diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Tur/Tur/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Tur/Tur/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Halakhah/Tur/Tur/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,1599 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Tur",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "טור",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": [
+                [
+                    "Judah ben Tema says: \"Be as strong as a leopard and as swift as an eagle; fleet as a gazelle and mighty as a lion, to perform the will of your Father in Heaven.\" He specified four things concerning the service of the Creator, may He be blessed. And he began with ‘strong as a leopard’ because it is an important general principle in the service of the Creator, may He be blessed, since sometimes a person desires to perform a mitzvah but is prevented from performing it because of people who mock him. Therefore, he cautioned that you should have fortitude against the mockers and not refrain from performing the mitzvah. And thus said Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai to his students: “May it be your will that the fear of heaven be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood.” And so he says concerning the subject of shame, that sometimes a person is ashamed before a person more than he is ashamed before the Creator, may He be blessed. Therefore he warned that you should have fortitude against the mockers and not be ashamed. So too did David, peace be upon him, say “I will speak of your decrees in the presence of kings and not be ashamed,” though he was pursued and he fled among the nations, he had taken strength in his Torah and learned, though they had mocked him. And he said ‘as light as an eagle’ corresponding to the eye’s vision, and compared it to an eagle because just as the eagle soars through the air, so too does the eyes’ vision, meaning that you should shut your eyes from seeing evil, for it is the beginning of transgression, for the eye sees, the heart covets and the person's limbs complete the act. And he said ‘as strong as a lion’ corresponding to the heart, for the might of service of the Creator, may he be blessed, is in the heart, and he stated that you should strengthen your heart for His service. He stated ‘run like a gazelle’ corresponding to the legs, for your legs shall run toward the good. So too would David the king, peace be upon him, pray for the three of them, but he changed the sequence, “Lead me in the path of your commandments” about legs. Following that he said “Turn my heart to your decrees.” And after that he said “Avert my eyes from seeing falsehood.” Concerning the heart he mentioned ‘turn,’ whereas concerning the eye, ‘avert,’ for the heart is in his power to turn toward the good path or the evil one, even after he has seen an evil action. Thus he prayed that he should help him to turn to the good path. But (avoiding) seeing an evil action is not in his power, for it is possible that it will come upon him suddenly, and he will see it. Thus he prayed that he avert his eyes from seeing falsehood, so he would not invite it before him at all. Thus a person needs strengthen himself as a lion to stand in the morning for the service of his Creator, even if his evil impulse taunts him in winter, saying ‘How can you get up in the morning when the cold is so great?’ or taunts him in summer, saying ‘How can you get up from your bed when you have not had enough sleep?’ he should strengthen himself to rise, for you should awaken the dawn, but it should not awaken you, as David, peace be on him, stated “Awake, my soul, awake, harp and lyre; I will awaken the dawn,” ‘I awaken the dawn, but the dawn does not awaken me.’ So much the more so had he awakened prior to the morning light to rise and offer supplications before his Creator, how great His beauty, and how good. And it is good that one who begins early should aim for the hours when the guard shifts change, which are at a third of the night, and at the end of two thirds of the night and at the end of the night, for at these times does the Holy One, blessed be He, recall the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of Israel among the nations, and the prayer which a person offers at that hour for the destruction and the dispersion is propitious and close to acceptance. His supplication shall fall before God whether drawn out or cut short, it is only that he should orient his heart toward heaven in his supplications, for better a little with intention than increasing them out without intention. It is well to say the section of the Akedah and the section of the manna, and the Ten Commandments and the section of the sacrifices, namely the section of the burnt offering and the meal offering and the offering of well being and the sin offering and the guilt offering. Of course it is preferable to say the section of the sacrifices during the day, for they are in place of the offering of the sacrifice, whose time is during the day. When he concludes the section of the burnt offering, he shall say ‘Master of the universe, may it be your will that this be considered and accepted before you as if I had offered a burnt sacrifice in its time. So too shall he say after the section of the meal offering and the offering of well being and the guilt offering. But after the section of the sin offering, he shall not so say, since it does not come freely. And if he is not able to rise early, prior to morning light, in any case he designates the time of the prayer which he is designates for all of life, and should not tarry. And he should well consider in his heart, if he had been in the service of a flesh and blood king who commanded him to rise early at the morning light to his service, he would have taken care and rushed to arise for the service which he commanded him, so much the more so, all the more and all the more so much the more so  before the King of kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "2.\tHe should hasten to arise vigorously, and should not dress seated, but rather should take his garment and insert his head and arms through it while still laying down, and as a result when he arises he is covered, as Rabbi Yose used to adorn himself: ‘The walls of my house have never seen the edge of my garment.’ And he should not say ‘I am in my innermost room; who is aware of me and who sees me?’ for the holy one blessed is he, his glory fills the whole world; any darkness before him is as light. And he should be painstaking with his garment, putting it on in its proper way, not reversing the inside out, as (evidenced) in (tractate) Shabbat, (in) the chapter (entitled) ‘Which are tied?:’  Rabbi Yohanan said ‘Who is a sage’s student? One who is painstaking in his garment in reversing it to its proper way.’ And when he dons his shoes, he should put on the right first, but not tie it, and subsequently put on the left and tie it, then return to tie the right, for Rabbi Yohanan stated: ‘As tefillin, so too shoes. Just as tefillin are on the left, so too he puts on the left shoe first. Yet it is taught in a baraita: One puts on the right first. Therefore, in order to fulfill both of them, he puts on the right first and ties the left first. He should arise and walk in a stooped posture, as is (evidenced) in the first chapter of (tractate) Kiddushin: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated: ‘It is prohibited to walk with an upright posture, as \"His glory fills the land\" is written. And he should cover his head as is (evidenced) there too: Rav Huna would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head, saying ‘God’s presence is above my head.’ And he should inspect his orifices, as Rabbi Yohanan stated: ‘One who wishes to accept the complete yoke of the heavenly kingdom should relieve himself, wash his hands, put on tefillin and engage in the recitation of the Shema and pray."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "3.\tAnd upon his entrance to the bathroom he should say ‘May the honored and holy ones who accompany the most high be esteemed! Guard me, guard me, help me, help me, wait for me until I enter and exit, for such is the way of human beings,’  and so should he say every time that he enters. He should be modest in the bathroom and not uncover himself until he sits. And he should clean out his anus and then sit. He should uncover two handbreadths before him and one handbreadth behind him. And a woman: a handbreadth behind her and nothing at all before her. And when he sits he should orient himself so that he faces to the south with his behind to the north, but should not sit between the east and west.  However, this is specifically where he relieves himself in an open area, but in a place in which there are barriers, such as a bathroom which is in a house, he need not be so exacting. And when he relieves himself in a field: If he is behind a fence, he may relieve himself immediately. But in a valley he must distance himself until such point where his associate is not able to see him uncovered. And he should not force himself to push too much. He should wipe with the left hand, and not with the right.  And he should not wipe with a clay shard because of sorcery, nor with dry grass, nor with the piece of leather with which his companion wiped. He should relieve himself modestly at night in the same manner that he does during the day. He should not urinate standing, so that the drops not drip on his feet and he appear like a eunuch, resulting in slander about his children, except where he can stand in a high place or will urinate into overturned soil. He should take care concerning the prohibition not to take hold of the member and urinate, except from the crown down to the ground side, even if he is married, and should not make his needs wait."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "4.\tHe should wash his hands clean and recite the blessing ‘Blessed are you, Lord our God, king of the universe, who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning hand washing.’ He should be exacting in pouring over them three times on account of the evil spirit alighting upon the hands prior to washing, which is not vitiated until he has poured over them three times. Therefore, he needs to refrain from touching with his hand, prior to washing, to the mouth, to the nose, and to the ears and to the eyes, on account of the evil spirit alighting upon them. But if he has no water, he should wipe his hands with a stone chip or with any type of wiping implement and recite the blessing ‘concerning the cleaning of the hands.’"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "5.\tHe should truly intend in the words of his blessings the meaning of the words which come out of his mouth. And concerning his mentioning the name, he should truly intend the meaning of his recitation of the letters aleph daled as the terminology of lordship for He is the Lord over all. He should further truly intend the meaning of his writing ‘yud hay’ as the terminology of being, that He was and is and shall be. And upon mentioning ‘Elohim,’ he should truly intend that He is mighty and firm,  as he possesses capacity over the upper and the lower (realms), for 'El' is the terminology of power and domination, as in \"He carried away the gods (elim) of the land.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "6.\tHe should recite the blessing \"He who created...empty cavities (hallulim hallulim)\" But he should not say ‘empty cavities’ (hal’lim hal’lim) as an allusion to the subject of ‘empty cavities’ (hallulim hallulim) which counts 248, like the sum of a person’s parts. (See in chapter 6 of Oholot, where he enumerates all 248 of a person's parts.) It is impossible to exist, as it is (stated) in tractate Niddah: ‘The entire time that an infant is in its mother’s womb, its navel is open and its mouth is closed; when it emerges into the world’s air, the closed opens and the open closes, for where it not so, it is impossible to endure. It is a wonder to create such as is (stated) in the midrash: ‘For you are great, creating wonders: A person is like a water skin full of air; should a person make a perforation in a water skin the size of a needle point, the air comes out. Yet a person is full of openings, yet his spirit is kept within him, which is ‘performing wonders.’ But if he goes immediately to the synagogue and wishes to delay reciting ‘concerning hand washing’ and until he comes to the synagogue, when he will put them in order with the rest of the blessings, he has the authority. Indeed, if he should immediately recite the blessing ‘concerning hand washing’ and ‘He who created,’ there are those who say that he needs to say immediately after it ‘The soul, my God’ until ‘Blessed are you, Lord, who returns souls to lifeless bodies,’ since it is in tandem with the blessing ‘He who created,’ and subsequently does not open with ‘Blessed.’ But there are those who say that he does not need to say (it) immediately after it; the reason that it does not open with ‘Blessed’ because it is a thanksgiving blessing, like the rain blessing, which does not open with ‘Blessed.’ This is logical, for it is proven in (tractate) Brakhot, in the chapter (entitled) ‘One who sees,’  which says ‘When he awakens from his sleep, let him say ‘The soul, my God;’ later it says thus: ‘When he washes his hands let him say ‘concerning hand washing.’’ Thus did Rambam order them, may his memory be a blessing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "The entire day, when he performs his needs, there are those who say that for urination, he recites the blessing ‘He who created,’ and for bowel movements ‘concerning hand washing.’ And there are those who say whether bowel movements or urination he recites the ‘concerning hand washing’ blessing and ‘He who created,’ for since he needs to say ‘He who created,’ which is a subject of holiness, he needs to recite the blessing ‘concerning hand washing.’  All the more so if he wishes to study after bowel movements, for he needs to say ‘concerning hand washing.’ My master, my father the Rosh, may the memory of his righteousness be a blessing, would not recite the blessing even for bowel movements, only ‘He who created,’ even when he wished to study, if it was not when he performed his needs and wiped or urinated and wiped himself off, and would pray immediately after it. Then he would recite the blessing ‘concerning hand washing.’ And this is his language, which he wrote in response to a question: “If he performed his needs and wiped or the it was the minors who wiped off, and wishes to pray, he should rinse his hands and recite the blessing ‘concerning hand washing.’ But the entire day when he performs his needs, or urinates, even if he wishes to study, he need not recite the blessing ‘concerning hand washing,’ but rather ‘He who created.’"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "Immediately after hand washing he should wrap himself in tzitzit while standing. The geonim explained the order of wrapping as being like that of the Ishmaelites, which is complete wrapping. The master of the Ittur wrote that we do not require such an extent, but rather like the way people who wear coverings and engage in their work; sometimes with a covered head and sometimes with an uncovered head. The manner of wrapping: its width is a man’s height. He places two tzitzit before him and two tzitzit behind him, so that he is surrounded with mitzvot, and he covers his head in order that he not be of uncovered head. He should recite the blessing ‘to be wrapped in tzitzit.’ It is called a tzitzit on account of the threads which separate from it, as is written \"He took me by the tzitzit on my head.\"  Accordingly, he needs to separate them one from another. He should truly intend with his wrapping that God commanded him to wrap in order that he be reminded to perform all of His commandments. He should examine the tzitzit prior to this that they be complete, for if one of them had been ruined, it is a vain blessing. And should he wish to wrap himself immediately upon arising in order that he not walk four cubits without a tzitzit or where he has a tzitzit on his garment, he is able to don it immediately without a blessing and when he washes his hands he should clutch the tzitzit and recite the blessing ‘to wrap in a tzitzit.’ Or, if he should wrap himself afterward in another tallit, he should recite the blessing over it and intend to also exempt that which he has already put on. If he has many garments of four corners, they are all subject to tzitzit. If he wears them simultaneously, one blessing is sufficient for them. If he makes a division between them, he needs to recite a blessing on every single one. Therefore, one who is accustomed to wrapping in the synagogue in a large tallit needs to recite a blessing over it, even though he recited a blessing over the smaller tallit which he had already put on. If he removed his tallit, and did not have it in mind to put it on immediately, when he goes back and puts it on he needs to recite a blessing. But if he had it in mind to put it on immediately, such as where he removed it in order to go into the bathroom, in such a case I am in doubt as to whether he needs to recite a blessing, for there is a basis for interpreting either way, for it is possible to say that since we have derived all of the instruction (concerning tzitzit) from tefillin, and for tefillin, every time that one handles them, he recites a blessing, meaning if they moved from their position and he handles them to return them to their position, if so, all the more so here should he recite a blessing. However it is possible to say that it is different there (in the case of tefillin), for they moved from their position and he did not know that they were not in their position. But if he moved them from their position knowingly to return them immediately, there too he would not need to recite a blessing; my opinion inclines to this. One who sleeps in his tallit at night does not need to recite a blessing on it in the morning."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "9.\tAll types of garments are under the obligation of tzitzit, and tzitzit of wool or flax fulfill (the obligation) for all types. But the rest of the types (of garments,) such as those of silk or cotton, do not fulfill the obligation unless the tzitzit will be of the tallit’s type. The Rambam wrote that it is required to make the tzitzit the color of the wool: if it is red, the tzitzit should be made red, and if it is green, the tzitzit should be made green. And Rashi explained similarly, but Ri explained that it is not required. In The Small Book of Mitzvot, he wrote, “However it is correct to take care not to make flaxen tzitzit with that of silk. Even though the Geonim and Rabbeinu Tam forbid making even tzitzit of flax on a tallit of flax, Rabbeinu Shlomo and Rav Alfas permitted, and with this did my master, my father the Rosh, his memory be pious and a blessing, agreed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "A tallit which does not have four corners is exempt (from tzitzit). One which has more than four corners is obligated and one makes four tzitzit for it on four of its corners. If it has four and he cut one diagonally, making it two, or lifts its corners and sews them in such a way that no corner remains on it, it is not thereby exempted. That of a cloth whose corners are of hide is obligated. That of a hide whose corners are of cloth is exempt. If it had three corners and he made them three tzitzit, and then went back and made it a fourth corner, and also made it a tzitzit, it is invalid. If it was square and he folded it: The Rambam, may his memory be a blessing, wrote: One does not place its tzitzit on its corners when folded, unless he sewed it all, even from one direction. But from the language of my teacher, my father the Rosh, his memory be a blessing, it seems that it is obligated even if he did not sew it at all. If it had four tzitzit on its four corners and he made it another later and cut the former, the latter are kosher. The Rambam, his memory be a blessing, wrote: Placing tzitzit on tzitzit: if it was intended to nullify the former, he cuts the former and it is kosher, but if it was intended to add, even if he cut one of the two of them, it is disqualified. And my teacher, my father, the Rosh, his memory be a blessing, did not differ."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "11.\tThe mitzvah of tzitzit in the time when teheilet existed: Its mitzvah was to take two doubled threads of dyed wool and two doubled threads of white wool or of flax, which would be spun for the purpose of tzitzit; had they not been spun for that purpose, they are unusable. And it is required that they be interwoven. Their length, doubled, should be three hand breadths of four fingers, with the thumb in each hand breadth. And if he wishes to add to its length he may add. One of the threads should be of longer length in order that he may wrap the fringe in it. Had he made it from thorns, meaning from the threads which are hanging on a sheet like a kind of thorn, which one customarily cuts off, or from threads, meaning the threads which extrude from the garment to sew, or from the threads which extrude from the edge of the garment, it is unusable. Had he made it from stolen wool, it is unusable. One who bows down to a beast, its wool is unusable for tzitzit, but one who bows down to planted flax, it is fit for tzitzit. He should make a perforation in the tallit within three fingers of the corner, lengthwise, and a distance from the corner in the measure from the thumb knuckle to the end of the nail. That which fills and above, up to three fingers from the corner, is the place for tzitzit. And had the distance from the corner been the space occupied by the thumb knuckle, and he severed it from the woof threads to the point where there did not remain the measure from the corner, it is fit for use. In any case, it is well to make a hem on the edge of the cloth so that he not sever it. Within the width of the garment there is no set measure, only that he should not put it on the threads that one makes on the edge of the garment. Ba’al haItur wrote that there is no upward measure; if he desires he may add as he wishes. The Ri explained that he may add up to eight doubled, which are sixteen, but no more. He should cut off the ends of the threads and insert them into the corner piece and double them over, at which point their length should be twelve fingers, which is the set length of tzitzit. He should take four threads from one side and four from the other side and tie two times one atop the other. Next, he should wrap the long thread around the seven. In the time when the teheilet existed, he was required to take great care with the wrapping, making seven sections as they are described in the gemara. At the present, when we do not have teheilet, one does not make it of mixed species, but rather of wool and wool, or flax and flax. There is also no need to take great care concerning the sections. Rambam, may his memory be a blessing, wrote: Our practice is to wrap the sections in it in the same manner which one wraps in teheilet. My master, my father, the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, would not take such great care. The Ba’al haItur wrote that nowadays one does not need to take such great care concerning wrapping, and even if he wrapped the majority of it or only wrapped one section in it, it is fit for use; rather, the essence of its mitzvah is that he should wrap until the wrapping with the knot the width of a thumb. He ties two times and goes back and wraps; thus should he do until he completes five knots with four wrappings between them. The entire wrapping should be a hand breadth in width and the remainder two hand breadths. Further, there are other customs concerning its making, but that which I have written is the essence. He should be careful to cut the ends of the threads, making them eight prior to wrapping, for if he wrapped them and afterward cut the ends of the threads, it is unusable. But if he inserted them into the corner and subsequently cut them, it is usable; it is only that he should cut them before wrapping."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "12.\tIf he cut short all of its threads, yet there remains enough of them for looping, it is fit for use, provided that he leave enough that he can loop them all together, for this is more than enough looping for each one alone. Rashi explained that we require enough for looping from the corner piece. The Ri explained even if the entire corner piece is cut off and only enough remains for looping from the fringe, it is fit for use. If there does not remain enough of them for looping even one thread, where it was cut entirely, it is unusable. Therefore, when every one is doubled in two, if he cut short the ends of two, it is unusable, lest one thread be cut. But if the end of one was cut, it is fit for use. There are those who says that if three threads were cut short, it is unusable, even if there remained enough of them for looping, but if two were cut short, it is fit for use if there remains enough for looping. Accordingly, even if two ends were cut short, it is fit for use if they have enough for looping, up to the point where they cut three. My teacher, my father, the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, agreed with the first line of reasoning."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "13.\tThe four tzitzit impede one another, so that the entire time that all four are not present, it is not fringed according to its legal prescription, and one who goes out into the public domain on Shabbat is liable for a sin offering. But if it has all four, it is permissible to go out into the public domain in it, even though nowadays we do not have the teheilet."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "14.\tIf a non–Jew made it, it is unusable. But a woman is fit to make it. One who borrows a tallit from his associate is exempt from affixing tzitzit to the entire thirty days; after thirty days, he is obligated. It is a question he is obligated to recite a blessing over it’s tzitzit immediately. There are those who say that he does not recite a blessing over it until after thirty days; it is unclear to my teacher, my father, the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing. Making use of his associate’s tallit without his knowledge and reciting a blessing over it: There are those who say that it is permissible, for it does well for a person to fulfill a mitzvah with his property; it is only that he should fold it if he found it folded. A jointly held tallit is liable for tzitzit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "15.\tIt is permissible to remove tzitzit from one tallit and place them on another, but he cannot take the corner piece as is, with the tzitzit, and sew it onto another garment. Had he hung the threads between two corner pieces and tied one corner piece according to its legal prescription, and the other corner piece according to its legal prescription, and subsequently cut it in the middle and separated one from the other, it is unusable. Had the tallit been torn within three fingers of the corner piece, he does not have the authority to sew it; outside three fingers, he can sew it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "16.\tThe measurement by which a tallit is made liable for tzitzit: Any in which a minor of nine years of age is able to cover his head and the majority (of his body) in it, and an adult is not ashamed to go out and about in it in the market place. But if the minor’s head and the majority (of his body) is not covered in it, even though an adult goes out and about in it in the market place, it is exempt."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "17.\tA blind man is obligated for tzitzit, but women and slaves are exempt. Hermaphrodites and androgynous persons are obligated out of doubt. Rambam wrote: “They wrap themselves without a blessing.” He goes on, according to his method, explaining that women cannot recite a blessing over something for which they are exempt. But Rabbenu Tam wrote that they may recite a blessing, even though they are exempt, but it is better that they not recite a blessing. A minor who knows how to wrap himself: His father is required to buy tzitzit for him, to teach him."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "18.\tNight is not the time for tzitzit. There are those who say that anything which he wears at night is exempt, even if it is particular to the day, and what he wears during the day is liable even if it is particular to the night. And so wrote Rambam: It is permissible to wear tzitzit at night; it is only that he should not recite a blessing. So from what time does he recite a blessing over it in the morning? From (the time) when he can recognize (the difference) between the teheilet which is in it and the white which is in it. And my teacher, my father, may his memory be a blessing, explained that this limits only that covering particular to the night, for it is exempt even if he wears it during the day, whereas covering particular to the day or to (both) day and night is liable even if he wears it at night, and should recite a blessing over it. Sheets: Even though a person sleeps in them in the morning, the essence of their use is at night, and night covering is out of dignity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "19.\tThe obligation of tzitzit is only for a tallit which he desires to wear, but what he does not wish to wear is exempt. Therefore, he does not recite a blessing over its making ‘who sanctified us with his mitzvot and commanded us to make tzitzit,’ for the only mitzvah for its making is that of its wearing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "20.\tOne who purchases a fringed tallit from a Jew or from a non–Jewish trader, it is fit for use, but if he purchased it from a non–Jew who is not a trader, it is unusable. One does not sell a fringed tallit to a non–Jew."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "21.\tTzitzit do not have inherent sanctity, for their mitzvah is in their use, and it is possible to throw them away or enter the bathroom in them. And it seems that even if he is currently engaged with their mitzvah it is permissible to have sexual relations in them. But in the Sheiltot, in the section (entitled) Shelah Lecha, he wrote that: \"It is prohibited for Jews to use things that were made to fulfill the obligation of a mitzvah, such as the threads affixed to a tallit to tie some trifle. Alternatively, a hoshana for its scent, or to eat an etrog, whose mitzvah is to eat it, which we derive from blood, for the scripture stated \"Pour out...and cover:\" With the thing you used to pour you shall cover it. For one should not cover with his feet, in order that mitzvot not be thereby degraded. For it is specifically the use of the mitzvah; for after we have used them we may dispose of them.” Yet it is possible to differ, as it is not akin to blood, for it is different in that case, when he covers with the foot he performs the mitzvah in a degrading fashion, which is not the case here. So too did the Rambam, may his memory be a blessing, wrote: \"It is permissible to enter a bathroom in tzitzit, or a bath house; should his tzitzit be rent, he may throw them into the trash heap if he wishes. But it is well to be strict."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "22.\tOne who makes tzitzit for himself recites the ‘shehekhianu’ blessing. Upon wrapping himself in it, he recites the blessing ‘to wrap oneself in tzitzit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "23.\tOne who walks in the cemetery needs to lift his tzitzit, in order that it not be dragged through the cemetery, as it is in (tractate) Brakhot: Rabbi Hiya and Rabbi Yonatan were walking among graves; Rabbi Yonatan’s blue wool alighted upon graves. He said to him ‘Raise it, lest they say ‘Tomorrow they come among us, yet at present they revile us,’ meaning that it appears that he reviles that they are not able to uphold the mitzvot. Learn from this that it is permissible to walk in the cemetery in clothing which contains tzitzit, provided that he take care to raise them.’ And the master Rabbenu Yonah wrote: ‘Specifically in their days, when there were four corners on all their clothing, where it is impossible that he remove his clothing when he walks to the cemetery. But we, who do not intend them as clothing, but rather as a mitzvah, it is prohibited on account of ‘rebuking the poor.’"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "24.\tEven though a person is not obligated to purchase a four cornered tallit in order to obligate himself for tzitzit, precisely where he wishes to be covered with a tallit of four corners, he is liable to put tzitzit on it. In any case, it is well and right for every person to take care and hasten in regard to the mitzvah of tzitzit, that he will have a small fringed garment which he will wear all day, for the essence of its mitzvah is in remembering the mitzvot, and in every hour and in every moment he therefore requires a physical representation of the thing, like a person who cautions his fellow about one matter, where he ties a knot on his belt in order that he remember it. Accordingly, there are five knots, corresponding to the five books of the Torah, and four corner pieces, where for every side to which he turns, he will remember. And greater is the punishment at this time for one who nullifies than what the punishment was at the time when the teheilet was in existence, for at that time it was not so easy to find, and not every one was able to pursue it, which is not so now. Even one who is not able to wrap himself the entire day needs to take care with it at the time of prayer. The Ba’al HaItur wrote: \"As for those who gather up the tzitzit at the time of the recitation of the Shema and place (them) on the eyes, it is possible that they are accustomed to do so because of \"You shall see them,\" on account of them being under his garments. Great is the mitzvah of tzitzit, for it is weighed against all of the mitzvot, as \"You shall see it and you shall remember all the mitzvot of the Lord\" is written.  ‘Tzitzit’ adds up to six hundred, and eight threads and five knots are thirteen, which is six hundred and thirteen. Even though it is written lacking a ‘yud,’ he explains in the Tanhuma: \"Three times ‘tzitzit’ is written in the section concerning tzitzit, yet one of them is ‘l’tzitzit,’ whereby ‘l’ (thirty) is sufficient for all of them, and it fills out the counting.\"  Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Anyone who had taken care concerning the mitzvah of tzitzit is well accounted, and sees the face of the Shekhinah. Here \"You shall see it\" is written and elsewhere \"(The face) of the Lord your God (shall be seen),\" you shall see and Him shall you serve. Resh Lakish said:  Anyone who had taken care concerning the mitzvah of tzitzit is well accounted, for two thousand eight hundred servants shall attend him, as \"Ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold – they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak\" is stated. And of anyone who nullifies the mitzvah of tzitzit is said \"So that it seizes the corners of the earth, etc.\" \"At every moment, let your clothes be white,\" this is the mitzvah of tzitzit; \"and your head never lack ointment,\" this is the mitzvah of tefillin. Rabbi Eleazar ben Yakov says: One who has tefillin on his head and on his arm, and a mezuzah on his entrance and tzitzit on his garment is assured that he will not sin, as \"A threefold cord is not readily broken\" is stated. And it states: \"The angel of the Lord camps around those who fear Him and rescues them.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "25.\tAfter he has wrapped himself in tzitzit, he immediately puts on tefillin in order that they be present for him at the time of the recitation of the Shema and tefillah, for Rabbi Yohanan said: ‘One who wishes to accept the yoke of God’s sovereignty upon himself in toto should relieve himself, rinse his hands, put on tefillin and engage in the recitation of the Shema and tefillah.’ And Ulla said: ‘Anyone who engages in the recitation of the Shema without tefillin is as if he is giving false testimony against himself.’ Rabbi Hiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: ‘It is as if he brought a burnt offering without a meal offering; a sacrifice without libation.’ But if he relieved himself, rinsed his hands, put on tefillin and engaged in the recitation of the Shema and tefillah, it is as if he built an altar and brought all the sacrifices onto it, as \"I wash my hands in cleanness and walk about your altar, Lord\" is stated. And I observed of my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, that he would be punctilious about putting them on when going through the blessings, and would recite them one after the other until ‘Who crowns Israel in glory,’ and thereafter would put them on and recite the blessing ‘Who crowns Israel in glory,’ since the tefillin are called ‘glory,’ as \"Put on your headdress\" is stated, and are called tefillin, the terminology of pelilah, for they are a sign and witnesses for all we see, for the shekhinah alights upon us, as \"And all the peoples of the earth will see that the Lord’s name is proclaimed over you\" is written. We have expounded these are the head tefillin. He should have the intention when putting them on that God commanded us to insert these four sections (of the Torah) in which there are the unification of Your name and the Exodus from Egypt on the arm facing the heart, and on his head facing the brain, in order that he be reminded of the Exodus from Egypt on account of miracles and wonders which He performed on our behalf, for they instruct about His unity, that He is alone in His universe and is in possession of the power and the governance on high and below, to do with them according to His will. He should put on that of the hand first and recite the blessing ‘Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to put on tefillin,’ and afterward that of the head, reciting the blessing ‘Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of tefillin.’ Even though Rav Alfas ruled that one recites only one blessing over them both, namely ‘to put on,’ lest he should make a verbal interruption between them when he recites the blessing for the head, ‘concerning the mitzvah of tefillin.’ So too did Rashi and many of the commentators write. And my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, agreed that it is acceptable to recite two blessings, even with no interruption. But if he interrupted verbally, he goes back and recites the blessing over that of the head, ‘to put on,’ and also ‘concerning the mitzvah of tefillin.’ He recites the blessing over them from the moment that he begins to put them on until the moment that he fastens them on his head and on his arm. He should not interrupt between them to speak, even to answer ‘Amen, may His exalted name be sanctified,’ or the kedushah. If he spoke, it is a transgression accounted to him, and he needs to go back and recite the blessing as explained. I observed my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, that immediately after he tied that of the hand on his arm, he would situate that of the head before he would wrap the strap around his arm, for he would say “Since the second blessing is also effective for that of the hand.” And from this reason - one does not interrupt between them - it is advisable to diminish the interruption in any way possible. But the wrapping around the arm is not based on the mitzvah. Therefore, it is best to delay until after he puts on that of the head. And any time that he puts them on during the day, he recites a blessing. Even if they loosen from their place and he handles them to return them to their place, he needs to recite a blessing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "26.\tIf he has only the one, whether that of the head or that of the hand, he puts it on and recites the blessing over it, for every single mitzvah is for its own sake. And he recites a blessing on that of the hand alone, one, and on that of the head alone, two. Even if he has two, yet has any sort of thing preventing, where he is not able to put both of them on, such as where he needs to go out on the road and is not able to do them in tandem, he may put one of them on, for neither prevents the other."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "27.\tThe area of placement of that of the hand is on the left arm on the thickest part of the flesh, which is in the section between the forearm and the shoulder. He should incline it slightly to the right side, in order that when he bends his arm it will be facing his heart. There should not be anything interposed between them and his flesh. A left handed man: his ‘right’ hand places on his ‘left,’ which is everyone’s right.  The master Rabbi Yehiel of Paris explained it is specifically where he does all of his work with his left, but if he writes with his right, even though the rest of his work with his left, its ruling is like every person. One who is ambidextrous places on the left (like) every person. He should wrap the strap around his arm until he reaches the middle finger and wrap it around it three times. The area of the head tefillin is from the beginning of the roots of his forehead hair until the end of the area where the brain of an infant pulsates, which is the entire height of the head. It is required that the knot be behind the head above the lower edge of the skull, but not below the neck, for it should be truly facing the neck, aligned with the middle of the head, and should not incline toward the side of the face in this direction or that. And it is required that it be his ornament, that the place where it appears is the form of a dalet, on the exterior side and not on the ‘head’ side. He should also take care that the straps which wind around his head, that they not become reversed, in order that they be ornamental on the exterior, meaning the white is toward the hair, which is smoother, and the black color recognizable on the exterior. He should drape the straps so that they hang before him, reaching, on the right, until the navel and on the left until the breast. Some say that of the right side until the (site of the) circumcision and that of the left until the navel. The measure of their width is the length of a hair, but if he lessened or added, it does not abrogate."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "28.\tHe should handle them every hour. He should handle that of the hand first and afterward that of the head. When he removes them, he should remove that of the head first and put it in its bag, and afterward remove that of the hand and put it on top of them, so that when he comes to put them on, that of the hand will come out first and he can put it on."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "29.\tHe should not recite the blessing ‘Who sanctified us with his mitzvot and commanded us to keep his laws’ when he removes them, for the halakha is not according to the westerners, who would recite the blessing ‘to keep his laws’ at the time of their removal, for they hold that night is not the time for tefillin, and explain it ‘This institution shall be kept at its set time from day to day,’  for they explain ‘days’ but not nights. But we have established for ourselves that night is time for tefillin; therefore, one does not recite the blessing even when he removes them at night. Even on Shabbat eve at twilight, when one needs to remove them, one does not recite the blessing there, for he has to remove them at that time, it is not kept. We learn it, rather, because it is written of them “It shall be a sign on your hand,”  and Shabbat and Yom Tov do not require a sign; therefore, one does not recite a blessing at all. And I have seen written in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that he has permission if he wishes to recite a blessing. Yet I am amazed, for certainly where he is not obligated to recite a blessing, if he does so, it is a vain blessing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "30.\tThe time of their donning in the morning is from when he can see a colleague who is frequently with him a bit, at a distance of four cubits, and can recognize him. Despite the fact that we have established for ourselves that night is time for tefillin, nevertheless one does not instruct such. Such is the instance of where they were on his head when it darkness fell, that he does not need to remove them, but at the outset, one does not don them prior to this time. But if he needs to walk on the road, he can put them on before this time without a blessing, and when their time arrives, he should handle them and recite the blessing. And the Rav Peretz wrote: ‘Since we established for ourselves that night is the time for tefillin, it is only that one does not put them on at night on account of a decree, lest he sleep in them. One who wishes to go out on the road may put them on before their time and recite a blessing over them immediately.’  My lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, did not write so. If he should come onto the road with tefillin on his head, when the sun sets on him he should place his hand on them until he reaches his house. But if there is a house close to the wall where he stores them, he removes them and deposits them there. Had he been sitting in the Beit Midrash with tefillin on his head, and the day was meanwhile sanctified, he places his hand over them until he reaches his home."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "31.\tShabbat and Yom Tov are not the time for tefillin. There is cause to have doubts whether its intermediate non–sacred day is the time for tefillin and one puts them on without a blessing. But my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, would put them on and recite a blessing over them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "32.\tThe mitzvah of tefillin is that he should write the four sections, which are: ‘Consecrate to me every firstborn’ up to ‘At its set time from year to year.’  ‘And when he has brought you out’ up to ‘With a mighty hand the Lord freed us from Egypt.’  And the section of the Shema up to ‘And in your gates.’  And the section ‘If, then, you keep’ up to ‘Over the earth.’  Each and every one on its own parchment. He should write them boldly, and in an ink whose writing is astonishing, so that every single letter is surrounded by ornamented parchment as is appropriate, and not lacking even the tail of a yud. It is required that he write with his right, even if he is ambidextrous. And if he is left handed, his left hand is his ‘right.’ It is not necessary to make guidelines on every single line, but if he wishes to do so he has permission. But someone who does not know how to make a straight line, it is well for him to make guidelines to make the inscription straight. He should write on parchment which is manufactured for the purpose of tefillin, on the flesh side. Had he not written on the parchment, or had it not been manufactured for that purpose, or had he written on the hair side, it is unusable. If a gentile had manufactured it: The Rambam wrote that it is unusable, even if a Jew told him to make if for that purpose. And my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, considered it kosher if a Jew stands over him and said to him ‘Make it for the purpose of tefillin.’ The parchment may be of the hide of a domesticated animal, a wild animal or a ritually pure fowl, even from those of a carcass or a killed animal, but not from the hide of a ritually impure domesticated animal, wild animal or fowl, nor from a fish, even if it is ritually pure. It should be complete, where it should have no perforation, for the ink will not pass over it. But if after it was written, it was perforated inside the letter, it is kosher. Some say that even if its entire interior was perforated. In the Yerushalmi the meaning is that its interior also requires being surrounded by parchment. Therefore, if the entire interior is perforated, it is unusable. If the interior leg of a hay is perforated, even if all that remains of it is an infinitesimal part, it is kosher. If the right leg was perforated: If a full small letter remains, it is kosher, and if not, it is unusable. If one of the letters is cut off: If a child neither wise nor foolish knows how to read it, it is kosher, and if not, unusable. It is written in the Smak that if one drop of ink fell prior to the letter being finished, and the letter was not recognizable and afterward the ink was lifted up, or was not surrounded by parchment from the outset, it is unusable, because it is like engraving. But if it was already made according to its correction, and ink fell on it, he can lift it up. And my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, declared unusable also in this instance, and so did he write in Sefer Terumah.  He wrote further that if he made a resh in the form of a dalet, that he cannot scrape it off and correct it, for it is like engraving. Likewise, my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, wrote: In any case, an open letter whose opening attached itself and became closed, it is ineffectual to scrape off the adherence and to open it. But concerning an adherence between one letter and another, he wrote that it is permissible. At the beginning of the writing, he should say ‘I am writing for the sake of the sanctity of tefillin;’ it is not sufficient that he thinks so in his heart. In addition to this, he needs to write all of the instances of God’s name for the sake of the sanctification of the name. It is required to be punctilious about deficiencies and superfluities, for if he subtracted or added one letter to them, it is unusable, resulting in the one putting them on reciting a vain blessing each day, and is also living every day without the mitzvah of tefillin, resulting in great punishment for the scribe. Subsequently, one engaged in the writing of tefillin and their correction needs to be exceedingly God fearing and apprehensive about speaking God’s name, may he be blessed. After writing it, he shall read every single section well, with careful thought and precision, two and three times. He should go back and read it before he puts it into its casing. If he added one letter, it has a correction, for he may scrape it off. But if he omitted, it does not have a correction, for one does not revise tefillin, for if so, they would be written not according to their (proper) order, and they stated in the Mekhilta ‘Had he written them not according to their order, he should hide them away. He needs to take great care in the correction of the body of the letters, that no letter touches its neighbor. And if it touches, he should scrape it off and separate them one from the other. It is required that he write out of a written copy, and he should recite every single letter before he writes it. However, since the scribes are accustomed to these four sections, and they are fluent in them, they may write them by memory, not out of a written copy. And he wrote in the Smak that it is necessary to leave blank space above and blank space below sufficient for binding rings, which is half a fingernail. My lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, wrote that it is only necessary to leave blank space above sufficient for the lamed’s roof, and below in the measure of the length of the kaf and the nun. But at their beginning and at their end, it is not necessary to leave any at all. He should make equal lines, so that one should not be indented and another over the line ending, and he should not write three letters past the end of the line. He should make each of its sections open, which is where he leaves a blank space at the end of the line sufficient for three words of three letters, or at the beginning, except for the final section, which he should make closed. He should make four chambers from one skin, from the skin of a ritually pure domesticated animal, wild animal or fowl, even if from those of a carcass or one torn apart. The Rambam wrote that their manufacture need not be for this purpose. But my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, wrote that it is required that their manufacture be for this purpose, and so too wrote Rav Kohen Tzedek. In Sefer Haterumah (in some editions: Sefer Mitzvot), it is written that he can make them from parchment, for that is also called skin, or from an embryo skin, despite the fact that it is considered like flesh as concerns ritual impurity. They should be square and black. But if he made them in another color, they are kosher, but the essence of their mitzvah is to be black. A crevice should be recognizable between one chamber and another. Thus shall he make it: He shall take a wooden frame, which is totally square, whose diagonal length is equal in length and width. The measure is not explicit in the Talmud concerning the length and width of the chamber cube, but rather in the book \"Shimosha Rabba\" [a Gaonic text] it wrote that the four chambers need be two fingers by two fingers. This is customary only when he makes the length and the width of the chambers without measure, as well as their height. He carves three crevices in the frame whose depth is sufficient for the width of the sections, in order that the crevice reach between one chamber and another up to the area of the sewing. He takes thin hide from a ritually pure domesticated beast or wild animal, softening and boiling it in water, and placing it on the frame and forcing it into the crevices until it dries and hardens. While it is still wet, he makes the form of a shin protrude from the flaps of hide, one from its right and one from its left. That of its left is the right of one reading, meaning one standing opposite it shall make four crowns; that of its right, he shall make three crowns. After the hide has dried and hardened well on the frame, he removes the frame and it will remain in the form of four chambers. He should stretch the shins downward until it reaches the shin crevice, and its bottom until the area of the sewing. He shall place the length of the hide of the frame from one side and double it over on the chambers and sew it, with the hide remaining from the three sides of the chamber, crossing from every side; it is called titura.  With that hide, whose length he stretched from one side, he shall make the ma’abarata. How? He shall cut the ma’abarata from two sides, so that its width is not like that of the titura, in order that the cube of the titura be recognizable. Through that ma’abarata passes the strap, and on that account it is called a ma’abarata, for the strap passes through it from this side to that. And some take thick, strong hide, double it over into two, and cut the upper fold a square perforation, in accordance with the square of the chambers, and press the chambers into it. That thin hide of the chambers which remains he stretches from the four directions this way and that between two of the folds of thick hide and sews it with them; it is called a titura. From that thick hide, one also makes the ma’abarata. It is well to make it so, for on account of it being thick and strong the tefillin compartment will endure; he sews it and squares it off. Concerning the tefillin of the hand, he should make a single frame of wood whose length is like the width of the sections, and take thin hide from a ritually pure domesticated beast or wild animal, manufactured for that purpose, softening it and boiling it in water, and placing it on the frame until it is dried. Afterward, he removes the frame and the finished chamber remains, and he makes the titura and ma’abarata in the same manner he made that of the head. He should roll each section from its end to its beginning. He should wrap around every section the hair of a ritually pure domesticated animal. It is acceptable to wrap a small parchment around each section before one puts it into the chamber; it appears also in the book \"Shimosha Rabba\" [a Gaonic text] that was mentioned earlier. The Rambam declared it unusable if he wrapped parchment or a cover around it, but it did not appear so to my lord, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, to so disqualify them. He shall place every single section in a chamber so that it is upright, in the same manner that one stands a Torah scroll in an ark. But if he wrote all four sections on one parchment, they are kosher, even if there is no space between them. It is only that there should be thread or string between each and every chamber. As for that of the hand, he writes the four sections which he wrote for that of the head on one parchment, and rolls them from their end to their beginning, and wraps a hair on them and puts them in their chambers. But if he wrote them on four parchments and placed them in one chamber, he has fulfilled his obligation and does not need to join them together. If he plated the chambers with gold or made them from the hide of a ritually unfit domesticated animal, it is unusable. After he has placed them into the chambers he doubles over the hide whose length he placed on one side to make the titura and the ma’abarata as has been explained. After he has squared off the titura, its length like its width, he shall sew it with the sinew of a ritually pure animal with a square needle. He shall make three stitches on every side, so that there will be, all told, twelve stitches. The stitching thread should wind around from two directions. He shall cross over the stitching thread between each and every chamber. If the stitching breaks in three places, he needs to sew another time. Afterwards, he inserts the strap through the ma’abarata and makes a tefillin knot which will be the measure of the straps around his head. He should do so there, in the manner where it will sit in its place, as I have explained above. He should make it in the form of a dalet, and so too shall he do for that of the hand. He shall double over the hide to make the titura and the ma’abarata and make it square, its stitching and with its diagonal, with the number of threads three to each side, as with that of the head. He shall pass the strap through the ma’abarata and make a knot so that the strap passes through it to draw it together on his arm. At the end of the strap, at the knot, he should make a small knot in the form of a yud to complete the letters of shadai, with the shin which are on the chambers of the head and the dalet of the knot. Some cut the end of the strap at the knot in the form of a yud. It is customary to cover over the chamber of the hand over the thickness of the arm. One does so because the tefillin of the hand are high and narrow, and one puts its under the clothing and they move about under the clothing and become ruined; therefore, we are accustomed to pass the strap over them to strengthen them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "33.\tIf the hide of two of the compartments of the head casing, one next to the other, becomes ruined: If the tefillin are new, they are unusable; but if they are old, they are kosher the entire time that the hide covering the casing lasts. Which are new? The whole time that, had one pulled on them by the hide of the straps, the casing flattens and opens, it is called new. But any time that they do not open when one pulls on their hide, they are called old. Had two become ruined which were not one next to the other, such as the first and the third, they are kosher, even if they are new. Had three of the compartments become ruined, they are in any case unusable. The Rambam wrote likewise, on the topic of the stitching: had two of the stitches broken, one next to the other, or three, even if they were not one next to the other; in new ones they are unusable, in old ones they are kosher the entire time that their tying endures, meaning the hide of the compartments. The straps’ hide is required to be from the hide of a ritually pure domesticated beast, wild beast or fowl, and manufactured for that purpose, and should be black on the exterior, but may be any color save red on the interior. In Sefer Haterumah, he wrote that they must be blackened by a Jew for the purpose of tefillin, but not blackened by a gentile. The Rambam wrote that if he does not make the compartments black, he may make the straps the color of the compartments. If the strap which encircles the head or arm is broken, they do not have any repair, not by knotting, nor by sewing. But that which hangs from it, and that which he ties around the arm, knotting or sewing does not render them unusable"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "34.\tThe order of their placement in the compartments according to Rashi, “Consecrate” is on the left of the one placing, in the outer compartment. After it “And when He has brought you out” is in the second compartment. “Shema” is in the third compartment. And in the fourth compartment, which is the outer one on his right, “If then, you keep.”  According to Rabbenu Tam, the order is: “Consecrate” on the left, and after it in the second compartment, “And when he has brought you out.” In the third, “If then, you keep.” In the fourth, which is the outer one, “Shema.” An indicator of this is that they should be together, with the two shins, namely “Consecrate” and “Shema,” on the exterior next to the shins on the compartments.  So too is the order for that of the hand; the (one) master as he has it and the (other) master as he has it. However, even according to Rabbenu Tam, it is required to write them in the order that they are written in the Torah, which is “Consecrate,” “And when he brought you out,” “Shema,” and “If then, you keep,” as is taught:  If he wrote them not according to their order, he should hide it away, meaning not according to the order they are written in the Torah. Therefore, that of the hand, which is on one parchment, he should write “Consecrate,” “And when he brought you out,” and leave a blank space for the section “If then, you keep,” write Shema, and afterward write “If then, you keep,” for the order of placement in the compartments of that of the hand and that of the head are the same. Concerning this matter a dispute erupted among the Geonim; some of them holding according to Rashi’s words and some of them holding according to Rabbenu Tam’s words. My master, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, wrote that since the greats of the world were divided over it, with the tefillin of these rendering unusable the tefillin of those, as was taught: “He reversed their sections,” meaning that one who juxtaposes one compartment with another, they are unusable. The sages have stated that there is space on the head on which to place two tefillin, and so too the arm; therefore, a God fearing person fulfills the obligation of both of them, and should make two pairs of tefillin, and should put two of them on, and intend that putting them on acts accordingly like a mental corrective, making a legal statement about them that “I fulfill my obligation; the others are merely like straps.” There is no issue here of (transgressing) “You shall not add,” for it is only considered a case of “You shall not add” when he makes five compartments. But he should not place two pairs in one bag, for one of them is non-sacral and it is prohibited to put it in a tefillin bag. Rather, he should make two tefillin bags and make a mark on each one, in order that he not put this one in that one. So would my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, do, and his teacher, Rabbenu Meir of Rothenburg, may his memory be a blessing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "35.\tIt is customary in the counting of the lines, according to the kabbalah, to write that of the hand in seven lines for each and every section, and for that of the head four lines. But if he changed (this), he has not rendered it unusable. These are the line beginnings of that of the hand: Vaydaber, et hayom, yotzim, latet, chag, hahu, Torat. In the second section: V’haya, r’echem, v’seh, leymor, ki hikshah, beheymah, l’ot. The third: Shema, et, v’hayu, l’vavekha, uv’lekhtekha, yadekha, mezuzot. The fourth: V’haya, uv’khol nafsheyhem, v’akhalta, adonai bekhem, asher adonai, beyn eineykhem, beyteykha uvisharekha. These are the line beginnings of that of the head: Vaydaber, mizeh, hazot, yad. The second: V’haya, v’khol peter khamur, mimitzrayim mibeyt, kol peter rekhem haz’kharim. The third: Shema, nafshekhah, l’vavekha, al. The fourth: V’haya, eysev, lo titen, al beyneykhem."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "36.\tThese are the letters with who’s writing one must be exacting, for a person may easily err with them: The aleph requires one to be careful with the point above it, which is in the form of a yud which crowns it. So too all the letters need to be a single form. Subsequently, all of them need to touch, such as the point of a shin and of an ayin and that which follows the tzadi; one which is not so touching is rendered unacceptable, except for the leg of the hay and the kuf, which alone are not touching; if they are touching, they are rendered unacceptable. Bet: One needs to be careful with the crown of its back quarter, so that it does not appear like a kaf. It is required that it have a small crown on its top left side. Dalet: One must be careful of the crown on its rear quarter, so that it does not appear like a resh. Hay: It has a small crown above, at the end of its ‘roof’ on the left side, such as is (stated) in the chapter Hakometz: “What is the reason hay has a crown?” Rashi explained: “It has a small crown above, at the end of its ‘roof.’” But Rabbenu Tam explained that it is dealing with the extrusion of its rear quarter, so that it is not rounded behind it; it is well to act according to both of their words. Chet: In the chapter Hakometz: “a hump-like stroke on the roof of the chet.”  Rashi explained it is like the form of a staff, where the left side is in the form of a staff, like this.”  But Rabbenu Tam explained that there needs to be a raised part in the middle of its ‘roof,’ like this, from the term ‘camel’s hump.” One should take care not to lengthen the leg of the yud, so that it does not appear like a vav, and he should not shorten the leg of the vav, so that it does not appear like a yud. So too the leg of the zayin; he should not lengthen it, so that it does not appear like a simple nun; and he should not shorten the leg of the nun, so that it does not appear like a zayin. Rabbenu Tam explained that the yud requires that the left head be bent below like this, as it is in the chapter Hakometz: ‘For what reason is the head of the yud bent?’ In the Pesikta : The world to come was created through yud: just as a yud has one point below, an allusion to the dead who descend to gehinnom, and one above, an allusion to their future rising. Accordingly, the yud has a crown above and is also bent below. The tet: Rabbenu Tam used to say that its upper right side is bent down like this.  And the kaf, one should take care to round off its back side, so that it does not appear like a bet. The samekh needs to round off in three directions, so that it does not appear like a closed mem. And with any letter with which there is a doubt, we bring a young child, neither wise nor foolish; if he is able to read it, it is kosher.  Which are the letters that one needs to crown? Rava stated: You find the entire alphabet of crowned letters in the tefillin. And these are they: “Khatz vu shai l’ma’at” in the ‘Consecrate’ section; “b’far hazam dikakh koh tat” in the ‘And when He brought you out’ section; “shatnez gatz” in the Shema and ‘If then, you keep’ section.   And these are their explanations: Khatz: The khet and tzadee of ‘khametz’, khet, four crowns, tzadee five crowns. Us: of ‘v’hayevusi,’ three three crowns. The shin of ‘asher,’ five crowns; the yud of ‘li,’ three crowns. L’mah of ‘l’ma’an,’ four four crowns. Tav of Torat, three crowns. The bet of ‘yivee’akh’ah,’ per of peter, three three crowns. Hazam of ‘hazekherim,’ three three crowns. The akh of ‘yishalkhah,’ four four crowns. The dalet of ‘yad,’ the kuf of ‘hikshah,’ the khet of ‘l’shalkhaynu,’ khah of ‘yadkhah,’ three three crowns. The tat of ‘l’totafot,’ five five crowns. Shatnez gatz: The shah of ‘Shema,’ the tat of ‘l’totafot,’ the nun of ‘nafshekha,’ the zaz of ‘mezuzot,’ the gimel of ‘d’gankha,’ the tzadee of ‘ha’aretz,’ three three crowns. But he did not have to mention shatnez gatz among the other crowns, for all of them are major crowns, but shatnez gatz are minor crowns, and in every instance, they are the ones which require minor crowns. In the Shimusha Rabba, he disqualified (the parchment) if one of these crowns was lacking. But my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing, wrote ‘In our gemara, these crowns were not mentioned, and one should not at all consider disqualifying due to a lack of these crowns. And the Rambam did not write them in his composition but wrote others. This is his language: ‘One needs to take care with the crowns of the letters, which are like zions on the letters, like they are written in a Torah scroll. And which are those letters which are crowned in these four sections? The first section contains one, which is the closed mem of miyamim, upon which are three crowns. The second section contains five letters, all of them hays, and on every one of them are four zions: The hay of v’natnah, the first hay and the last hay of hikshah, the hay of vayaharog, and the hay of yadkhah. The third section contains five letters. Which are they? The kuf of uv’komekhah has three zions upon it, the kuf of ukshartam has three zions upon it. And totaffof totefet, every one of those three letters has four zions. The fourth section has five letters. And which are they? The pay of v’asafta has three zions upon it. The taf of v’asafta has one zion upon it. Totaf of totafot: each of the three of them has four zions. All the crowned letters are sixteen, but if he did not make the crowns, or added and scraped them off, he does not consider it unusable.’ His language ends here.  Therefore, it is well that he makes all of them, for it is not rendered unusable through a change, nor through addition nor through diminishment. And what are those lacking or superfluous (yuds) of which the Rambam wrote? The first section: kadesh li khol bekhor is full. Bekhozek is lacking. Hotzee is full. Yotzim is lacking a vav. Yeviakhah is full. V’ha’emori is lacking. V’hayevusi is full. La’avotekha is lacking a vav. Ha’avodah is lacking. Matzot is lacking. Hashevi’i is full. Matzot is full. Se’or is lacking. Gevulekha is lacking. Ba’avur is full. L’ot is full. U’lezikaron is full. Eineikha is full. Hotzee’akha is lacking a yud. Torat is full. Hakhukah is lacking. L’moadah is full. The second section: V’haya ki y’vi’akha is lacking. v’la’avotekha is lacking a vav. Khamor is lacking. Bekhor is full. B’khozek is lacking. Hotzee’anu is full, vav and yud. Vayaharog is lacking. Bekhor is full. Mibekhor is lacking. V’ad bakhor is full. Zove’akh is lacking. V’khol bekhor is full. L’ot is full. Yad’kha is written with a hay. U’letotafot is lacking the final vav. Eineikha is full. B’khozek is lacking. Hotzee’ani is full, vav and yud. Third section: Shema: the ayin of Shema is large. The dalet of ehad is large. Me’odekha is lacking. L’vanekha is full. B’veitekha is lacking the second yud. Uv’kumekha is a full yud. L’ot is full. Yadekha is lacking. L’totafot is lacking two yuds. Eineikha is full. Mezuzot is lacking the first vav. Beitekha is lacking the second yud. U’veeshareikha is full. The fourth section: V’haya im shamoa is lacking. Mitzvotai is with one vav. Yoreh is full. Umalkosh is full. V’tiroshkha is lacking a vav. V’hishtakhavitem is full. Hatovah is lacking. Notein is lacking. Otam is lacking. L’ot is lacking. L’totafot is lacking a second vav. Eineikhem is full. B’veiteikhah is is lacking the second yud. Uvkumeikhah is a full vav. Mezuzot is full. Beiteikha is lacking the second yud. Uveeshareikha is full. L’avoteikhem is lacking a vav. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees concerning the third letotafot, saying that it also lacks two vavs."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "<b>The laws of morning blessings</b>",
+                    "And after one puts on tefillin, one orders the blessings as they were established in Siddur haOlam(?) and and leads them(?). And this is even though the language of the Gemara says that one needs to say each blessing at its time [ie the time of doing the corresponding action]. For so our manuscript reads in Brachot 60b \"When one wakes, one should say 'My God,...' etc., until 'to lifeless bodies'; when one hears the crow of the cockerel, one should say 'Blessed are You  ... who gives understanding to the  <i>sechvi</i> [שכוי] to distinguish between day and night'\". And the heart is called <i>sechvi</i> [שכוי] in the language of Scripture, as it is written (Job 36:38) \"And who gives the heart understanding?\". [The heart, or, mind] is that which understands, and a person distinguishes by means of this understanding between day and night. And since the cockerel distinguishes, and also in Arabic (?) they call the cockerel <i>sechvi</i>, they established that this bracha should be said at the hearing of the cockerel's crow. \"When one dresses, one should say 'Blessed... who clothes the naked' ... when one places one's hand on one's eyes, one should say 'who makes the blind see' ... when one sits up straight one should say 'who frees the bound' ... when one rests [one's legs] on the ground one should say 'who spread the earth over the waters'.\" (Brachot 60b)"
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "All who are exempt from shma, e.g., those who are involved in a mitzvah or in the preparation for a mitzvah, are exempt from prayer.  In addition, replacement pall-bearers that are not immediately needed are exempt from prayer even though they are obligated in recitation of the shma.  Women and slaves are obligated in [prayer]."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Rava Papa said the Halacha is as follows. Items that come due to the meal, during the meal do not require a blessing, not before consumption or after. For example meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, cheese or a pounded grain dish. It is not necessary to compliment the bread with the item (as in a dip), rather if the dip/ complimenting food item is eaten alone, it does not require a blessing before hand, as the blessing on the bread exempts it. Further, one doesn't need to make an after blessing, as the after bread blessing exempts it. Items that are brought to the meal, not due to the meal like dates or grapes, and all species of fruits and items not brought due to the meal because they are not like meat, fish and cooked dishes that are generally brought as the essence of the meal, require a blessing, as the blessing on bread does not exempt them since they are not part of the essence of the meal. Further, these items are not exempt from an after blessing as the after blessing of bread only exempts that which is eaten in the meal. Explanation: everything that we have mentioned above regarding coming due to the meal, or not due to the meal, if it is brought after the meal but before the after blessing, as is regularly done in large meals, that after they have withdrawn their hand from eating bread, they remove it and cover the table in fruit and desserts, and set themselves to drink anything that is brought to them, therefore whether it is something that comes due to the meal or not due to the meal, it requires a blessing before it and after it, as the blessing of bread and the after blessing can only exempt what is eaten during the meal. The Rosh writes that there is a question on one who sets his meal on fruits, if he eats from them at the beginning (of his meal), whether he needs to make a blessing on them. And there is good reason not to make a blessing, that according to me it is like items that came due to the meal, since the essence of the meal is reliant on the fruit, the bread will exempt them from a blessing, even if he eats a little of the fruit without bread. But when they bring fruits in the middle of the meal, since the essence of the meal is not on the fruit, even though it comes to compliment the bread, if it is eaten even a little without bread, one must say a blessing on them. "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The difference in blessings between tree fruit and fruit of the earth and something which does not originate from the earth, is specific to the prior blessing. but the after blessing is the same for all of these and it is: Baruch ata Hashem Eloheinu melech ha'olam boreh nefashot rabot v'chesronan al kol mah shehbara l'hachayot bahen nefesh kol chai baruch ata hashem chai haolamim. therefore if one at tree fruit that is not from the seven species and fruit of the earth, because the after blessing is the same for them, one makes one blessing on both. the meaning of the blessing is: who makes many beings and everything they are missing and on all other things that he created in the world that had God not created them they would not be missing from them [the beings], for they are only meant for pleasure, to imbue life of every being. and there are those who say \"boreh nefashot rabot v'chesronan al kol mah shebarata l'hachayot bahem nefesh kol chai\". and in our gemara it does not mention a conclusion for her [this blessing], but in the Jerusalem [Talmud] it concludes the blessing \"baruch ata hashem chey ha'olamim\" and this was the custom of my master my father, the Rosh, may his memory be a blessing.   "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And if he was married he should not be too regular (often) with his wife, and if as they say \"that talmidai chachomim should not be found by their wifes and roosters\" (this ment) not sposificly talmidai chachomim but the same law is also every man, they wrote \"talmidai chachomim\" since abstinent if found by them, ..."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And one should prepare her table and make beds and arrange all of the matters of the home in order that it will all be found arranged and orderly when everyone comes home from synagogue. Rabbi Yose Bar Yehuda said: two ministering angels escort a person on Erev Shabbat from the synagogue to her home, one good and one evil. When she comes home, she will find a lit candle, the table set, and a made bed. The Good angel says, “May it be God’s will that it will be like this next Shabbat.” and the Evil angel must answer, “amen” because the angel has no choice (but to say amen). And he should make an effort to wear nice things for Shabbat as it is said in Torah: “its honor.” And we explain this to mean that one should not be dressed for Shabbat like one is dressed on the weekday. And if he does not have other clothes, he should allow his clothes at least to hang low in an honorable way. And he should wear nice clothes and he should be happy when shabbos comes like one who goes out to welcome a king, or a bride and groom as it is said in the Talmud in Shabbat: “Rabbi Hanina would wrap himself in a nice garment and would face evening on Friday and say, ‘come and lets go out to meet accept the Shabbat queen.’ Rabbi Yanai would say, ‘come bride, come bride.’” And one should eat a lot of meat and drink wine and sweets as much as she can. And anyone who can increase their honor of Shabbat in body, clothes, or eating, or drinking, she should be praised."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And he should be cautious to make a fine lamp, as R. Huna said: One who is regular [to light] a Shabbat lamp, to strive to perform this, and to make it attractive, will have sons who are scholars. And there are those who make two wicks, one to correspond with \"Remember\" and one to correspond with \"Observe.\" But if he cannot afford to buy a lamp for Shabbat and a lamp for Hannukah, Shabbat takes priority. Similarly if he cannot afford to buy a candle and wine for Kiddush, the candle takes priority because of domestic tranquility, for there is no domestic tranquility without a lamp. And he should not hurry to light it while the day is still long, for then it won't be known that he lights it for the honor of Shabbat. Nor should he light late. And when he lights he blesses: Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the universe who has sancitified us with his commandments and commanded us to light the Sabbath lamp. Both men and women are commanded to light this, but women are more commanded than men, as it says in the Midrash: Since she extinguished the lamp of the world, meaning she caused the death of the first human. And the Rambam explains [that women are more obligated] because they are found at home and they take care of household needs. And there are those who says that we should not recite a blessing over it, and they explain that if the lamp was already lit he need not extinguish it in order to go back and light it again, nor need he light another lamp. But this is not a good reason, for with regard to covering the blood [of a bird or wild animal that was slaughtered] we taught: If the wind covered [the blood] he need not go back and cover it again, and nevertheless we bless the covering. Furthermore, Rabbenu Tam said that if it was already lit he must extinguish it and go back and light it again. For an elder said: We have taught: As long as he doesn't do it too early or too late. And so too wrote Rav Amram: One who lights the Shabbat candle blesses. And so too wrote the Halakhot Gedolot that the acceptance of Shabbat is dependent upon the lighting of the candle, for once he has lit the Shabbat candle Shabbat has begun for him. And for this reason he wrote that one must first light the Hannukah lamp before the Shabbat candle for if he does Shabbat first, he cannot afterwards light the Hannukah candle. But the Tosafot wrote that [the beginning of Shabbat] is not dependent on the lighting of the lamp for even after he lights, Shabbat has not begun for him. Rather it is dependent on the maariv prayer, for Shabbat begins once he has prayed maariv.   "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "It is the minhag in all places that the shaliach tzibur makes kiddush in the Beit Knesset. And I wonder how this minhag became because it was accepted by us to follow Shmuel [and hold that kiddush only works bmakom seuda]. And as for me the only reason I see to make kiddush in shul is for guests that are eating and drinking in the Beit Knesset because for them it is their makom seuda. And since now there aren't guest eating in shul making kiddush Friday night in the Beit Knesset would practically be a bracha lvatala: And the person making kiddush in shul shouldn't drink from the kiddush wine because if they’re making it in a place thats not makom seuda it is prohibited for them to eat anything until they make kiddush bmakom seuda, instead they should give it to a child to drink which we know works because Psachim 106a says the one making kiddush must drink the wine, this doesn't mean the one making kiddush has to drink, rather someone else also can."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One who extinguishes a lamp out of fear of the gentiles or bandits or evil spirits, or for the sake of a sick person who is not in mortal danger, is exempt (from sin offerings), but it is forbidden (rabbinically). And if the sick person is in danger of dying from their illness, it is permitted from the outset. And if one extinguished to save the lamp or the oil or the wick, that person is exempt. And if one extinguished for want of a singed wick, they owe a sin offering. "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "In the morning we arise early to the Synagogue and we arrange the blessings, the biblical paragraphs of the sacrifices, and the Mishanayos of (the Chapter) אֵיזֶהוּ מְקומָן (What is the Location, Zevachim Perek 5) like the order of the other days only we add וּבְיום הַשַּׁבָּת (And on the Sabbath Day, Bamidbar 28:9-10). And we say בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר (Blessed is the one that said) and 'Pesukei Dezimra' (Verses of Song), and we are accustomed to add Psalms because there is no work for the Nation. ",
+                    "And we are accustomed in Ashekenaz to say immediately בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר after the Mishnayos of אֵיזֶהוּ מְקומָן and then after all the Psalms that we add. And in Toledo (, Spain i.e. Sefardic custom) they say the (additional) Psalms first and afterwards בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָמַר and after the Psalm of the Day of Shabbos. However, it is more fitting the custom of Ashkenaz to say all the Psalms between בָּרוּךְ שׁ��אָמַר and יִשְׁתַּבַּח (Be Praised) in order that they all have a blessing before them and a blessing after them. ",
+                    "And in Ashkenaz we do not say the Psalm for Thanksgiving (Tehillim 100) on Shabbos because that we did bring the Thanksgiving Offering on Shabbos. And this is not a preeminent reason. And after the Shira (Song of the Sea), we add the Nishmas prayer that there is in from the matter of the Exodus of Egypt; therefore, it is placed next to the Shira, and we end (Pesukei Dezimra) with יִשְׁתַּבַּח. ...",
+                    "And the Prayer Leader says Kaddish, and Barchu, and we read Shema with its blessings and add in the first blessing praise and rejoicing to the Holy One Blessed be He. Yet, my Father and Teacher z'l question on those accustomed in all places that the Congregation says some of the Bracha and the Prayer Leader completes it.",
+                    "קָרָא לַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וַיִּזְרַח אור. רָאָה וְהִתְקִין צוּרַת הַלְּבָנָה (He called out to the sun, and it shone with light/He saw, and fixed the shape of the moon.) Explanation: when He called to the sun to lighten, and saw that world would come to err after it to serve it then he fixed (התקין)the shape of the moon. (This is) in order that it minimize from those that err after it when one see that there are two, and it is needed the moon to help the sun at night to know that the world is not capable of being by the Sun alone. There are those that explain He saw and made small (והקטין) and they explain that on the complaint (of the moon, see Rashi Bereshis 1:14, Chullin 60b)."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "The Torah scroll is returned to its place.  It is customary in Spain to recite \"A psalm of David.  Ascribe to the LORD, O divine beings...\" (Psalm 29), because [this Psalm] treats the Giving of the Torah.  Further, the Seven Blessings of [the] Shabbat [Amidah, Silent Prayer] were established corresponding the seven 'Voices' [instances of the word קול/kol/voice] that are declared in it."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Saving a life supersedes Shabbat and one who hurries in such a matter is praiseworthy. Even if there was a fire in a different room [courtyard] and he feared that it would pass to his court and cause damage, it can be put out, in order that it will not pass and that people do not walk into it after the multitude such as nine idol worshippers and one Israelite that do not show up in the same courtyard. "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The Shabbos before Pesach is called \"Shabbat HaGadol\" (The Great Shabbos). And the reason is because a miracle occurred during the Exodus from Egypt. On the 10th [they took a sheep] as it says: \"On the tenth of this month you shall take for yourselves a sheep into your homes.\"<br>And the year that the Exodus took place was on a Thursday as we see in Seder Olam, and therefore the \"10th of the month\" was Shabbos, and [on that Shabbos] every Jew took a sheep as a Paschal offering and tied it to their bedposts. And the Egyptians asked them \"Why is this so [why do you have a sheep (the Egyptian god) tied to your bed]?\" And they responded: \"To slaughter for a Pesach offering for HaShem.\" And they got upset that they were going to slaughter their gods, but they could not say anything due to the miracle. And thus it is called Shabbat HaGadol."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "We do not begin to occupy ourselves with the bread (matzah) on the fourteenth [of Nissan] until after six hours. And it is found in a responsum: There is a story about someone who baked matzah before four hours (into the day), and he had already destroyed his chametz; and our rabbis forbade the matzah, since it is compared to the Passover offering - since the Passover offering is only slaughtered from six hours onwards, so too is it with the matzah. But Rabbenu Eliezer the Great and Rabbi Shmuel HaKohen allowed [it]. However at the outset (if one has not yet done it), one should be careful [not to do so] on account of a commandment being beloved at its time. But the Avi Ezri (R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi) brought a tosefta, \"We fulfill [our obligation] with an old matzah, so long as one makes it for the sake of Passover.\" But he wrote that the Yerushalmi disagrees with [this] tosefta, and forbids [it] even if it was made for the sake of Passover. And since the Yerushalmi forbids [it], it is appropriate to be stringent, not to make [it] before midday. But in a case of urgent need, such that he would not find to bake them on the night of the conclusion of the Shabbat on account of the holiday of the gentiles, it is appropriate to rely upon the tosefta and to permit [it]. Nevertheless, they should make three matzot on the night of Passover on account of a commandment being beloved at its time. And so did Rabbi Matatyahu write - the eve of Passover that comes out on Shabbat, we hold that we should destroy all [the chametz] before Shabbat and leave over [bread] for two meals. But why do we not destroy everything [that is chametz], make matzah and eat [from it] on Shabbat? To beautify the [performance of] the commandment. Since if he filled his stomach, he would not make a blessing upon it [on Passover night]. Hence bake the matzah only at the conclusion of Shabbat, on account of appearances. As if you bake from the eve of Shabbat, others will disparage the matzot and be lenient about it (to eat them on Shabbat as well). Even though it is permissible to bake it on the eve of Shabbat, be strong and beautify the commandment, and bake [it] at the conclusion of the Shabbat, at its time. To here [is the responsum]. And the rabbi, Rabbenu Yehudah HaKohen responded similarly to this, to that which they asked him, what is [the law] about baking matzot that they need for the second night from the eve of the holiday? And he answered [that] a commandment is beloved at its time, and they should bake [them] on the second night. And Rav Hai wrote: The custom of our forefathers was to destroy the chametz from the eve of Shabbat and to bake the matzah [then]. But those who preceded us made a fence not to bake matzah on the eve of Shabbat, so that one not come to something forbidden, and to bake the matzah as it is prescribed at the conclusion of Shabbat. But we have nothing [to follow] besides the custom of our forefathers, to bake [it] from the eve of Shabbat, and not to take pains on the holiday [to bake it then] and delay the eating of the matzah. Rather, those that are alacritous perform the commandments early. To here [are his words]. And my master, my father, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, would destroy everything before Shabbat, leave [bread] for two meals and bake the matzot from the eve of Shabbat. And I have seen in Barcelona that some of those who are exacting bake everything they need for the festival before the festival, so that if a small amount of chametz get mixed in, it become nullified before its becoming forbidden (as once it is forbidden, it can no longer be nullified)."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Wheat that arrived in a boat that had sunk and may have become hametz and it is not visible, should not be sold to a non-Jew lest they be sold back to a Jew, and the hametz is not visible. Instead they should be sold to Jews, in small portions, such that they will be eaten before Passover. And the Ba'al Ha'itur wrote that even if they are not informed it is permissible, as they will eat them before Passover. And the Rambam wrote that the Jews need to be informed. And it seems that the ruling is according to the Ba'al Ha'itur, for we only allow small portions. If they are informed then large portions would also be permitted. There are those who say that one is also permitted to a non-Jew in small portions, for only large portions are not permitted to be sold to a non-Jew, for there is a concern that he will sell it back to Jews. The Rav Ephraim wrote they are not permitted even though they were unsplit, even though regarding soaking they are not forbidden until they are split. Soaking is different because someone is busy with it therefore they don't become hametz until they split. But here since they are resting in the water they can become hametz. It is written in the Hilchot Gedolot that wheat that arrived by boat, if they are wet or they changed appearance, then for sure they were in touch with water and it is forbidden to keep them for Pesach; they have to be sold in little portions, so that they are eaten before Pesach.  But if they are dry and hard, and they have not changed appearance, we do not consider them forbidden, and they are permitted to eat. And this is the ruling of Rav Tsemah the head of the Yeshiva and so wrote Rabenu Av'n: Honey from a non-Jew we do not consider it forbidden to say it is a fake: If someone soaked wheat or barley and they split they are forbidden, but if they are unsplit they are permitted. And Mar Ukva commented that when it is ruled that if they are split they are forbidden, it is not that they actually split, but they are about to split - if they would be placed on a wine barrel they would split because of the fumes of the wine. And there are those who say on top of a Haviv which is a vessel for drying peels on the fire. And Shmuel says that they are not forbidden until they split. And Rav Alfasi says that there are those who rule like Shmuel, forbidden only when split, and those who rule like Mar Ukva. And he - Rav Alfasi - ruled like Mar Ukva to be stringent. And this applies when one eats the grains, but if they are found inside cooked food, and they are not actually split, since a very small amount is forbidden rabbinically, they would not forbid the cooked food, unless they were actually split."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The holiday of Shavuot is on the fiftieth day of the counting of the Omer. The order of prayer is like that on the holiday of Passover, except that we say, \"this festival day of Shavuot, the time of the giving of our Torah.\" And in the additional service (<i>musaf</i>), we mention the additional sacrifices [of this holiday], \"And on the Day of the First Fruits,\" until, \"and two daily sacrifices according to their law.\" And we recite the complete Hallel and take out two [Torah] scrolls: On the first day, five people read in Parshat Yitro [beginning] from, \"In the third month\" (Exodus 19:1), until the end of the [parsha]. And the one who concludes reads [beginning from], \"And on the Day of the First Fruits\" (Numbers 28:26); and he concludes with the chariot of Ezekiel, ending [that reading] with the verse, \"Then a spirit lifted me up\" (Ezekiel 3:12). And on the second day, we read the section [that begins with], \"Every firstborn\" (Deuteronomy 15:19), to the end of the section; and the one who concludes reads the same as [that which was read] the previous day, but he concludes with Habakkuk, [beginning] from, \"But the Lord in His holy Abode\" (Habakkuk 2:20), until, \"for the leader; with instrumental music\" (Habakkuk 3:19). And we have the practice in all places to say the <i>Azharot</i>, which is based on the sum total of the [Torah's] commandments, during the additional service after the repetition of the [standing <i>amidah</i>] prayer. But every place does what is in accordance with its custom."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "It is challenged in the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 18b:1), \"[The verse (Zechariah 8:19)] calls them [days of] fasting and it calls them [times of] gladness.” And Rav Pappa answers, \"When there is peace and there is no persecution, as when the Temple is standing, [these days will be times of] gladness; when there is persecution and there is no peace, [they are days of] fasting; and today when there is no persecution but still no peace, if they wish, they fast, and if they wish, they do not fast.\" And the explanation is there is no peace, since the Temple is destroyed; but there is no persecution in any place known to the Jewish people. [Hence,] if most of the Jewish people wants and agreed about them not to fast, they do not fast. But if most of the community wants, they fast. And today, they have wanted [to do so] and have the practice to fast. Hence it is forbidden to 'breach the fence,' especially in our generations. Therefore all are obligated to fast on account of the words of the tradition and of the ordinance of the prophets. However all are permitted with regard to bathing, smearing, wearing shoes and sexual relations. And there is no need to stop [eating] on them while it is still [the previous] day, except for Tisha B'Av. And if they fall out on Shabbat, they are pushed of until after Shabbat."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The order of the [9 Av] day: [Eliezer ben Yoel haLevi] wrote in the Avi haEzri: the night of 9 Av they take off their sandals and go to the synagogue and sit on the ground like mourners and light no more than one light, with which to read the Book of Lamentations and kinot. And the shaliaḥ tzibur stands and prays Aravit and says the full Kaddish and reads the Book of Lamentations and says kinot, and after that the Kedusha d’Sidra, and starts with “And You are holy.\" And \"To Zion will come a redeemer\" is not said, for there is no redemption that night, nor \"And as for Me, this is My covenant,\" for it seems to be establishing a covenant over kinot, and there is no relation to say  \"And as for Me, this is My covenant\" for all is exempted then. But in a mourner's house it is said, for if the mourner is exempted, the comforters are not. And he says Kaddish without \"May they be accepted.\" And they go home, and do not greet one another except in the manner of mourners or chastened ones. And if 9 Av ends on Shabbat or the day after, they do not say \"Your Justice is justice.\" Just as on a new moon that falls (being on the Sunday after) Shabbat, that they do not say \"Your Justice is justice\" on Shabbat that is 9 Av it is called a mo'ed. And they do not say Psalm 90:17 [and Psalm 91]. And some of the Gaonim wrote that they do not say Psalm 90:17 [and Psalm 91], and also not to say the Kedusha d'Sidra. And Rav Zemaḥ Gaon wrote they do not say Psalm 90:17 [and Psalm 91] but they say \"And to Zion will come\" and all of the Kedusha d'Sidra, except for \"And as for Me, this is My covenant.\"And Rabbeinu Nissim wrote that they do not say Psalm 90:17 [and Psalm 91] but it is our custom to say in the evening and morning to say \"And as for Me, this is My covenant.\" And why not say it? And the people studies Job and Jeremiah and the kinot in the morning and does the order of blessings and hymns according to other days and there are places where it is customary not to say the Song [of the Sea]. And those praying the eighteen blessings individually say \"Answer us\" within \"Hear our Prayer,\" and the shaliaḥ tzibur between \"Redeemer\" and \"Healer\" as on other fast days, and says \"Comfort\" within \"Builder of Jerusalem.\" And unlike other public fast days twenty-four blessings aren't said and a Closing of the Gates prayer is not said. And Rav Amram wrote it is our custom to increase seliḥot in \"Forgive us.\"  And teḥinot are not said, as it is called a mo'ed, and if it falls on Monday or Thursday one says \"God, long-suffering\" but does not say \"And He is merciful\" and in Spain they do not say \"God, long-suffering.\" And they take out a Torah scroll and read three aliyot from the section of Va-etḥanan, \"When you bear children.\" (Deuteronomy 4:25–40). And the maftir is the third. And the maftir reads from Jeremiah, \"I will gather, gather them\" (Jeremiah 8:13 - 9:23). And [Eliezer ben Yoel haLevi] wrote in the Avi haEzri that one rolls the Torah scroll in its place so as not to reduce its honor. But in Tractate Soferim 18:4 it is written: Some read the book of Lamentations in the evening, and some delay it until the morning to after the reading of the Torah scroll. After the reading of the Torah scroll, one stands and wallows in ash, and they puncture their clothes and read in weeping and wailing. If they know how to translate, all the better. And if not, give it to one who knows how to translate so that all the people and the women and children will understand, for women are required as are men, as are male children. And the one who reads on 9 Av says \"Blessed is the True Judge.\" And some place the scroll case on the ground and say \"Fallen is the crown of our head\" (Lamentations 5:16) and tear their clothes and weep like a person whose dead lies before them. And some change their places, and some get down from their benches. And all wallow in ashes and do not greet one another all night and all day until all the people have finished their kinot. And at them time of kinot it is forbidden to talk or go outside, so as not to stop one's heart from grieving. And similarly, not to talk with idolaters. And if there is a mourner in the town, he goes at night to synagogue, and in the day, until they finish kinot. And if there is an infant to circumcise, they circumcise him after they finish kinot. And some delay the circumcision until after noon. And some say that we do not bless over a cup but bless without a cup. And according to the Tosafot we bless on a cup but give it to a child to drink. and we are not concerned that perhaps he may be drawn to drink from it even after he grows up, because it is not a permanent matter. And therefore, on 9 Av that falls on the day after Shabbat we don't say Havdalah and give it to a child, because we are concerned that he may be drawn to it, for it is considered a permanent matter, because, according to the structure of the years, it sometimes falls on Shabbat once every three or four years. A sandak changes into other clothes, but not really white ones. One time when 9 Av fell on Shabbat and was postponed to the next day, Rabbeinu Yaavets was a sandak, and he prayed Minḥa while the day was still going and washed and did not finish his fast since it was a festival for him. And evidence can be found from where it is taught (Eruvin 51a) \"Said Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok: I am a descendant of Senaav ben Binyamin. One time, the Ninth of Av fell on Shabbat, and we postponed it until after Shabbat, and we fasted but did not complete it because that it was our Festival.\" And some have the custom not to slaughter or prepare necessities for the break-fast until after noon. At Minḥa they read \"And Moses implored\" (Exodus 32:11-14, Exodus 34:1-10) as on other fast days, and the haftarah is \"Seek out\" (Isaiah 55:6–56:8). And Rabbeinu Hai wrote that his custom was to read \"Return\" (Hosea 14:2-10) as the haftarah. And they pray the eighteen blessings and say \"Comfort\" within \"Builder of Jerusalem\" and \"Answer us\" within \"Hear our Prayer,\" and the shaliaḥ tzibur between \"Redeemer\" and \"Healer.\""
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "In the first chapter of Keritot, we have the text (Keritot 5b): Rabbah said, \"That person that wants to know whether he will take out the year or not, should bring a candle during the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur  into a room where the wind is not blowing. If its light (its flame) continues, he will know that he will continue the year. And a person that wants to conduct a business deal and wants to know if the deal will be a successful one or not, should feed a chicken. If it becomes nicely fat, he will know that it will be successful... Abbaye said,\"Now that you have said that a sign is a [correct] matter, a man should accustom himself to eating citron, squash, beans (<i>rubia</i>), leeks (<i>karti</i>), beets (<i>silkei</i>) and dates (<i>tamrei</i>) on Rosh Hashanah.\" Rashi explains that <i>rubia</i> is clover.  <i>Rubia</i> - our merits should increase (<i>yirbu</i>); <i>karti</i> - (the enemies) should be cut off (<i>yikaretu</i>), etc.; <i>silkei</i> - removed (<i>yistalku</i>), etc.; <i>tamrei</i>  finished (<i>yitamu</i>), etc.; squash because it is quick to grow. And from this grew the [various] customs, every place according to its custom; as in Germany, where they are accustomed to eating sweet apple with honey at the beginning of the meal, to say, \"Let this new year be sweet for us.\" And in Provence they are accustomed to bring all types of novelties [to the meal] and to eat a sheep's head and lung, to say, \"Let us be at the head and not at the tail;\" and the lung because it is light. And our teacher, Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg was accustomed to eat the head of a ram to commemorate the ram of Yitzchak.  "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And afterwards the prayer leader stops the prayer in order to blow according to the order of the blessings (of the additional prayer). For it is learned (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:9), \"One who recited the blessings, and a shofar became available to him afterward, he blows a <i>tekiah</i>, a <i>teruah</i>, and a <i>tekiah</i>.\" The explanation is that he prayed the nine blessings [of the additional prayer] but he did not have a shofar, and afterwards he chanced upon a shofar. And we make a precise inference: The reason is that he did not have a shofar. However if he has a shofar, he blows according to the order of the blessings. And this is determined to be only in public. But an individual - even if he has a shofar - does not interrupt the blessings in order to blow. Hence the prayer leader stops the prayer and we blow <i>tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah</i> once during [the blessing of] Kingship (<i>Malkhiot</i>); <i>tekiah, shevarim, tekiah</i> during the blessing of memory (<i>zikhronot</i>); and <i>tekiah, teruah, tekiah</i> during the blessing of shofar (<i>shofarot</i>). But it would have been fitting to blow <i>tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah; tekiah, shevarim, tekiah; tekiah, teruah, tekiah</i> once for Kingship, and likewise for memory and likewise for shofar. And so is it found in the Arukh, who wrote, \"And those who are stringent blow thirty [calls] (a full set, as just enumerated) when they are sitting, thirty during the silent prayer and thirty according to the order [of the blessings], corresponding to the hundred yelps of Sisera's mother. And those [extra] ten (needed to bring it to one hundred) are when they finish all of the prayers - a single blowing of ten, <i>tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah; tekiah, shevarim, tekiah; tekiah, teruah, tekiah</i>. So there are one hundred.\" But Rabbenu Tam instituted the blowing of <i>tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah</i> for Kingship, and likewise for memory and likewise for shofar. And there are still other customs, but the main [practice] is as I have written. And likewise did Rav Alfas (Rif) write, \"It would be correct that they blow according to the order of the blessings in the same way that they blow when they are sitting. However since [those] blessings do not impinge upon the blasts, they have [already] fulfilled their obligation with those that they blew when they were sitting. So it is sufficient for them to blow <i>tekiah, shevarim-teruah, tekiah; tekiah, shevarim, tekiah; tekiah, teruah, tekiah</i> once, in order not to inconvenience the congregation. And this is the custom in all of the world and in the two yeshivot.\" If one speaks between the blasts when sitting, or after he finished those of sitting but before those of standing - which are according to the order of the blessings - he does not have to go back and [repeat] the blessing [over the commandment of the shofar]. However we should rebuke one who speaks - whether it is the one blowing, or whether it is [a member of] the congregation, who does not recite the blessing, \"to blow,\" but rather, \"to hear the sound of the shofar,\" and who recites the blessing for the whole congregation."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 11) recounts:",
+                    "R. Tanchuma taught: It once happened in Rome on Erev Yom Kippur that a Jewish tailor went to the market to buy fish. There was only one fish available, but there were two buyers: the tailor and the servant of the Roman governor. Each offered a progressively larger sum until the price reached twelve dinar, which the tailor paid.",
+                    "During the governor's meal, he asked his servant: \"Why did you not bring ash?\" The servant replied: \"I shall not hide the truth from my master. I went to buy fish, but there was only one available. A Jew and I haggled over it- each of us offering more than the other- until the price reached twelve dinar. Would you have wanted me to spend twelve dinar on a fish?\" The governor asked: \"Who is this Jew?\"",
+                    "He sent for him and he was brought before him. He asked him: \"Why did you, a Jewish tailor, see fit to eat a fish that cost twelve dinar?\" The tailor replied: \"Sir! We have but one day during which all the sins that we commit throughout the year are atoned for. Shall we not honor that day when it comes?\" The governor replied: \"Since you have explained your behavior, you may go.\"",
+                    "And how did G‑d repay the tailor? When he opened the fish, G‑d summoned a precious jewel [into the fish] and this provided him with sustenance for all his days."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "An ill person who needs to eat - if there is an expert doctor present who says that if it is not provided to him, it is possible that the illness would become more severe and endanger him - he is fed on his authority, and there is no need for him to say 'or else he will die.' And if there is no doctor there, he is fed on his own authority, given that they informed him that is it Yom Kippur and he is asking to eat, there is no need to particularly inquire further about him. "
+                ],
+                [
+                    "In the evening, they enter the synagogue and it is the custom in Ashkenaz that before they pray, the permit all of the sinners in order to pray with them, and even if they do not ask to be permitted."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "“For a seven day period you shall live in booths...in order that your [ensuing] generations should know that I had the children of Israel live in booths when I took them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.” The verse links the commandment of building a Sukkah with the exodus from Egypt. Likewise, many other commandments are linked to the exodus since it was an event which we saw with our eyes and heard with our ears and no man can deny. The Exodus instructs us regarding the truth of the reality of the Creator, may He be uplifted: that He created everything according to His will, and He has the power and the rule and the ability, in the upper spheres and the lower spheres, to do His will. There is no being which can impose his will on Him, as He demonstrated with us when He took us out from the Land of Egypt with signs and wonders. And the Sukkot, of which verse states He caused us to dwell in, were the Clouds of Glory which surrounded them lest they be struck by heat or the sun. And as a demonstration of these occurrences, He commanded us to make Sukkot in order that we remember His wonders and awesome deeds. Now even though we left Egypt in the month of Nissan, He did not command us to make a Sukkah in that time of year since it is in the summer, and it is common for people to make huts for shade. Thus, it would not be apparent that we made the Sukkah in fulfillment of the <i>mitzvah </i>of our Creator, may He be blessed. Therefore, He commanded us to make Sukkot in the seventh month (Tishrei) which is in the rainy season and when it is customary for people to leave their summer huts and return inside their homes. However, we leave our homes and dwell in our Sukkot. Through this action, we show that our dwelling in the Sukkah is in fulfillment of our King’s command…"
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "All are required in the Reading of the Megillah: Cohens, Levites, Israelites, slaves, an invalidated Cohen, a mamzer, a natin, a tumtum, an androgynous person; children are also educated in this commandment, and women are also required to fulfill [the Megillah's] reading. Rashi interprets that women can fulfill men's obligation to read the Megillah, but the author of the [halachic work] Halachot Gadolot says that even though this may be the case, they do not fulfill men's obligation. The Ba'al HaItur wrote that it makes sense, because just like women say Grace After Meals to themselves and don't make a zimun, so too here they do not join the communal reading from the outset. An androgynous person fulfills the obligation of both those like him and others; a tumtum, and a one who is half free and half slave, he does not fulfill the obligation even of others like him. A deaf person, someone with mental handicaps, and a child, even one who has reached the age of education, do not fulfill the obligation of others. Rabbi Yehuda allows a child, because he has reached the age of education. The Ba'al HaItur held like [Rabbi Yehuda]. My father brought the Mishnah in its form, and established the law like the first opinion [that a child cannot fulfill the obligation of others], and the author of Halachot Gadolot held similarly. In the Jerusalem Talmud it says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi gathered all the members of his household and read in front of them. From here we learn that in some places, it is the custom to bring little children to listen to the Megillah."
+                ]
+            ]
+        },
+        "Yoreh Deah": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": [
+                [
+                    "it was taught in a brita \"and you shall sacrifice from you sheep and cattle as i have commanded you\" this teaches us that moses was commanded by heart the laws of slaughtering. and i am organizing their law's, for example: who is fit to slaughter, and the intention one must have while doing so, and a thought witch will invalidate the slaughtering, with what does one slaughter, and when does one slaughter, and which animals can be slaughtered, and a fetus which is found in the mothers stomach, and the rule that you cant slaughter and animal and its son on the same day, and checking the knife, and the blessing recited over slaughtering. everyone may slaughter: woman and freed slaves and any person, even if we don't know that he is a authentic butcher, meaning: that he wont faint while doing it. and that we don't know that he knows  the laws of shcheta. this is because most people who regularly shecht are assumed to be experts and trustworthy. When is this true,when the person isn't in front of us, then we can eat from his shechting and we rely on the assumption, but if he is in front of us we must check if he is a expert and to ask him if he fainted.and the smag writes in the name of r tam that he dosent need to know all the laws,rather if he says \"on this thing i was unsure and i asked\" we do call this knowing(the laws of shechita). only when he says the forbidden is permitted then he is not valid to shecht and we cant eat from his shcheta. however we can initially rely on a person with the knowledge that we will check him later,and we don't worry that we may come to eat without checking and asking him first. but if there is a person of who we know that he dosent know the laws of shechita even if he shechted in front of us two or three times,and then shechted by himself, his shechting is invalid even if we ask him did you do the following things and it seems from his answer that he did shecht properly,we canot rely on him. and even if he says \"i am confident that i shechted properly it is invalid(and cant be eaten from).but anything which he does infront of us is valid, and even initially we can give him to slaughter as long as there is somone standing over him and this is provided that he sees him shechting from the begning until the end. and the bal itur wrote: if we know that he has learnt the laws of shechita even if he has not gotten a trustworthy status then he can initially shecht, and if we don't know wehter he has learnt the laws or not, then he should not initially shecht but if he did then his shechting is kosher and we don't have to check even if he is in front of us. and the rambam made a difference between a person who know the laws and a person who we have knowledge that that knows how to shecht regarding wether we must ask him or not. as he writes: one who knows the rules of shechita should shecht by himself in the beginning until he has shechted in front of a wise man many tines and is quick and accustomed (to shechita), butif he did his shechita is kosher. and he did not write that we ask him,however concerning a person who dosent know the laws of shechita he writes that if he shechts by himself we ask him, if he knows the laws of shechita then his shechita is kosher. and my master and father the rush may his memory be blessed did not make this differentiation(the one that the rambam made)rather he said that if he in front of us then we check him and ask him if he fainted, and if hes not, than we rely on the assumption concerning both of them (one who knows the laws and one who dosent).and this also the opinion of r elfas. and since most pepole are valid to shecht, if one finds a animal that is shechted properly,in a place with mostly Jews it is kosher. and even if it was stolen from him and he finds it shechted(it is kosher)because even if he is suspected to steal he isnt suspected for improper shechting.and the rambam writes that this is only if it is found ina house, but if he found it in the garbage of a house or in the street it is forbidden.and my father the rosh permited it even if it was found in the garbage of a house and he only forbade it in a garbage which was on the street, and so to the  rashba permitted it unless it was found in the garbage of a street. a deaf person wich is somone who does not hear or talk and a retarded peson wich is one who goes out alone at night, or tares his clothing, or he sleeps ina cemetery, or he loses what is given to him, even in one of these instances if he does this in a fashion of retardation he is called a retarded person,and a minor that cant use his hands to shecht properly, all of these pepole cannot initially shecht even if others are watching them, but  if they did anyway then it is kosher. and in any case we don't initaly give them a animal to shecht if there is no one watching them even if he wants to give it to the dogs to eat.and a deaf person who speaks but dosent hear even though he talks he shold not initaly shecht because he doesn't hear the blessing  but if he did shecht even by him himself hes shechita is kosher. butd if one hearsand does not speak if he is a expert than even initially he can slaughter if another makes the blessing and a minor who isa expert should not shecht inittaly but if hr did than it is losher. and if a older person is standing and watching he can shecht even inittaly. and a person who reached the drukinis of loot the rule regarding himis like a retarded person"
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "A lung that is punctured is a triefah. First I shall explain the structure of the lungs and afterwards the triefot of them. Rava stated: \"There are 5 lobes of the lungs; 3 on the right and 2 on the left.\" Explanation: to the right of the animal. This is to the right of the butcher when the animal is hanging (upside down) by its feet and its organs are facing the butcher, and if the butcher were to take the organs in his hand and the face of the lungs was facing his face, facing the left side of the man would be 3 (lobes) and facing his right would be 2 (lobes). There is an additional small lobe on the right side called the \"Inunita d'varda\" (Accessory lobe, lit. \"Eye of the rose\") and it does not stand in the order of the other lobes but rather is distant from them towards the inside. If one of the lobes from either the left side or the right side are missing or there were two on the right and three on the left it is a treifah. If the varda is  missing, Rashi says it is kosher but if it has two it is treifah. Rabbeinu Efraim forbids consuming the animal when it is missing its varda but permits it when there are two. The Geonim permit the animal whether it has no vardot or two vardot, and this is the main opinion. If their are extra lobes in their count, such as four lobes on the right lung or three on the left, if the extra lobe stands in the order of the other lobes the animal is kosher and if not it is treifah. The Baal HaIttur writes that the animal is not kosher unless the extra lobe is directly in the order of the lobes but if it is somewhat in between the other lobes, not in the order of the other lobes, like the varda, it is treifah, whether the extra lobe is on the right or left side. The Rambam, however, writes that as long as the extra lobe is facing the inside of the lung it does not render the animal forbidden. (It is only forbidden)if the extra lobe is on the back (of the lungs). My father, the Rosh, agreed with the opinion of the Baal HaIttur, who stated that if the varda is found on the left side the animal is treifah. If the extra lobe was on the backside of the lungs, in any location, even a small extra lobe the size of a myrtle leaf, it is treifah. If, however, it is smaller than a myrtle leaf after the lung has been inflated, it is not considered an extra lobe. The Baal HaIttur writes that we learn from this that the minimum size of a lobe is the size of a myrtle leaf. If one of the lobes is missing and there is nothing left of it but a piece the size of a myrtle leaf the animal is kosher. If one of the lobes of the right side is missing, the Rambam writes that the varda fills in for it. Rashi writes that the varda does not fill in for it. It is better to be stringent. If the lungs were two rows without divisions of lobes the animal is a triefah. Rashi explains that this is referring to when there are not complete divisions between the lobes of the lungs. When there are recognizable divisions between the lobes the animal is kosher (opinion of the Rosh). Rambam writes that if one finds two lobes attached as one and they are not identifiable as two lobes that are stuck together; if there was between them (a section) the size of a myrtle leaf, whether at their point of origin, in the middle, or at their ends, so that it can be seen that these are two lobes that are attached, the animal is permitted, but if not the animal is forbidden. There are those who wrote that if the lobes are attached along their complete lengths, one takes a sharp knife and separates the two lobes. If a strand of meat comes out from separating them they are one lobe and the animal is treifah and if not the animal is kosher. The language of the Talmud sounds like Rashi's explanation, that if there is any recognition of the lobes being separate the animal is kosher, and this is the main opinion. "
+                ],
+                [
+                    "The lung has two membranes. If one was punctured but not the other, it is kosher. It is kosher until both membranes are punctured. Even if the entire outer membrane was peeled off it is kosher. However it would require checking (the lower membrane for a hole). The Rashba writes that if both are punctured but the punctures are not facing one another it is kosher. If both membranes were punctured and membrane grew back over the punctures and sealed them, it is still considered a treifah. A lung from which a sound emanates when the lungs are inflated: if one knows from where the sound is emanating one can place a piece of straw or a feather on that place and inflate the lungs. If the straw or feather pops out its a treifah and if not it is kosher. If one does not know from where the sound emanates one puts the entire lung in a vessel that contains water and blows into the lung. If the water bubbles it is a treifah. If it does not it is kosher. The water should be neither cold nor hot but tepid, like the tepidness of water in the summer that has stood indoors a bit after it was drawn and warmed slightly from the heat of the air. If the hole was found in a place where it was possible that the hole was made after the the shechittah, such as in a place that the butcher has passed his hand or has pulled with force  or if a wolf took the lung and returned it pierced, we assume leniently and it is kosher. So too if worms were found on the lungs that punctured them and it is unclear whether the lungs were punctured before shechittah or after shechittah, it is kosher. If there is nothing to rely on and it is unclear if the lungs were punctured while alive or not, one makes another hole in front of him; if the holes are similar it is kosher, since just as this hole was made after shechittah so too was the first hole, and if they are not similar it is treifah, since it is certain that the first hole was made before shechittah.  We compare holes in lungs from the large lobes to large lobes and small lobes to small lobes but not from large lobes to small lobes or small lobes to large lobes. Rav Alfasi explains that one can compare from one lung to another lung as long as it comes from a similar animal; if it is a large animal, then compare to lungs of a large animal, and if it is a small animal then compare to the lungs of a small animal. Rashi explains that one does not compare the lungs of one animal to the lungs of another animal and even within the same animal one may only compare the small lobes to other small lobes and a large lobe to the other large lobe, but not a large lobe to a small lobe or a small lobe to a large lobe. This is also the conclusion of my father the Rosh.  If one of the bronchi were punctured that was in front of the other bronchus such as in the place where they separate from one another and there is no meat between them, it is treifah, as the other bronchus is hard and does not protect it. If the bronchus was punctured going into the meat of the lung, the meat protects the bronchus and its meat. The Rambam says that if one of the bronchi are punctured, even into the other bronchus, it is treifah, and it would appear from his language that all the more so if it was punctured into the meat of the lung, and this doesn't make sense. If some meat of the lung is missing but the membrane is intact it is kosher. Therefore if some of the meat has rotted from within and is missing, even if the area that is empty is large, until the missing area can hold a reviis of volume it is kosher. If the inside of the lungs have rotted and liquefied it is kosher, so long as all the bronchi still exist.  Rav Alfasi explains that this is true specifically when character of the liquid is pure, but if the liquid is murky or putrid it is treifah.  So too writes the Rambam. My father, the Rosh, wrote that it is kosher even if the liquid is murky or putrid. How does one check if all the lungs bronchi still exist (intact)? One brings a bowl that is covered with a limb that is white and one punctures it and pours into it; if one sees inside it an outline similar to blood vessels that are white, it is certain that they are from the bronchi and it is treifah and if not it is kosher. The Rambam writes that if the bronchi are separated from the body of the lung, even though they are not punctured, it is as if it is missing from the count of the lobes (and is treifah). The Baal HaIttur writes that it is kosher since the tissue is still intact, even though it is damaged, and this makes sense. A lung that happened to go through an event in which the lung was inflated and there remains a portion that is sealed that does not rise even when the lung is inflated, one rips"
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "All halachos that apply to cooking issur with heter also apply if one soaks one in the other for one complete day -- 24 hours -- because soaking is considered like cooking. But if one soaks for less than one day: if they are cold, one only needs to wash off the item; if they are scalding hot then they are assur by cooking. "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "\"When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days\", and the sages learned from the exegesis of the verses that not all blood that flows from her renders her impure, except for blood that comes from the womb (source). Additionally, not all (shades of) blood are impure except for five specific types (shades) as shall be explained with G-d's help and these shades only render her impure when she senses their departure from the womb. However as soon as she senses that blood leaves its natural place in the womb to the outer house (birth canal) she is rendered impure even though it did not exit her body."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "<b>Laws of Honoring Father and Mother</b> It is a positive commandment that a person should honor his father and his mother and fear them. And he must be very careful about their honor and about their fear, since their honor is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent: As it is written (Exodus 20:11), \"Honor your father and your mother\"; and it is written (Proverbs 3:9), \"Honor the Lord with your wealth.\" And regarding their fear, it is written (Leviticus 19:3), \"A man shall fear his mother and his father\"; and regarding the fear of the Omnipresent, it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:13), \"You shall fear the Lord, your God.\"  And the Sages said (Kiddushin 30b), \"There are three partners in a person: The Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother [...] When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says, 'I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honored Me as well.'\" With honor, He had the father precede the mother, as it is written, \"Honor your father and your mother'; but with fear, He had the mother precede the father, as it is written, \"A man shall fear his mother and his father\" - to teach that both of them are the same, both for honor and for fear. And what is fear and what is honor? Fear: One may not stand in his place and one may not sit in his place - the explanation is in his particular place to stand amidst the council of elders with his colleagues in counsel. But the Ramah (R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia) wrote that the same is the law regarding his particular place to sit in his house. And he may not contradict his words, nor may he determine his words. And Rashi explained [that] if [his father] was disagreeing about a matter of law with someone else, he may not say, \"The words of x appear [correct].\" But the Ramah wrote that this is not necessary [to say], as that is contradicting his words. Rather even if the words of his father appear [correct] to him, he may not say, \"The words of my father appear [correct]\" - as it appears as if he is determining [the correctness of] the words of his father. However, if he has an answer to answer those that are arguing [with his father], he may answer [them]. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3): He should not call him by his name - not in his lifetime and not in his death - but he should rather say, \"Father, my teacher.\" If his name is the same as the name of others, he should [also] change their names. And it appears to me that one only needs to be careful about this with a name that is unusual, such that not everyone uses it. But with names that all of the people call [their offspring], such as Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moshe and Aharon and that which is similar to them, one can use them to call others in any language and at any time and there is no [problem] with this. To here [are his words]. And that which he wrote that he should not call others whose names are the same as his father with their names is a wonder! And up to where (how extensive) is their fear? Even if one was dressed in fine clothing and sitting at the head of the community, and his father and mother came and tore his clothes, struck him on his head and spit in front of him - he should not embarrass them but rather be quiet and fear the King of the kings of kings, who  commanded him about this. As if flesh and blood had decreed something that is more distressing than this upon him, he would not have [even] twitched about the matter; all the mores so, with the King of the kings of kings, the Holy  One, blessed be He. And what is honor? One gives [his parent] food and he gives him drink, and he gives it with a pleasant countenance, and he does not show him an angry face. As even if he feeds him fattened fowl every day, but he shows him an angry face, he is punished for it. And that which he gives him food and he gives him drink - that is from [the resources of] the father, if he has; but the son is not obligated to give him from his [own resources]. However if the father does not have and the son does have, we force him and he sustains the father according to what he can [afford]. But if the son does not have, he is not obligated to [knock on] doors to feed his father. But he is obligated to honor him with his body, even though through this, he [becomes] idle from his work and [then] become required to [knock on] doors. And the Ramah wrote [that this is] specifically when the son has sustenance that will sustain [himself] that day. But if he does not have [it], he is not obligated to be idle from his work and to [knock] on doors. And he should serve him in other things with which a servant serves his master. And he is obligated to honor him in the rest of his ways - in his buying and selling, and the doing of his wants. How is this? If he needs to request anything in the city and he knows that they would fulfill his request for the sake of his father - even though he knows that they would also fulfill the thing for his sake, nevertheless, he should not say, \"Do this one thing for my sake,\" but rather, \"for the sake of Father,\" in order to attach the honor to his father. And likewise with anything that is like this, he should include [him] in all of his words, such that he is concerned about the honor of his father and his fear. However if he knows that they will not fulfill his [request] for the sake of his father, he should request [it] for his own sake and not for the sake of his father, as it would only be a disgrace for him - since they will not do it for his sake. And one is obligated to stand before him. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3) [that] a father who is the student of his son - the father does not stand before the son. And not only that, but the son must stand before his father, even though he is his student. And my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory blessed, wrote that each one must stand before the other. And up to where (how extensive) is honor? Even if [the parent] takes his purse full of coins and throws it to the sea in front of him, he should not embarrass him. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:7) [that it is] even if he threw the purse of the son to the sea. But RI explained that according to that which we decide that he need not honor him from his [own resources], if he throws the son's purse, he may prevent him. Rather [the Talmud's case] is saying with the purse of his father, he may not embarrass him in order to prevent him, even though he will inherit it. The Ramah wrote that which the son can embarrass the father with his [own] purse is only before he threw it to the sea, as it is possible that he will be prevented and not throw it. But after he throws it, it is forbidden to embarrass him; as what has happened, has happened. So now when he is silent, it is honor that does not involve financial loss, so he is obligated about it. But it is permissible to make a claim against him in court. He is obligated to honor him even after his death. How is that? If he says a matter he heard from his mouth, he should not say, \"So said Father, my teacher.\" Rather, he should say, \"So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting.\" To what does this apply? Within twelve months [of his death]. But after twelve months, when he mentions him, he says: May his memory be for a blessing.\" The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:10), \"If one's father or mother has become mentally insane, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind until they will be shown mercy. But if it is impossible for him to stand [it], because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go away, charging others to take proper care of them.\" But the Ravaad wrote, \"This is not a correct ruling - if he leaves them and goes away, who will he command to watch them?\" If one saw that his father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him, \"You transgressed a Torah matter.\" Rather, he should say to him, \"Father, such and such is written in the Torah.\" And from his reminding him, he will understand on his own and will not be embarrassed. If his father said to him, \"Give me water to drink,\" and there was another commandment before him to do: If it is possible for the commandment to be done by others, he leaves it for others to do and occupies himself with the honor of his father. But if there are not others there to do it, he should occupy himself with the commandment and leave the honor of his father, since he and his father are obligated by the commandment. Torah study is greater than honoring father and mother. If his father said to him, \"Give me water to drink\"; and his mother said to him, \"Give me water to drink,\" he leaves the honor of his mother and occupies himself with the honor of his father, since his mother is also obligated in honoring his father. But if they are divorced - such that she is not obligated in his honor - then both of them are the same, to honor them one like the other. If his father said to him to transgress a Torah matter - whether he says to him to transgress a negative commandment or he says to him to negate (not do) a positive commandment, even a [rabbinic] commandment - he should not listen to him. And my master, my father the Rosh wrote in a responsum [that] if the father commands his son not to speak with x, such the he should not forgive him for what he did to him until a set time; whereas the son wants to appease him, except that he is concerned about his father's command, he should not be concerned about his father's command. As it is forbidden to hate any person unless he saw him sinning. And [that] the father commanded him to hate; it is not in his power to make him transgress a Torah matter! And it is the same with a man or a woman - they are the same regarding the honor and fear of father and mother. However a man has [the wherewithal] in his hands to do [it], whereas a woman does not have [the wherewithal] in her hands to do [it], since the authority of others (her husband) is upon her. Therefore if she is divorced or widowed, they are both the same. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:11) [that] a <i>mamzer</i> (someone born of a forbidden union) is obligated in honoring his father and his mother and in their fear, even though he is exempt about hitting them and cursing them until they repent. Even if one's father is wicked and sinful, he must honor him and fear him. But it appears to me that since he is wicked, he is not obligated to honor him. [It is] as we say (Bava Kamma 94b) concerning [those] whose father left them a stolen cow, [that] they are obligated to return [it] for the honor of their father. And it asked, \"Behold, he does not do the deeds of your people\" - its explanation is, so they are [for that reason] not obligated to honor him. And it answers, \"When he repented.\" Therefore the whole time he has not repented, they are not obligated to honor him. Even though a person is obligated to fear his father and his mother greatly, it is forbidden [for the parent] to make his yoke heavy upon his children and to be exacting with them about his honor, so as not to bring them to an obstacle. Rather he should forgive and avert his eyes from them; since when a father foregoes his honor, his honor is forgiven. And they would excommunicate someone who strikes his adult son; as behold, he is transgressing, \"you shall not put an obstacle in front of the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14). A person is obligated to honor the wife of his father - even though she is not his mother - so long as his father is alive; and he is obligated to honor his mother's wife, so long as his mother is alive. But after [the blood relative's death], he is not obligated in their honor. Nevertheless, it is a commandment to honor them, even after the death. A person is obligated in the honor of his older brother like the honor of his father. And he is obligated to honor his father in law, as it is written (that David said to Shaul in I Samuel 24:12), \"My father, my father, see and see.\""
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One who has (enough) food for two meals does not take from the Tamchui, for fourteen meals does not take from the Kupah. If one has one hundred zuz, even if one does not to business with them, or has fifty (zuz) and does do business with them, one doesn't take from the tzedakah at all."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "THE LAWS OF CONVERTS<br>A foreigner, from among those who worship stars [and idols] who has come in order to convert, is no convert until he has been circumcised and he has immersed [in a mikveh, {i.e., ritual bath}]. If he had been circumcised [but not immersed]... "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Laws of Torah Scrolls",
+                    "It is a mitzvah incumbent on every Jewish man to write a Torah scroll, and it is extremely important to seek [an opportunity] to perform it. As Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says,  \"One who buys a [ready made] Torah Scroll is like one who grabs a mitzvah in the market place.\" [On the other hand] One who writes it himself or corrects even one letter is counted as if he received it directly from Mt. Sinai. It goes without saying that he shouldn't sell his Torah, even if he has many, and it is even forbidden to sell an old scroll in order to buy a new one, or even [to buy food]. However it is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to learn Torah or to get married if he has nothing else to sell. My master, my father, the Ro\"sh, of blessed memory, wrote that this was written only for the earlier generations, who would write a Torah scroll and learn from it. But nowadays, when we write a Torah scroll and leave it in the synagogue to read from it publicly, it is a positive mitzvah incumbent on all Jews who have the means to do so to write [copies] of the Torah, the Mishnah, and the Gemara and their commentaries, and to study from them - him, and his sons. For the mitzvah of writing a Torah is in order to learn from it, as it says: (Deut. 31:19) \"and teach it to the people of Israel, place it in their mouths.\" And through the Gemara and its explanation, one will know the explanation of the mitzvot and the laws with clarity. Hence these are the books that a person is commanded to write and also not to sell unless it is [to raise the money] to study Torah or to a marry a woman."
+                ]
+            ]
+        },
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": [
+                [
+                    "Blessed be the name of the Holy One, blessed is He, who desired goodness for his creations. For He knew that it is not good for man to be alone and therefore He made a fitting helper for him, for the intent of the creation of man is to be fertile and to increase, and this is impossible without a helper. Therefore He commanded him to cling to the helper whom He made for him. Thus every man is obligated to marry a woman in order to be fertile and increase, for anyone who is not involved in reproduction is like one who sheds blood, as it is written, \"Whoever sheds the blood of man,\" and juxtaposed to it , \"Be fertile, then, and increase.\" And it is as though he is diminishing the [Divine] image, for it is written that in the image of God did He create him, and you shall be fertile and increase. And he causes the Divine Presence to be removed from Israel. And anyone who remains without a wife remains without goodness, without blessing, without a dwelling, without Torah, without a wall, without peace. Rabbi Elazar said, \"Anyone who does not have a wife is not a man.\" When he marries, his sins become unreliable, as it is said, \"He who finds a wife has found happiness And has won the favor of the LORD.\" It is an extremely great commandment, for we only sell a Torah scroll in order to be able to learn Torah and to marry a woman. A man is commanded to marry a woman when he is eighteen years old, as it is taught, \"eighteen years for the [wedding] canopy,\" but one who does so earlier at the age of thirteen, this is a choice [fulfillment of the] command. Our Rabbis have taught, one who marries off his sons and daughters close to their period of puberty, regarding him Scripture states, \"You will know that all is well in your tent, etc.\" Abaye said, I am better than my colleagues because I married at the age of sixteen, but had I married at fourteen, it would have been an arrow in the eyes of Satan. But one must not marry them before thirteen, for this is like lewdness. Under no circumstance should one pass twenty years without a wife, as Raba said, and the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught, until the age of twenty the Holy One, blessed is He, waits for a man to marry. When he passes twenty years without marrying, the Holy One, blessed is He, says, \"His bones shall swell.\" My father wrote of a single man who has passed twenty years and does not want to marry, that the court forces him to marry so that he may fulfill the commandment of reproduction. However, one for whom it will be impossible to study should he marry is not obligated to marry by twenty. The words of the Rambam: If he is busy with Torah and is occupied by it, and is afraid to marry because the burden of providing sustenance will distract him from Torah, he may delay, as one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah, and all the more so in the study of Torah. One whose soul has constantly desired Torah, such as Ben Azai, and he clung to it all his days and did not marry, he has not sinned as long as his desire does not overcome him. My father the Rosh says this refers to when it would be impossible for him to study [after marrying]--then he should study and afterward marry. I do not know the extent of this study, but it cannot be that one could abstain from reproduction all his days, for we have not seen such a thing other than Ben Azai, whose soul desired Torah. Therefore, because man consists of male and female, there is a commandment of reproduction. Should the son be a eunuch or the daughter an ailonyit [a woman with arrested sexual development who cannot have children], he has not fulfilled the command of reproduction. If he had sons and they died, he has not fulfilled the command of reproduction. However if they died and left behind children, since the son had a son or daughter or the daughter had a son or daughter, reproduction has been fulfilled. But if one of them died without children and the second has a son or daughter, he has not fulfilled it. If he had children while he was a Gentile and he and his children converted, then he has fulfilled [the mitzvah of] reproduction but a slave who had sons, and he and they were freed, has not fulfilled reproduction. And even one who has fulfilled his obligation of reproduction is forbidden from remaining without a wife, as Rabbi Nachman said: Even if a man has several children, he is forbidden from remaining without a wife, as it is said, \"It is not good for man to be alone.\" Rabbi Yehoshua said: If he married in his youth, he shall marry in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he shall have children in his old age. As it is said, \"Sow your seed in the morning, and don't hold back your hand in the evening.\" There is no difference between one who has children and one who does not except with regard to the matter of selling a Torah scroll for one must always marry a child-bearing woman if he is able to [afford it] even if he has many children and if it is not within his grasp [to afford] to marry a child-bearing woman without selling a Sefer Torah then if he does not have children he should sell a Sefer Torah so that he can marry a child-bearing woman but if he already has children then he should not sell a Sefer Torah but marry a non child-bearing woman rather than remain without a wife. Some say that even if he has children he should sell a Sefer Torah so that he can marry a child-bearing woman and that there is no difference between a child-bearing and n0n-child-bearing woman except for a case where he married her and stayed ten years without her giving birth , so that if he has stayed with her for ten years he's obligated to divorce her in order to fulfill procreation but if he has children then he's not obligated to divorce her for R. Yehoshua only said that ideally he should marry a child-bearing wife [also] in his older years but he's not obligated to divorce her if she's not child-bearing  and this too is the opinion of my father my master the Rosh. A man can marry a number of wives for Rava said a man can marry many wives and this is as long as he is able to provide for them nevertheless our Sages gave good advice not to marry more than four wives so that each one can spend \"time\" [together with her husband] once / month. In a place where there is an edict not to marry more than one wife we follow that custom. A woman is not obligated in procreation therefore if she asks for a divorce on the grounds that she's unable to build a family with him, we don't listen to her as will be explained late on regarding those we force to divorce in the Laws of Divorce."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "A man should not marry a woman unless she is fitting for him, meaning, she has no disqualification for anyone who married a woman who is not fitting for him, when the Holy One blessed be He testifies about the tribes He will not testify for him and it will be as if he has ploughed the whole world and planted it with destruction [salt in other texts] meaning he brings barrenness to the world and he will have children who are unfit and God does not rest His Divine Presence except on families with lineage, meaning they have no trace of disqualification and what is a sign of this? One who hears his shamefulness and keeps quiet for as Rav explained the lineage of Babylonia is their silence nevertheless a family where a possible disqualification got mixed into it there is no need to distance them for all are pure in the future - this refers to an Israelite but a Kohen should not marry them as we say later on. And all lands remain with an assumed fit status and when a man or woman who comes to marry [there] one does not need to check their status at all but Rashi explained that a man who comes to marry a woman, one needs to check his status before he marries her and so too wrote the RaMa and explained that when it says all the families are considered to be fit, this means that one who had a fit status, one need not check after him but one who does not have a fit status, for example his family is not known needs proof about their lineage and a single witness is not believed  even though fit females were were not warned against marrying unfit males, this was referring to met unfit for the priesthood but men unfit to be counted among the Jewish Community, if one comes to marry a Jewish woman we do not permit it until a proof is brought for maybe he is a slave these are his words. To me it seems that the expression \"all the families are considered to be fit\" does not sound like his words for it is referring to a case where a person does have a presumption of fitness and Rabbeinu Tam explained that we only check [for marriage into] the priesthood and that which we learned that if someone marries a woman he needs to check her four mothers that means  that his son would not be fit to serve [as a kohen] at the altar and his daughter would not be fit to marry a kohen unless he married a woman who was checked out and even for the priesthood only a man checks the woman but a woman of the priestly lineage need not check after a man for fit women were not wanted against marrying disqualified men but when it comes to lineage where there is no priestly angle there is no need to check and these are his [Rabbenu Tam's] words. It sounds from his words that for the priestly lineage one must check and so to wrote the Rambam this is his language [Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 20:1] \"1) All the priests in our day are assumed to be priests and they only partake in holy food that can be consumed within the borders [of eretz yisrael], meaning rabbinic Teruma however of Torah ordained Teruma and of Torah ordained Hallah only a priest with definite lineage may partake. Who is a priest with definite lineage? Anyone about whom two witnesses testified that he is a priest and the son of john doe priest the son of john doe priest until we arrive at a man [whose priesthood] does not need to to be checked and he is a priest who served at the altar for had the Sanhedrin not checked after his status they would not have permitted him to serve.\" These are his [Rambam's] words and it seems that even for priestly lineage one need not check for on that Mishna [Kiddushin 76a] of \"a priest who marries a woman must investigate four mothers\" we conclude [Kiddush 76b] \"Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This mishna is the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: All families retain a presumptive status of fitness. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya say that Rav says [our mishna is referring only to a case] when an objection was registered\" then one needs to check. Therefore we see that we probably need no checking nonetheless it is possible that although according to the Sages one does not need to check, the law follows an anonymous Mishna and a priest marrying needs to check his wife [the daughter of a priest]. Maimonides wrote that although all the families are presumed to be fit and one is allowed to marry into them, ideally two families that are always quarreling with each other or a family that is always contentious and combative or a man who is always looking for an argument with everyone and is very brazen we are worried about their status and it is appropriate to stay away from them for these are symptoms of disqualification. Similarly, someone who always disqaulifies others, for example he offers disqualifying innuendo about families or individuals and says about them that they are Mamzerim we are concerned that he himself may be a Mamzer and if he says about them that they are slaves we are concerned that maybe he is a slave for all who disqualify are themselves disqualified with the same disqualification. Similarly, someone who is is arrogant and cruel and hates people and does not act kindly we are concerned that he may be a Gibeonite for the signs of an Israelite, the holy nation is that they are shy, merciful and doers of kindness"
+                ],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "These [people] it is not appropriate to marry [them] either because of a disqualification in their lineage or because of something physical or because of [something] illicit. A male Israelite is forbidden to marry a Mamzer, or a Netin who is from the Gibeonites that Joshua decreed against marrying them. There is a prohibition against marrying an Ammonite, Moabite and, Egyptian. [Marrying a] Mamzer or Netin, is an eternal prohibition for all generations and it makes no difference whether they're male or female. Male Ammonites and Moabites are eternally prohibited but the females are immediately permitted. Egyptians and Edomites, males and females, are prohibited for the first two generations, after an [Egyptian father] converts, he and his son are prohibited but the [Egyptian father's] grandson is permitted. A pregnant Egyptian woman who converts, her son is a second generation Egyptian. A male Israelite who copulates with one of these [mentioned above], the child is like her [ s/he has the mother's lineage], however one of those [mentioned above], except for a Mamzer, who copulates with an Israelite woman, the child may marry in to the community although it is disqualified for the priestly lineage. If a female of one of these [mentioned above] converted and married an Israelite or a male of one these [mentioned above] converted an Israelite woman, the child take the lineage of the [more] disqualified one therefore a converted second generation Ammonite or Egyptian convert who married an Israelite woman their daughter is accepted for no matter which one of them [i.e. her parents] we follow she is acceptable even for [marriage into] the priesthood even though her copulation was a transgression. A second-generation male Egyptian who marries a first-generation Egyptian woman, his son is a second-generation [Egyptian]; a first-generation Egyptian man who marries a second-generation Egyptian woman, his sone is a third-generation [Egyptian] for it all follows the mother. An Ammonite male who married an Egyptian female their child is an Ammonite, an Egyptian male who married an Ammonite female their child is an Egyptian for among the nations [in matters of lineage] we follow the males. If they converted then the child follows the more deficient of the two of them. For example an Amonite male convert who follows an Egyptian female convert or an Egyptian male convert who married an Ammonite femal convert and they gave birth to a son his status becomes an Ammonite who is eternally prohibited, if they gave birth to a daughter her status is Egyptian who is prohibited for two generations. Regarding all other nationalities, immediately after converting they have the status of an Israelite immediately. Rambam wrote that in our time both an Egyptain and an Ammonite are permitted [to marry an Israelite] immediately [after conversion] for Sennacherib arose and intermixed all of the nations and anything removed [from a mixture is viewed as if it was] removed from the majority [of the mixture] and we estimate the [individual convert] descends from the majority of nations who are permitted. My master and father the Rosh wrote that Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites are immediately permitted but also now Egyptians are prohibited [after conversion] until the third generation. A male slave who was immersed [by his Jewish master] for the purpose of becoming a [Canaanite] slave is prohibited form marrying an Israelite woman, and an Israelite man is prohibited from marrying a female slave who was immersed [by her Jewish master] for the purpose of becoming a [Canaanite] female slave, regardless of whether she was his slave or another's [slave]. However, after his master frees him, or abandons him, or lays phylacteries on him, or if his master was a prayer leader and called him to go up to the Torah [ for an aliyah] behold he comes like an Israelite in all matters but if he lay phylacteries in the presence of his master or called him or read the Torah in his presence [during an aliyah] he does not go out to freedom. If his master married him off to an Israelite woman or even if he married an Israelite woman in the presence of his master, the betrothal takes effect for certainly he [his master] has released him since he permitted him to marry an Israelite woman and certainly if it is he [the master] who is marrying his own female slave that betrothal with her takes effect. Who is a Mamzer? It is [the offspring] of a man who copulates with one of the illicit [unions] where the punishment is death administered by the [earthly] Beth Din or Kritut [death / childlessness by the Heavens] with the exclusion of one who copulated with a Niddah who is not a rabbinic Mamzer.  Rambam wrote that if her husband was overseas and she gave birth then the child is is presumed to have the status of a Mamzer for a fetus does not stay in its mother's womb for more than twelve months but the Behag wrote that the child is not presumed to have the status of a Mamzer for we attribute it to the possibility that maybe her husband arrived [home] discreetly and copulated [with her]. A married woman who gained a reputation of copulating promiscuously while under [marriage] to her husband and everyone is chattering about her, we need not worry about her children that maybe they are Mamzerim for we excuse it and say that the majority of instances of intercourse takes place with the husband but as for her we suspect her of being a promiscuous woman [zonah] and if she is exceedingly promiscuous then we are even concerned about [the Mamzer status] of her children."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The money of <i>kiddushin</i> needs to be given over absolutely. If it was given to her on condition of being given back, this is not valid <i>kiddushin</i>, whether or not she gives it back to him. If she said to him \"Give a coin to some guy, and I will be betrothed to you.\" He gives it to him, and then says to her: \"Be betrothed to me on account of the money I gave that guy,\" - this is valid <i>kiddushin</i>. If she says to one man to give money to another in order to be betrothed to him, and this second man says \"Behold you are betrothed to me on account of the money I received at your request,\" - this is valid <i>kiddushin</i>. Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (?) says that even if the second man didn't say \"Behold you are betrothed, etc.,\" but made the first man his agent to betroth a wife for him. When the woman then says to this man \"Give money to the second man and I will be betrothed to him,\" and he says after her 'yes', or even doesn't say yes but they were talking in the context of betrothal - this is valid <i>kiddushin</i>.  If he declares \"Betroth yourself to me on account of a <i>dinar</i>,\" and then gives her a collateral until he actually gives her the <i>dinar</i> - this is not valid <i>kiddushin</i>. If he says \"You are betrothed on account of a <i>maneh</i>\" but actually only gives her a <i>dinar</i>, she is immediately betrothed and he is obliged to top up to a <i>maneh</i>. If he says \"You are betrothed on account of this <i>maneh</i>\" (or just any <i>maneh</i>), and he starts counting out coins, there is no valid <i>kiddushin</i> until an entire <i>maneh</i> has been given. If even one <i>dinar</i> is missing, there is no valid <i>kiddushin</i>. Yet if he says \"The missing <i>dinar</i> is owed by me to you,\" - there is valid <i>kiddushin</i>."
+                ]
+            ]
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": [
+                [
+                    "Laws of Judges - (Pirkei Avot 1:18) “Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: On three things is the world established - on judgement, on truth, and on peace.” Rabbeinu Yonah z”l explains: The explanation cannot be that “because of these three things the world was created,” because the beginning of the chapter said that on three things does the world stand, and these three are not listed there. Rather, first [Pirkei Avot] relates that for three things the world was created, i.e. Torah, Avodah and Gemilut Chasadim. Torah, that it says, (Proverbs 8:22) “God made me as the first of His way...” The Torah says, “I was created before all of the creations and for my sake were all creations created.” Similarly, [the world was created] because of “Avodah” because God chose Israel from all of the nations, and chose the Beit Hamikdash from all of the places, that they should serve Him in it, and for its sake to God create the world. And similarly Gemilut Chasadim, which is the middah of chesed that causes one to be approved before God. Here [Pirkei Avot] states, “...the world is established.” This means that after the world was created it is preserved through these things - that through judges that judge between people does the world continue. Because were it not for law the more powerful would conquer. And similarly truth, like it says in Shabbat 104a, that lies have no legs [to stand on] but truth is the foundation and it is a big pillar for all things. And similarly, peace, as they say in Avot (Pirkei Avot 3:2), “One should pray for the peace of the government, for were it not for the fear of government, people would swallow each other alive.” ",
+                    "And this is the intention of our rabbis z”l, when they say, “All who judge a judgement truthfully, it’s as if he is a partner with God in the creation of the world,” because God created the world to continue and the wicked who steal and commit acts of violence ruin the world through their actions. And similarly we find regarding the generation of the flood that the decree of their judgement was sealed only because of theft, as it is written, (Genesis 6:11) “For the earth is filled with violence,” and it says after this, (Genesis 6:13) “I will destroy them with the earth”. What emerges is that the judge who breaks the high arms of the wicked keeps the world going and completes the will of the Creator, blessed is His name, who created it to keep going, and it is as if they become partners with the Holy One ,Blessed Be He, in the creation. Abraham our forefather didn’t know God, and He called him (Isaiah 41:8) “My beloved” because he walked in the ways of justice and guided his children, as it is written, (Genesis 18:19) “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of God, to do righteousness and justice…” And Moses our teacher a”h, master of all prophets, took advice from Yitro with regards to justice, to establish judges to caution Israel and to command them through justice, and God agreed with this. And Joshua afterwards established a covenant with Israel to serve God, he left his last word as justice, as it is written, (Joshua 24:25) “On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them laws and justice.” [This is] because justice is the foundation and the great principle in the service of God, and following [Abraham] have each and every judge judged their generation, and bring them back from their evil ways to service of God to go in the way that Abraham paved to do righteousness and justice, and through this were they [i.e. the Jewish people] were saved from their enemies until Samuel the prophet came, God-faithful, (1 Samuel 7:15-16) “who judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. And he judged Israel in all these places.” And our sages tell us that the path he took one year was not the one he took the next, so that he could turn the hearts of the entire nation toward service of God, and to walk in the way of Abraham our forefather a”h, and he anointed David to be the king of Israel, and he too walked in the ways of God from all that was in front of him, as it is written,(2 Samuel 8:15) “And David did justice and righteousness. (1 Chronicles 11:8) “And Joab restored the rest of the city.” And our sages tell us that in the merit of the justice and righteousness of David, Joab restored the rest of the city, and had his child [Solomon] continue after him, the “Yedid Hashem”, who loved to go in the laws of his father David and would ask from God an understanding, listening heart to judge his people, to understand between good and bad, and it was good in God’s eyes, that which he asked regarding this. And He gave him a wise and understanding heart which has never been before, and no one has been like him since, and all of Israel was afraid of him because they saw that the wisdom of God was in his heart to do justice. And also Jehoshaphat, who took the paths of his father and raised his heart in the ways of God, was strengthened in justice, and he appointed judges in every city, and he said to the judges, “See what you do, for you are not judging for man but for God, and with you shall be justice.” Josiah as well, that Scripture testifies about him, “And no king was like him before, who returned to God with all his heart.” And also the King Messiah, who will be revealed speedily in our days, is praised by Scripture regarding justice, and it is written, (Isaiah 11:4) “And he will judge the destitute with justice, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth…” And according to the greatness of his reward will be the punishment for those who void and pervert it, as it is taught, “Destruction comes to the word based on lack of law and on the perversion of law.” And so did David say, (Psalms 119:121) “I have done justice and righteousness, leave me not to my oppressors.” This implies that without justice, he would have been left in the hands off oppressors. And Jerusalem was only destroyed, and Israel only exiled, because of the neglecting of justice, as it is written, (Isaiah 1:21) “She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her-- but now murderers.”... And God wants it more than all the sacrifices, as it is written, “Doing righteousness and justice is choicier to God than the zevach offerings.” It does not says “than sin and burnt offerings,” but rather “than zevach offerings.”"
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "Question to the Rosh: Reuven has an IOU from Shimon for 3000, half of which can be collected three months hence, and the other half six months hence. And Reuven perishes within this timeframe, and his heirs claim the monies from Shimon. Shimon claims that he already repaid Reuven before his death, and shows a witnessed document to that effect, and asks that the heirs return to him the IOU. The heirs make an assessment that the witnesses are false and ask the Bet Din to investigate the matter. In support of their claim, the heirs point out there were only 15 days between the date of the IOU and the supposed date of repayment which is not sufficiently long for the lender (Reuven) to say that he lost the IOU and that he will write a receipt. So why was the IOU not returned to be destroyed? In addition, the time had not yet been reached for any repayments, scheduled to take place after the death of the lender! Also all of Reuven's family testify that they did not know or hear of any repayment at all, and if it were true, they would have known the debt was repaid, since all of Reuven's financial transactions went though them. Answer: It's true that that the repayment witnesses need to be investigated by experts, to clarify all the issues raised. And if after investigating their testimony stands, there is no power in these issues to disqualify the witnesses, even though when a person claims that he repaid a debt early he is not believed, if there are witnesses to support the early repayment claim then the witnesses are not dismissed just because it is not normal to repay a debt early. And even though the date on the IOU was within 15 days of the repayment it is possible that the IOU was somewhere else, and Reuven needed the money and Shimon did him a favour and paid him without the returning of the IOU, but receiving a receipt instead. And about Reuven's family not knowing about the repayment is not proof (of non-repayment) as heaven knows their hearts if they are honest or not, and we cannot dismiss the witnesses based on this claim. And if these witnesses in front of a G-d fearing and expert court, it is possible that the truth will be revealed through proper investigation, and if after all investigations, the court believes the witnesses the heirs have to return the money to the lender. "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "<b>Laws of Sharing Land:</b> The law is that damage to visual privacy is considered damage.",
+                    "Hence two people sharing a courtyard: If it is subject to the law of division, each one of them can compel his fellow to divide [it] and even to make a partition between them to prevent each one from looking into his fellow's [section]. But if it is not [large enough to be] subject to the law of division and each one does not recognize what is his portion, none of them may compel his fellow to divide [it]. And even if they consented to divide [it], they can retract. And [they can retract] even if they acquired [the agreement] with [a formal] acquisition, since [such an] acquisition is only words. But if each one chose their portion and made an acquisition upon it; or if, after they divided it, one of them assumed possession of his portion - even not in front of his fellow, and even if he did not say to him, \"Possess and acquire\" - the division is established and none of them can retract about it.",
+                    "So they may compel one another to make a wall between them. Some say  that that which we compel to make a wall between them is only when there is no known custom. But if they were accustomed to not making it, we do not compel [them to do so].",
+                    "But my master, my father, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, wrote that even if there is a custom in the city not to make one, we do not follow it, but compel [them] to make it."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "And the Rosh wrote that today when we do not write in the deed \"write it in the market and sign it in public\" it is because the custom is to write this phrase in all gift deeds. Therefore when he instructs (the witnesses) to write the gift deed (without mentioning the phrase) he is considered to have it in mind that they should write it like the custom of the scribes. Therefore it is as if he instructed them to include the phrase. "
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One is not obligated [to announce] any lost object that is not worth a <i>perutah</i> (a very small coin) at the time of the loss and at the time of the return.",
+                    "Even if it was worth a <i>perutah</i> at the time of the loss, but it depreciated; or it was not  worth a <i>perutah</i> at the time of the loss but it appreciated, one is not obligated [to announce it]. But if it was worth a <i>perutah</i> at the time of the loss and at the time of the return - even if it depreciated in the interim - he is obligated. The Rambam writes (Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 13:1), \"If it was worth a <i>perutah</i> at the time of the finding but depreciates, he is obligated to announce it.\" To here [are his words].",
+                    "And even a lost object that is worth much - if it belongs to many partners, such that the worth of a <i>perutah</i> does not accrue to each one, he is not obligated to return it. To what does these words apply? [To a case in which] it is known that they are partners in it. But in a standard case in which he saw an object that fell from three [people] and it is only worth two <i>perutah</i>, he is obligated to return it. For perhaps they are partners in it, and one of them relinquished his part to his fellow, such that there is the worth of two <i>perutah</i> in it for two [people]. And if it is made known to him afterwards that no one relinquished [their part] to his fellow, it is surely his - even if it comes to his hand before it was made known to him that [none of the partners] relinquished [it]; since it was made known to him afterwards that no [one] relinquished [it] to [another], it is surely his. But if it is not worth a <i>perutah</i>, it is surely his - as we do not assume that two [partners] relinquished [their parts] to one. Hence he does not return it if he knows that they are partners and it doesn't have the worth of a <i>perutah</i> for each one; and if they are not partners, they abandon it. ",
+                    "One who finds a lost object is only obligated to announce something that has an identifying mark on itself, or when its location is fitting to give as an identifying mark. For example, if one announces, \"I found lost object x,\" and the [other one] says, \"You found it in place y\"; or if he gives an identifying mark in its knots or its quantity. For since there is an identifying mark, the owners did not abandon it, as they will say, \"I will give an identifying mark and I will get it [back].\"",
+                    "But if it does not have an identifying mark in itself or its location - such as if it is clear that it was not placed there intentionally, but rather came there in the manner of being dropped: If it something that can be assumed that its owners noticed very soon [after] it fell from them - either because of its heaviness or because of its significance and he is always feeling for it, so he notices when it falls - it is surely the finders. As behold, [the owner] abandoned [it] immediately when he knew that if fell, since it has no  identifying mark. Hence it came to the hand of [the finder] permissibly, as its owners had abandoned it. But if [the object was] not [like this, the finder] is obligated to return it - even though [the owners] abandoned it afterwards - since it came to his hand before [its] abandonment.",
+                    "And it is not necessary to say that if the circumstances show that the owners did not abandon it, one needs to return it. For example, one who sees an object fall from [one person in a group of] two, as he certainly does not abandon [it]. For he says, \"There is no one else here besides this one; he certainly took it. And today or tomorrow, I will will take [something] of his, equivalent to it.\" And even if he saw it fall from [one person in a group of] three, about which one could say [the owner] certainly abandoned it - as he would say, \"[Against] which one of them will I make a claim; each one of them will say, 'My fellow took it'\" - nevertheless, he is obligated to return [it]. For one can say the three of them are partners in that object, and none of them suspects his fellow, so he did not abandon it. And if he saw from whom it fell, he is obligated to return it to him, even if it does not have an identifying mark. However if he did not see from whom it fell: If it has an identifying mark, he announces it among them; but if it does not have an identifying mark, it shall be with him until Elijah, may he be remembered for the good, arrives. And [this is the case] even when it is only worth two <i>perutah</i>, as I explained earlier (Tur, Choshen Mishpat 262:3).",
+                    "To what do these words apply? In a standard [case]. But if he knows that the owners abandoned [it] - such as when he said, \"Woe is to me for the monetary loss\" - it is the finder's, even if it has an identifying mark.",
+                    "And likewise, one who finds something that shows about it that it was lost a long time from its owners - such that the owners abandoned [it] - it is the finder's, even if there is an identifying mark in it or in its location.",
+                    "Hence, one who finds scattered coins, round cakes of figs, bread of a baker, strings of fish that do not have an identifying mark in their knots or in their amount, cuts of meat that do not have an identifying mark, strips of combed purple wool, unprocessed wool fleeces that are not dyed or flax stalks, they are surely his. As with all of these, the owners would notice their falling - coins, a person feels in his purse all the time; so too, are strips of combed purple wool significant; round cakes of figs, bread and strings [of fish] are edible items and significant, so he feels for them; unprocessed wool fleeces and flax stalk, one feels when they fall because of their heaviness - and since they do not have an identifying mark, he immediately abandons them. For their location is also not an identifying mark, as it is not the way of any of these to be placed on the ground. So they came there in the way of being dropped, hence their place is not known [by the owners]. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 15:8), \"If one finds scattered produce in the manner of being [intentionally] placed, he should not touch them; in the manner of being dropped, they are surely [the finders].\" And that is not clear (appears incorrect). As in the gemara, it establishes the mishnah (Bava Metzia 21a) of one who finds produce [...] is surely his, [to be] in [the case of] gathering [grain] on the threshing floor, such that they were placed there knowingly and the owners abandoned them - as I explained above - with a <i>kav</i> in four cubits. However when not like this, they are forbidden - since the owners did not know that they fell, such that they would certainly abandon them. If he found [them] in the manner of their being dropped and it is known that the owners abandoned them, they are permitted - but not in a standard case (wherein we don't know if it was abandoned). But one who finds bread [from the kitchen] of a homeowner, dyed wool fleeces, cuts of meat or fish that have an identifying mark - or anything that has an identifying mark - is obligated to announce [it]. One who finds a barrel of wine, oil, dried figs or grain before the storehouses were opened is obligated to announce [it], since there is an identifying mark  in their markings. But after the storehouses were opened, they are no [longer] identifying marks, so he is not obligated to announce [it]. Moreover, even if the [owner] presents an identifying mark, it is not effective, lest he sold it but he [still] knows an identifying mark in it. And Rabbi Yitzchak explained [the above to be] about full [barrels], such that all of their measurements are the same. But if they are not full, they have an identifying mark in their measurements. If one found piles of produce, he is obligated to announce [them] - for it was certainly placed there and their location is an identifying mark, even if it is in a public area, as they do not roll around from the feet of people.",
+                    "And likewise [is one obligated to announce it], if he found three coins, one on top of the other, formed like a tower - the bottom larger than the middle, and the middle larger than the top - as they were certainly placed there like this. And he should announce, \"I found coins\"; and [the owner] should say, \"There were three,\" and he need not say that they were formed like a tower. And likewise, one who finds one from [one side] and one from [the other] and one on top of them, or like a chain-stitch - the majority of the middle on top of the bottom and the majority of the top on top of the middle. But if he found two, even if they are formed like a tower; or even three, but they are not like a tower, but rather resting on top of the other and they are all the same in their size, or partially overlap - the understanding being that part of the one is on top of [the other] and part of it is on top of the ground - they are [the finder's]. But if he found them like a bracelet - the explanation being placed in a circle - or in a straight line, one next to [the other] or like a tripod - the explanation being like three legs of a jug - it is an inquiry that was not resolved. And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote that he may not take it. But my father, my master, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, wrote [that] he takes and announces [it]. To what do these words apply? When he returns a coin due to the identifying marks in the location. But we do not return it to him if the identifying mark is not in its location, but in itself. Even if he says it is marked by the seal of king x or even [if] his name is written upon it, we do not return it to him - as it is made for spending, and maybe he spent it and it fell from another.",
+                    "If one saw that a <i>sela</i> (a large coin) fell from his fellow into the sand or into the dirt, it is permissible for him to take it, as [the owner] certainly abandoned [it] - even if he saw him sifting through the sand or the dirt with a sieve to search for it, he abandoned [it]. And his intention in sifting through the sand or the dirt is not about this <i>sela</i>, but rather since he suspects, \"Maybe I will find mine or another <i>sela</i> that fell from others.\"",
+                    "One who found small bundles [of grain] in a private area, such as a planted field: If it is clear that they came there in the manner of being dropped, they are surely his - since they did not have an identifying mark. But if it was in the manner of being placed, he is obligated to announce [them], as their location is an identifying mark.",
+                    "But if he found them in a public area, they are certainly his - since they roll around from people's feet, so their location is not an identifying mark. But large bundles, even if he found them in a public area, he is obligated to announce - as their location is an identifying mark. But a location in which everyone is accustomed to place [their items] there, such as a barrel on the riverfront, is not an identifying mark - since everyone unloads their barrels there. Anything that has an identifying mark, even if it is in a public area - such that it is prone to being trampled by people's feet - is considered [having] an identifying mark.",
+                    "And an identifying mark that comes on its own (was not placed there intentionally) - such as a loaf [of bread] with coins inside it or a round cake of figs with a piece of earthenware inside it, such that it is not the way to place them inside them, but it rather rather fell inside them on its own: Rabbi Yehudah held that it is an identifying mark, since he sometimes places it into his mind to remember that it is in it and proclaims it as an identifying mark - and therefore [the finder] is obligated to announce [it]. But the rabbis do not think it is an identifying mark. And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote that it was an an identifying mark; but I do not know why he decided like Rabbi Yehudah. However my father, my master, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, decided like the sages.",
+                    "One who measures the weight of an item or its size or its knots or its quantity in a place where they are not accustomed to making all of the knots and quantities the same, is an identifying mark. Hence one who finds needles or tubes or nails: If one found them one by one, they are surely his - for there is surly no identifying mark in them. And they are his, even if there are many needles in one cloth, for their quantity is not an identifying mark, since it is customary to make the quantity in all of the cloths the same. But if one found two cloths, he should announce and say, \"I have found needles,\" and [the other one] says, \"There were two cloths.\" And likewise if he found many needles without a cloth, he should announce it and [the other one] provides an identifying mark with their quantity.",
+                    "A cut of meat about which he says it was from the neck or the thigh is not an identifying mark. But if he provides an identifying mark about its cutting, it is an identifying mark.",
+                    "One who buys produce from this fellow, or that his fellow sent it to him, and he finds coins in it: If they are tied, he is obligated to announce [them], for the knot is an identifying mark; but if they were scattered, they are his. To what do these words apply? To one who buys from a retailer, since [the latter] bought it from many people and he doesn't know who it is from, so the owners abandon [them]. And likewise is it the law when the retailer finds them himself, that they are his. And that is when they were held in his possession long enough that he could mix them with his produce. But if one buys them from a private individual, [the buyer] is obligated to return them to him. And that is when the private individual threshed [the produce] himself, or through his [gentile] servants or maid-servants. But if he had them threshed by workers, [the finder] need not return it - as perhaps they belong to the workers (their ownership is uncertain).",
+                    "If one found a donkey with a saddle upon it - [the finder] also returns the donkey to one who can provide identifying marks about the saddle.",
+                    "And likewise [with] a vessel and there is produce inside it, or a purse and there are coins inside it, we return the produce along with the vessel and the coins along with the purse - even if not all of them are inside it, but rather only some of them, and some of them are on the ground. But if none of them are inside the vessel - if the back of the vessel is facing the produce, they belong to their finder in any circumstance. However if the front of the vessel is facing the produce: We see that if the vessel has a rim, the produce belongs to their finder - for if they had been in the vessel, they would not have fallen from it, since the rim impedes them; but if it does not have a rim, we return the produce along with the vessel. And all of this is with a basket and produce. But with a container and flax, in any circumstance, they belong to their finders - according to Rashi, may his memory be blessed. And according to Rabbi Yitzchak, in any circumstance, they belong to the one who provides an identifying mark about the vessel. And so too wrote my father, my master, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed.",
+                    "One who finds an item that has no identifying mark is not obligated to announce it - as I explained. But if it is an item that can be recognized by its owner by visual recognition - such as if it is old and he has already used it: If the claimant is a Torah scholar and he says that he recognizes it from visual recognition - that this is the vessel that he lost - [the finder] is obligated to return it.",
+                    "Hence a finder in a place where Torah scholars are common there - such as inside a study hall - is obligated to announce [what he found]. For the owners did not abandon [it], as they say that one who finds it in a place where Torah scholars reside will think that is belongs to a Torah scholar and will return it to him, and take it and announce [it]. To what do these words apply? To a Torah scholar that does not alter his  speech (say an untruth) except with regard to a tractate (whether he studied it), with regard to a bed (whether he slept in it) and with regard to a host (as to the quality of the hospitality). But if he alters his speech about something else, we do not return it to him from visual recognition. However one who finds it in a place where Torah scholars are uncommon - or if the vessel is still new and he has not used it in a manner that he would recognize it - is not obligated to announce [it]."
+                ]
+            ]
+        }
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "טור",
+        "enTitle": "Tur",
+        "key": "Tur",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}
\ No newline at end of file