Hugging Face's logo

Sefaria
/
database_export

Model card Files Community
10
database_export / json /Halakhah /Sifrei Mitzvot /Minchat Chinukh /English /Sefaria Community Translation.json
noahsantacruz's picture
noahsantacruz
961296e4da69bd47d5ea74c8d40edea2a49412ff39ddd326fdea883f3e24e1cd
9c1d1c6 verified
raw
history blame
31.6 kB
{
"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"
}
]
}
}