File size: 31,620 Bytes
9c1d1c6 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 |
{
"language": "en",
"title": "Minchat Chinukh",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
"versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
"versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
"actualLanguage": "en",
"languageFamilyName": "english",
"isBaseText": false,
"isSource": false,
"direction": "ltr",
"heTitle": "מנחת חינוך",
"categories": [
"Halakhah",
"Sifrei Mitzvot"
],
"text": {
"Introduction": [],
"": [
[
[
"1. Laws of the Mitzvah etc. - [For reference, see] the Talmud - Yevamos 62, the Rambam - Laws of Marriage, Chapter 15, and the Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer Seif (chapter) 1. The time of the mitzvah [i.e. when one is obligated] is from the age of 18, and one who proceeds [i.e. fulfills earlier than 18] is praiseworthy. [For reference] in regards to being involved in Torah studies [i.e. as potentially delaying one's fulfillment of the mitzvah] see in the aforementioned Rambam and the Maggid Mishnah [on the Rambam]. It is not necessary [to detail the laws regarding] the matter that is explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and Later Sages (Acharonim); however, there are some ideas and opinions to note with the help of Hashem."
],
[
"How many children [does one have and become exempt] etc. - It is explained in the Gemara, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch that it is necessary that there is to him a male and female [to fulfill the mitzvah, i.e. two children, one son and one daughter.] (Additionally,) there cannot be to him a sterile (saris) male nor an underdeveloped (ailonis) female because it necessary that (the children one fulfills the mitzvah with) be able to have children (themselves). If there is to him a Tumtum and a son or a daughter [that is one child of definite sex and one who is a Tumtom], we do not say [the following reasoning to say one fulfills the mitzvah]: (Firstly,) since a Tumtum is a safek [possibility] (that is possibly male or female, creating a potential fulfilment of the mitzvah with the other sibling who is of definite gender) as explained [regarding the Tumtum status as a safek/possible male possible female] in the Gemara here (Yevamos) 62a and the Rambam Laws of Marriage, Chapter 2 Law 25, and (secondly,) the Rambam's opinion, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse Chapter 18 Law 17 and Laws of Defilement of a Corpse Chapter 9 Law 12, that a possibility on a Torah (obligation or infraction) is treated leniently from a Torah perspective. [Ed. to illustrate regarding a negative command (Parenthetically it is a dispute if the Rambam says this regarding a positive command like in our case of procreation or just by a negative command which the cases cited discuss), the Rambam states in the Laws of Forbidden Intercourse (cited in the Minchas Chinuch) that if a girl is held captive, and the question was if she was defiled, which would disallow a marriage into the Kahuna (Priesthood). The Rambam states we are lenient regarding testimony, that is we accept testimony that usually would not suffice in other legal cases, because the whole issue is only Divrei Sofrim (i.e. an early Rabbinical enactment, which in this case is to be sure of a Torah infraction not just depend on a possibility that there is no issue) while from the letter of the Torah law, we would say since it is possible she was not defiled then she would be permitted.] If so, it is perhaps [to the Rambam] to him a male and female [despite one being a Tumtom], and he has fulfilled the command (per the reasoning mentioned, that 1) Tumtum is a Safek 2) Per the Rambam, a Safek is enough to fulfill one's obligation at least on a Torah level). This is not so [as stated]. Because a Tumtum is not able to have children, nor even to have intimacy because of (their genitalia) are blocked (or hidden). See Tosafos Yevamos 62a titled \"From the Outside\" that even when the balls appear from the outside, (therefore this Tumtum) is certainly male; nonetheless, it is not able to have intimacy at all, so the father (of this Tumtum plus in this case a definite female daughter or in any other case a Tumtum as stated above) has not fulfilled the command out of certainty, not just out of doubt. If one fathers an Androganus (Hermaphodite) and a son or a daughter, and an Androganus has to it both qualities of male and female [both genitalia etc.] as explained by the Rambam - Laws of Marriage Chapter 2 Law 24. [Ed. there are four stances of the Rishonim regarding the status of an Androganus - the Minchas Chinuch will analyze according to each if one of the children (of the two required) one has is an Androganus will one fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.] (Opinion 1.) The opinion of the Rambam is that in all matters the Androganus is treated as a safek (doubt), see Laws of Avodah Zarah Chapter 12 Law 4. Nonetheless, the opinion of the Rambam, Laws of Levirate Marriage Chapter 6 Law 2, is that an Androganus is not able to have children. This is also the opinion of the Rif there, end of Chapter 1. If so, there certainly one has not fulfilled the mitzvah because (the Androgynous child) is unable to have children. (Opinion 2.) Even to the opinion of the Ri (Tosafos) and the Rosh (in) Yevamos 82b and 83a in the sugya (discussion) thereof an Androganus that (the Gemara) decides legally (per these Rishonim) that an Androganus is a certain male [which is, of course, better vis-a-vis regarding legally fulfilling the mitzvah of procreation that requires a male and female than if the child was only doubtful male/doubtful female] nonetheless they are unable to have children (per this opinion) as explained in the Bais Yosef in the Tur, Even HaEzer Siman 172 Titled \"And that which was written, However\", and (the Bais Yosef) argues on the Tur that says the opinion of the Ri and Rosh is that an Androganus is a certain male, [meaning in a case of levirate marriage they would need to] do chalitzah or yibum, though (in fact) they would exempt from chalitzah or yibum [ed. the two ways to release the levirate bond that comes about if a married brother dies childless] because they are unable to have children [i.e. irregardless that they would be a brother because they are considered a certain male to this opinion]. See there (in the Bais Yosef). However (despite the Bais Yosef's explanation) from the words of Tosafos Yevamos 82b Titled \"We Taught (in the Mishnah\" it is clear that an Androganus is able to have children. [Ed. prior to discussing the ramifications of opinion 2 if one says that the Androganus is a certain male and can have children, he brings another source that discusses the issue prior as a matter of reference.] See the Noda B'Yehudah, Mahadura Tenina (first edition) Even HaEzer Siman 1 that deals with this distinction [if or if not per this opinion can the Androganus have children], and he brings the words of Tosafos; furthermore, see there what he brings from particular sefer [Chasdei Dovid, Bochorim Chapter 2, Titled \"Androganus\"] who dissects the matter. If so that (an Androganus) is able to have children, per this opinion that (an Androganus) is a certain male then legally he is like a complete son [and therefore in addition to a daughter would fulfill the mitzvah of his father]. And to the opinion that the Androganus is a safek (case of doubt) [Ed. Opinion 1] - if one also says they have children as these matters"
]
],
[],
[
[
"\"The laws of the mitzvah...\" The laws of the Gid Hanashe [the sciatic nerve] are explained in the Shulchan Aruch [Code of Jewish Law], and it is not my method to expound on them, but with G-d's help I will bring remarks from other books or what HaShem Yitborach has favored me with, and I will write a bit about the laws of Gid Hanashe. We observe the laws of Gid Hanashe with domesticated animals and kosher wild animals, even among improperly slaughtered animals and sick animals which may not be eaten. If a domesticated or wild animals Kaf Hayerech [the protruding end of the thigh] is elongated instead of round this is difficult and not simple in the Talmud; shall we decide the question according to this particular animal and not prohibit its Gid, or according to its species and prohibit it? Likewise, what about a bird whose thigh is shaped like that of an animal? This is also difficult, and the solution in light of the doubt is that we prohibit it, but we do not punish someone (with lashes) for eating it, as is explained in Maimonides' Mishne Torah. Two nerves on the inner thigh are forbidden at a Torah level and one at the Rabbinic level, both on the right and on the left sides. We only observe the prohibition for kosher domestic and wild animals, but not non-kosher ones, which is like the opinion in the Gemarra of Rebbe Shimon who concludes from the part of the pasuk that reads \"[the Children of Israel] do not eat...,\" those animals whose meat is permitted are subject to the prohibition of Gid HaNasheh, while those whose meat is prohibited are not subject to it. It is also said in the name of the RASHB'A that the Gid HaNashe is prohibited in human flesh because he follows the opinion that human flesh is permitted at a Torah level! This position is discussed in the Maggid Mishna [commentary on Maimonides], but according to Maimonides and others who say that human flesh is prohibited at a Torah level as a positive commandment, then the meat is prohibited and the Gid prohibition does not apply. Should you ask what difference does it make whether human flesh is prohibited by negative or positive commandment as long as it is prohibited at a Torah level, in my humble opinion and the book Sha'ar haMelech, Maimonides and many others think that nerves do not transmit flavor, therefore one must say that according to that opinion, one who eats only the Gid HaNashe from a non-kosher animal is totally exempt because he the pasuk in the Torah states that the Gid prohibition only applies to kosher animals and he is exempt from the prohibition of eating non-kosher animals because the gid does not transmit flavor (ie, it isn't really food). One who eats nerves and bones is exempt only from the Gid prohibition because even though these are not really food because the Torah prohibits it, but Maimonides writes that one who eats Gid HaNashe from an improperly slaughtered or sickly animal or of an Olah sacrifice (all of which is brought on the altar and not eaten) is liable twice, once for the Gid and once for the broader prohibition of eating prohibited food. Many are surprised in the name of the RASHB'A because if the Gid is not really food but a person is liable according to the language of the pasuk (which describes food that the Children of Israel \"eat,\" ie kosher food), then he can he be liable for these? It appears these positions in the Gemarra and Maimonides conflict. Perhaps one is exempt for non-kosher species of animals but liable for improperly slaughtered ones. This will be discussed in other works and described later herein."
]
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
[
"A person does not fulfill the commandment until the Torah is written in accordance with the laws of a Sefer Torah. If there is a disqualification, even a missing or extra letter, then a person does not fulfill this mitzvah, for it is not a Sefer Torah at all. The gemara (Menachot 30a) asks, \"Could a Torah be missing a letter? It is written(Devarim 31:26), 'Take this Sefer Torah'!\" The Rambam (Hilchot Tefillin, Mezuzahv'Sefer Torah 7:11) lists disqualifications and says, \"It does not have the status of a Sefer Torah, only as a chumash from which they teach children.\" The Ran (Megilah) also writes that a person does not fulfill the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah with [a Torah that is] missing a letter. According to this, we cannot fulfill the mitzvah, for the gemara (Kiddushin 30)explains that previous generations were expert in which letters to exclude and which to include, but we are not expert. Therefore, we who are not expert might include a letter in a word that should be written without it, or the reverse, and consequently we would not fulfill the mitzvah [of writing a Torah] at all. The Shaagat Aryeh (36) has already suggested that we might be exempt from this mitzvah today because we are not expert in missing and extra letters. We can suggest that we are expert in the four chapters of the tefillin, for if this were not so, then we could not fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin. We must say that since tefillin area constant mitzvah and only include four paragraphs, we did not forget how to write it. As to the entire Torah, we are not expert. Nonetheless, this remains difficult; writing a Torah is also a mitzvah, so how could people have failed to set their hearts against forgetting it?... How could the proper writing of the Torah have been forgotten in the days of the Amoraim [recorders of the gemara]? In my humble opinion, the explanation is that there are two types of missing or extra letters. One type involves a missing or extra letter which changes the meaning of the word, or has the potential to change the meaning, like the examples cited in the gemara (Sanhedrin 4a)... According to theone who says that we translate based on the word as it is written, a word which has an extra letter or is missing a letter changes the message of G-d, for many laws will be altered from their true status. Even according to the opinion that we translate based on the word as it is pronounced, so that should law does not change [based upon our incorrect writing], the Torah must still be written as it was given. Therefore, when a Torah is missing a letter, since the Torah was given to us to be written thus and not the way the word is pronounced [this change will disqualify the Sefer Torah]… However, other missing or extra letters do not change the meaning of the word… Certainly, the first type of letters [i.e. the letters that would change the meaning of a word] were not forgotten… but the missing or extra letters that would not change the meaning or cause harm by their absence or inclusion were not known… and these letters, which do not change anything, do not harm this mitzvah and a person fulfills entirely the mitzvah to write a Torah with this act of writing… G-d forbid that the Jewish people could not fulfill a biblical mitzvah for many generations."
]
]
],
"Positive Commandments according to Nahmanides": [],
"Negative Commandments accoding to Nahmanides": [],
"Corrections From the Son of the Author": [],
"Comment from Rabbi Israel Parnes": [],
"Kometz Mincha": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Mitzvah #237. And it seems to me that if one ends their own life with full knowledge and awareness of what they are doing, and someone else can save them, it's possible that they are not obligated in the prohibition of \"don't stand idly by the blood of your neighbor\" and for the positive commandment of \"and you shall reserve [their property] to them\" which comes to include returning one's \"self\" (lit. body) to them, for the obligation of returning a lost object does not apply in a case where someone loses their money intentionally / with negligence, as it's explained in Shulchan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 261. This prohibition is not cautioned against, as the Talmud challenges in Sanhedrin 73a: Why do we learn to rescue someone who is drowning in a river from \"do not stand idly by?\" Rather, we learn it from \"you shall return it to him.\" This suggests that \"you shall return it to him\" includes returning one's body/life to them. One cansay the practical difference between these is with a case of someone who ends their life with full intention and awareness, that one is not obligated to \"return their life to them,\" as they are not obligated to return their money to them. If so, you must say that the Torah wrote this prohibition of \"don't stand idly by the blood of your neighbor,\" even though this too one is not obligated [in this case]. So it seems clear to me."
]
],
"Minchat Anee": []
},
"schema": {
"heTitle": "מנחת חינוך",
"enTitle": "Minchat Chinukh",
"key": "Minchat Chinukh",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
"enTitle": "Introduction"
},
{
"heTitle": "",
"enTitle": ""
},
{
"heTitle": "מצוות עשה שמנה הרמב\"ן",
"enTitle": "Positive Commandments according to Nahmanides"
},
{
"heTitle": "מצוות לא תעשה שמנה הרמב\"ן",
"enTitle": "Negative Commandments accoding to Nahmanides"
},
{
"heTitle": "הגהות בן הגאון המחבר ז\"ל",
"enTitle": "Corrections From the Son of the Author"
},
{
"heTitle": "הערה מאת הר' ישראל פרנס, מו\"ץ בטרנופול",
"enTitle": "Comment from Rabbi Israel Parnes"
},
{
"heTitle": "קומץ מנחה",
"enTitle": "Kometz Mincha"
},
{
"heTitle": "מנחת עני",
"enTitle": "Minchat Anee"
}
]
}
} |