow without asking a sage to do so. [He need only] say: "It is as if I received them and they reached my hand." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יד
המדיר את חבירו או שנשבע ואמר לו שתבוא ותטול לבניך כור אחד חטים או שתי חביות של יין הרי זה יכול להתיר נדרו בלא שאלה לחכם ויאמר לו כלום נתכוונת אלא לכבדני כבודי שלא אטול וכבר הגיע אלי כבוד שנדרת בשבילי וכן הנודר או הנשבע שאין אתה נהנה לי אם אין אתה נותן לבני כור של חטים ושתי חביות של יין הרי זה יכול להתיר נדרו שלא בשאלת חכם ויאמר הריני כאילו נתקבלתי והגיעו לידי וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
FOOTNOTES
1.
He need not seek the release of the oath (Radbaz). This law applies with regard to vows as well.
2.
Even though the father dies or repents after the vow was taken, with his death or repentance, the vow is nullified, because the conditions under which it was taken no longer apply.
3.
If, however, she was ugly at the time the vow was taken, but was made beautiful, the vow takes effect [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:6)].
4.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, which states that such vows are not binding.
5.
As described in the first two halachot.
6.
I.e., the previous halachah describes an instance where one explicitly stated the condition under which he took the vow. This halachah, by contrast, describes a situation where the condition is not stated, but is self-apparent.
7.
Which would cause them to be forbidden to eat the figs.
8.
And thus the vow was taken in error.
9.
And everyone in the city needs the scribe to compose legal documents for him. Hence, he no longer desires to be forbidden to benefit from him.
10.
And everyone desires to be able to enter the local synagogue.
11.
Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:5, 12. As stated there, the vow was not made initially in error, for at the outset, he did not desire that the person become the scribe. Hence, the oath takes effect.
The Ra'avad suggests that the statement from Halachah 3: "This does not resemble an instance where the vow was made dependent on a stipulation and that stipulation was not kept" should be included here, for this is a different category of vows than those mentioned in the previous halachot.
12.
The Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 1:1 derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He shall do all that he utters from his mouth." Implied is that everything that he utters must be fulfilled or the vow does not take effect. Rabbenu Nissim gives a logical explanation for this concept. At the outset, his intent was that the vow would be kept in its entirety. If a factor arose that prevented that from taking place, it is as if the vow was taken in error.
13.
As explained in Halachah 4.
14.
Because the prohibition against them was mentioned in the same vow.
15.
Because the vow was taken against all of the persons together. Hence, it cannot be nullified only in part.
16.
For even when qualifying his statement, he still says that all of the individuals are forbidden, indicating that he did not desire to retract his original statement (Kessef Mishneh). In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:8), Rav Yosef Caro appears to follow a slightly different rationale.
17.
I.e., that the prohibition would not include his father.
18.
I.e., forbidden.
19.
The portion of the vow involving aged wine is nullified, because it was taken in error. And accordingly, the portion involving fresh wine is also nullified, based on the principle stated in the previous halachah.
20.
For he did not seek to nullify his former vow, merely to qualify it, as stated in the conclusion of the previous halachah.
21.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 218:1) emphasizes that this applies when a person takes a vow on his own initiative. If, however, he takes a vow in response to wording chosen by a colleague, we follow the meaning of that wording.
22.
For it is desirable that a person marry his relatives (see Yevamot 62b).
23.
The Radbaz states that he is even permitted to enter his home at the time of the feast.
24.
For it is no longer the colleague's house or field (Siftei Cohen 216:10).
25.
As emphasized by the fact that he said: "Your house" and "Your field."
26.
For in this instance, the vow was not associated with the owner of the property, but with the property itself. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5.
27.
As an expression of resentment for the owner's refusal (Kessef Mishneh).
28.
Since he is accustomed to plowing his field himself, we assume that his vow applied only to his own actions.
29.
Since he is not accustomed to plowing his field himself, we interpret his vow as meaning that he would never have another person plow the field with it.
30.
Although the standard published text of Bava Kama 80a mentions purchasing a house or marrying a woman in Eretz Yisrael, the commentaries [nor the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 219:1)] see no reason why the Holy Land is different from other places in this regard.
31.
By giving me a present in public.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 332:20) states that the person who administered the vow need not explicitly agree to this interpretation. Even if he remains silent, we accept it. The Siftei Cohen 332:46 states that if the person specifically says that he administered the vow so that he would receive honor by having the other person receive a gift from him, his word is accepted and a sage must be approached to have the vow released.
32.
For people seeing that I demur will respect me more.
Nedarim - Chapter 9
1
With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.1
What is implied? A person took a vow or an oath not [to partake of] cooked food. If it was customary in that place in that language and at that time to call roasted meat and boiled meat2 also cooked food, he is forbidden to partake of all types of cooked food. If they were accustomed to use the term cooked food only to refer to meat cooked with water and spices, he is permitted [to partake of] roasted meat or boiled meat. Similarly, with regard to smoked food or food cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias. We follow the terminology used by the people of that city.
א
בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם באותו מקום ובאותו לשון ובאותו זמן שנדר או נשבע בו כיצד נדר או נשבע מן המבושל אם דרך אותו מקום באותו לשון באותו זמן שקוראין מבושל אפילו לצלי ולשלוק ה"ז אסור בכל ואם אין דרכם לקרות מבושל אלא לבשר שנתבשל במים ובתבלין הרי זה מותר בצלי ובשלוק וכן המעושן והמבושל בחמי טבריא וכיוצא בהן הולכין בו אחר הלשון של בני העיר:
2
[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of salted foods. If it is customary to call all salted foods "salted food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.3 If it is customary to use the term "salted food" to refer only to salted fish, he is only forbidden to partake of salted fish.
ב
נדר או נשבע מן המליח אם דרכם לקרות מליח לכל המלוחין הרי זה אסור בכל המלוחין ואם אין דרכם לקרות מליח אלא לדג מליח בלבד אינו אסור אלא בדג מליח:
3
[The following rules apply if a person] took a vow or an oath not to partake of pickled foods. If it is customary to call all pickled foods "pickled food," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.4 If it is customary to use the term "pickled food" to refer only to pickled vegetables, he is only forbidden to partake of pickled vegetables. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ג
נדר או נשבע מן הכבוש אם דרכם לקרות כבוש לכל הכבושים הרי זה אסור בכל ואם אין דרכם לקרות כבוש אלא לירק כבוש בלבד אינו אסור אלא בכבוש של ירק וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
4
If some of the people would refer to food with one term and others would not use that term, we do not follow [the practice of] the majority. Instead, it is considered an unresolved question with regard to his vow. And whenever there is an unresolved question with regard to a vow, we rule stringently.5 If one violates the vow, however, he is not worthy of lashes.6
ד
היו מקצת בני המקום קורין לו כך ומקצתם אין קורין אין הולכין אחר הרוב אלא הרי זה ספק נדרים וכל ספק נדרים להחמיר ואם עבר אינו לוקה:
5
What is implied? A person takes a vow [not to partake] of oil in a place where both olive oil and sesame seed oil is used. When most people from that place use the term "oil" without any modifier, they mean olive oil. When they refer to sesame seed oil, they call it "sesame seed oil." A minority of the populace, however, also refer to sesame seed oil with the term "oil" without a modifier. [Hence,] he is forbidden to partake of both of them, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] sesame seed oil. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ה
כיצד נדר מן השמן במקום שמסתפקין בשמן זית ובשמן שומשמין ורוב אנשי המקום אין קורין שמן סתם אלא לשמן זית וקורין לשמן שומשמין שמן שומשמין ומיעוטם קורין אף לשמן שומשמין שמן סתם הרי זה אסור בשניהם ואינו לוקה על שמן שומשמין וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
6
Whenever an agent in a given locale would have to question [the principal if that was his intent], it is considered in the category of the substance that was mentioned to the agent when [the term is mentioned] without a modifier.
What is implied? In a place where if a person would send an agent to buy meat without using a modifier to describe the term, the agent would tell him: "I found only fish [being sold],"7 [a person who took a vow not to partake of meat] is forbidden to partake of fish as well.8 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
In all places, a person who takes a vow [not to partake] of meat is forbidden to partake of fowl and of the entrails,9 but is permitted to partake of grasshoppers.10 If it appears that at the time he took the vow, his intent was only to forbid meat from an animal - or meat from an animal and fowl - he is permitted [to partake] of fish even in a place where an agent would question [if fish would be considered as meat].11
ו
כל דבר שדרך שליח באותו מקום להמלך עליו הרי הוא בכלל המין שנאמר לשליח סתם כיצד מקום שדרכן אם ישלח אדם שליח לקנות לו בשר סתם אמר לו לא מצאתי אלא דגים אם נשבע או נדר במקום זה מן הבשר נאסר אף בבשר דגים וכן כל כיוצא בזה ובכ"מ הנודר מן הבשר אסור בבשר עופות ובקרבים ומותר בחגבים ואם מראין הדברים בעת שנדר שלא נתכוון אלא בבשר בהמה בלבד [או לבשר עוף ובהמה בלבד] הרי זה מותר בבשר דגים ואפילו במקום שהשליח נמלך עליהן:
7
When a person takes a vow against partaking of cooked food, he is permitted to partake of an egg that has not been cooked until it hardens, but has merely been soft-boiled.12 When a person takes a vow [not to partake of food] boiled lightly in a pot,13 he is only forbidden [to partake] of those foods that are boiled in a pot, e.g., groats, dumplings, and the like.14 If he forbade himself from partaking of anything placed in a pot, he is forbidden to partake of all food cooked in a pot.
ז
הנודר מן המבושל מותר בביצה שלא נתבשלה עד שקפתה אלא נתגלגלה בלבד הנודר ממעשה קדרה אינו אסור אלא מדברים שמרתיחין אותן בקדרה כגון ריפות ולביבות וכיוצא בהן אסר עצמו מכל היורד לקדרה הרי זה אסור בכל המתבשלין בקדרה:
8
A person who vows [not to partake] of fish is permitted to partake of brine and a dip made with fish oil.15 A person who vows [not to partake] of milk is permitted to partake of the whey, i.e., the liquid that is separated from the milk. If he vows [not to partake] of whey, he is permitted to partake of milk. If he vows [not to partake] of cheese, he is forbidden to partake of both salted cheese and unsalted cheese.16
ח
הנודר מן הדגים מותר בציר ובמורייס של דגים הנודר מן החלב מותר בקום והוא המים המובדלין מן החלב נדר מן הקום מותר בחלב נדר מן הגבינה אסור בה בין מלוחה בין תפלה:
9
A person who vows not to partake of grains of wheat is forbidden to partake of wheat kernels whether they are fresh or cooked. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste,"17 he is forbidden to partake of either flour or bread. "I will not taste wheat," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, but permitted to chew kernels of wheat. If he states: "I will not partake of grains of wheat," he is permitted to partake of baked goods, but forbidden to chew kernels of wheat. If he says: "Neither wheat, nor grains of wheat will I taste," he is forbidden to partake of baked goods, nor may he chew kernels of wheat. When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of grain, he is forbidden only [to partake of] the five species.18
ט
הנודר מן החטים אסור בהן בין חיין בין מבושלין חטה חטים שאני טועם אסור בהן בין קמח בין פת חטה שאני טועם אסור באפוי ומותר לכוס חטים שאני טועם מותר באפוי ואסור לכוס חטה חטים שאני טועם אסור בין באפוי בין לכוס והנודר מן הדגן או מן התבואה אינו אסור אלא בחמשת המינין:
10
When a person takes a vow [not to partake of] green vegetables, he is permitted to partake of squash.19 If he takes a vow [not to partake of] leek, he is permitted to partake of the poret.20
If a person takes a vow [not to partake of] cabbage, he is forbidden to partake of the water cooked with cabbage, for the water in which food is cooked is considered as the food itself.21 If, however, he vowed not to partake of the water in which a food is cooked, he may partake of the cooked food itself.22
A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] sauce is permitted [to partake of] the spices. [One who takes a vow not to partake] of the spices is permitted [to partake of] the sauce. One who takes a vow [not to partake of] groats23 is forbidden [to partake of] the thick sauce produced by the groats.24
י
הנודר מן הירק מותר בדלועין הנודר בכרישין מותר בקפלוטות הנודר מן הכרוב אסור במים שנתבשל בו הכרוב שהרי מי שלקות כשלקות נדר ממי השלקות מותר בשלקות עצמן הנודר מן הרוטב מותר בתבלין שבו מן התבלין מותר ברוטב הנודר מן הגריסין אסור במקפה של גריסין:
11
A person who takes a vow [not to partake of] the produce of the earth is forbidden to partake of all the produce of the earth,25 but is permitted [to partake of] fungi and mushrooms.26 If he says: "Everything that grows upon the earth is [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of even fungi and mushrooms. [The rationale is that] although they do not derive their nurture from the earth, they grow upon the earth.
יא
הנודר מן פירות הארץ אסור בכל פירות הארץ ומותר בכמהין ופטריות ואם אמר כל גידולי קרקע עלי אסור אף בכמהין ופטריות אף על פי שאינן יונקין מן הקרקע גדלין הן בקרקע:
12
When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the produce of a particular year, he is forbidden to partake of all the produce of that year. He is, however, permitted to partake of kid-goats, lambs, milk, eggs, and, chicks.27 If, however, he said: "All of the products of a given year are [forbidden] to me," he is forbidden to partake of all of them.28
When a person takes a vow forbidding himself from partaking of the fruits of the kayitz, he is forbidden only to partake of figs.29
יב
הנודר מפירות השנה אסור בכל פירות השנה ומותר בגדיים ובטלאים ובחלב ובביצים ובגוזלות ואם אמר כל גדולי שנה עלי אסור בכולם הנודר מפירות הקיץ אין אסור אלא בתאנים:
13
In all of the above - and in analogous instances - follow this general principle: With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken.30 Based on this principle, one should rule and say: "The person who took the vow is forbidden [to benefit from] these entities and permitted [to benefit from] these entities."
יג
ובכל הדברים האלו כיוצא בהן הזהר בעיקר הגדול שהוא בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם שבאותו מקום באותו לשון ובאותו זמן ועל פי עיקר זה תורה ותאמר זה הנודר אסור בדבר פלוני ומותר בדבר פלוני:
14
When a person takes a vow [not to partake of grapes], he is permitted to partake of wine, even fresh wine.31 [If he takes a vow not to partake] of olives, he is permitted to partake of oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of dates, he is permitted to partake of date-honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of grapes that blossom in the fall,32 he is permitted to partake of vinegar that is produced from them.33
If he takes a vow not to partake] of wine, he is permitted to partake of apple wine. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of oil, he is permitted to partake of sesame seed oil. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of honey,34 he is permitted to partake of date honey. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vinegar, he is permitted to partake of vinegar produced from grapes that blossom in the fall. [If he takes a vow not to partake] of vegetables, he is permitted to partake of vegetables that grow on their own.35 [The rationale for all of these rulings is] that [the names of] all these substances have a modifier36 and [when] the person took the vow, he referred to the substance without a modifier. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
יד
הנודר מן הענבים מותר ביין ואפילו החדש מן הזיתים מותר בשמן מן התמרים מותר בדבש תמרים מן הסתוניות מותר בחומץ סתוניות מן היין מותר ביין תפוחים מן השמן מותר בשמן שומשמין מן הדבש מותר בדבש תמרים מן החומץ מותר בחומץ סתוניות מן הירק מותר בירקות שדה מפני שכל אלו שם לווי הם והוא לא נדר אלא משם שאינו לווי באותו מקום וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
15
When a person takes a vow not to wear clothing, he is permitted [to cover himself] with sackcloth,37 a coarsely woven thick fabric,38 a thick sheet used as a rainshield.39
[When a person takes a vow not to enter] a house, he is forbidden to enter its loft. For the loft is part of the house. [If he] takes a vow [not to enter] a loft, he is permitted [to enter] the home.
[When a person takes a vow not to] use a dargeish,40 he is permitted [to use] a bed. [If he takes a vow not to use] a bed, he is forbidden to use a dargeish, because it is like a small bed.
טו
הנודר מן הכסות מותר בשק וביריעה ובחמילה מן הבית אסור בעליה שהעליה בכלל הבית נדר מן העליה מותר בבית מן הדרגש מותר במטה מן המטה אסור בדרגש שהוא כמו מטה קטנה:
16
When a person takes a vow not to enter a particular house, he is forbidden to enter from the doorframe onward. When one takes a vow not to enter a particular city, he is permitted to enter its Sabbath limits.41 He is, however, forbidding to enter its outlying areas.42
טז
הנודר שלא יכנס לבית זה הרי זה אסור מן האגף ולפנים נדר שלא יכנס לעיר זו מותר להכנס לתחומה ואסור להכנס לעיבורה:
17
When a person takes a vow not to benefit from the residents of a city and a person comes and lives there for twelve months, it is forbidden for the person who took the vow to benefit from him.43 If he stays for a lesser time, it is permitted.
If he takes a vow from those who dwell in a city, he is forbidden to benefit from anyone who dwells there for 30 days. He is permitted to benefit from one who dwells there for a lesser period.44
יז
הנודר הנייה מבני העיר ובא אדם ונשתהה שם שנים עשר חדש הרי זה אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מכאן מותר נדר מיושבי העיר כל ששהה שם שלשים יום אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מכן מותר:
18
When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the water that flows from this-and-this spring, he is forbidden [to benefit] from all the rivers that derive nurture from it. Needless to say, this refers to those that flow directly from it. Although the name [of the body of water] has changed and it is now called "the So-and-So River" or "the So-and-So well," and we do not associate it at all with the name of the spring concerning which a vow was taken, since it is the source for these bodies of water, he is forbidden to benefit from all of them. If, however, a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from this-and-this river or spring, he is only forbidden [to benefit] from those rivers called by that name.
יח
הנודר מן המים הנמשכין ממעין פלוני אסור בכל הנהרות היונקות ממנו ואין צריך לומר הנמשכות אע"פ שנשתנה שמם ואין קורין אותן אלא נהר פלוני ובאר פלוני ואין מלוין אותן לשם המעין הנדור הואיל והוא עיקרן אסור בכל אבל אם נדר מנהר פלוני או ממעין פלוני אין אסור אלא בכל הנהרות הנקראות על שמו:
19
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from sea-farers,45 he is permitted [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land. When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who dwell on the land, he is forbidden [to benefit] from sea-farers even though they set out to the Mediterranean Sea. For sea-farers are considered as among those who dwell on land.46
When he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who see the sun, he is forbidden to benefit from the blind.47 For his intent was those who are seen by the sun. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who are dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from men who are bald and grey-haired48 and permitted to benefit from women49 and children.50 If it customary to refer to all people as dark-haired, he is forbidden to benefit from everyone.
יט
הנודר מיורדי הים מותר ביושבי היבשה מיושבי היבשה אסור ביורדי הים אף על פי שהן מפרשים באמצע הים הגדול שיורדי הים בכלל יושבי היבשה נדר מרואי חמה אסור בסומין שלא נתכוון זה אלא ממי שהחמה רואה אותו נדר משחורי הראש אסור בקרחים ובעלי שיבות ומותר בנשים ובקטנים ואם דרכן לקרות שחורי הראש לכל אסור בכל:
20
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who rest on the Sabbath, he is forbidden [to benefit] from Jews and Samaritans.51 One who takes a vow not [to benefit] from those who make pilgrimages to Jerusalem is forbidden to benefit from the Jews and permitted to benefit from Samaritans. For his intent was to include only those for whom it is a mitzvah to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.52
When one takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Noah, he is permitted to benefit from the Jews.53 For the term "descendants of Noah" is used only to refer to members of other nations.
כ
נדר משובתי שבת אסור בישראל ובכותיים נדר מעולי ירושלים אסור בישראל ומותר בכותיים שלא נתכוון זה אלא למי שמצוה עליו לעלות לירושלים והנודר מבני נח מותר בישראל שאין נקראים בני נח אלא שאר האומות:
21
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the descendants of Abraham, he is permitted [to benefit] from the descendants of Yishmael and the descendants of Esau.54 He is forbidden to benefit only from the Jews,55 as [indicated by Genesis 21:12]: "Through Isaac, your offspring will be called."56 And Isaac told Jacob [ibid. 28:4]: "And I will give you the blessing of Abraham."57
כא
נדר מזרע אברהם מותר בבני ישמעאל ובני עשו ואינו אסור אלא בישראל שנאמר כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע והרי יצחק אמר ליעקב ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם:
22
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from uncircumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles,58 but is permitted [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews. If he takes a vow not [to benefit] from circumcised individuals, he is forbidden [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews, but is permitted [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles.
[The rationale is that] the foreskin is identified with the gentiles, as [Jeremiah 9:25] states: "For all the gentiles are uncircumcised. His intent is only to refer to those who are commanded concerning the circumcision and not to those who were not commanded concerning it.
כב
נדר מן הערלים אסור במולי עכו"ם ומותר בערלי ישראל נדר מן המולים אסור בערלי ישראל ומותר במולי עכו"ם שאין הערלה קרוייה אלא לשם עכו"ם שנאמר כי כל הגוים ערלים ואין כוונתו של זה אלא למי שהוא מצווה על המילה ולא למי שאינו מצווה עליה:
23
When a person takes a vow not [to benefit] from the Jewish people, he is forbidden [to benefit] from converts. [When a person takes a vow not to benefit] from converts, he is permitted [to benefit] from natural born Jews. When he takes a vow [not to benefit] from Israelites, he is forbidden [to benefit] from priests and Levites.59 [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests and the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from an Israelite. [When he vows not to benefit] from the priests, he is permitted to benefit from the Levites.60 [When he vows not to benefit] from the Levites, he is permitted to benefit from the priests. [When he vows not to benefit] from his sons, he is permitted to benefit from his grandchildren.61In all these and analogous matters, the laws regarding those who take a vow and an oath are the same.
כג
הנודר מישראל אסור בגרים מן הגרים מותר בישראל הנודר מישראל אסור בכהנים ולוים מן הכהנים ומן הלוים מותר בישראל הנודר מן הכהנים מותר בלוים מהלוים מותר בכהנים הנודר מבניו מותר בבני בניו ובכל הדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן דין הנודר והנשבע אחד הוא:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam's rationale is that since everything depends on the person's intent, it is logical to assume that the meaning of his statements follows the usage common at that time and place. See also Halachah 13.
One might ask: If so, why in the halachot that follow does the Rambam set out guidelines with regard to vows. The Radbaz (in his gloss to Halachah 13) explains that these guidelines should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.
2.
I.e., boiled without spices (Rav Avraham MinHaHar).
3.
Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.
4.
Although the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:3) follows the Rambam's approach.
5.
Since there is a possibility that a prohibition is involved, we must rule stringently.
6.
For corporal punishment is inflicted only when we are certain that a prohibition has been violated.
7.
I.e., he is not certain whether the principal's intent when telling him to buy meat was to buy fish or not.
8.
For in that locale, it is possible that it is referred to as "meat."
9.
For they are generally referred to as meat.
10.
For they are not. In the present age, this principle also applies to fish. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:8) goes further and states that even fowl is not usually implied by the term "meat."
11.
The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling is not entirely identical with that of his source (Nedarim 54a). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:1), the Rambam explains this difficulty, stating that the meanings of terms used today are different than the meanings used for the same terms in the Talmudic period.
12.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:1).
13.
This is the implication of the Hebrew term used by the Rambam [Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 217)].
14.
E.g., porridge (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also Hilchot Berachot 3:4 which discusses these terms.
15.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:3).
16.
In the Talmudic and Rabbinic era, most hard cheeses were salted to preserve them.
17.
The term chittim is plural, implying many kernels of grain. Chitah is singular, referring not to a single kernel, but rather to a single entity made from wheat flour (Rabbenu Nissim, as cited by the Kessef Mishneh).
18.
I.e., wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Other grains, e.g., rice and millet, are not included.
19.
For in Talmudic terminology, the term green vegetable refers to vegetables that are eaten raw and squash must be cooked.
20.
These two species of vegetables are similar, but not identical. Therefore, the Rambam feels it necessary to make this clarification. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:7), he uses the same Arabic term to define the two species but explains that the latter is more commonly grown in Eretz Yisrael.
21.
For through the cooking process, it takes on the flavor of the food (see Berachot 39a; Hilchot Berachot 8:4). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:8), the Rambam maintains that this is the meaning of the first clause of that mishnah. Rashi and others, while accepting this principle, interpret that clause differently.
22.
For there is obviously a difference between the food and the liquid in which it was cooked.
23.
I.e., ground beans (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
24.
For it has the flavor of the groats.
25.
Not only vegetables, but fruit as well [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:23)].
26.
Our Rabbis explain that the terms refer to species that have little botanical difference between them. The first term refers to those mushrooms which grow on the earth and the second, to those which grow in trees. The rationale is that, as the Rambam states, these fungi do not have roots. Thus they do not derive their nurture from the earth, but from the atmosphere (see Nedarim 55b; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:4).
27.
The Hebrew word peirot can also be interpreted as: "benefit accruing from." Thus these entities could be included in the term. Nevertheless, since this is not the popular usage, they are not included.
28.
The Siftei Cohen 217:31 explains that this applies only when it is possible for a person to abide by this prohibition. If, however, the vow prevents him from eating enough to maintain his wellbeing, it is nullified.
29.
The term kayitz has a specific meaning "fruit harvested by hand," rather than cut from the tree with a knife. Therefore, it refers to the fig harvest alone (Nedarim 61b).
30.
As stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz explains that the only reason the Rambam mentioned all the principles in the above and following halachot is to clarify the guidelines set forth by our Sages. They should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.
31.
Even though the wine tastes the same as grapes, since it is called by a different name, it is not considered in the same category (Siftei Cohen 216:27). This principle is reflected in all the rulings of this halachah: As long as an entity has a different name, even if its flavor is the same as another entity and even their substance is fundamentally the same, they are considered as different entities with regard to vows.
32.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:6) explains that these grapes are not fit to be eaten and instead, are used to produce vinegar.
33.
The substances produced by the fruit are considered as being different from the fruit itself.
34.
Although the Torah uses the term honey to refer to date-honey, in common usage, everyone understands the term as referring to bee honey (Siftei Cohen 217:22).
35.
The Siftei Cohen 217:15 states that in the present age, people do not make such a distinction when referring to these vegetables.
36.
I.e., they are not referred to by the name of the substance as it is used without a modifier.
37.
This term refers to a weave from goat's hair (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:3).
38.
This translation is taken from the above source.
39.
This translation is also taken from the above source. The rationale is that none of these fabrics are considered as garments.
40.
A small bed that is placed before a larger bed to use as a stepstool for the larger bed (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:4).
41.
The area 2000 cubits around the city. See Hilchot Shabbat 27:1-2.
In other contexts, this area - and indeed, even further removed places - are considered as part of a city. With regard to vows, this is not the case, for we follow the terminology people commonly used (Siftei Cohen 217:35).
42.
This term refers to homes that are located within 70 cubits of each other on the perimeter of the city. As long as they are within that distance of another home, they are considered as part of the city itself (Hilchot Shabbat 28:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim, loc. cit.).
Nedarim 56b derives these concepts from the exegesis of Biblical verses. Joshua 5:13 states: "And while Joshua was in Jericho" and describes an event that took place while the Jews were camp on the outer reaches of the city. And when speaking about measuring the area 2000 cubits around a city, Numbers 35:5 speaks of measuring "outside the city."
43.
Note the parallel to Hilchot Shechenim 6:5 which states that a person who lives in a city for twelve months becomes obligated to pay all the city's levies.
44.
See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 217:32) and the Siftei Cohen 217:37 who emphasizes that if the common terminology used at present is different, the laws are dependent on the current usages.
45.
This term refers to people who set out on extended journeys, not on short jaunts.
46.
For they do not remain on an ocean journey forever and ultimately, return home.
47.
Even though they cannot see the sun.
48.
For this term is generally used to refer to men, even if they do not have dark hair.
49.
For they are referred to as being "covered-haired" (Rabbeinu Nissim).
50.
For they are referred to as being "uncovered-haired" (ibid.).
51.
This term refers to the people brought by the Assyrians to settle in Samaria after they exiled the Ten Tribes. At first, they converted and observed the rudiments of Judaism. Afterwards, however, they became like gentiles entirely.
52.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:8), the Rambam explains that the Samaritans despise Jerusalem and make their pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim instead. The Merkevat HaMishnah explains that since the Samaritans are converts, they do not have a right to a portion in Eretz Yisrael. Hence they are not obligated to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:15).
53.
Although the Jews are also of Noah's descendants, they are not popularly referred to with that term.
54.
Although actually, both of these nations descended from Abraham, Yishmael being Abraham's son and Esau, Isaac's.
55.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 217:40) states that this includes converts.
56.
Thus excluding Yishmael and his descendants.
57.
Thus excluding Esau and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:11), the Rambam adds another point. In the covenant God made with Abraham bein habetarim, he was told that his descendants would be "strangers in a foreign land" and only Jacob's descendants - not those of Esau or Yishmael - were subjected to this decree.
58.
This includes both gentiles who circumcise themselves for health reasons and those - like the Arabs - who circumcise themselves for religious reasons. The rationale is that the majority of gentiles and uncircumcised and the person made his statements with the intent of referring to the majority. See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Nedarim, loc. cit.
59.
For when the term Israelite is used, it refers to the entire Jewish people as a collective. As Yoma 66a states: "Are not the priests part of Your nation Israel?"
60.
Even though in the Torah, the priests are identified as Levites at times (Deuteronomy 17:9, et al), we follow the wording used by people at large (Radbaz).
61.
Although Yevamot 62b states that grandchildren are considered as children, that is not the meaning employed by people at large (Radbaz).
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Monday, Tevet 28, 5778 · 15 January 2018
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Tevet 28*, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Va'eira, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Now we can understand (p. 61)..."Be righteous." (p. 63).
The published version of Sefer Hachakira (Derech Emuna) of the Tzemach Tzedek lacks many glosses. He composed it in connection with his trips to Petersburg where he had to answer many questions on those subjects.1
FOOTNOTES
*. This day marks the birth, in 5640 (1880) of Rebbetzin Chana of blessed memory, mother of the Rebbe of righteous memory.
1. See "The Tzemach Tzedek and the Haskalah Movement," Kehot.
RELATED VIDEO: Reflections on Today's Hayom Yom
Daily Thought:
Going Over (2)
The way the world works is that you first try to work through an obstacle by its own rules. If that doesn’t work, then you gather the strength and courage to step brazenly over it.
Forget the way the world works. Instead, just start by stepping right over it, as though there were no obstacle to begin with.
After all, that’s why obstacles are there in the first place—so you will go higher.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment