diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf4bd46d0768aeeae5f79a0bffcd656eb22cf36b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות חגיגה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [ + "כסף משנה, סוף הלכה: למה לא האריך לבאר זה. נ\"ב ע' בפרק י\"ב מה' עכו\"ם ה' ג':" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך: כ\"כ רש\"י פ\"ד דתמורה ד' י\"ד. נ\"ב ע\"ש בד\"ה מלבד שבתות כו' דאם יו\"ט אחר השבת כו' עכ\"ל והיינו דוקא דשבת וכמו חלבי שבת דקריבין ביו\"ט. אבל לא נסכים דזבח שהקריב בחול [ברש\"י שם מבואר דלא ילפינן רק על של שבת ומ\"מ איני מבין למה לא יהי' מותר מן הסברא גם בשל חול דמה איסור מלאכה יש בניסוך המים על המזבח וכיון שנתחייב מאתמול ושכח ישלים ביו\"ט שהרי זריזין מקדימין כיון שאין בו שום איסור מלאכה ויכול להשלים היום]:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לח\"מ: ולדברי רב אשי קרא ושמחת בחגיך אתא לאין נושאין נשים במועד [כן אמר שם בחגיגה ח'] וכן פסק רבינו בה' יו\"ט פרק ז' הל' ט\"ז [ע\"ש שהביא שני הטעמים כרב ומשום דאין מערבין כו'. ובה' אשות פ\"י הל' י\"ד הביא רק הטעם דאין מערבין. ועוד קשה דבה' אשות הביא דאין מערבין מקרא מלא שבוע זאת שהוא בירושלמי מו\"ק פ\"ק הובא תוס' מו\"ק דף ח' ע\"ב ד\"ה לפי ולא הביא קרא דמייתי בגמ' דילן במו\"ק ט' א' משלמה המלך. ויש לומר דהרמב\"ם ס\"ל דרב אשי דריש כרב ולא באשתך וגם למד דאין מערבין כו' מקרא דמלא שבוע הנ\"ל ולמד גם על שאינו מועד דקרא בחגיך ולא באשתך פי' הרמב\"ם בה' יו\"ט שם שלא תשתכח שמחת החג בשמחת נשואין וא\"כ י\"ל טעם זה גם בחינוך בהמ\"ק דשלמה שגם שם בחג הוה שלא תשתכח שמחת החג בשמחת בהמ\"ק דכתיב בחגיך דווקא ואין ללמוד משם דאין מערבין כו' דחג שאני ורק בגמ' דמייתי קרא זה הוא למאן דפליג על רב יעו\"ש בגמרא וע' או\"ח סי' תרצ\"ו בהגר\"א ס\"ק י\"ח ויעויין מו\"ק דף י\"ח ע\"ב ומבואר שם דמתני' דמו\"ק ח' ב' אוסר רק נשואין דוקא גם בלא סעודה ומתיר באירוסין וע\"ז מייתי שם מו\"ק ח' ב' דברי רב בחגיך ולא באשתך ואין אירוסין בכלל אשתך ומותר לארס ורק הטעם שאסרו סעודת אירוסין שם י\"ח ב' משום דאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה ובזה מדוקדק מאוד לשון הרמב\"ם ה' יו\"ט פ\"ז ה' ט\"ז שם דמתחלה הזכיר נשואין ומייתי ע\"ז הטעם שלא תשתכח כו' שהוא טעם רב הנ\"ל ואח\"כ הביא סעודת אירוסין (וגם סעודה של נשואין) ומייתי ע\"ז הטעם על הסעודות משום דאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה וכנ\"ל וגם סעודת נשואין שהזכיר הרמב\"ם ע\"ז קשה תיפוק לי' משום נשואין עצמם שכתב מקודם שאסור וע\"כ איירי שנשא ערב הרגל בלא סעודה כלל או במחזיר גרושתו וכמ\"ש הב\"י או\"ח סי' תקמ\"ו וע\"ש מג\"א ס\"ק ד' וגם זה רק משום אין מערבין כו' ובה' אישות פ\"י ה' י\"ג התחיל לענין נשואין שני נשים ביחד שאינו במועד ולכן הביא שם בהלכה י\"ג ובהלכה י\"ד הקרא דמלא שבוע זאת והטעם דאין מערבין משום שני נשים כאחד שהתחיל בו ובזה מתורץ דברי הרמב\"ם [וקרוב כעין זה ראיתי בכתב יד אדוני אבי מורי זללה\"ה]:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: אם כוונת רבינו ז\"ל לומר כו'. נ\"ב נראה דכוונתו על הלועזות והגרים שאינם מכירים בלה\"ק וע' ספר החינוך. וע' מגילה דף י\"ח ע\"א וברש\"י שם ד\"ה ופרסומי ניסא [ושמיעה פי' הבנה כמו שמצינו בכמה מקומות וכמו שמע ישראל וכמו שאמרו על זה ברכות י\"ג ע\"א שמע בכל לשון שאתה שומע והיינו שאתה מבין וכמו שהביא הרמב\"ם בפ\"ב מהל' ק\"ש הלכה יו\"ד בכל לשון שיהי' מבינה ע\"ש]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c9159e44526a143bb33c6e68996536ad423ee1c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Festival Offering", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Festival_Offering", + "text": [ + [ + [ + "כסף משנה, סוף הלכה: למה לא האריך לבאר זה. נ\"ב ע' בפרק י\"ב מה' עכו\"ם ה' ג':" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך: כ\"כ רש\"י פ\"ד דתמורה ד' י\"ד. נ\"ב ע\"ש בד\"ה מלבד שבתות כו' דאם יו\"ט אחר השבת כו' עכ\"ל והיינו דוקא דשבת וכמו חלבי שבת דקריבין ביו\"ט. אבל לא נסכים דזבח שהקריב בחול [ברש\"י שם מבואר דלא ילפינן רק על של שבת ומ\"מ איני מבין למה לא יהי' מותר מן הסברא גם בשל חול דמה איסור מלאכה יש בניסוך המים על המזבח וכיון שנתחייב מאתמול ושכח ישלים ביו\"ט שהרי זריזין מקדימין כיון שאין בו שום איסור מלאכה ויכול להשלים היום]:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לח\"מ: ולדברי רב אשי קרא ושמחת בחגיך אתא לאין נושאין נשים במועד [כן אמר שם בחגיגה ח'] וכן פסק רבינו בה' יו\"ט פרק ז' הל' ט\"ז [ע\"ש שהביא שני הטעמים כרב ומשום דאין מערבין כו'. ובה' אשות פ\"י הל' י\"ד הביא רק הטעם דאין מערבין. ועוד קשה דבה' אשות הביא דאין מערבין מקרא מלא שבוע זאת שהוא בירושלמי מו\"ק פ\"ק הובא תוס' מו\"ק דף ח' ע\"ב ד\"ה לפי ולא הביא קרא דמייתי בגמ' דילן במו\"ק ט' א' משלמה המלך. ויש לומר דהרמב\"ם ס\"ל דרב אשי דריש כרב ולא באשתך וגם למד דאין מערבין כו' מקרא דמלא שבוע הנ\"ל ולמד גם על שאינו מועד דקרא בחגיך ולא באשתך פי' הרמב\"ם בה' יו\"ט שם שלא תשתכח שמחת החג בשמחת נשואין וא\"כ י\"ל טעם זה גם בחינוך בהמ\"ק דשלמה שגם שם בחג הוה שלא תשתכח שמחת החג בשמחת בהמ\"ק דכתיב בחגיך דווקא ואין ללמוד משם דאין מערבין כו' דחג שאני ורק בגמ' דמייתי קרא זה הוא למאן דפליג על רב יעו\"ש בגמרא וע' או\"ח סי' תרצ\"ו בהגר\"א ס\"ק י\"ח ויעויין מו\"ק דף י\"ח ע\"ב ומבואר שם דמתני' דמו\"ק ח' ב' אוסר רק נשואין דוקא גם בלא סעודה ומתיר באירוסין וע\"ז מייתי שם מו\"ק ח' ב' דברי רב בחגיך ולא באשתך ואין אירוסין בכלל אשתך ומותר לארס ורק הטעם שאסרו סעודת אירוסין שם י\"ח ב' משום דאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה ובזה מדוקדק מאוד לשון הרמב\"ם ה' יו\"ט פ\"ז ה' ט\"ז שם דמתחלה הזכיר נשואין ומייתי ע\"ז הטעם שלא תשתכח כו' שהוא טעם רב הנ\"ל ואח\"כ הביא סעודת אירוסין (וגם סעודה של נשואין) ומייתי ע\"ז הטעם על הסעודות משום דאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה וכנ\"ל וגם סעודת נשואין שהזכיר הרמב\"ם ע\"ז קשה תיפוק לי' משום נשואין עצמם שכתב מקודם שאסור וע\"כ איירי שנשא ערב הרגל בלא סעודה כלל או במחזיר גרושתו וכמ\"ש הב\"י או\"ח סי' תקמ\"ו וע\"ש מג\"א ס\"ק ד' וגם זה רק משום אין מערבין כו' ובה' אישות פ\"י ה' י\"ג התחיל לענין נשואין שני נשים ביחד שאינו במועד ולכן הביא שם בהלכה י\"ג ובהלכה י\"ד הקרא דמלא שבוע זאת והטעם דאין מערבין משום שני נשים כאחד שהתחיל בו ובזה מתורץ דברי הרמב\"ם [וקרוב כעין זה ראיתי בכתב יד אדוני אבי מורי זללה\"ה]:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: אם כוונת רבינו ז\"ל לומר כו'. נ\"ב נראה דכוונתו על הלועזות והגרים שאינם מכירים בלה\"ק וע' ספר החינוך. וע' מגילה דף י\"ח ע\"א וברש\"י שם ד\"ה ופרסומי ניסא [ושמיעה פי' הבנה כמו שמצינו בכמה מקומות וכמו שמע ישראל וכמו שאמרו על זה ברכות י\"ג ע\"א שמע בכל לשון שאתה שומע והיינו שאתה מבין וכמו שהביא הרמב\"ם בפ\"ב מהל' ק\"ש הלכה יו\"ד בכל לשון שיהי' מבינה ע\"ש]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות חגיגה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcda2c976725a30840787d1a0de26bcd7830269f --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות בכורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: ופסק רבינו ז\"ל כר\"ע אע\"ג דסתם משנה כר' ישמעאל כו'. נ\"ב בחנם נדחק בזה דהא סתמא דסוף חלה דלא קיבלו מבן אנטיגנוס [שהביא בכורות מבבל] כר\"ע. ואדרבא מעשה רב והרב כתב גם לקמן מברייתא דבן אנטיגנוס ונמשך לו הטעות מלשון רש\"י ז\"ל בסוף פ\"ג דתמורה [דף כ\"א ע\"ב] ד\"ה אתה כו' וברייתא כו' וט\"ס ברש\"י וכמו שהגיה שם הגאון מהרי\"ב ז\"ל [שצ\"ל ומשנה]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לח\"מ: וכיון דקי\"ל שינוי קונה וכתב מתני' דהגוזל כו'. נ\"ב צ\"ל קונה וכסתם משנה דהגוזל כו':" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f73bb33a117c2755ab9eac166bfb572638f7b45 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Firstlings", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Firstlings", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: ופסק רבינו ז\"ל כר\"ע אע\"ג דסתם משנה כר' ישמעאל כו'. נ\"ב בחנם נדחק בזה דהא סתמא דסוף חלה דלא קיבלו מבן אנטיגנוס [שהביא בכורות מבבל] כר\"ע. ואדרבא מעשה רב והרב כתב גם לקמן מברייתא דבן אנטיגנוס ונמשך לו הטעות מלשון רש\"י ז\"ל בסוף פ\"ג דתמורה [דף כ\"א ע\"ב] ד\"ה אתה כו' וברייתא כו' וט\"ס ברש\"י וכמו שהגיה שם הגאון מהרי\"ב ז\"ל [שצ\"ל ומשנה]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לח\"מ: וכיון דקי\"ל שינוי קונה וכתב מתני' דהגוזל כו'. נ\"ב צ\"ל קונה וכסתם משנה דהגוזל כו':" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות בכורות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d976b5eaf360885421836de3fd8a569ea0f665ac --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מחוסרי כפרה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: וכתב הראב\"ד זהו תימא גדול כו' ולדברי רבינו י\"ל וכו'. נ\"ב ע' בקרבן אהרן על תורת כהנים פ' תזריע פ\"ג:" + ], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: כמ\"ש בפרק חמישי מה' א\"ב. נ\"ב צ\"ל בפרק עשירי ה' י\"ט:" + ], + [], + [], + [ + "וכן הדין בזב היו עליה ה' לידות ודאות וה' לידות ספק כו'. נ\"ב צ\"ל היו עליה ה' זיבות ודאות וה' לידות ספק או חמש לידות ודאות וחמש זיבות ספק מביאה כו' [כוונתו דלפי הכתוב ברמב\"ם לפנינו ה' לידות ודאות וה' לידות ספק קשה הרי בקרבן אחד תהי' מותרת בקדשים דלא גרע מאם היו עליה עשרה לידות ודאות שמותרת באחד וא\"כ למה תביא על הספק כלל. וכן הקשה הגר\"ע אייגר ז\"ל בגליון הש\"ס כריתות ח' א' והניח בצ\"ע ע\"ש ולפי מה שהגיה כאן ניחא דיולדת וזיבה צריך שתי קרבנות ע' כריתות ט' ב' וכן הגיה בגמ' כמ\"ש בהגהותיו בן ארי' בכריתות שם ע\"ש]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "לחם משנה: ולפי הנראה מן הסוגי' מתני' אתי' כו'. נ\"ב ע' מה שכתבתי לעיל על הגליון בה' עבודת יום הכפורים פ\"ב ה' ג':" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ac18e2027c5479bb0b2896e9eecf82778346046 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Offerings_for_Those_with_Incomplete_Atonement", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: וכתב הראב\"ד זהו תימא גדול כו' ולדברי רבינו י\"ל וכו'. נ\"ב ע' בקרבן אהרן על תורת כהנים פ' תזריע פ\"ג:" + ], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: כמ\"ש בפרק חמישי מה' א\"ב. נ\"ב צ\"ל בפרק עשירי ה' י\"ט:" + ], + [], + [], + [ + "וכן הדין בזב היו עליה ה' לידות ודאות וה' לידות ספק כו'. נ\"ב צ\"ל היו עליה ה' זיבות ודאות וה' לידות ספק או חמש לידות ודאות וחמש זיבות ספק מביאה כו' [כוונתו דלפי הכתוב ברמב\"ם לפנינו ה' לידות ודאות וה' לידות ספק קשה הרי בקרבן אחד תהי' מותרת בקדשים דלא גרע מאם היו עליה עשרה לידות ודאות שמותרת באחד וא\"כ למה תביא על הספק כלל. וכן הקשה הגר\"ע אייגר ז\"ל בגליון הש\"ס כריתות ח' א' והניח בצ\"ע ע\"ש ולפי מה שהגיה כאן ניחא דיולדת וזיבה צריך שתי קרבנות ע' כריתות ט' ב' וכן הגיה בגמ' כמ\"ש בהגהותיו בן ארי' בכריתות שם ע\"ש]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "לחם משנה: ולפי הנראה מן הסוגי' מתני' אתי' כו'. נ\"ב ע' מה שכתבתי לעיל על הגליון בה' עבודת יום הכפורים פ\"ב ה' ג':" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מחוסרי כפרה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5dee5583aedc5b1400e295d4a2a4f3c9dbfbe7de --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות שגגות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [ + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: אמר לו ע\"א חלב הוא זה ושותק כו'. נ\"ב ירושלמי סוטה פרק ו' הל' ב' ע\"ש וע' משנה למלך [וע\"ע ברמב\"ם הל' איסורי ביאה פ\"א הל' כ\"ב]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: כאומר לא אכלתי בשגגה אלא בזדון כו'. נ\"ב דבריו תמוהין דהא בשפחה חרופה חייב על הזדון כבשוגג. וכבר נתעורר בזה הרב בעל קרבן עדה בירושלמי ריש פ' הבא על יבמתו ע\"ש [הלכה א' ד\"ה עד שיפלוט]:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: בפרק כלל גדול אמרינן כו'. נ\"ב ע\"ש בתוס' ובבעל המאור:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: אע\"ג דרבי קתני לה. נ\"ב צ\"ל אע\"ג דרבי יהודה קתני לה כו':" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5110db15d9bfa9893dd5ecbb6d26723d8fa35144 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Offerings_for_Unintentional_Transgressions", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [ + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: אמר לו ע\"א חלב הוא זה ושותק כו'. נ\"ב ירושלמי סוטה פרק ו' הל' ב' ע\"ש וע' משנה למלך [וע\"ע ברמב\"ם הל' איסורי ביאה פ\"א הל' כ\"ב]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: כאומר לא אכלתי בשגגה אלא בזדון כו'. נ\"ב דבריו תמוהין דהא בשפחה חרופה חייב על הזדון כבשוגג. וכבר נתעורר בזה הרב בעל קרבן עדה בירושלמי ריש פ' הבא על יבמתו ע\"ש [הלכה א' ד\"ה עד שיפלוט]:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: בפרק כלל גדול אמרינן כו'. נ\"ב ע\"ש בתוס' ובבעל המאור:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: אע\"ג דרבי קתני לה. נ\"ב צ\"ל אע\"ג דרבי יהודה קתני לה כו':" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות שגגות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bbe1cec438a84a93775374f67cc51cf2dea17ccc --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות קרבן פסח", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [ + "משנה למלך: במצות ראי' לא ראיתי שיפטרו למי שדר בח\"ל כו'. נ\"ב ע' ירושלמי פסחים:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ותולין כו' לאפוקי מר' ישמעאל בנו של ר\"י בן ברוקא דאמר בתוספתא פ\"ד י\"ד כו'. נ\"ב והובא בשבת דף קט\"ז ע\"ב:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: שאינו יכול לכנוס בשעת אכילה ופסק כעולא. נ\"ב צ\"ל בשעת שחיטה ופסק כעולא:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [ + "בהשגת הראב\"ד: לא מצאתי לזה שורש אף אם כו'. נ\"ב ע' נזיר דף י\"א ע\"א וכרבי שם ע\"ש [ונ\"ל שצ\"ל דף י\"ח ע\"א]:", + "כ\"מ: ועוד שהרי בספרי מפורש כדברי רבינו כו'. נ\"ב מלשון הספרי אין ראי' דאיכא לפרושי הבשר יאכל לטהורים לשאר מנויים טהורים וע' זית רענן שם [על הילקוט בהעלותך על פסוק למה נגרע]:" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "לחם משנה: בסוף הדיבור אלא טמאי מת בלבד וצ\"ע. נ\"ב וע' זבחים כ\"ב ע\"ב וסברת הרמב\"ם נראה לכאורה היפך מסברת ר\"ת בתו' שם בהג\"ה בשם ר\"ת ע\"ש וצ\"ע. וראי' לסברת הרמב\"ם דאכילה קיל מעסק וכניסה לעזרה דהא גבי זבים ומצורעים אינם חייבים באכילה כרת ובכניסה לעזרה חייבים כרת וכרבנן [פסחים צ\"ה ב' וכמ\"ש הרמב\"ם הל' ביאת מקדש פ\"ד ה' י\"ב לענין כניסה ולענין אכילה פ\"ז מה' קרבן פסח ה' ח']:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "[בירושלמי] הוריות פ\"א ה\"ב אמר ריב\"ל לראייה הלכו מלבוא חמת עד נחל מצרים כו' ע\"ש ופי' לראייה למצות ראי'. וכמ\"ש התוס' [פסחים שם ג' ע\"ב] ודלא כמו שהגיהו שם בעל שדה יהושע בהוריות. ובעל קרבן עדה בפסחים להוראה ע\"ש דליתא דלהוראה כבר איתא שם לעיל ע\"ש ואף שבתלמודא דידן בהוריות דף ג' ע\"א יליף רב אסי מהאי קרא להוראה ע\"ש מ\"מ הירושלמי יליף מהאי קרא כפשטא דלראייה אינו חייב אלא היושב בא\"י:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: פסק רבינו ז\"ל כר' יוסי דכתב שם. נ\"ב צ\"ל כר' אליעזר דכתב שם:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "או נעשה מחשבת זמן. נ\"ב צ\"ל מקום [דמחשבת זמן היינו פיגול]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91c824ff0ee5318cd54d5f5a860984c94fb8a904 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Paschal_Offering", + "text": [ + [ + [ + "משנה למלך: במצות ראי' לא ראיתי שיפטרו למי שדר בח\"ל כו'. נ\"ב ע' ירושלמי פסחים:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ותולין כו' לאפוקי מר' ישמעאל בנו של ר\"י בן ברוקא דאמר בתוספתא פ\"ד י\"ד כו'. נ\"ב והובא בשבת דף קט\"ז ע\"ב:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: שאינו יכול לכנוס בשעת אכילה ופסק כעולא. נ\"ב צ\"ל בשעת שחיטה ופסק כעולא:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [ + "בהשגת הראב\"ד: לא מצאתי לזה שורש אף אם כו'. נ\"ב ע' נזיר דף י\"א ע\"א וכרבי שם ע\"ש [ונ\"ל שצ\"ל דף י\"ח ע\"א]:", + "כ\"מ: ועוד שהרי בספרי מפורש כדברי רבינו כו'. נ\"ב מלשון הספרי אין ראי' דאיכא לפרושי הבשר יאכל לטהורים לשאר מנויים טהורים וע' זית רענן שם [על הילקוט בהעלותך על פסוק למה נגרע]:" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "לחם משנה: בסוף הדיבור אלא טמאי מת בלבד וצ\"ע. נ\"ב וע' זבחים כ\"ב ע\"ב וסברת הרמב\"ם נראה לכאורה היפך מסברת ר\"ת בתו' שם בהג\"ה בשם ר\"ת ע\"ש וצ\"ע. וראי' לסברת הרמב\"ם דאכילה קיל מעסק וכניסה לעזרה דהא גבי זבים ומצורעים אינם חייבים באכילה כרת ובכניסה לעזרה חייבים כרת וכרבנן [פסחים צ\"ה ב' וכמ\"ש הרמב\"ם הל' ביאת מקדש פ\"ד ה' י\"ב לענין כניסה ולענין אכילה פ\"ז מה' קרבן פסח ה' ח']:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "[בירושלמי] הוריות פ\"א ה\"ב אמר ריב\"ל לראייה הלכו מלבוא חמת עד נחל מצרים כו' ע\"ש ופי' לראייה למצות ראי'. וכמ\"ש התוס' [פסחים שם ג' ע\"ב] ודלא כמו שהגיהו שם בעל שדה יהושע בהוריות. ובעל קרבן עדה בפסחים להוראה ע\"ש דליתא דלהוראה כבר איתא שם לעיל ע\"ש ואף שבתלמודא דידן בהוריות דף ג' ע\"א יליף רב אסי מהאי קרא להוראה ע\"ש מ\"מ הירושלמי יליף מהאי קרא כפשטא דלראייה אינו חייב אלא היושב בא\"י:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה: פסק רבינו ז\"ל כר' יוסי דכתב שם. נ\"ב צ\"ל כר' אליעזר דכתב שם:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "או נעשה מחשבת זמן. נ\"ב צ\"ל מקום [דמחשבת זמן היינו פיגול]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות קרבן פסח", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ad3ea74f34dcb2ab5f71e0cb502ac36b40b8724 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות תמורה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: דאפשר עוד לומר כו' מדאורייתא. נ\"ב וקרוב יותר לומר דהרמב\"ם פסק כר' יוסי ומפרש דהא דאמר ר' יוסי בכולן אני רואה להחמיר (בתמורה ב') היינו מדרבנן. כלשון להחמיר ודרשא דלה' [שאמר ע\"ז ר' יוסי בזבחים מ\"ה א'] הוא אסמכתא כלומר משום שנאמר בהן לה' ראוי להחמיר מדרבנן [וע' תו' זבחים מ\"ה א' ד\"ה רואה] ועיקר פלוגתייהו בברייתא הוא אתמורה ובמתני' [זבחים מ\"ה א'] לא פליג אלא אשוחטן בחוץ וכמ\"ש הכ\"מ בפ' י\"ח מה' פסולי המוקדשין ה' כ\"ד בשם יש מפרשים ע' מ\"ש שם והיינו דקא פשיט רבא בפשיטות בתמורה דף ב' ע\"ב מהא ברייתא קתני מיהא אין עושין תמורה כו' משום דלכו\"ע אין עושין תמורה מדאורייתא. וע' זבחים מ\"ה ע\"ב אמרוה רבנן קמי' דרב פפא כמאן דלא כר\"י לכאורה משמע דלא כנ\"ל אלא דלר' יוסי הוא מדאורייתא ויש ליישב וצ\"ע [אולי כוונתו ליישב כיון שפירש\"י שם זבחים מ\"ה ב' במזיד הורצה קנסא דרבנן ולא שיביא אחר כו' ע\"ש פירש\"י וא\"כ כשהמקשה לא ידע מקרא מפרש גם מ\"ש בנכרי גם בשוגג לא הורצה מדרבנן וא\"כ לר' יוסי דס\"ל דרואה בכולן בשל נכרי להחמיר מדרבנן ושוה כל דיניהם מדרבנן לשל ישראל גם לענין בשוגג הי' לו ג\"כ להשוות כמו של ישראל שבשוגג הורצה ולא לשנות בדרבנן שאפי' שוגג לא הורצה ומתרץ רב פפא דשם מקרא יליף להם דווקא לרצון]:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ולוקה כמנין הבהמות שהמיר. נ\"ב ע' תמורה דף כ\"ז ע\"א:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [ + "לחם משנה: אולי הי' בגירסתו כן. נ\"ב ע' תמורה דף ה' ע\"ב דבהדי' מסקינן שם כן בין לאביי ובין לרבא וכן הוא בתורת כהנים בחוקתי [פרשתא ח' ה' ט'] וע' תוס' זבחים ל\"ז ע\"ב ד\"ה קודש הם:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b899e2a75e51e1dec84724d3d53eedfd36eec5f --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Korbanot/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Substitution", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Substitution", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: דאפשר עוד לומר כו' מדאורייתא. נ\"ב וקרוב יותר לומר דהרמב\"ם פסק כר' יוסי ומפרש דהא דאמר ר' יוסי בכולן אני רואה להחמיר (בתמורה ב') היינו מדרבנן. כלשון להחמיר ודרשא דלה' [שאמר ע\"ז ר' יוסי בזבחים מ\"ה א'] הוא אסמכתא כלומר משום שנאמר בהן לה' ראוי להחמיר מדרבנן [וע' תו' זבחים מ\"ה א' ד\"ה רואה] ועיקר פלוגתייהו בברייתא הוא אתמורה ובמתני' [זבחים מ\"ה א'] לא פליג אלא אשוחטן בחוץ וכמ\"ש הכ\"מ בפ' י\"ח מה' פסולי המוקדשין ה' כ\"ד בשם יש מפרשים ע' מ\"ש שם והיינו דקא פשיט רבא בפשיטות בתמורה דף ב' ע\"ב מהא ברייתא קתני מיהא אין עושין תמורה כו' משום דלכו\"ע אין עושין תמורה מדאורייתא. וע' זבחים מ\"ה ע\"ב אמרוה רבנן קמי' דרב פפא כמאן דלא כר\"י לכאורה משמע דלא כנ\"ל אלא דלר' יוסי הוא מדאורייתא ויש ליישב וצ\"ע [אולי כוונתו ליישב כיון שפירש\"י שם זבחים מ\"ה ב' במזיד הורצה קנסא דרבנן ולא שיביא אחר כו' ע\"ש פירש\"י וא\"כ כשהמקשה לא ידע מקרא מפרש גם מ\"ש בנכרי גם בשוגג לא הורצה מדרבנן וא\"כ לר' יוסי דס\"ל דרואה בכולן בשל נכרי להחמיר מדרבנן ושוה כל דיניהם מדרבנן לשל ישראל גם לענין בשוגג הי' לו ג\"כ להשוות כמו של ישראל שבשוגג הורצה ולא לשנות בדרבנן שאפי' שוגג לא הורצה ומתרץ רב פפא דשם מקרא יליף להם דווקא לרצון]:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ולוקה כמנין הבהמות שהמיר. נ\"ב ע' תמורה דף כ\"ז ע\"א:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [ + "לחם משנה: אולי הי' בגירסתו כן. נ\"ב ע' תמורה דף ה' ע\"ב דבהדי' מסקינן שם כן בין לאביי ובין לרבא וכן הוא בתורת כהנים בחוקתי [פרשתא ח' ה' ט'] וע' תוס' זבחים ל\"ז ע\"ב ד\"ה קודש הם:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות תמורה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Korbanot" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dead9a9ff4866fa323baa886f6d536ca58fcaad6 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת צרעת", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ואין מטהרים שני מצורעים כאחד. נ\"ב סוטה דף ח' ע\"א:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ואם שרפן כו'. נ\"ב ירושלמי פ\"ג דערלה:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5d51b707b7bbd6255a87876dae3d2d6d928b617 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Defilement_by_Leprosy", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ואין מטהרים שני מצורעים כאחד. נ\"ב סוטה דף ח' ע\"א:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ואם שרפן כו'. נ\"ב ירושלמי פ\"ג דערלה:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת צרעת", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82bf6a5a99bfe59fcb9b9366ff71c3aed4e5ff5c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת מת", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: וכן דרשו בספרא והנוגע כו'. נ\"ב תורת כהנים פרשה אמור פרק ד' אות ג' [וע\"ש בפי' הר\"ש משאנץ ובקרבן אהרן]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a941e91b0ca89f04a3e271c3f961ee26c50935da --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Defilement_by_a_Corpse", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: וכן דרשו בספרא והנוגע כו'. נ\"ב תורת כהנים פרשה אמור פרק ד' אות ג' [וע\"ש בפי' הר\"ש משאנץ ובקרבן אהרן]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת מת", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72bacd5e27ef2092517dcb058a07be0fa8b26091 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת אוכלים", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ויש מקום לפי' רבינו. נ\"ב ע' ברכת הזבח:" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "משנה למלך, ד\"ה נסתפקתי כו': וצ\"ע בחולין דף ל\"ד דאילו מאכל בכביצה כו'. נ\"ב לא קשי' מידי ע\"ש ברש\"י [ד\"ה אלא מצינו]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך: פ\"ק דכריתות מ\"ג א'. נ\"ב צ\"ל פ\"ג דכריתות:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: דהלכתא כוותי' באיסורים. נ\"ב וכרב פפא שם דף י\"ז ע\"ב [ואע\"ג דמסיק שם בפסחים בקשי' מ\"מ יש לומר דהרמב\"ם ס\"ל דכשאומרים בגמ' קשי' לא נדחה לגמרי וכמ\"ש הרשב\"ם בשם ר\"ח ב\"ב. נ\"ב ואע\"ג דהרשב\"ם שם חלק עליו מ\"מ הרמב\"ם בפ' נחלות פ\"ט ה' ח' פסק ג\"כ כהר\"ח ולא דחינן משום דמסיק בקושי' אבל יש לחלק בין שם לכאן וע' פירש\"י סנהדרין ע\"ב ע\"א ד\"ה קשי'. וע' מה שכתבנו למעלה ה' פסולי המוקדשין פ\"א ה' ל\"ו שיש לומר דהרמב\"ם לא גרס קשי' וע\"ש עוד מה שכתבנו שם. וע\"ע מה שכתבנו בה' איסורי מזבח פרק א' ה\"ד]:" + ], + [ + "כ\"מ, בסוף הדיבור: משום דבתרא הוא. נ\"ב וע' פסחים דף י\"ט ברש\"י ד\"ה אלא קסבר צירוף דרבנן ובתוס' שם:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be6171ea10a58897cd0de9773d04319930315120 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Defilement_of_Foods", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ויש מקום לפי' רבינו. נ\"ב ע' ברכת הזבח:" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "משנה למלך, ד\"ה נסתפקתי כו': וצ\"ע בחולין דף ל\"ד דאילו מאכל בכביצה כו'. נ\"ב לא קשי' מידי ע\"ש ברש\"י [ד\"ה אלא מצינו]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך: פ\"ק דכריתות מ\"ג א'. נ\"ב צ\"ל פ\"ג דכריתות:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: דהלכתא כוותי' באיסורים. נ\"ב וכרב פפא שם דף י\"ז ע\"ב [ואע\"ג דמסיק שם בפסחים בקשי' מ\"מ יש לומר דהרמב\"ם ס\"ל דכשאומרים בגמ' קשי' לא נדחה לגמרי וכמ\"ש הרשב\"ם בשם ר\"ח ב\"ב. נ\"ב ואע\"ג דהרשב\"ם שם חלק עליו מ\"מ הרמב\"ם בפ' נחלות פ\"ט ה' ח' פסק ג\"כ כהר\"ח ולא דחינן משום דמסיק בקושי' אבל יש לחלק בין שם לכאן וע' פירש\"י סנהדרין ע\"ב ע\"א ד\"ה קשי'. וע' מה שכתבנו למעלה ה' פסולי המוקדשין פ\"א ה' ל\"ו שיש לומר דהרמב\"ם לא גרס קשי' וע\"ש עוד מה שכתבנו שם. וע\"ע מה שכתבנו בה' איסורי מזבח פרק א' ה\"ד]:" + ], + [ + "כ\"מ, בסוף הדיבור: משום דבתרא הוא. נ\"ב וע' פסחים דף י\"ט ברש\"י ד\"ה אלא קסבר צירוף דרבנן ובתוס' שם:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת אוכלים", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd47cf2417eab90794d81e60db8e16ecae4ff582 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מקואות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: קוו וקיימי דומיא דים ואפ\"ה מכשיר. נ\"ב ע' חידושי הרמב\"ן מ\"ש בשם ר' משה הדרשן בזה:", + " סליק חלק שלישי התודה והשבח לה' ית':" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..059fa67823042de62122b9db8e0f2ebc35573402 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Immersion_Pools", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: קוו וקיימי דומיא דים ואפ\"ה מכשיר. נ\"ב ע' חידושי הרמב\"ן מ\"ש בשם ר' משה הדרשן בזה:", + " סליק חלק שלישי התודה והשבח לה' ית':" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מקואות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..174ee2dbcdae7374b68f4c60f6c0ede1ae0e3c4b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות שאר אבות הטומאות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: מצא בה כו'. דאשוחט את הבהמה קאי כו'. נ\"ב ע' רדב\"ז חלק ה' סי' שני אלפים קצ\"ב:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [ + "בהשגת הראב\"ד: ניחא טפי לההיא סוגי' דזבחים כו'. נ\"ב ע\"ש (דף ק\"ה ע\"ב) ומאן שמעת לי' האי סברא ר\"מ כו' וזה עולה להאי פירושא. אכן לפירש\"י וכפי מ\"ש הראב\"ד בתחלה לא גרסינן שם כלל. וכן נראה מהתו' שם ד\"ה ומדסיפא ר\"מ כו' שלא הי' זה בגירסתם [וע\"ש גליון הש\"ס מהגר\"ע אייגר ז\"ל שהקשה ג\"כ על גירסא זו. וממה שציינו התוס' ומדסיפא ר\"מ כו' לכאורה הי' גירסתם מטהרת טריפתה מטומאתה מאן שמעת לי' האי סברא ר\"מ ומדסיפא ר\"מ רישא נמי ר\"מ ומוכח מזה שמתחלה לא גרסו ומאן שמעת לי' האי סברא ר\"מ ומדרישא ר\"מ כו']:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [ + "כסף משנה, ד\"ה אחר שכתבתי כו': דעת רבי חנן. נ\"ב צ\"ל דעת רבי נתן:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: יום או לילה הכי אמרינן בפרק. נ\"ב בפרק תינוקות דף ס\"ה ע\"ב:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: בפרק י\"א דפרה כו' מותר בכולן כו'. נ\"ב ע\"ש בר\"ש [משנה ה'] ובתוס' חגיגה דף כ\"א ע\"א וע' ירושלמי פ\"ק דפסחים ה' ז' מוקי לטבול יום [שבמתני' שם] בטבול יום דבית הפרס שהוא דרבנן וע\"ע לעיל פי\"א מה' טומאת מת ה' ב':" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "הג\"ה שנדפס אצל הרמב\"ם (בתוך הכ\"מ): לא ידעתי למה שינה כו'. נ\"ב פשוט משום דלא אמרו ספק טומאה הצפה טהור אלא לשרץ בלבד כמ\"ש לעיל. ולא ס\"ל להרמב\"ם כמ\"ש התוס' דבכל טומאת מגע דומי' דשרץ אלא שרץ דוקא. וע' בהגהות הגר\"א ז\"ל שם בגמרא נזיר ס\"ד א' שהגיה בגמ' כעין מ\"ש כאן ברמב\"ם ע\"ש]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0229847657af35269120f97e276853d2396116c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Other_Sources_of_Defilement", + "text": [ + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: מצא בה כו'. דאשוחט את הבהמה קאי כו'. נ\"ב ע' רדב\"ז חלק ה' סי' שני אלפים קצ\"ב:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [ + "בהשגת הראב\"ד: ניחא טפי לההיא סוגי' דזבחים כו'. נ\"ב ע\"ש (דף ק\"ה ע\"ב) ומאן שמעת לי' האי סברא ר\"מ כו' וזה עולה להאי פירושא. אכן לפירש\"י וכפי מ\"ש הראב\"ד בתחלה לא גרסינן שם כלל. וכן נראה מהתו' שם ד\"ה ומדסיפא ר\"מ כו' שלא הי' זה בגירסתם [וע\"ש גליון הש\"ס מהגר\"ע אייגר ז\"ל שהקשה ג\"כ על גירסא זו. וממה שציינו התוס' ומדסיפא ר\"מ כו' לכאורה הי' גירסתם מטהרת טריפתה מטומאתה מאן שמעת לי' האי סברא ר\"מ ומדסיפא ר\"מ רישא נמי ר\"מ ומוכח מזה שמתחלה לא גרסו ומאן שמעת לי' האי סברא ר\"מ ומדרישא ר\"מ כו']:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [ + "כסף משנה, ד\"ה אחר שכתבתי כו': דעת רבי חנן. נ\"ב צ\"ל דעת רבי נתן:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: יום או לילה הכי אמרינן בפרק. נ\"ב בפרק תינוקות דף ס\"ה ע\"ב:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: בפרק י\"א דפרה כו' מותר בכולן כו'. נ\"ב ע\"ש בר\"ש [משנה ה'] ובתוס' חגיגה דף כ\"א ע\"א וע' ירושלמי פ\"ק דפסחים ה' ז' מוקי לטבול יום [שבמתני' שם] בטבול יום דבית הפרס שהוא דרבנן וע\"ע לעיל פי\"א מה' טומאת מת ה' ב':" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + "הג\"ה שנדפס אצל הרמב\"ם (בתוך הכ\"מ): לא ידעתי למה שינה כו'. נ\"ב פשוט משום דלא אמרו ספק טומאה הצפה טהור אלא לשרץ בלבד כמ\"ש לעיל. ולא ס\"ל להרמב\"ם כמ\"ש התוס' דבכל טומאת מגע דומי' דשרץ אלא שרץ דוקא. וע' בהגהות הגר\"א ז\"ל שם בגמרא נזיר ס\"ד א' שהגיה בגמ' כעין מ\"ש כאן ברמב\"ם ע\"ש]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות שאר אבות הטומאות", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3386705fe6a54722f4a681a03fbb9c270f1e529c --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות פרה אדומה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "כ\"מ: ופסק כת\"ק. נ\"ב וצ\"ע דהא אמרינן שם מאן ת\"ק ר\"ש דדריש טעמא דקרא. ורבינו לא פסק כר\"ש בפ\"ג דהלכות מלוה ולוה ה\"א. שוב ראיתי שהעיר בזה התוספות יו\"ט ע\"ש פ\"ג דפרה ה' ז' וע\"ע ה' נדרים פי\"ב ה' י\"ד ובלחם משנה שם [וע' לחם משנה ה' מלוה ולוה פ\"ג ה' א' שם. וע' מה שכתבנו בה' סוטה פ\"ד ה' ב' וע' קידושין כ\"א א' הא רבנן הא ר\"ש ופסק הרמב\"ם שם בה' שמיטה ויובל פי\"ב ה\"ב דבתי ערי חומה אינו נגאל לחצאין והיינו כרבנן ע\"ש. וע\"ע פירש\"י קידושין כ\"א א' ד\"ה הא רבנן דרבנן ילפי ג\"כ בבתי ערי חומה גאולתו משדה אחוזה וכן מוכח ממש\"ש בתי ערי חומה יוכיח ש\"מ דלרבנן יש קרא ע\"ז. ור\"ש שאמר הטעם לפי שמצינו כו' ע\"כ לית לי' גז\"ש גאולתו הנ\"ל ולכן אין ראי' מפסק הרמב\"ם שם וע\"ע תוספות יו\"ט פ\"ב דיבמות מ\"ז]:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "ובזכרי כהונה. נ\"ב ע' לעיל פ\"א דהלכות פסולי המוקדשין ה' ב':" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: סוברים כר' יהודה. נ\"ב ע' תוי\"ט ועוד נראה דכיון דרב אשי [בפסחים י\"ח א' שם] מפרש טעמא דר' יהודה משום דה\"ל משקה סרוח. וכן מפרש רב אשי (שם כ' ע\"א) הא דתנן בעדיות פ\"ג מ\"ג נמצאת בפרש הכל טהור דטעמא נמי משום דהוה משקה סרוח. א\"כ הלכה כר\"י משום דתנן בבחירתא כוותיה [ע\"ד שאמרו בברכות כ\"ז א' וש\"מ וכן פסק הרמב\"ם פ\"י מה' טומאת אוכלין ה' י\"ז] וע\"ע צל\"ח פסחים שם [אך יש לדקדק דמלשון הרמב\"ם כאן משמע שאין הטעם משום משקה סרוח לבד רק גם משום שאינם משומרים] [וע' צל\"ח שם י\"ח ע\"א סימן ק\"ט מה שכתב בזה] וע' פי' המשניות להרמב\"ם פרה פ\"ט ה\"ה [שכתב שם שאין הלכה כר' יהודה]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9950a464aa2b8533eebe39d01417d78c3de0ab02 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Red_Heifer", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "כ\"מ: ופסק כת\"ק. נ\"ב וצ\"ע דהא אמרינן שם מאן ת\"ק ר\"ש דדריש טעמא דקרא. ורבינו לא פסק כר\"ש בפ\"ג דהלכות מלוה ולוה ה\"א. שוב ראיתי שהעיר בזה התוספות יו\"ט ע\"ש פ\"ג דפרה ה' ז' וע\"ע ה' נדרים פי\"ב ה' י\"ד ובלחם משנה שם [וע' לחם משנה ה' מלוה ולוה פ\"ג ה' א' שם. וע' מה שכתבנו בה' סוטה פ\"ד ה' ב' וע' קידושין כ\"א א' הא רבנן הא ר\"ש ופסק הרמב\"ם שם בה' שמיטה ויובל פי\"ב ה\"ב דבתי ערי חומה אינו נגאל לחצאין והיינו כרבנן ע\"ש. וע\"ע פירש\"י קידושין כ\"א א' ד\"ה הא רבנן דרבנן ילפי ג\"כ בבתי ערי חומה גאולתו משדה אחוזה וכן מוכח ממש\"ש בתי ערי חומה יוכיח ש\"מ דלרבנן יש קרא ע\"ז. ור\"ש שאמר הטעם לפי שמצינו כו' ע\"כ לית לי' גז\"ש גאולתו הנ\"ל ולכן אין ראי' מפסק הרמב\"ם שם וע\"ע תוספות יו\"ט פ\"ב דיבמות מ\"ז]:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "ובזכרי כהונה. נ\"ב ע' לעיל פ\"א דהלכות פסולי המוקדשין ה' ב':" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: סוברים כר' יהודה. נ\"ב ע' תוי\"ט ועוד נראה דכיון דרב אשי [בפסחים י\"ח א' שם] מפרש טעמא דר' יהודה משום דה\"ל משקה סרוח. וכן מפרש רב אשי (שם כ' ע\"א) הא דתנן בעדיות פ\"ג מ\"ג נמצאת בפרש הכל טהור דטעמא נמי משום דהוה משקה סרוח. א\"כ הלכה כר\"י משום דתנן בבחירתא כוותיה [ע\"ד שאמרו בברכות כ\"ז א' וש\"מ וכן פסק הרמב\"ם פ\"י מה' טומאת אוכלין ה' י\"ז] וע\"ע צל\"ח פסחים שם [אך יש לדקדק דמלשון הרמב\"ם כאן משמע שאין הטעם משום משקה סרוח לבד רק גם משום שאינם משומרים] [וע' צל\"ח שם י\"ח ע\"א סימן ק\"ט מה שכתב בזה] וע' פי' המשניות להרמב\"ם פרה פ\"ט ה\"ה [שכתב שם שאין הלכה כר' יהודה]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות פרה אדומה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3fe9108592cb80caabfc9a5b89ae16a7b2019ef --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מטמאי משכב ומושב", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש וכן בועל הזב כו' בסוף נדה דף ע\"ג. נ\"ב ע' תורת כהנים [פ' מצורע פ\"ח]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fe39b0d609db0b2a7b38d60883e99b985402128 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Those_Who_Defile_Bed_or_Seat", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש וכן בועל הזב כו' בסוף נדה דף ע\"ג. נ\"ב ע' תורת כהנים [פ' מצורע פ\"ח]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מטמאי משכב ומושב", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..efdaea99df816a56a3590d81b8f61074b0a75ea5 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות כלים", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך: ד\"ה אחד כו'. קשיתי' דהא גבי דהתם הוי אחוריו כו'. נ\"ב צ\"ל קשיתי' דאי גבו דהתם כו':" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "משנה למלך: ודע שמה שכתבנו לדעת רבינו אתרבו ידות. נ\"ב צ\"ל רבינו דלא אתרבו:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [ + "השגת הראב\"ד: שלשה על ג' כו'. נ\"ב לפני הכ\"מ הי' מקום השגה זו לקמן ה' כ\"ד ע' כסף משנה שם:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: בפרק דם חטאת עלה צ\"ד. נ\"ב וצ\"ל דגירסתו בגמ' שם [זבחים צ\"ד] מטלית פחותה משלשה כו'. וע' תו' נדה דף ס' ע\"ב ד\"ה במטלניות כו' שגירסתם הי' פחותה משלש כמו שהוא לפנינו. וע' ר\"ש פכ\"ח דכלים מ\"ח וע' רי\"ף פ' במה מדליקין בסוגי' דפתילת הבגד שקיפלה כו' שהוא כדברי הרמב\"ם בזה וקושית התו' בנדה שם יתורץ כמ\"ש הרא\"ש שם ע\"ש [דהרבותא הוא אע\"ג דאתי מדבר המקבל טומאה ומהאי טעמא פסולין לסכך בהו סוכה ע\"ש] [וע' תו' סוכה ט\"ז א' ד\"ה דלא חזי]:" + ], + [], + [], + [ + "[בדפוסי הרמב\"ם הקודמים נדפס השגת הראב\"ד הזה בפנים בהלכה ב']:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ואולי במקצע ולפיכך אפי' כל שהוא כו'. לא הבנתי דהא רבינו במקצע מיירי ואפילו הכי התנה שלא יהי' פחות מג' אצבעות וצ\"ע. כן צ\"ל. ועל מ\"ש ואולי במקצע כו'. נ\"ב דכ\"ז הוא מההשגה [פי' שהכ\"מ כוונתו על דברי הראב\"ד בהשגתו מ\"ש הראב\"ד ואולי במקצע כו']:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30cdfb9c760e9a554c4f708cbcd42cec92fe22f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Taharah/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Vessels", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Vessels", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך: ד\"ה אחד כו'. קשיתי' דהא גבי דהתם הוי אחוריו כו'. נ\"ב צ\"ל קשיתי' דאי גבו דהתם כו':" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "משנה למלך: ודע שמה שכתבנו לדעת רבינו אתרבו ידות. נ\"ב צ\"ל רבינו דלא אתרבו:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [], + [ + "השגת הראב\"ד: שלשה על ג' כו'. נ\"ב לפני הכ\"מ הי' מקום השגה זו לקמן ה' כ\"ד ע' כסף משנה שם:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: בפרק דם חטאת עלה צ\"ד. נ\"ב וצ\"ל דגירסתו בגמ' שם [זבחים צ\"ד] מטלית פחותה משלשה כו'. וע' תו' נדה דף ס' ע\"ב ד\"ה במטלניות כו' שגירסתם הי' פחותה משלש כמו שהוא לפנינו. וע' ר\"ש פכ\"ח דכלים מ\"ח וע' רי\"ף פ' במה מדליקין בסוגי' דפתילת הבגד שקיפלה כו' שהוא כדברי הרמב\"ם בזה וקושית התו' בנדה שם יתורץ כמ\"ש הרא\"ש שם ע\"ש [דהרבותא הוא אע\"ג דאתי מדבר המקבל טומאה ומהאי טעמא פסולין לסכך בהו סוכה ע\"ש] [וע' תו' סוכה ט\"ז א' ד\"ה דלא חזי]:" + ], + [], + [], + [ + "[בדפוסי הרמב\"ם הקודמים נדפס השגת הראב\"ד הזה בפנים בהלכה ב']:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [ + "כ\"מ: ומ\"ש ואולי במקצע ולפיכך אפי' כל שהוא כו'. לא הבנתי דהא רבינו במקצע מיירי ואפילו הכי התנה שלא יהי' פחות מג' אצבעות וצ\"ע. כן צ\"ל. ועל מ\"ש ואולי במקצע כו'. נ\"ב דכ\"ז הוא מההשגה [פי' שהכ\"מ כוונתו על דברי הראב\"ד בהשגתו מ\"ש הראב\"ד ואולי במקצע כו']:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות כלים", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f2495e6cfe319123540d65118d2b63909867115 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות עירובין", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [ + "במ\"מ ד\"ה וכל: ומבואר כן בירושלמי. נ\"ב ספ\"ק דערובין:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "ומערבין במע\"ש בירושלים שהוא ראוי שם לאכילה. נ\"ב תוספתא פ\"ב:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "בסופו. אם רצו [מערבין אחד ואם רצו] מערבין שנים. כצ\"ל:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "בכ\"מ ד\"ה בעל, בסופו: הלכה כדברי המקיל בעירוב. נ\"ב וע\"ע בפ' חלון (עירובין ד' פ\"א ע\"ב):" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [ + "במ\"מ ד\"ה אחד: זמנין דבעו לה מאתמול. נ\"ב ע' ריטב\"א:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da01479bcd86173362baf38f3bb41986519e11bc --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Eruvin", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [ + "במ\"מ ד\"ה וכל: ומבואר כן בירושלמי. נ\"ב ספ\"ק דערובין:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "ומערבין במע\"ש בירושלים שהוא ראוי שם לאכילה. נ\"ב תוספתא פ\"ב:" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "בסופו. אם רצו [מערבין אחד ואם רצו] מערבין שנים. כצ\"ל:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "בכ\"מ ד\"ה בעל, בסופו: הלכה כדברי המקיל בעירוב. נ\"ב וע\"ע בפ' חלון (עירובין ד' פ\"א ע\"ב):" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [ + "במ\"מ ד\"ה אחד: זמנין דבעו לה מאתמול. נ\"ב ע' ריטב\"א:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות עירובין", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8c7cd779a66535f3d36623b953e73e5af47c26e --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות חמץ ומצה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [ + "[ראב\"ד]: והשאור אע\"פ שהוא (נפסק) [נפסל]. נ\"ב תוספתא דביצה פ\"א [ה\"ג ע\"ש]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "(ראב\"ד) [מגדל עוז], אין אסור: כתב הראב\"ד ז\"ל. נ\"ב השגה זו מקומה על הלכה ב' במי פירות:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "[מגדל עוז]: כתב הראב\"ד ז\"ל זהו ע\"ד הרב ז\"ל שסומך על דברי ר\"ע שאמר (שאלתי) צ\"ל שאמר לשתי לר\"א כו' וכ\"ה בגמ' ל\"ו א':" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "מצה המשתמרת לענין מצה בלבד. נ\"ב ק\"ק מידי בלבד כתיב וע' רש\"י [וע' פסחים ל\"ו א' מידי בלבד כו'] וע\"ע נו\"ב ססי' ע\"ט:" + ], + [], + [], + [ + "מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו. נ\"ב ע' תוספתא ספ\"ג דמכות. ובר\"ן פ\"ד דכתובות [דף פ' ע\"ב ובתוס' נזיר דף כ' ע\"ב ד\"ה ר' יהודא ובפי' המשניות להרמב\"ם שם דף כ\"ג ע\"א ופירש\"י קידושין כ\"ח א']:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0c3a0b2dba82a139252fd4779d1e464b4418d12 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Leavened_and_Unleavened_Bread", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [ + "[ראב\"ד]: והשאור אע\"פ שהוא (נפסק) [נפסל]. נ\"ב תוספתא דביצה פ\"א [ה\"ג ע\"ש]:" + ] + ], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "(ראב\"ד) [מגדל עוז], אין אסור: כתב הראב\"ד ז\"ל. נ\"ב השגה זו מקומה על הלכה ב' במי פירות:" + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "[מגדל עוז]: כתב הראב\"ד ז\"ל זהו ע\"ד הרב ז\"ל שסומך על דברי ר\"ע שאמר (שאלתי) צ\"ל שאמר לשתי לר\"א כו' וכ\"ה בגמ' ל\"ו א':" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "מצה המשתמרת לענין מצה בלבד. נ\"ב ק\"ק מידי בלבד כתיב וע' רש\"י [וע' פסחים ל\"ו א' מידי בלבד כו'] וע\"ע נו\"ב ססי' ע\"ט:" + ], + [], + [], + [ + "מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו. נ\"ב ע' תוספתא ספ\"ג דמכות. ובר\"ן פ\"ד דכתובות [דף פ' ע\"ב ובתוס' נזיר דף כ' ע\"ב ד\"ה ר' יהודא ובפי' המשניות להרמב\"ם שם דף כ\"ג ע\"א ופירש\"י קידושין כ\"ח א']:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות חמץ ומצה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8e8206852f14dca7bb0b9fefb58a6df63e9cf59 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מגילה וחנוכה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך ד\"ה עיר, בסופו: דתיכף שבאה לידו צריך שיקיימנה. נ\"ב וע' באור הגר\"א ז\"ל או\"ח בסי' תרפ\"ח סק\"א:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "הגה\"מ אות א' ד\"ה פ\"ק כו': ומיהו אם משהה סעודתו כו' רב צלי של שבת במוצאי שבת. נ\"ב ועי' בהגהות טור או\"ח סי' תרצ\"ה אות א':" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה ד\"ה ומותר, בסופו: וכן מצאתי הגירסא בגמרא דכתיבת יד. נ\"ב וכן נראה מפירש\"י דמפרש דינרין שחילל כו' [וכן הגר\"א ז\"ל בהגהותיו על הש\"ס מחק תיבת סלע של]:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e66bbfb4cd9232dbc8e77d7e0915b12a03c2ab0e --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Scroll of Esther and Hanukkah", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Scroll_of_Esther_and_Hanukkah", + "text": [ + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "משנה למלך ד\"ה עיר, בסופו: דתיכף שבאה לידו צריך שיקיימנה. נ\"ב וע' באור הגר\"א ז\"ל או\"ח בסי' תרפ\"ח סק\"א:" + ] + ], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "הגה\"מ אות א' ד\"ה פ\"ק כו': ומיהו אם משהה סעודתו כו' רב צלי של שבת במוצאי שבת. נ\"ב ועי' בהגהות טור או\"ח סי' תרצ\"ה אות א':" + ] + ], + [], + [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "לחם משנה ד\"ה ומותר, בסופו: וכן מצאתי הגירסא בגמרא דכתיבת יד. נ\"ב וכן נראה מפירש\"י דמפרש דינרין שחילל כו' [וכן הגר\"א ז\"ל בהגהותיו על הש\"ס מחק תיבת סלע של]:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות מגילה וחנוכה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac2126d5b6804079a160ad7cbbef9d31a3e9a58b --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav/Hebrew/Friedberg Edition.json @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav", + "versionSource": "https://fjms.genizah.org/", + "versionTitle": "Friedberg Edition", + "status": "locked", + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "מהדורת פרידברג", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות שופר וסוכה ולולב", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "קטן שא\"צ לאמו כבן חמש כבן שש. נ\"ב ע' ביאור הגר\"א באו\"ח סי' תר\"מ [ס\"ק א']:" + ] + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bff337824869759fe6aa8ffaf7c6ed00a9623f19 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Commentary/Ben Aryeh/Sefer Zemanim/Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +{ + "title": "Ben Aryeh on Mishneh Torah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Ben_Aryeh_on_Mishneh_Torah,_Shofar,_Sukkah_and_Lulav", + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + [ + "קטן שא\"צ לאמו כבן חמש כבן שש. נ\"ב ע' ביאור הגר\"א באו\"ח סי' תר\"מ [ס\"ק א']:" + ] + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Friedberg Edition", + "https://fjms.genizah.org/" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "בן אריה על משנה תורה, הלכות שופר וסוכה ולולב", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Commentary", + "Ben Aryeh", + "Sefer Zemanim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah", + "Comment" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74164e0b263304bcf48eda6869566cb82b789048 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,579 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "When a person voluntarily engages in sexual relations with one of the arayot1In Hilchot Ishut 1:5, the Rambam defines the term arayot as \"[Those women] with whom relations are forbidden by Scriptural Law and with whom relations are punishable by kereit as enumerated in Parshas Acharei Mot. mentioned in the Torah, he is liable for kerait,2Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). as [Leviticus 18:29] states: \"Whenever anyone performs any of these abominations, the souls will be cut off....\" [The plural is used, referring to] the man and the woman.3The prohibition and the punishment is incumbent on them both equally. If they transgressed unknowingly, they are liable to bring a fixed4This term is used to distinguish the sacrifice from the \"adjustable guilt offering\" (korban olah viyoreid) that is brought for certain transgressions. See Hilchot Shegagot ch. 1 which describes the fixed sin offering , and ch. 10 which describes the adjustable guilt offering. sin offering. There are some arayot with whom relations are punishable by execution5See Halachot 4-6. in addition to kerait which is applicable in all cases.6Even if they cannot be executed because the court cannot find two appropriate witnesses, they are punishable by kerait.", + "With regard to the arayot that are punishable by execution by the court. If there were witnesses, they delivered a warning,7See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2 which describes the obligation to give a warning and states: \"How is a warning administered? We tell him: 'Desist...\" or 'Do not do it. It is a transgression and you are liable to be executed by the court....'. and the transgressors did not cease their actions, they are executed through the means prescribed for them.", + "Even if a transgressor was a Torah scholar neither execution or lashes is administered unless a warning was given. For [the obligation for] a warning was instituted universally only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally.8The Rambam's ruling reflects a unique instance in which he uses the wording of a Talmudic passage for the opposite intent. Sanhedrin 8b quotes Rabbi Yossi bar Rabbi Yehudah as coining the expression the Rambam employs: \"A warning was instituted only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally.\" Rabbi Yossi, however, used this concept as support for his contention that a Torah scholar does not need a warning. Since he is knowledgeable, we assume that he is familiar with the laws. If he is transgressing, we can conclude that he is doing so as a conscious act of rebellion. Hence, he is deserving of punishment.
The Rambam differs, maintaining that even a Torah scholar might not be aware that his act violates a particular prohibition. We do not suspect that he did know the law, it was however possible that he was aware of the prohibition, but not know that it applied in this instance, e.g., he knew that adultery was forbidden, but did not know whether or not the woman was married or related to him. The warning will clarify that for him (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).", + "Among the arayot punishable through execution by the court are those for [which the violators are] executed by stoning, those for which they are executed by burning, and those for which they are executed by strangulation.9See Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1-5 for a description of these different modes of execution.
The following transgressions are punishable by stoning: one who has relations with his mother, with his father's wife,10Even if she is not his mother. his son's wife; she is called his daughter-in-law,11The wording of the Hebrew emphasizes that his son married the woman, not merely engaged in relations with her. one who sodomizes a male, a male who has relations with an animal, and a woman who has relations with an animal.", + "The following arayot are punishable by burning: a person who has relations with his wife's daughter12I.e., from a previous marriage. during his wife's lifetime,13After his wife's death, her daughter is still prohibited to him and they are punishable by kerait. There is, however, no punishment to be administered by an earthly court. As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 8, this applies to any woman prohibited because they are closely related to the person's wife. with the daughter of her daughter, with the daughter of her son, with her mother, with the mother of her mother, with the mother of her father, with his own daughter, with the daughter of his daughter, or with the daughter of his son.", + "The only instance in which forbidden sexual relations are punishable by execution by strangulation is adultery, as [derived from Leviticus 20:10]: \"The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.\" Whenever the Torah mentions \"putting to death\" without further description, the intent is strangulation.14Sanhedrin 52b explains the rationale for this statement as follows: Just as death at the hand of heaven does not leave a mark; so, too, unless another form of execution is explicitly stipulated, death at the hand of the court should not leave a sign. This alludes to strangulation in which the condemned's body is not marred at all.
If [the adulteress] is the daughter of a priest, she should be executed by burning and the adulterer by strangulation, as [ibid. 21:9] states: \"The daughter of a priest, when she begins to act promiscuously, she shall be burnt with fire.\"15See Chapter 3, Halachah 3. If the adulteress is a consecrated16According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-staged process involving consecration (erusin or kiddushin) and marriage (nissuin). Consecration establishes the bond between a man and a woman. From that time onward, she is forbidden to engage in relations with other men. It is not until marriage, however, that the husband and wife relationship is consummated and the couple begin their life together.
In the present era, both of these stages of marriage are completed at the same time. In the Biblical and Talmudic eras, it was customary to wait a year between these two stages. maiden,17I.e., between the age of twelve and twelve and a half and she is a virgin. Otherwise, adultery is punished by strangulation. both she and the adulterer should be stoned,18See Chapter 3, Halachah 4. as [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] states: \"When a virgin maiden.... they shall be stoned with rocks....\" Whenever the Torah uses the phrase \"They shall surely be put to death, they are responsible for their own blood\" [Leviticus 20:11] - they are executed by stoning.19Sanhedrin 53a derives this concept from the fact that this phrase is used with regard to a person who divines with a yidoni concerning whom Leviticus 20:27 explicitly states that he should be stoned to death.", + "All of the other arayot are punishable by kerait alone and are not punishable by execution by the court. Therefore if there were witnesses and a warning was administered, the court punishes them with lashes, for all those who are obligated for kerait are lashed.", + "When a person enters into relations with women who are forbidden by merely a negative commandment,20I.e., the punishment of kerait is not mentioned with regard to them. They include nine forbidden relationships, e.g., a mamzer or a mamzeret to an acceptable Jew or a divorcee to a priest. These nine are mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 1:7. both he and she are lashed. If they do so unknowingly, they are not liable for punishment. When a person enters into relations with one of the shniyot,21Literally, \"secondary.\" In Hilchot Ishut 1:6, the Rambam explains that this term refers to \"women with whom relations are forbidden according to the Oral Tradition. These prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin.\" He continues listing 20 such women with whom our Sages forbade relations as a safeguard for the Scriptural prohibitions. For example, as a safeguard against relations with one's mother, the Sages forbade relations with both of one's grandmothers. Rabbinic Law ordains that he be given \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"22Lashes mandated by Rabbinic decree which are given as punishment for the violation of Rabbinic commandments and for other purposes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, which mentions this punishment. When, however, a person enters into relations with a woman who is forbidden merely by a positive commandment,23Relationships which the Torah does not explicitly prohibit, but the prohibition can be derived from a positive commandment. For example, there is no prohibition against a High Priest marrying a non-virgin. Nevertheless, since he is commanded (Leviticus 21:13 to marry a virgin bride, we assume that it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who is not a virgin. There are two other such relationships: Egyptian and Edomite converts who cannot marry into the Jewish people until the third generation. See Hilchot Ishut 1:8. he need not be punished. If, however, the court [wishes to] administer stripes for rebellious conduct to him to distance him from sin, they have that option.24See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4 which states that the court may administer punishment that is not required by Torah Law if they feel that it will lead to the moral development of the Jewish people.", + "A person compelled [to engage in forbidden relations] is not liable at all, not for lashes nor for a sacrifice. Needless to say, there is no obligation for capital punishment, as [reflected by Deuteronomy 22:26]: \"And to the maiden, do not do anything.\"25The verse cited speaks of the rape of a consecrated maiden in a field where even if she had called for help, there would have been none to save her. Since she was compelled to perform the transgression, she is not held responsible.
To whom does the above apply? To the victim of rape. When, by contrast, a man engages in relations, there is no concept of being compelled against his will. For an erection is always a willful act.26The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, explaining that if a man develops an erection with the intent of having relations with his wife and while he is still erect, he is compelled to engage in forbidden relations, he is considered to have acted against his will. The Maggid Mishneh states that even the Rambam would accept such a ruling.
The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that there are authorities who maintain that if a man is compelled to engage in relations at the pain of death, he is considered to have been compelled to act against his will. Yevamot 53b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, is speaking about a situation when a person is not compelled by forces beyond his control. Other authorities maintain that he is liable, even in such a situation. It is, however, unlikely that the Rambam would maintain that the court should actually carry out capital punishment. For in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4, the Rambam writes that a person who is compelled by gentiles to engage in adulterous or incestuous sexual relations should sacrifice his life rather than do so. If, however, he fails to chose martyrdom and transgresses, he should not be punished by the court. It would be difficult to explain that ruling applies only in a situation when he had already developed an erection for a woman with whom he was permitted to engage in relations and was then compelled to engage in forbidden relations. Thus it would appear that the man is not held responsible for capital punishment engaging in relations at the threat of death. [See Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 20)].
See also the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:2 who states that since developing an erection comes as a result of the man's own pleasure and desire, he is considered to have acted willingly even though he was compelled to engage in the relations.
When a woman is compelled into relations at the outset and afterwards, she consents, she is not liable. Once [a man] compels her to engage in relations, it is beyond her control whether to desire [or] not. For man's natural tendency and inclination is compelling her to desire.27Ketubot 51a states that even if the woman says: \"Let him continue, for had he not taken me by force, I would have hired him,\" she is considered as acting under duress and freed of liability. For it was not until after she was overcome by desire that she consented.", + "A person who inserts the corona into [the woman's vaginal channel] is referred to as one who \"uncovers\" as [Leviticus 20:18] states: \"He uncovered her source.\"28This expression is used with regard to relations with a woman in the nidah state. From that instance, Yevamot 54a derives a connection to the entire Torah. A person who inserts the entire organ is referred to as one who completes [intercourse]. With regard to all the forbidden relations [mentioned] by the Torah, one who \"uncovers\" and one who \"completes [intercourse] are [equally] liable for execution by the court, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Even though the man did not ejaculate and even if he withdrew and did not complete relations, [the man and the woman] both become liable.29If, however, the man merely touches the entrance to the vaginal channel with his organ, he is not liable (see Beit Shmuel 20:3). Whether a person engages in vaginal or anal intercourse,30Based on Leviticus 19:13, Sanhedrin 54a states that both forms of intercourse are equally forbidden. when he \"uncovers\" [the woman], they both become liable for execution, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Whether they were lying or standing,31Or Sameach notes that Leviticus 18:23 explicitly mentions a woman standing while engaged in forbidden relations. liability is established by the insertion of the corona.", + "[There is never any liability when] a man engages in forbidden relations without an erection, instead his organ was hanging loosely like the organ of the dead, e.g., one who was sick or a person with a congenital malady, i.e., he was born sexually inadequate. Even though he inserts his organ with his hand, he is not liable for kerait or lashes. Needless to say, he is not liable for execution. For this is not considered sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, [such an act] disqualifies a woman from partaking of terumah.32I.e., if a priest's daughter or a priest's wife is involved in such a sexual act, she is forbidden to partake of terumah just as if she would be forbidden to do so had she engaged in ordinary relations (see Hilchot Terumah 6:6). And the court subjects both of them to stripes for rebellious conduct.33\"Stripes for rebellious conduct\" is a punishment which is not dependent on the Torah's binding laws, but rather is left to the court's jurisdiction based on its conception of what is appropriate for the moral standards of the persons involved and the community. Although such an act is not formally considered as sexual relations, chastisement is necessary to prevent such behavior from continuing.", + "When a person enters into sexual relations with one of the arayot as a casual act,34The Hebrew term kimitasek literally means \"as one was going about his business,\" i.e., he was performing other actions and without any intent, the forbidden act was performed. although he did not intend to do so, he is liable.35Since he derived pleasure from the physical act, he is liable even though originally he had no intent (Yevamot 62b).
This refers only to liability for a sin offering for inadvertent transgression. Needless to say, he is not liable for punishment by the court, because in such instances, he must acknowledge a warning (Maggid Mishneh).
The commentaries question how sexual relations can be performed \"as one was going about his business.\" With regard to the Sabbath prohibitions, we can appreciate the use of such a term. For example, a person intended to cut produce that was not connected to the ground and in the course of doing so also cut produce that was connected to the ground. But with regard to sexual relations, how is it possible to say that a man performed the act without intention? As stated above, \"an erection is always a willful act.\"
Based on Hilchot Shegagot 2:7, the Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to an instance in which a person intended to engage in relations with his wife, but accidentally engaged in relations with his sister.Similar concepts apply with regard to one who enters into relations with women forbidden by a negative commandment alone or with one of the shniyot.36The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's statements and the Maggid Mishneh states that this clause is a printing error, for there is no sacrifice associated with these transgressions. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution, explaining that although he is not punished by an earthly court, nor is he obligated to bring a sacrifice, the transgressor is liable to God. He will reckon with the transgression on His scales of judgment. Rav David Arameah states that this teaches that the person has an obligation to confess his sin.
When, however, a man has relations with one of the arayot after she died, he is not liable at all.37Yevamot 55b derives this concept through the techniques of Biblical exegesis. Needless to say, this applies with regard to those women with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment alone. When, by contrast, one has relations with a person who is trefe38An animal or a person that is sick or wounded and will die within a year. or who has relations with an animal which is trefe, he is liable. [The person or the animal] is [now] alive even though he will ultimately die from this illness. Even when the two signs39I.e., the esophagus and the windpipe were cut. which validate ritual slaughter were slit but [the woman or the animal] is making its last movements, if one enters into relations with [her or it] he is liable until she or it dies or is decapitated.", + "When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more,40I.e., she reaches the date of her third birthday. he is liable for execution, kerait, or lashes and she is not liable41For a minor is never liable for punishment. Even though she consented to the transgression, she is not subjected to punishment, because she is not considered as responsible for her actions (Nidah 44b). Despite the fact that the woman is not punished, the man receives the punishment mandated by the transgression. unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.42For until that age, her signs of virginity will regenerate and hence, relations are not of consequence. Nevertheless, even when the girl is below that age, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4).
Similarly, when an adult woman enters into sexual relations with a minor, if he is nine years and one day old, she is liable for execution, kerait,43In his commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. ), the Rambam states that the punishment of kerait is not given until the violator is 20 years of age. Until that age, the person is considered immature and hence, not held liable by the heavenly court. or lashes and he is not liable. If he is younger than nine years old, they are both free of liability.44For below that age, relations are not of consequence.", + "When a man enters into relations with a male or has a male enter into relations with him, once the corona is inserted [into the anus] they should both be stoned if they are both adults. As [Leviticus 18:22] states: \"Do not lie with a man,\" [holding one liable for the act, whether] he is the active or passive partner.
If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male [minor] was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability.45For sexual relations with a male below the age of nine are not of consequence. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4). It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations46Although he is not liable according to Scriptural Law, his act certainly warrants punishment that will discourage him from continuing this pattern of conduct. although his companion was less than nine years old.", + "One is liable for anal intercourse with an androgynus47A person with male and female sexual characteristics. just as one is liable for relations with another male. One who engages in vaginal intercourse with [an androgynus] is not liable.48For there is a doubt regarding the halachic status of such an individual.
There is a doubt concerning the gender of a tumtum.49A person whose genital area is covered with a mass of flesh and whose gender is impossible to detect. With regard to an androgynus, the doubt concerns the individual's halachic status. With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual facts: Which gender is covered by the mass of flesh? Therefore a person who has relations with a tumtum or vaginal intercourse with an androgynus should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.50Since there is a possibility that such relations are prohibited, this punishment should be given to discourage them.
An androgynus may marry a woman.51I.e., although there is a question regarding the status of the androgynus, relations between him and her are permitted (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When a person sodomizes an animal or has an animal insert its organ in him, both the person and the animal should be stoned to death,52Since the animal was the direct cause for the person's death, the animal is also executed. Alternatively, since the person was engaged in an unseemly transgression due to the animal, it is executed (Sanhedrin 54a). as [Leviticus 18:23] states: \"Do not lie down with any animal,\" prohibiting [such relations] whether he sodomizes the animal or has the animal enter him. All [living creatures] animals, beasts, and fowl should be stoned to death.53And it is forbidden to benefit from that animal (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:2). The Torah did not make any distinction with regard to the age of an animal whether it is young or old. \"Any animal\" implies a prohibition on the day of its birth. Whether the person enters into vaginal or anal intercourse with the animal, when he inserts the corona or the animal inserts the corona within him, they are liable.", + "When a boy nine years old sodomizes an animal or has an animal engage in relations with him, the animal should be stoned, but he is not liable.54For a minor is never liable for punishment. Sanhedrin 55b explains that based on the first rationale mentioned previously in note 52, one might think that the animal should not be executed. Nevertheless, the person is worthy of execution because of his deed, it is only that the Torah has pity on him. And the Torah has pity on the person and not on the animal. If the boy was less than nine years old, the animal is not stoned. Similarly, when a girl three years old or more causes an animal or a beast to have relations with her, whether it is an older animal or a younger animal, once the corona of the animal is inserted into her vagina or anus, the animal is stoned to death and she is not liable.55For she is not of age. If she was past majority, they both should be stoned to death. If she was less than three years old, the animal should not be stoned.56For this is not considered relations.", + "When a person lies with an animal inadvertently or a woman causes an animal to have relations with her inadvertently,57The question how such acts can be considered inadvertent has been raised by the commentaries. Among the answers given is that the person was not aware that the act which he performed was forbidden. the animal is not stoned to death even though they are past majority.58Since the person is not executed, according to the first of the rationales mentioned above, the animal should not be executed. Since our Sages did not conclude which of the rationales should prevail, the matter is left undecided and therefore the animal is allowed to live. With regard to [relations with] all the arayot, when one is an adult and the other a minor, the minor is not liable and the adult is liable, as explained. If one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is not liable.59The person sleeping is considered as if he performed the forbidden act under duress. If one [transgresses] intentionally and the other inadvertently, the one who [transgresses] intentionally is liable60For punishment by the court or at the hand of heaven. and the one who transgresses inadvertently must bring a sacrifice. If one acted under duress and one acted willingly, the one who acted under duress is not liable as stated above.61Halachah 13.", + "The witnesses are not required to see [the precise details] of couple's intimate relations, the man inserting [his organ]as one inserts a piston into a pipe. Instead, once they see them clinging together as is the way of all who engage in relations, they may be executed on the basis of this evidence. We do not say: Maybe he did not insert the corona, because we can assume that in this position, the corona was inserted.62This and the following halachot are based on the principle that a chazzakah, a presumption that is firmly established, is binding and considered as actual fact.", + "When an established presumption that people are close relatives has been established, we judge accordingly even though there is no clear proof that they were relatives.63I.e., as long as it is the popular conception that two individuals are related, we judge accordingly. It is not necessary for the court to bring testimony from the midwife that in fact this-and-this woman bore this-and-this child. We give lashes and execute by burning, stoning, and strangulation based on such a presumption.
What is implied? If it is an accepted presumption that a particular woman is a man's sister, daughter, or mother and he had relations with her in the presence of witnesses, he is given lashes or executed by burning or stoning even though there is no clear-cut evidence that the woman is his sister, mother, or daughter, only the accepted presumption.
An incident occurred with a woman who came to Jerusalem carrying an infant on her shoulders and she raised it, [establishing] the assumption that he was her son. [After he grew older,] he had relations with her and they brought her to the court who executed her by stoning.64The punishment given for relations between a mother and her son.
A proof of this law can be drawn from the fact that the Torah speaks of the judgment of execution for one who curses his father and strikes his father65Exodus 21:15, 17. How can we find clear proof that he is his father?66For we have no way of establishing the fact that his father conceived him. Instead, we operate according to the existing presumption. So, too, with regard to other relatives, we operate according to the existing presumption.", + "[The following rules apply when] a man and a woman come from overseas, he says: \"This is my wife,\" and she says: \"This is my husband.\" If in [their new] city, he establishes the presumption that she is his wife67By living together as husband and wife in a way obvious to all. for 30 days,68We see the concept of 30 days used to establish a person's identity in another context: After that period of time, his name may be mentioned in a legal document without fear of deception (Chelkat Mechokek 19:3; see Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 24:4).
Although capital punishment is not enforced in the present age, there are certain aspects of this halachah which are relevant, for there are several halachic contexts in which it is necessary to determine whether or not a woman is married. Today, with the advances in recording keeping and communication, it is customary for the Jewish community - particularly, in Eretz Yisrael and in a partial way, in certain places in the Diaspora - to keep records and to be able to verify whether or not a couple are married. we execute [an adulterer who has relations] with her. Within 30 days, however, we do not execute anyone on the presumption that she is a married woman.69The transgressors are given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" for certainly there is at least a possibility that the couple who claim to be husband and wife are married (Rabbi Akiva Eiger to Halachah 15).", + "When a woman is presumed to be a niddah among her neighbors,70I.e., she wore clothes that she set aside to wear while she is in her niddah state. See Turei Zahav 185:2 who states that even if the woman later gives an explanation for her conduct, her explanation is not accepted and we consider her status to have changed. The Siftei Cohen and others, however, differ. See Chapter 4, Halachah 10. her husband is given lashes for [engaging in relations] with her in the niddah state.71A man is forbidden to have relations with a woman while she is in the niddah state. In this instance, although we do not know for certain that she was in the niddah state, we act according to the presumption created by her conduct.
[The following rule applies when] a person issues a warning [not to enter into seclusion with a specific man]72When a man issues such a warning to his wife and she violates it, he is forbidden to engage in relations with her until she drinks the sotah waters (Hilchot Sotah 1:2). to his wife and she enters into seclusion with him. If one witness comes and testifies that she was unfaithful,73In which instance, she is not given the sotah waters to drink. Instead, her husband is required to divorce her (ibid.:14). her husband was a priest, and he engaged in relations with her afterwards, he receives lashes because of her because he had relations with a zonah.74The term zonah is halachicly defined as any woman who engages in relations with a man forbidden to her. The term literally means \"a prostitute\" or \"a promiscuous woman.\" Here, however, the term is given the specific halachic meaning mentioned above. Whether she willingly or unwillingly engages in such relations, she is placed in this category. A priest is forbidden to engage in relations with such a woman. See Chapter 18, Halachah 12. Although the fundamental element of this testimony is established by one witness,75One might think that it was necessary for the change in the status of the woman to be established through the testimony of two witnesses. [her conduct caused] her identity to be established as a zonah.76I.e., since she violated the warning her husband gave her, we assume that she acted unfaithfully. Hence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to bring about a change in her status.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the man is given lashes for violating a different prohibition, the prohibition against relations with a wife who has been unfaithful. The Ra'avad, however, speaks of the woman being raped and maintains that a woman is not placed in the category of a zonah when only one person observes her being raped.
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Ra'avad's statements, noting that the Rambam does not mention rape at all. The Maggid Mishneh also states that the Rambam does not require lashes when a man engages in relations with his wife after she was unfaithful. The Kessef Mishneh questions that statement, noting that in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, the Rambam specifically rules that a man is given lashes in such a situation. See also the notes to Chapter 18, Halachah 7.", + "When a father says: \"My daughter is consecrated to this person,\" his word is accepted77We are speaking about a girl who is a na'arah between the age of twelve and twelve and a half. Her father has the right to consecrate her to whoever he desires. Therefore we accept his word when he states that he consecrated her, as Deuteronomy 22:16 states: \"I gave my daughter to this man\" (Kiddushin 64a).
(A father's word is also accepted with regard to consecrating his daughter is she is younger. We are, nevertheless, compelled to say that here we are speaking about a na'arah, because punishment is mentioned and a girl below the age of twelve is never punished by the court.) and she must marry him.78Or undergo formal divorce proceedings before marrying another man. [Nevertheless,] if she acts unfaithfully while [consecrated] to him, she is not stoned to death79The punishment given for relations with a consecrated maiden. because of her father's statements unless there are witnesses [who testify] that she was consecrated in their presence.80Although the father's statement is given a certain amount of legal credibility, it is not considered as sufficient basis for capital punishment (Kiddushin 63b).
Similarly, when a woman states: \"I have been consecrated,\" [if it is discovered that she engaged in relations with another man,] she is not executed on the basis of her own statements. Instead, there must be witnesses [that she was consecrated] or she must have established a common conception [that this was the case]." + ], + [ + "The [following] four women: the wife of a man's father, the wife of his son, the wife of his brother, and the wife of the brother of his father, are considered an ervah1The singular of the term arayot mentioned in the first chapter. for him forever, whether after consecration or after marriage, in the lifetime of their husbands or after their deaths, [even] if they were divorced - with the exception of the wife of one's brother who did not leave a son.2When a man dies childless, one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry his widow to propagate his name. This obligation, yibbum in Hebrew, is described in Deuteronomy, ch. 25, and in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah.
If a man engages in relations with one of these woman during the lifetime of their husbands, he is liable for two [sin-offerings3I.e., if he transgresses inadvertently. If he transgresses intentionally, he is liable for execution, by stoning for relations with his father's wife and his son's wife, and by strangulation for relations with his brother's wife and the wife of his father's brother. (For the latter two transgressions are punishable by kerait and so he receives the penalty for adultery alone.)]: for incestuous relations and adulterous relations, for both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.4See Chapter 17, Halachah 8, and notes where this concept is explained.", + "Therefore a person who engages in relations with his mother who is his father's wife is liable for two [sin-offerings], one because [the woman is] his mother and one because she is his father's wife. [This applies] both during his father's lifetime and after his father's death.5Since the Rambam speaks of laws that apply after the father's death, he mentions only two prohibitions. During the father's lifetime, he is liable for a third prohibition: relations with a married woman.
The wives of both a person's paternal brother and his maternal brother are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his brother were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship.6For the prohibition against relations with all blood relatives applies regardless of whether the person was conceived within marriage or outside of it. The wife of the maternal brother of a man's father is, however, forbidden [only] as a shniyah, as explained.7Hilchot Ishut 1:5. This is merely a Rabbinical prohibition. Both a person's paternal sister and his maternal sister are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his sister were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship, e.g., his mother or his father acted promiscuously with others and his sister was conceived promiscuously, as [implied by Leviticus 18:9]: \"one born at home or one born beyond [marriage].\"", + "The daughter of his father's wife who is his paternal sister is an ervah for him, [as ibid.:11] states: \"the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, your father's offspring.\" If, however, a man's father marries a woman and she has a daughter from another man, that daughter is permitted to him.8Even if they were raised in the same household like a brother and a sister, marriage between them is permitted. We are not considered with the possible impression such a union might create [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:11)]. She is not \"your father's offspring.\" Behold one is already liable for [relations] with her because she is a sister, why then [does the Torah mention]: \"the daughter of your father's wife\"? So that one should be liable for this prohibition as well.9And thus be required to bring two sin offerings.", + "Therefore a man who engages in relations with his sister who was born to his father's wife in marriage is liable for two [sin offerings]: one because of \"the nakedness of your sister\" and one because of \"the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife.\" If, however, one's father raped or seduced a woman and conceived a daughter, one is liable only for having relations with one's sister. For the daughter of the woman who was raped is not the daughter of the wife of one's father.10This applies even if afterwards, the father marries the woman who he raped or seduced (Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 196).", + "The sister of his mother is considered an ervah for him. [This applies to both her paternal and maternal sister and applies regardless whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship. Similarly, his father's sister - both his paternal and maternal sister, whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship - is considered an ervah for him.", + "When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and conceives a daughter with her, that daughter is considered an ervah for him.11The fact that her mother was not married to him is not significant. Although the Torah does not state: \"Do not reveal the nakedness of your daughter,\" the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Since [the Torah] forbade [relations] with the daughter of one's daughter, it did not mention [the prohibition against] one's daughter. This is not from the words of our Sages.12The Rambam's statements touch on an involved issue. In his Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), he writes that every concept derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis has the power of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, commandments derived through these principles are not considered as part of the 613 mitzvot, but are instead \"from the words of our Sages.\"
The prohibition against relations with one's daughter, the Rambam states, is not in that category. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah and Sanhedrin 76a uses different principles of exegesis to derive it, it is not \"from the words of our Sages.\" Instead, it is as if it was explicitly stated in the Torah. From Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:2, it appears that the Rambam's intent is that since the Torah mentions the prohibition against relations with the daughter of one's daughter, the prohibition against relations with one's daughter is obvious. There is no need for the Torah to mention it. It must be mentioned that many other authorities do not follow the same understanding as the Rambam and consider concepts derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis as fully binding Scriptural Law. According to their understanding, there is no difficulty with the prohibition against relations with one's daughter being considered of Scriptural origin. Therefore a person who has relations with a daughter born of his wife is liable for two [sin offerings],13From the Ra'avad's statements, it appears that he does not require a sin offering for relations with one's daughter. The parenthesis are based on the understanding of the Maggid Mishneh. for [relations with] his daughter and for relations with a woman and her daughter.14As stated in the following halachah.", + "When a person consecrates a woman, her close relatives - six women - become forbidden to him as an ervah forever. This applies whether he consummates [the bond through nisuin] or divorces her, in the lifetime of his wife and after her death. They are: a) her mother, b) her mother's mother, c) her father's mother, d) her daughter,15When stating this law, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:13) emphasizes that if a man rapes a woman, after her death, he may marry her daughter who was conceived by another man. The Ramah adds that even if the rapist marries her daughter during her lifetime, he is not compelled to divorce her. e) her daughter's daughter, and f) her son's daughter. If he has relations with one of these women during the lifetime of his wife, both [he and she] are executed by burning.", + "If he has relations with one of these women after his wife's death, they are liable for kerait,16This is based on the Rambam's understanding of Sanhedrin 76b. Rashi, the Ramban, and the Rashba differ and maintain that after the death of the man's wife, he is prohibited against relations with her close relatives, but is not liable for kerait. but they are not executed by the court, as [derived from Leviticus 20:14]: \"In fire, he and they shall be burnt.\" [This implies17The use of the plural term \"they\" should not be interpreted to mean that the man's wife should be executed by being burnt to death. For what evil has she committed? Instead, the intent is that only in her lifetime is the death penalty applied (Rashi, Sanhedrin 76b). that only] when both women - his wife and the woman with whom he had relations - are alive, he and the ervah are executed by burning. When both [women] are not alive, there is no execution by burning.18Sanhedrin, loc. cit., speaks about relations with one's mother-in-law, stating that only when one's wife is alive are these relations punishable by death. Since, however, the prohibition against relations with all the other five women mentioned above is derived from the prohibition against relations with one's mother-in-law, they are bound by the same laws (Maggid Mishneh).", + "Similarly, the sister of his wife is considered an ervah for him until his wife dies.19For Leviticus 18:18 explicitly states that the prohibition against relations with the sister of one's wife is \"in her lifetime.\" While the wife is alive, even if she is divorced, the man is forbidden to engage in relations with her sister [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:26)]. After his wife's death, however, he may marry her sister. Both her maternal sister and her paternal sister, whether conceived in marriage or promiscuously, are considered as an ervah for him.", + "If a man transgressed and engaged in relations with one of these seven women, whether intentionally or inadvertently, although he and the woman are liable for execution by the court or kerait, he is not forbidden to engage in relations with his wife.20For his wife has not transgressed and there is no reason that she should become forbidden. The only exception is [when he engages in relations with] the sister of the woman he consecrated. In this instance, his wife is forbidden to him, as explained in Hilchot Gerushin.21The Rambam is referring to Hilchot Gerushin 10:8-10 which states:
A man consecrated a woman, she journeyed to another country, the husband heard she died, and [then] married her sister. [If,] afterwards, it was discovered that she had not died, he must divorce both women.... Why did they require that the sister of the woman whom the man consecrated be divorced? Lest people say that the [first] kiddushin were given conditionally, [the condition was not fulfilled,] and thus the law would allow marriage to her sister. Since the [first] woman's sister was divorced... the man's first wife is also forbidden to him lest people think that he married his divorcee's sister.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam maintains that a divorce is required only in such an instance. If, by contrast, he enters into promiscuous relations with the sister of the woman he consecrated, he may still marry her if she consents. This explanation resolves the protests made by the Ra'avad to the Rambam's statements.", + "When a man engages in promiscuous relations with a woman, the seven relatives mentioned above are not forbidden to him [according to Scriptural Law].22For the verses (Leviticus 18:18, 20:14) on which these prohibitions are based mention \"taking,\" i.e., marriage. Nevertheless, our Sages23See Yevamot 97a. prohibited anyone who had promiscuous relations with a woman from marrying one of these seven relatives during the promiscuous woman's lifetime.24After her death, however, there are no restrictions on marrying her relatives (ibid., for the reason for the decree no longer applies. [The rationale is that] the promiscuous woman will come to visit her relatives. He will thus enter into solitude with her. [Since] he is familiar with her, we fear that they will transgress and thus he will engage in relations with an ervah.25For since he is married to one of her close relatives, she is an ervah for him.
Even if a man is merely suspected of relations with a woman,26In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 11:1), the Rambam states that this applies when the suspicion is verified. he should not marry one of her relatives until the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations died. If, however, he married the relative of the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations, he should not divorce her.", + "When a person was suspected of having relations with an ervah or a rumor to that effect was circulated, he should not dwell together with her in the same lane or appear in the same neighborhood.27This ruling is derived from the law stated in the following clause of the halachah. The Ra' avad questions the Rambam's deduction, stating that extra stringency is appropriate with regard to one's mother-in-law, but otherwise, there is no need to enforce such a restriction. The Maggid Mishneh states that for that reason, lashes were given only with regard to one's mother-in-law, but agrees with the Rambam's ruling, stating that curbs should be placed on any conduct that may lead to promiscuity. See also Chapter 21, Halachah 27. An incident occurred concerning a man who was rumored [to have engaged in relations] with his mother-in-law and our Sages had him beaten28See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:5 which states that a judge has the power to subject a person to lashes even if he is not liable according to Torah Law. because he passed by the entrance to her home.", + "When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister or the like, it is as if he had relations with two unrelated woman. One is considered an ervah because of the other only in the instance of marriage, not in an instance of promiscuity. Similarly, if a man's father, son, brother, or father's brother raped a woman or seduced her, she is permitted to him and he may marry her. [The prohibition involving these individuals] mentions \"the wife of\" and here there is no context of marriage.", + "When a man's father or son marries a woman, that man may marry her daughter or her mother as we explained.29Halachah 3. A person may marry the wife of his brother's son.30After she was widowed or divorced. A man may marry a woman and her sister's daughter or her brother's daughter at the same time. It is a mitzvah from the Sages for a man to marry his sister's daughter,31The Maggid Mishneh explains that a person has a natural affection for his close relatives. Those positive feelings provide a fertile ground of support for the marriage relationship to flourish. as [alluded to by Isaiah 58:7]: \"Do not turn away from your own flesh.\" This law also applies to his brother's daughter.32Other Rishonim [Rashi, Rabbenu Tam (Sanhedrin 76) differ and maintain that the mitzvah applies only with regard to one's sister's daughter." + ], + [ + "When a person has relations with the wife of a minor, he is not liable.1For there is no concept of marriage with regard to a male below the age of majority.
The term liable in this context means \"liable for execution\" if the transgression was performed willfully or \"liable for a sacrifice\" if it was performed inadvertently. [This applies] even to a yevamah with whom a nine year old [brother] had relations.2A yevamah is a childless widow whom one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry. Now, relations with a yevamah do not require the conscious intent of the brother who seeks to marry her (Hilchot Yibbum 2:3) and relations carried out by a nine year old are of consequence in certain contexts (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). Hence, one might think that by carrying out relations with the yevamah, the nine year old would acquire her as his wife. See also Hilchot Yibbum 5:18. Similar [laws apply when] a person has relations with the wife of a deaf-mute,3A deaf-mute is not considered of sufficient mental capacity to be responsible for his actions. Hence, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 4:9, he cannot consecrate a woman according to Scriptural Law. Although according to Rabbinic Law, his consecration is binding, he is not held liable for execution or a sacrifice for violating a Rabbinic prohibition. the wife of a mentally or emotionally unstable individual,4In this instance, the consecration is not binding even according to Rabbinic Law (ibid.). the wife of a tumtum or an androgynus,5As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 15, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the halachic status of an androgynus and a doubt with regard to the physiological makeup of a tumtum. Hence we cannot be certain whether the adulterer is engaging in relations with a woman whose marriage is halachicly significant. a female deaf-mute or a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable married to a mentally capable individual,6Since such women are not considered as capable of making responsible decisions, the man's consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law. And since the consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law, there are no punishments that result from it. In particular, however, there is a difference between the two situations, for the consecration of a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable is not effective at all. The consecration of a female deaf-mute, by contrast, is effective according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.). or a woman whose consecration is of doubtful status or whose divorce is of doubtful status. In all of the above situations, one is not liable. If they willfully transgress, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "[The following rules apply if a man] engages in relations with a female minor, the wife of an adult male. If she was consecrated by her father, [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation.7He is given the punishment due any adulterer, for the consecration is binding according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Ishut3:11). This is speaking about a situation where the couple later married. Otherwise, the adulterer would be stoned to death. Also, it is speaking about a situation where the child is over three years old. Otherwise, the relations are not significant. She is not liable for anything,8Neither punishment, nor a sacrifice. For she is a minor and is not responsible for her conduct. [but] she is forbidden to her husband,9As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, a woman who engages in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband. as explained in Hilchot Sotah.10Chapter 2, Halachah 4. The Ra'avad both here and in Hilchot Sotah differs with the Rambam, basing his objections on Yevamot 33b which states \"The seduction of a minor is always considered equivalent to rape.\" Since she is not responsible for her actions, her consent is of no significance. And if a woman is raped, she is permitted to her husband if he is not a priest (Hilchot Ishut 24:19).
The Maggid Mishneh admits that the question raised by the Ra'avad is substantial, but points to a passage in Ketubot 9a which appears to support the Rambam's decision. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 178:3) cites both views without stating which to favor. The Beit Shmuel 178:3 states that the Ra'avad's view is accepted by most authorities.
If she has the right to perform mi'un11Mi'un refers to a means of terminating a Rabbinically originated marriage arrangement. When a girl's father is not alive, our Sages gave her mother and/or her brothers the opportunity to consecrate her. This consecration is not binding according to Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Ishut 4:8, Hilchot Gerushin 11:1). Hence, an adulterer is not punished for relations with her.
This law also applies to a deaf-mute and anyone else whose consecration is acceptable only according to Rabbinic Law (Rav David Arameah)., he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and she is permitted to [remain married] to her husband, even if he is a priest.12A priest is not allowed to remain married to a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, even if she was compelled to do so. Nevertheless, in this instance, she can end her marriage whenever she desires without a formal divorce, it is as if she was never married. Hence, her \"adultery\" is not of consequence.", + "When the daughter of a priest commits adultery while married, she is executed by burning, as [Leviticus 21:9] states: \"When the daughter of a man who is a priest will begin to commit adultery, [she will be burnt by fire].\" [This applies] whether she is married to a priest or an Israelite. [Indeed,] even if her husband was a mamzer13A person born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship whom it is forbidden to marry. or a nitin14See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which explain that this term refers to a person descended from one of the seven Canaanite nations who converted. Such a person is forbidden to marry into the Jewish people. or another whom it is forbidden to marry because of a negative commandment,15When the prohibition against marriage is punishable by execution or kerait, the marriage is not considered valid and there is no punishment for adultery. If, however, it is forbidden only by a negative prohibition, the marriage is binding. [she is given this punishment].
The man who engages in adultery with her is executed by strangulation.16For the Torah states the severe punishment only for the woman herself. Similarly, the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is [executed] by strangulation [if she commits adultery] as is the law with regard to any other married woman.", + "When a man has relations with a consecrated maiden, they are both executed by stoning. They are not liable to be stoned to death until the maiden17The term maiden has a specific halachic definition: a girl who at the age of 12 (or over) manifested signs of physical maturity. She remains in this category for six months (Hilchot Ishut 2:1). is a virgin, consecrated,18But not married. and in her father's home. If she came of age19I.e., the six months mentioned above passed. or she entered the chupah20I.e., completed the marriage ceremony. even if the marriage was not consummated, they are executed by strangulation. [The lesser punishment is given] even if the father gave her to the emissaries of the husband21For from this time, she is no longer under her father's control. and she committed adultery on the way.", + "When a man has relations with a girl who is a minor and is consecrated while she is living in her father's house, he is executed by stoning22Although the verse speaks about \"a consecrated maiden,\" relations with even a younger girl are given the same punishment. and she is not liable.23Since she is a minor, she is not responsible for her actions and is not subjected to any punishment. When a consecrated maiden who is the daughter of a priest commits adultery, she is stoned to death.24I.e., she is given the more severe punishment.", + "When ten men enter into relations with her one after the other while she is a virgin in her father's home, the first is executed by stoning and the remainder, by strangulation.25Because after relations with the first, she is no longer a virgin. Hence, they are given the ordinary penalty for adultery.
When does the above apply? When they had vaginal intercourse. If, however, they had anal intercourse, she is still a virgin and they are all executed by stoning.26For with regard to punishment, there is no difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse.", + "When a consecrated maiden was a freed slave or a convert, even if she was freed or converted before she reached the age of three,27In which instance, even if she had engaged in relations beforehand, her signs of virginity would return. [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation,28Ketubot 44a states that this concept is derived from a Scriptural reference. When speaking of this transgression, Deuteronomy 22:21 states: \"He committed an abuse in Israel,\" i.e., involving a native-born Jewess. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Ketubot 4:3), the Rambam offers a different explanation, one which has raised questions among the commentaries. as is the law with regard to all married women.", + "There is a new law that applies to a person who spreads a malicious report [about his wife].29See Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 3, where this instance is discussed. A man enters into relations with his newly-wed wife and afterwards, claims she is not a virgin. Moreover, he produces witnesses who testify that the women committed adultery before entering into relations with him. If the testimony of the witnesses is not disproved, the women is executed as the Rambam continues to explain. What is this new [law]? That if the gossip is discovered to be true and witnesses come [and testify] that she committed adultery when she was a consecrated maiden, even if she committed adultery after she left her father's house and even if she committed adultery after she entered the marriage canopy before she had relations with her husband, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house. Other consecrated maidens concerning whom a malicious report was not spread are executed by strangulation if they committed adultery after they left their father's home, as we explained.30Halachah 4. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once a woman enters the marriage canopy as a virgin, she is executed by strangulation as are all other married women. The difference of opinion centers on the interpretation of Ketubot 45a. Rashi and Tosafot also differ in their interpretation of that passage.
Thus there are three types of execution for adultery with a married women: strangulation,31An ordinary case of adultery. burning to death,32The daughter of a priest who committed adultery. and stoning to death.33A consecrated maiden who committed adultery in her father's house or a maiden about whom a malicious report was spread and it was discovered to be true.", + "Where is a consecrated maiden who committed adultery stoned to death? If she committed adultery while in her father's house, even though the witnesses did not testify until she went to her father-in-law's house and married, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house.34As Ketubot 45a states, this is intended to dishonor her parents, as if to say: \"See the offspring which you raised.\" If she committed adultery in her father-in-law's house before her father conveyed her [to her husband], she is stoned to death at the entrance to the gate of the city.35As stated in Deuteronomy 22:23. This is a mark of dishonor for the city, a sign that the environment is not moral. The Rambam's ruling is based on his version of Ketubot 45a. Rashi (and the standard published text of that passage) follow a different version.
Or Sameach states that since the transgression did not take place in her father's home, it is not fitting that he be dishonored in this fashion. [This applies] even if [the witnesses] testified concerning her after she returned to her father's house.", + "If witnesses come [and testify] after she comes of age36I.e., six months after she manifests signs of physical maturity. or after her husband has relations with her, she is stoned to death in the place for stoning.37As Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1, 15:1, the place for stoning was a two storey building somewhat removed from the city.[This applies] even if they testify that she committed adultery in her father's home when she was a maiden.38Since she has already come of age, the laws governing her change and she is not stoned at her father's house. If she would commit adultery at this age, she would be executed by strangulation. Hence, when she is punished for the adultery she committed beforehand, her sentence is commuted somewhat and she is not executed at her parents' home (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh himself note that when a man spreads a malicious report about a woman and his statements are proved to be correct, the woman is executed at her father's home. Although she already had relations with her husband, she is executed in the same place as before. This would indicate that her coming of age is also not significant. Rav Akiva Eiger explains that since when a malicious report was proven true, a woman is stoned to death even though she has already married her husband, it obviously is a different type of instance than an ordinary case of a maiden committing adultery.", + "If [a woman] was conceived before her mother converted and born after her mother converted, she is stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city.
[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city. If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, we stone her at the entrance to the court.39For the verse mentions stoning her \"at the entrance to your gates.\" If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, its entrance is not \"your gates\" (Tosafot, Sanhedrin 45b).
[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to her father's house, if she does not have a father or she has a father, but he does not have a house, she is stoned at the place for stoning. The \"entrance to her father's house\" was mentioned only as a mitzvah.40I.e., the optimum manner for the execution to be performed.", + "When a person engages in relations many times with one of the arayot, he is liable for kerait or execution by the court for every time he engages in relations.41With regard to his obligation to bring a sin-offering for inadvertent transgression, see Hilchot Shegagot 5:1 which states that even though a person transgressed several times, as long as he does not become aware of his transgression, he is liable for only one sin offering. If he transgresses inadvertently again after he became aware of his first transgression(s), he must bring another sin-offering. Although the court can only execute the person only once, the different times he engages in relations are considered as different transgressions.
Similarly, if a person is liable for several different transgressions for engaging in relations once,42E.g., he had relations with his brother's wife while she is in the niddah state, in which instance he is liable for relations with a married woman, relations with his brother's wife, and relations with a woman in the niddah state. if he transgressed inadvertently, he must bring a sacrifice for every transgression he performed even though he engaged in relations only once, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot43Chapter 4, Halachah 2. If he transgressed intentionally, it is considered as if he violated many transgressions. Similarly, there is a situation where a person engages in relations once and incurs liability for lashes many times as will be explained.44Chapter 17, Halachot 9-10.", + "The term shifchah charufah employed by the Torah refers to [a woman] who is half a Canaanite maidservant and half a freed woman45Such a situation is possible when a Canaanite maidservant was owned by two partners. One released her from bondage and one did not. In this situation, she is obligated to serve her master one day and on the following day, she is free to do as she chooses. who has been consecrated by a Hebrew servant.46In contrast to other Jewish men, a Hebrew servant is permitted to engage in relations with a Canaanite maid-servant. Hence, the fact that this woman is half a maid-servant will not represent a difficulty for him. And because, she is half a freed woman, he may consecrate her. [Concerning the infidelity of such a woman, Leviticus 19:20] states: \"They shall not die, because she was not freed.\"47And since she was not freed, the Hebrew servant's consecration of her is contingent on her freedom. Until she is freed, they are not fully married. If she was freed entirely, one is liable for execution by the court, for she becomes a married woman in a complete sense, as explained in Hilchot Ishut.48Chapter 4, Halachah 16.", + "[The laws regarding] relations with this maidservant are different than [those regarding] all other forbidden relations in the Torah. For she is lashed, as [ibid.] states: \"There shall be an inquiry.\"49Keritot 11a interprets this phrase as indicating that she - and not the man - should be given the above punishment. He is liable to bring a guilt offering, as [ibid.:21] states: \"And he shall bring his guilt offering.\"50See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 9, which describes the particulars of this sacrifice. Whether he transgresses intentionally or inadvertently with a shifchah charufah, he must bring a guilt offering.
When he enters into relations with her many times, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is required to bring only one sacrifice.51Keritot 9a derives this concept through the principles of Biblical exegesis. If, however, he enters into relations with many different maid-servants, he is liable for each act (Ra'avad; Hilchot Shegagot 9:5). She, however, is liable for lashes for every act of relations if she acted intentionally, as is the law with regard to other instances [where relations are forbidden] by merely a negative commandment.", + "When a person just inserts his corona into the female organ of the shifchah charufah, but does not insert the entire organ, he is not liable. [Liability is incurred only when] he inserts the entire organ.52The term literally means \"complete relations.\" Our translation is based on the definition given by the Rambam in Chapter 1, Halachah 10. It must be noted that Tosafot, Yevamot 55b understands Rashi as interpreting the phrase \"conclude relations\" to mean \"to ejaculate.\" Support for that interpretation is brought from the fact that the prooftext from Leviticus speaks of \"lying with her with seed.\" Somehave also pointed to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 2:5 for support for this interpretation.
He is only liable when she is above majority, had engaged in relations previously and acts intentionally and willfully.53For Keritot 11a teaches: Whenever the woman is lashed, he is required to bring a sacrifice. Whenever she is not punished, he is not liable. And she is not punished unless she is an adult who acts willfully. If, however, she is a minor, she had never engaged in relations, or she transgressed inadvertently, was raped, or was sleeping, he is not liable. Similarly, if he had anal intercourse with her, he is not liable, for with regard to a shifchah charufah an equation was not established between vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse, for [Leviticus 19:20] speaks of: \"ly[ing] while emitting seed.\"54And that is significant only with regard to vaginal intercourse. With regard to other [forbidden] relations, the Torah did not distinguish between one type of relations and the other, for [ibid. 18:22] speaks of \"the ways [in which a man] lies with a woman.\" Implied is that the Torah recognizes two ways of lying with a woman.", + "In every instance concerning a maidservant where we said there was no liability, he is not liable for a sacrifice and she is not liable for lashes. He,55This is the version of the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. Many authentic manuscripts and early printings state \"they,\" i.e., both the male and the female. however, is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" according to Rabbinic Law56For they committed an immoral act which requires punishment lest they continue the pattern. if they were both adults who acted intentionally.", + "When a youth nine years old engages in relations with a shifchah charufah, she is given lashes and he is required to bring a sacrifice,57Since he is already nine years old, his sexual acts are of consequence. Hence, since she transgressed willfully, she is liable. And since she is liable, he is liable for a sacrifice. For a sacrifice is not punishment, but atonement. Although he is still a minor, atonement is still required. In Hilchot Shegagot 9:3, the Rambam clarifies: \"It appears to me that he does not bring [the sacrifice] until he comes of age.\"
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that a minor is never required to bring such a sacrifice, for this sacrifice is a punishment. And since the male is not liable, the female is also not liable. provided that she is an adult, not a virgin, and acts willfully, as we explained.58In Halachah 15. For a man is not liable to bring a sacrifice until she is liable for lashes, as [implied by] the verse: \"There shall be an inquiry.... And he shall bring his guilt offering.\"" + ], + [ + "[A woman in] the niddah1As will be explained, the term niddah refers to a woman who suffers vaginal bleeding at the expected time of her monthly period. state is like all of the other arayot. A person who inserts his corona into her vaginal or anal orifice is liable for kerait. [This applies] even if she is a minor who is three years old, as applies with regard to other arayot.
For a woman can become impure as a niddah even on the day she is born.2Although a woman usually does not begin menstrual bleeding until around the age of twelve. If, however, she does have menstrual bleeding before then, she is bound by the halachic consequences. And a girl who is ten days becomes impure because of zivah.3For if a woman bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period, she is considered as a zavah. The first three days this is possible is the eighth, ninth, and tenth days of her life.
Altough she can become impure from the day of her birth onward, punishment is not allotted for relations with her until she becomes three. For only at that age are relations with her significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13. This concept was communicated through the Oral Tradition. There is no difference between an adult and a minor with regard to the impurity associated with nidah and zivah.", + "[The prohibitions that apply] to one who has relations with a nidah apply throughout the seven days, even if blood was sighted only on the first day. [These same prohibitions] apply to one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a male throughout the seven days [following birth], to one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a female throughout the fourteen days [following birth], to one who has relations with a zavah through the time she bleeds and then counts [seven \"clean\" days].4See Chapter 6, Halachah 8. This applies also to a Canaanite maidservant and one who has been freed. All [of these relations] are punishable by kerait.
[The association is derived as follows:] With regard to a nidah, [Leviticus 15:19] states: \"She will be in her niddah state for seven days.\" With regard to a zavah, [ibid.:25] states: \"All the days of the flow of her impurity will be like the days of her niddah state.\"5Thus establishing an association between the two. With regard to a woman who gave birth to a male,6See Chapter 10. [ibid. 12:2] states: \"She will become impure as in the days of her nidah affliction.\" 7See Chapter 6, Halachah 8. And with regard to a woman who gave birth to a female, [ibid. 12:5] states: \"She will be impure as in her niddah state for two weeks.\"8See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.", + "When does the above - that the impurity is dependent on [the passage of] days - apply? When the woman immersed herself in the waters of a mikveh9A ritual bath that meets the qualifications for this purpose. If she immersed herself in an ordinary bath, by contrast, that is not acceptable as explained in Hilchot Mikveot. after these specifically mentioned days.10If a niddah immerses herself in the middle of these days, however, the immersion is of no consequence. If, however, a niddah, a zavah or a woman who gave birth did not immerse in a mikveh, a person is liable for kerait for having relations with one of them even several years afterwards. For the Torah made the matter dependent on [the passage of] days and immersion, as [Leviticus 15:18] states: \"And they shall immerse themselves [in the water]....\" This teaches a general principle with regard to any impure person: he is in a state of impurity until he [or she] immerses.", + "The prohibitions against relations with a niddah, a zavah, and a woman after childbirth do not apply with regard to relations with gentile women.11Although relations with gentile women are forbidden, none of these particular transgressions apply according to Scriptural Law. For all the defined states of ritual purity and impurity apply only with regard to the Jewish people. The fact that a gentile woman experiences the same physical conditions is not of consequence. Our Sages decreed that all gentiles, male and female, would be considered like zavim at all times, whether or not they experienced such discharges,12I.e., this was a decree imposed to prevent intimate contact with them, regardless of their physical condition. See Hilchot Mitam'ei Mishkav UMoshav 2:10. with regard to matters of purity and impurity.", + "All blood manifest by a woman after childbirth during the 33 days associated with the birth of a male13As the Torah relates (Leviticus 12:2-4), after the birth of a male child a woman becomes impure for seven days. Afterwards, she immerses herself to regain ritual purity. For the next 33 days, even if she suffers uterine bleeding, her state does not change and she remains ritually pure. and the 66 days associated with the birth of a female14As ibid.:5 states, similar concepts apply after a woman gives birth to a female except that she originally becomes impure for 14 days. Afterwards, she remains pure for 66 days. is called blood of purity.15Niddah 36a relates that there is one source of bleeding - the womb - for all 40 (or 80) days. It is just that during the first 7 (14), the Torah rules that this blood is impure and during the final 33 (66), the Torah rules that the blood is pure. It does not prevent a woman from [relations with] her husband. Instead, she immerses herself after seven days [of impurity] for a male and fourteen for a female. She may then engage in relations with her husband16The Kessef Mishneh cites Chapter 7, Halachah 7, which states that the above applies only when a woman is not impure because of zavah bleeding before childbirth. If she is impure for such reasons, she must count seven \"clean\" days before she immerses herself and engages in relations with her husband.
Also, as will be explained (see Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6), at present the custom is not to observe the concept of blood of purity at all. Even if a woman gives birth, she must wait \"seven clean days\" after seeing any uterine bleeding. even though her blood flows.17I.e., she suffers uterine bleeding which would otherwise render her ritually impure.", + "All of those who must immerse themselves are required to immerse themselves during the day with the exception of a niddah and a woman after childbirth.18At present when we do not make any distinctions between niddah and zivah, all women immerse themselves at night. For with regard to a niddah, [Leviticus 15:19] states: \"She will be in her niddah state for seven days.\" Her niddah state prevails for all of the seven days.19She cannot terminate the last day earlier by immersing herself in the daytime. She immerses on the evening of the eighth day. Similarly, a woman who gives birth to a male child immerses on the evening of the eighth day, and one who gives birth to a female immerses on the evening of the fifteenth day, for a woman who gives birth is comparable to one in the niddah state, as we explained.20In Halachah 2.", + "If she21A niddah or a woman after childbirth. delayed the matter for many days and did not immerse herself, when she immerses herself, she should immerse only at night. For if she immerses during the day, an error [may be] made and another niddah may come and immerse herself on the seventh day.", + "If a woman was sick or the place for immersion was far away and women could not reach there and return at night because of thieves,22Although such problems are uncommon today, there are several examples - e.g., woman living in new settlements in Israel's West Bank - where these principles are relevant. because of cold, or because they close the gates of the city at night, she may immerse during the day on the eighth - or subsequent - days.23She should not, however, immerse herself on the seventh day even if she refrains from engaging in relations until nightfall [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 197:4)].", + "Whenever a woman has a veset,24A fixed time when the onset of menstruation can be expected to begin, as will be explained. Since she has a fixed time when menstruation is expected, at other times, we assume that she remains ritually pure. If she does not have a fixed time when menstruation can be expected to begin, her husband must ask her concerning her state. He cannot make any assumptions (Maggid Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh). her husband can assume that she is [ritually pure and] permitted until she tells him \"I am impure\" or she is established as a niddah in her neighborhood.25By wearing clothes designated to be worn at this time.
If a woman's husband went overseas and left her ritually pure, when he comes he does not have to ask her [concerning her state]. Even if he finds her asleep, he may enter into relations with her26Without inquiring about her ritual state. as long as it is not the time when she is expected to menstruate.27Even if there was ample time for her to have become impure due to menstruation, to wait the appointed time, and then to immerse herself, he may assume that she did that. Since she was pure when he left her, we may assume that all of the above transpired [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:11)]. He need not suspect that perhaps she is a niddah. If he left her a niddah, she is forbidden to him until she tells him: \"I am ritually pure.\"28Since he knows that she was ritually impure, he cannot assume that she changed her status. Instead, she must explicitly inform him of that change [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 185:1)].", + "When a woman tells her husband: \"I am ritually impure,\" and afterwards she tells him: \"I am ritually pure. Before I was just speaking facetiously with you,\" her word is not accepted.29And he must consider her as if she is actually ritually impure.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 185:3) states that if she corrects her statements immediately, her word is accepted. If she provides a rationale for her original statements, her word is accepted. 30The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 185:4) state that if she performed an act that indicated that she was impure, e.g., she wore the clothes that she wears in the niddah state, providing a valid explanation is not sufficient to clear the suspicions and she is considered impure.
What is implied? Her husband asked her to engage in relations and his sister or his mother was together with her in the courtyard. She originally said she was impure. Afterwards, she said: \"I am pure. I told you that I am impure only because of your sister or your mother; lest they see us.\" [In this instance,] her statement is accepted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.31E.g., \"I originally made a mistake. I thought I was impure according to law and discovered that in fact I was pure,\" \"I did not have strength to engage in relations and avoided them by giving this excuse\" (Hagahot Maimoniot).", + "When a man was in the midst of relations with a woman who had been ritually pure and she said: \"I became impure,\" he should not separate himself immediately while he is erect. For withdrawing is as pleasurable for him as entry. If he withdraws while he is still erect, he is liable for kerait,32The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 185:5) states that if a person withdraws while erect because he is unfamiliar with the transgression involved, he should fast for 40 days to seek atonement. These fasts need not be consecutive. He should also give generously to charity. like one who enters into relations with a niddah. This law also applies with regard to other arayot.33I.e., if a person realized his transgression while involved in relations with other arayot, he should not withdraw while erect.
What should he do? Implant his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection.34The Rama (loc. cit.) adds that he should be overcome with awe concerning the transgression which he faces. Afterwards, he should withdraw.", + "It is forbidden for a person to engage in relations35The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:2) state that it is only necessary to refrain from relations, other expressions of closeness are permitted. Even hugging and kissing are permitted (Siftei Cohen 184:6). This, however, represents the mere letter of the law. There are many authorities who are more stringent and forbid these expressions of closeness (ibid., Turei Zahav 184:3). In some communities, the custom is to observe all stringencies as if the woman was actually a niddah. with his wife near the time she can expect menstruation to begin,36See ch. 8, which elaborates on this subject, speaking about situation when women have a fixed veset or a veset that has not been firmly established. lest she menstruate in the midst of relations. [This is alluded to by Leviticus 15:31]: \"And you shall warn the children of Israel concerning their impurity.\"37The entire concept of vesetot, calculating the expected time when a woman will begin menstruating is a Rabbinic injunction. Hence the citation of a Scriptural verse is merely an asmachta, a support, and not a direct Scriptural command (Maggid Mishneh).
For how long [is it necessary to refrain from relations]? If [the woman] would ordinarily begin menstruating during the day, she is forbidden to enter into relations from the beginning of the day. If she would ordinarily begin menstruating during the night, she is forbidden to enter into relations from the beginning of the night.38The Siftei Cohen 184:7 states that this applies only when a woman is accustomed to begin menstruating at a given time during the day or night. If, however, she does not have a fixed time when she begins menstruating, relations are also forbidden during the preceding day or night. This stringency is not, however, accepted by all authorities.", + "If the time when menstruation could be expected to come passes and she did not begin menstruating, she is permitted to engage in relations after the time when menstruation was expected to begin passes.
What is implied? If she was accustomed to begin menstruating after six hours of the day passed. She is forbidden to engage in relations from the beginning of the day. If six hours pass without her beginning to menstruate, she is forbidden to engage in relations until the evening. 39During the evening, however, she is permitted. Before entering into relations, the woman should carry out an internal examination to verify that she in fact did not begin menstruation [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De'ah 184:9)]. Similarly, if she was accustomed to begin menstruating after six hours of the night and that time passed without her beginning to menstruate, she is forbidden to engage in relations until sunrise.", + "It is the habit of Jewish men and women to carry out a personal inspection after relations.40This ruling is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:1) as a minority perspective. The prevailing view is that when a woman possesses a fixed veset, she and her husband need not carry out such inspections at all. If she does not possess a fixed veset, she and her husband should carry out these inspections before and after the first three times they engage in relations. If no blood is discovered, it is established that sexual relations does not cause the woman to menstruate. Hence, in the future, the couple can engage in relations without making these inspections. What is implied? The man should clean himself with a cloth prepared for [this purpose] and the woman should clean herself with a cloth prepared for [this purpose]. [The purpose of these inspections is] to see whether the woman menstruated in the midst of relations. The man may allow the woman to check with his cloth. Since her word is accepted with regard to her [cloth], it is also accepted with regard to his.", + "The cloths used to clean oneself must be from worn-out,41Since they are worn-out, they are soft and pliable. It is possible for the woman to insert them into all the corners of the vagina. white42In this way, any speck of blood will be noticeable. Needless to say, they must also be clean. Today, in many Jewish communities, special clothes are prepared for this purpose - and other inspections which a woman must undergo - and are available from the local mikveh and at times, even in pharmacies. linen.43Cotton may also be used [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:6)]. They are called eidim, \"witnesses,\" in this context. The cloth with which the man cleans himself is called his ed and the cloth with which the woman cleans himself is called her ed.", + "Modest women do not engage in relations until they carry out an inspection beforehand.44As the Rambam continues to explain, this applies even if she has a fixed veset. A woman who does not have a [fixed] veset is forbidden to engage in relations until she carries out an inspection.45The Ra'avad and Rav Moshe Cohen object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the Rambam's source, Niddah 11b, applies only with regard to the laws of ritual purity and not with regard to relations with one's husband. Indeed, the Rambam himself appears to have equivocated back and forth concerning the issue. In the first draft (which is the standard printed text) of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 1:7), he follows the position advanced by the Ra'avad. It is only in the Mishneh Torah and the final text of the Commentary to the Mishneh (see Rav Kappach's translation) that he changes his mind.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:2) quotes the Rambam's ruling here as a minority view, the prevailing opinion is that such an inspection is unnecessary. Moreover, a woman should not carry out such an inspection in the presence of her husband, lest he think that she became impure. Therefore, she engages in relation with two edim, one for before relations and one for afterwards. When, however, a woman has a [fixed] veset, she need not use an ed before relations except as a measure of modesty.
After relations, however, everyone needs two witnesses: one for him and one for her, even a pregnant woman, one who is nursing, an elderly woman, or a minor46All these four types of women are unlikely to menstruate. Nevertheless, they must take the precaution suggested by the Rambam. A virgin47Who will suffer hymeneal bleeding after the first (or more) occasions of intercourse. See Chapter 5, Halachah 19. or a woman whose blood is pure48I.e., a woman after childbirth, as described in Halachah 5. does not require edim, because blood is flowing from her.49Thus checking to see whether or not she is bleeding will serve no purpose. This bleeding does not, however, render her ritually impure or forbidden to her husband according to Scriptural Law.", + "When a man engages in intercourse several times [in one night], [he and his wife] do not have to check their two edim after each time they engage in intercourse. Instead, he should clean himself with his ed, she should clean herself with her ed after each time they have relations that entire night. In the morning, they should check the edim. If blood is discovered on her ed or on his ed, she is impure.
If a women engaged in relations, cleaned herself, and then the ed was lost, she should not engage in relations again until she makes an internal inspection with another ed first. [We fear that] perhaps there was blood on the ed that was lost.50If, however, the ed is clean, we assume that the ed she used at night had also been clean.", + "[The following rules apply if] she placed the ed51This is speaking about an ed that was known to be clean beforehand (Maggid Mishneh). under a pillow or a bolster and blood was discovered upon it. If [the stain] is extended, she is impure. For we can assume that [the stain] came from the cleaning.52Since the stain is extended, we assume that the woman had touched a source of bleeding. As she moved the ed, the stain became extended. If it is rounded,53The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:34) states that this applies only when the stain is smaller than a gris (see Chapter 9, Halachah 6). If it is larger than that measure, we do not assume that it comes from a louse, because it is unlikely that a louse will produce that much blood. she is pure. [We assume that the stain] came only from the blood of a louse which was killed under the pillow.54This applies even if there is no trace of the body of the louse. We assume that when she put the ed under the pillow, she killed the louse and that produced a rounded stain. If she placed the ed in a box or in any place where a louse is unlikely to be found, she is considered as impure even if the stain is round (Maggid Mishneh).", + "[When a woman] cleaned herself with an ed that has been checked, then touched it to her thigh,55And afterwards, placed it in a safe place. and on the next day discovered blood upon it, she is impure. We do not say: Maybe a louse was killed when she touched it to her thigh.56For the likelihood of her suffering vaginal bleeding is greater than that of her killing a louse when touching the eid to her thigh. The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as applying even if the stain is round. He notes that other authorities differ and apply the principles stated in the previous law. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:35) quotes both opinions without stating which to follow.
[The following rules apply if] she cleaned herself with an ed that was not checked57This refers to an ed which we do not know whether it was dirty or not. If, however, we know that the ed was dirty, she is not considered impure even if a large stain is found [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 190:36)]. and she did not know whether it had blood on it before she cleaned herself with it or not. If there was more than a gris of blood [on it], she is [considered] a niddah.58When a stain is larger than a gris, we assume that it will not have come from a louse. If the stain was less than that, she is pure. [We assume that the stain] came from a louse.", + "When a woman suffers vaginal bleeding in the midst of relations,59The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 187:1) emphasizes that these laws apply only when the bleeding is noticed directly after intercourse. If there is an interval before she discovers the bleeding, these laws do not apply. she is permitted to engage in relations again a second time once she becomes pure.60For an occurrence that takes place once or twice is not usually considered to establish a recurrent pattern. If she suffers vaginal bleeding [in the midst of relations] a second time, she is permitted to engage in relations a third time. If she suffers vaginal bleeding [in the midst of relations] a third time,61I.e., on three consecutive occasions without there being an occasion where relations did not lead to vaginal bleeding in the interim (Siftei Cohen 187:3). she is forbidden to ever enter into relations again with this husband.62Instead, she must be divorced. She may, however, remarry as stated in the following halachah.
The reason she is required to divorce is that the recurrence of a factor three times establishes a chazzakah, a presumption that this factor will continue to recur in the future. Thus if she began bleeding on three successive occasions in the midst of relations with her husband, we assume that she will continue to do so in the future. Since she suffered vaginal bleeding in the midst of intercourse, those relations are considered as involving a severe transgression. On the first three occasions, she and her husband are not held responsible for this is obviously a deviation from the norm. If, however, a pattern is established, this is considered the norm and if she would bleed in the midst of relations in the future, the transgression would be considered as willful. To prevent that from happening, we require divorce.
It must be emphasized that all this applies after the woman has ceased hymeneal bleeding. It is, however, possible for her to engage in relations several times at the beginning of her marriage and continue hymeneal bleeding. See the conclusion of Chapter 5.
When does the above apply? When there was no other factor that [the bleeding] could be attributed to.63And thus, it is assumed that the relations are the cause of the vaginal bleeding. If, however, they entered into relations close to the time when she was expected to menstruate,64Note the Siftei Cohen 187:16 who offers several resolutions how this is possible despite the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 12. we attribute [the bleeding] to her ordinary pattern. If she had a wound [in her vaginal area], we attribute [the bleeding] to the wound. If, however, the blood that comes from the wound is a different shade than the blood which she sees in the midst of relations, she may not attribute [the bleeding] to the wound.65Unless we know that the shades of blood are different, we assume that they are the same and attribute the bleeding to the wound (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 187:19).
We accept the word of a woman when she says: \"I have a wound in the uterus which bleeds.\"66Note the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 187:5) who emphasizes the importance of adding the words \"which bleeds.\" On this basis, she is permitted to her husband even though the uterus bleeds in the midst of relations.", + "When a woman bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions and there was no outside factor to which to attribute [the bleeding], she is required to divorce. She may, however, marry a second husband.67For we accept the possibility that the difficulty was particular to her first husband and would not affect her relations with other men. If she married a second time and bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions, she is required to divorce, but she may marry a third man. If, however, she married a third time and bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions, she is required to divorce and she may not marry again68Since the same condition recurred with three different men, a chazzakah is established and we assume that it will recur with all men. until she is healed from this sickness.", + "How does a woman check herself to see whether she has been healed from this sickness?69She may check herself in this manner at any time in the process, even before being divorced by her first husband [Maggid Mishneh; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 187:3)]. She brings a lead tube with its edge doubled over inside of it.70So that it will be smooth and will not scratch her. She inserts the tube into her vagina until the place it can reach. She then places a shaft within the tube with a cotton swab placed at its top. She pushes [the shaft] until the swab reaches the opening of the uterus and then takes out the swab. If blood is found on the top of swab, it can be assumed that the blood discovered in the midst of relations comes from the uterus.71For the swab was touched to the uterus without contact with any other part of the body. If there was no blood on the swab, it can be assumed that the blood discovered [in the midst of relations] comes from pressure on the sides of the vaginal channel.72And such bleeding does not render her impure.
Without minimizing the effectiveness of this method of checking devised by the Rabbis of the Talmud, today there are more effective medical tools available and it is possible to ascertain the source of a woman's bleeding in that manner. A careful inspection by a doctor or nurse under the guidance of a Rav may - and should - be employed as soon as such problems occur. She is pure and may marry another man, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.73Hilchot Ishut 25:8. The Rambam is implying that she cannot remarry her third husband. In Hilchot Ishut, he explains that when a man divorces a woman for this reason, the husband must know he may never remarry her, for otherwise it would be as if he gave the divorce conditionally. If she becomes healed, it would not be effective." + ], + [ + "A woman becomes impure due to factors beyond her control, whether for niddah or for zivah.1I.e., not only does a woman become impure when she suffers ordinary menstrual bleeding, she becomes impure when that bleeding appears to be brought on by an external cause.
What is implied? For example, she jumped from place to place;2And we assume the unusual exertion brought on the uterine bleeding. she saw animals, beasts, or fowl copulating, was aroused, and began bleeding.3Our Sages appreciated that sexual desire could produce uterine bleeding. In these and in other analogous instances, regardless of the situation, since she experienced bleeding, she becomes impure.
She becomes impure from even the smallest amount of bleeding. Even a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed [makes her impure as if] much blood had drained from her.", + "All women become impure [when blood is discovered in] the outer chamber [of the vagina]. Even though the blood did not emerge outside [her body], but instead, was discharged from the womb without flowing further, since it emerged from the upper portion of the vaginal channel,4We have given a biological term for the metaphoric term used by our Sages which literally means \"between the teeth.\" For a woman to become impure, the blood must emerge from the upper portion of the vaginal channel and reach the lower portion, as explained in Halachah 5. she is impure, even though the blood is still within her flesh. [This is alluded to by Leviticus 15:19:] \"A discharge of blood within her flesh.\"
Until where does the upper portion of the vaginal channel extend? Until the place that the male organ reaches when inserted entirely during relations. The upper portion of the vaginal channel itself is like the uterus.5And blood there does not render a woman ritually impure.", + "Our Sages6Niddah 17b. spoke in metaphoric terms with regard to a woman. The uterus where a fetus is formed is called \"the source.\" It is the place where the blood that renders a woman a niddah or a zavah emanates from. It is called \"the room,\" for it is found deep within her body. The entire uterine channel,7The term used by our Sages literally means \"the neck of the uterus.\" i.e., the lengthy place whose entrance contracts severely at the time of pregnancy so that the fetus will not fall, but opens very wide at birth is called \"the antechamber,\" i.e., it is like a gateway to the uterus.", + "When the male organ is inserted entirely during relations, it enters the \"antechamber\" but does not reach its end. Instead, it is slightly removed according to the size of the organs. Above the \"room\" and the \"antechamber\" - but located between the \"room\" and the \"antechamber\" - is the place where the woman's two ovaries and the ducts in which her ova become mature are located. This place is called \"the loft.\" There is an opening from the \"loft\" to the top of the \"antechamber.\" This opening is called the \"passageway.\" When the male organ is inserted entirely during relations it goes beyond the \"passageway.\"8See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:4) where he describes these terms in greater detail, drawing on his medical knowledge.", + "Blood which comes from the \"room\" is always impure with the exception of \"the blood of purity\"9Blood which flows after childbirth as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 5. which the Torah deemed pure and bleeding which occurs before birth, as will be explained.10Chapter 7, Halachah 2. Blood from the \"loft\" is entirely pure. It is like the blood from a wound in the intestines, the liver, or a kidney and the like.
[The following laws apply when blood] is discovered in the \"antechamber.\" If it is discovered between the \"passageway\" [and the uterus], she is impure, for the assumption is that it came from \"the room.\" She is liable for entering the Temple11For it is forbidden to enter the Temple while ritually impure. and we burn terumah and sacrificial foods because of this.12When terumah or sacrificial food becomes ritually impure, it is no longer fit for consumption and must be burned. If, however, it did not become impure, it is forbidden to burn it. The fact that we burn these objects after such a woman touches them indicates that she has become impure according to Scriptural Law. We do not say that perhaps it descended from the \"loft\" through the opening, for most of the blood found in such a place is from the \"room.\"
When blood is found in the \"antechamber\" between the opening [and the entrance to the vagina], she is impure, because of a doubt. Perhaps [the blood] came from the \"room\" or [perhaps it] flowed from the loft through the passageway. Therefore we do not burn terumah and sacrificial foods because of this, nor is she liable for entering the Temple.13She is, however, forbidden to enter the Temple and forbidden to touch terumah or sacrificial foods. Similarly, she is forbidden to engage in relations with her husband. This is particularly true in the present age. We rule stringently and forbid a woman to her husband no matter where the blood is discovered [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:7)].", + "Not every liquid that comes from the \"room\" renders a woman impure, only blood, as [ibid.] states: \"A discharge of blood.\" Therefore if a white or a green14In halachic terminology, the Hebrew term yarok can also mean yellow or golden. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:1) which discusses this issue. liquid flows from the uterus, even if it is viscous like blood, she is pure since it does not appear as blood.", + "There are five [colors of] blood that [render] a woman impure. They are: red, black, bright saffron, muddy water, and diluted wine.15Implied is that if the stain does not match any of these colors, even if it has a red tint, it does not render the woman impure. This, however, applied in Talmudic times when the Rabbis were able to carefully distinguish between different shades of red. At present, however, if a stain has a red tint, it should be considered impure. We do not attempt to make these fine distinctions (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Niddah 2:7; Siftei Cohen 188:1). All other colors are pure.", + "What is meant by red? The color of blood that comes from the blood which flows initially when people let blood. This blood is placed in a cup, the stain is placed next to it, and [the two] are compared. The black is like dried ink.16In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:6), the Rambam explains that certain factors will turn red blood to black.
What is meant by bright saffron? Fresh saffron should be brought together with the clod of earth from which it is growing. From the better stalks, one should take the middle stalk that is entirely a stem. In each one, there are three stalks and each stalk has three leaves. One should bring the stain next to the middle leaf on the middle stalk and compare it.
What is meant by \"like muddy water\"? We take earth from the valley of Sichnei or the like which is red and pour water over it until the water level is the thickness of a garlic peel above the earth. There is no required amount of water or earth that must be brought. One should stir them in the container and compare [the color to that of the stain] at that time while [the water] is murky. If [the water] becomes clear, one should stir it again and make it murky.", + "If the color of the stain matched the color of any of these four shades or was deeper than them, [the woman] is impure. If it is lighter than they are, she is pure.
What is implied? If a black stain was darker than dried ink, [the woman] is impure. If it was lighter than it, i.e., it was like a black olive, tar, or a raven, she is pure. Similar principles apply with regard to the other three colors.", + "What is meant by like diluted wine? Like one portion of fresh, undiluted wine like the wine of the Sharon in Eretz Yisrael17A region not far from the Mediterranean Coast, slightly northeast of present day Tel Aviv. mixed with two portions of water. If the appearance of the stain was darker or lighter than this, [the woman] is pure. [The stain must be] the exact color of this mixture.
A woman's word is accepted if she says: \"I had a stain of this-and-this color and I lost it.\" The wise man rules whether she is pure or impure [based on her statement].18As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule stringently with regard to all shades of red. Nevertheless, this law applies with regard to secretions of other colors even in the present age. A sage can make a ruling based on a woman's description. If, however, a secretion appears to be blood, but a woman protests that a sage ruled that such a secretion did not render her impure, her word is not accepted [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:2)].", + "How does a person bring the two close and compare? He takes the portion of the cloth that has the stain in his hand and looks at it and at the ink, the saffron leaf, the blood that was let [contained] in a cup, the muddy water, or the diluted wine [contained] in a cup. He compares them according to his perception and rules whether she is impure or pure.
He should not look at the cup from the outside. Instead, he should look at the liquid in the cup. The cup should be wide, weigh a maneh, and contain two luggin,19The commentaries to Niddah 21a interpret this as meaning that if the cup contains two luggin, it should not weigh more than a maneh. In this way, its walls will not be overly thick. so that light will enter it and it will not be shadowy.", + "A stain should be checked only on a white cloth and in sunlight. One makes a shadow with his hand over the stain while standing in the sun so that he will be able to see it as it is.20As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule that any stain that appears red is considered impure. Nevertheless, the technique used by the Rambam is valuable in determining whether a stain is considered as red or not.
It is not necessary for every person checking a stain to do all the above whenever he checks [a stain]. Instead, a sage develops a sensitive eye [to the colors of stains]. When he sees it, he will immediately rule whether it is impure or pure. If he has doubts regarding the appearance of a particular stain, he should bring it close and compare it to ink, to blood that has been let, or to the other [impure] colors.", + "[The following rules apply when] a woman discharges a piece [of flesh from the vagina]. Even if it is red, she is impure [only] when it is accompanied by blood. If not, she is pure.21This is not speaking about a woman who miscarries, but rather about one who has a problem about the degeneration of her internal organs. The Rambam, based on Niddah 21b, is stating that as long as the piece of flesh is not accompanied by blood, the woman's difficulties do not render her ritually impure.
This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and not all Rishonim accept the Rambam's ruling (see the objections of the Ra'avad and others). It is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3) provided the piece of flesh is small. If, however, it is large, the Shulchan Aruch rules that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open and discharge a large piece of flesh without expelling a certain amount of blood as well. The woman would become impure because of the expulsion of that blood.
(The Maggid Mishneh explains that the difference between the positions of the Rambam and the Ra'avad concerning an issue of a larger scope: Is it possible for the uterus to open without bleeding or not? The Rambam rules that this possible and hence, the woman is pure even if the piece is large. The Ra'avad maintains that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open without bleeding.) Even if [when the piece of flesh] is cut open, it is filled with blood, she is ritually pure. For this is not the blood of niddah, but rather blood from the piece [of flesh].", + "When the woman discharges a piece [of flesh] which is torn and there is blood collected within it, she is impure.22The Rambam's opinion here is also contested by other Rishonim. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 188) rules that even if the piece of flesh is accompanied by blood and the blood touches the woman's body, she is not impure, for this is not the ordinary way in which a woman experiences uterine bleeding. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3).
[The following rules apply when a woman] discharges something like a shell, something like a hair, something like earth, or something like mosquitoes. If these entities have a red appearance, they should be placed in lukewarm water. If they dissolve, she is impure. For it was blood that congealed. And whenever [a woman] discovers dried blood, she is impure.23See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:6) which quotes the Ra'avad's view that whenever a woman discovers a particle of dried blood, she is impure, even if it does not dissolve. The Shulchan Aruch, however, also quotes the views of Rav Zerachiah HaLevi and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that even in such an instance, the ruling depends on whether the particle dissolves or not.
If the entities remained in lukewarm water for more than a day and then dissolved, there is a doubt whether the woman is impure. If they did not dissolve after an entire day, they are from a wound and she is pure.", + "[The following rules apply if a woman] discharges something resembling a locust, a fish, a teeming animal, or a crawling animal. If it is accompanied by blood, it is impure. If not, it is pure.24The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3) follows the ruling of other Rishonim who maintain that in such a situation, we assume that these forms are the preliminary stages of a fetus. Hence, the woman is impure - as if she had miscarried - whether or not bleeding accompanies the expulsion of these forms.", + "When a woman places a tube in her \"antechamber\" and expels blood through the tube,25See Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Yoreh De'ah 188:8) which emphasizes that according to the Shulchan Aruch, this is referring to a thin tube which can be inserted into the uterus without causing the uterus to open substantially. If, however, the tube is thick and the uterus must open substantially, that alone is sufficient to render a woman ritually impure. she is pure. For [Leviticus 15:19] speaks of \"A discharge of blood within her flesh.\" [Implied is that] the discharge must be within her flesh as is the ordinary way in which women menstruate. For it is not ordinary for a woman to discharge blood through a tube.26The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) emphasizes that the leniency is not granted because the tube interposes between the blood and the woman's flesh and therefore the literal meaning of the verse is not fulfilled. Instead, the reason is - as the Rambam clarifies - because this is not the ordinary manner in which women expel blood.", + "When a woman urinated and excreted blood together with the urine, she is pure.27As the Rambam explains, we assume that the bleeding comes from the urinary tract and not the uterus. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 191:1). The Tur and the Rama cite more stringent views. In practice, a woman with such a condition should consult a gynecologist for a precise determination of her medical condition and give this information to a Rav who - on this basis - will rule on her halachic status. [This applies] whether she was standing or sitting while urinating. Even if she has physical sensations and her body shudders,28One might think that these physical sensations indicate the onset of menstruation. she need not suspect [that the blood originated in the uterus]. Instead, the sensation is associated with her urination [and] urine does not originate in the uterus. Instead, this blood [stems from] a wound in the colon or in the kidney.", + "Hymeneal bleeding is pure. It is neither the blood of niddah or the blood of zivah, for it is not from the uterus. Instead, it is blood from a wound.
What are the laws applying to virgins [who suffer] hymeneal bleeding?29It must be emphasized that all the laws that follow applied only in the Talmudic era. At present, the Jewish people have accepted upon themselves the stringency of considering even the slightest drop of blood as requiring a wait of seven \"spotless\" days. Accordingly, when a woman suffers hymeneal bleeding - even if she knows that it is not at all connected with her menstrual cycle, she is considered impure and must wait seven \"spotless\" days (Chapter 11, Halachot 4,8).
Note the comments of the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh concerning when this stringency was adopted. Is it of Talmudic origin or was it originated in the post-Talmudic period? If she married when she was a minor, whether she never menstruated or whether she menstruated while in her father's home,30Even if she menstruated, since she has not come of age, we assume that this is an abnormal occurrence which will not repeat itself. she is permitted to her husband until the wound heals. For any bleeding that she discovers stems from the wound. If she discovers other blood after the wound heals, she is considered as a niddah.", + "[The following rules apply when a woman] marries when she is a na'arah.31A girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has already manifested signs of physical maturity. If she never menstruated beforehand, she is permitted to her husband for four days, by day and by night, even though blood is flowing, provided the wound did not heal.32Since she never menstruated before, we assume that she still is suffering hymeneal bleeding and not that she has begun to menstruate.
If she had already menstruated in her father's home and then married, her husband should not [continue] to engage in relations with her.33Since she menstruated before, we recognize the possibility that this is also menstrual blood. Hence, we require the couple to separate. The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, noting that it follows the position of the School of Shammai, not the School of Hillel. The Maggid Mishneh supports the Rambam's decision, noting that Niddah 65b mentions the opinions of two Amoraim which support this view, indicating that in this instance the opinion of the School of Shammai is followed. After the first time, he should separate. The hymeneal bleeding is considered as if it is the beginning of menstruation.
When a girl who has reached majority,34I.e., she has reached the age of twelve and half and manifested signs of physical maturity at age twelve. but has not menstruated, she is given the entire first night.35I.e., that night the couple may engage in relations as many times as they desire. Needless to say, if she has already menstruated, the couple must separate after the first time they engage in relations (Maggid Mishneh).", + "The [first] four nights36More specifically, days and nights as stated in the previous halachah. that are granted to a na'arah who has not menstruated need not be consecutive. [Instead,] the couple may engage in relations the first night and wait even two or three months and engage in relations for a second night, provided the wound has not healed.37And also, of course, that the woman has not begun to menstruate. If during the passage of time, she reaches full majority, she is given only one night from that time onward (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).", + "Similarly, with regard to a minor who is allowed to continue engaging in relations until the wound heals, even if it does not heal for an entire year, they may engage in relations either non-consecutively or day after day.", + "[The following rules apply when a girl] married while she was a minor and became a na'arah while married to her husband. [If] the blood is still flowing because of the wound, all of the times she engaged in relations while a minor are considered as one night and she is given license to complete the four days granted to her38As stated in Halachah 19. Thus she is given three more opportunities to engage in relations. during the period of na'arut.
Even if the three days she is granted during the period of na'arut are all non-consecutive, [e.g.,] they engaged in relations one night every two months, this is permitted, provided the wound has not healed.", + "How do we know whether or not the wound has healed? If [the woman] would discover blood when she stands but not when she sits; if she would discover [blood] when she sits on the earth, but not when she sits on pillows or blankets,39Since she is sitting on a soft surface, the wound will not be aggravated. the wound has not healed.40Even though her bleeding is not consistent. If, however, the bleeding ceases and she does not discover [blood], whether she stands or whether she sits on a pillow, the wound has healed. Similarly, even if her bleeding has not ceased, but she continues to discover blood even when she is sitting on pillows and blankets, we assume that this is not blood from the wound, but rather menstrual bleeding.41Hence she is deemed impure and forbidden to engage in relations with her husband.", + "If she would discover blood in the midst of relations, [we assume] that it comes as a result of the wound.42Hence we do not apply all the stringencies mentioned in the conclusion of ch. 4. If she engaged in relations and did not discover blood and afterwards, discovered blood out of the context of relations, [we assume] that it is menstrual bleeding.", + "When a man engages in relations with a virgin and she does not bleed and then, he engages in relations with her again and she does bleed, [we assume] that this is menstrual bleeding, even if she is a minor. [The rationale is that] if it were hymeneal bleeding, it would have appeared the first time.
When a man has relations with a girl below the age of three and she bleeds, this is hymeneal bleeding." + ], + [ + "The bleeding of niddah, the bleeding of zivah, the bleeding before childbirth,1See Chapter 7, Halachah 1. the pure blood that follows childbirth,2See Chapter 4, Halachah 2,5. are all one type of bleeding. They [all] come from the uterus, from the same source. The laws applying [to this bleeding], however, change according to the time [and circumstance],3Niddah 96b states: \"It [comes from] one source. [Here,] the Torah ruled it impure, and [here,] the Torah ruled it pure.\" causing the woman who discovers the bleeding to be considered as pure, a niddah, or a zavah.", + "What is implied? When a woman menstruates for the first time or when she menstruates at the fixed time at which it has been established that she will menstruate,4I.e., this is speaking about a woman who has a regular day of the month or interval at which she menstruates. she is a niddah for seven full days. [This applies] whether she continues to bleed throughout the seven days or she only discovered one drop of blood. If she discovers blood on the eighth day, this is the blood of zivah, because it comes \"outside the time for niddah\" [Leviticus 15:25].5I.e., in addition to the impurity associated with niddah, ordinary menstrual bleeding, the Torah establishes a category of impurity when a woman suffers uterine bleeding at times other than the days she is a niddah. This category is referred to as zivah. A woman enters this category when she suffers uterine bleeding between the day following the seven days associated with her ordinary menstrual bleeding and the eighteenth day following those days. As will be explained in the commentary to the following halachot, there is a difference of opinion between the Rambam and the other Rishonim with regard to the definition of these seven days.", + "Any blood that is discovered between one fixed time that a woman can be expected to menstruate and the next fixed time that she can be expected to menstruate is the blood of zivah. It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Sinai that there are no more than eleven days between one menstrual bleeding and an another.", + "All of the seven days beginning with the day on which a fixed time that a woman can be expected to menstruate was established are called \"the days of niddah.\" [This applies] whether the woman menstruates or not.6As will be explained, according to the Rambam, the definition of days as \"the days of niddah\" is not dependent on whether a woman actually menstruates or not, but on the day when, according to the schedule established previously, she could be expected to menstruate. Why are they called \"the days of niddah\"? Because they are fit [for a woman to be considered] a niddah? Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of niddah.", + "The eleven days that follow these seven are called \"the days of zivah.\" [This applies] whether the woman discovers bleeding or not. Why are they called \"the days of zivah\"? Because they are fit [for a woman to be considered] a zivah? Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of zivah. Take care with regard to these names: \"the days of niddah\" and \"the days of zivah.\"", + "Throughout her entire life, from the time she establishes a time when she can be expected to menstruate until she dies or until she transfers the time she can be expected to menstruate to another date,7As occurs after birth, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. she should count seven days from the beginning of the day when she could be expected to menstruate and eleven days after them. Afterwards, [she counts] another seven days and another eleven days.8The simple meaning of the Rambam's words is that the same 18 day pattern - 7 days niddah, 11 days zivah - continues throughout a woman's life whether or not she menstruates on those days or not. When she menstruates she must see whether she is in the midst of the days of niddah or the days zivah and follow the appropriate laws.
Rashi and Ramban offer a different interpretation. According to their view, the day's of niddah and zivah depend on a woman's circumstances each month. When she menstruates, she begins the days of niddah. If she continues bleeding beyond seven days or if she discovers uterine bleeding after these seven days (but within the next eleven days), she becomes a zavah. She remains in that category until seven \"spotless\" days pass. After those seven days, when she discovers uterine bleeding again, she becomes a niddah. Similarly, if she does not discover uterine bleeding within the eleven days, the next time she discovers uterine bleeding, she is considered as a niddah.
There are Talmudic passages which appear to support both positions. The position of Rashi and the Ramban appears to be closer to a woman's actual physical pattern and the commentaries question why the Rambam - a doctor - did not take note of this dimension. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 183) follows the view shared by Rashi and the Ramban. In practice, however, this difference of opinion is not relevant at all, for as stated in Chapter 11, at present, Jewish women have accepted the stringency of counting seven \"spotless\" days whenever they discover even the slightest uterine bleeding. Hence, whatever their status actually is, they will certainly not transgress.
Take care of this reckoning so that you will know [a woman's status] if she discovers blood. Was it in the days of niddah or the days of zivah? For throughout a woman's entire life, she [follows the same pattern]: seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah unless the pattern was interrupted by a birth, as will be explained.9Chapter 7, Halachah 2.", + "When a woman discovers uterine bleeding during the days of zivah for only one day or for two consecutive days, she is called a minor zavah,10The distinctions between a minor zavah and a major zavah are discussed in the following halachah. and she is called one who watches a day for a day.11As indicated in the following two halachot, the intent is that for the day(s) she is impure, she must observe one \"spotless\" day. If she discovered [uterine bleeding] for three consecutive days, she is a zavah in the complete sense of the term. She is called a major zavah or merely referred to as a zavah without any further description. [This is derived from Leviticus 15:25]: \"When a woman will have a flow of blood for many days....\" The minimum implied by the plural form, \"days,\" is two. \"Many\" indicates [at least] three.", + "There is no difference between a major zavah and a minor zavah except the counting of seven [\"spotless\" days] and the necessity to bring a sacrifice. For a major zavah must count seven \"spotless\" days [before immersing to regain ritual purity] and a minor zavah need only count one day. And a major zavah must bring a sacrifice when she purifies herself12See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapporah, ch. 1, for a description of this sacrifice. and a minor zavah need not. They are both impure and the prohibition against relations applies to both of them equally.", + "What is implied? If she discovered blood in the days of zivah - whether she discovered it in the beginning of the night or she discovered it at the end of the day - that entire day, she is impure. It is as if the bleeding did not cease from the time she discovered it until the sun sets. She should watch herself throughout the night.13I.e., take note if there is any bleeding. It is sufficient to check and see on the following morning if there are any signs of bleeding. If there are no signs of bleeding at night, she should arise in the morning and immerse herself after sunrise.14She may not, however, touch any articles that are ritually pure or engage in relations with her husband until nightfall, as explained in Halachot 13 and 14. She should watch herself for the entire day. If there are no signs of bleeding,15If, however, there are signs of bleeding, her immersion is disqualified retroactively and it is as if she was impure for the entire day. there is then a pure day to compensate for the impure day and she is permitted to her husband at night.", + "If she discovered [uterine] bleeding also on the second day, whether at night or whether during the day, after she immersed herself, that second day is also impure and she must watch herself for the entire third night. If there are no signs of bleeding at night, she should arise in the morning and immerse herself after sunrise. She should watch herself for the entire day.16Lest she discover uterine bleeding and become impure retroactively. If there are no signs of bleeding, there is then a pure day to compensate for the two impure days17The one day is sufficient. There is no need for two days, one for each of the impure days. and she is permitted to her husband at night.", + "If she discovered [uterine] bleeding on the third day, whether during the day or at night, she is a major zavah and she must count seven pure days when there is no uterine bleeding [at all], as [Leviticus 15:28] states: \"She must count seven days for herself.\" She immerses herself on the seventh day after sunrise and is permitted to her husband at night. On the eighth day, she brings her sacrifice, two turtle doves or two doves.", + "When a minor zavah immerses herself at night18See Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions whether the Rambam would accept the immersion of a woman who immerses herself between dawn (alot hashachar) and sunrise. during the day she is watching or a major zavah immerses herself on the seventh night, it is as if she did not immerse herself.19I.e., the immersion must be made after sunrise. She is like a niddah who immerses herself within the seven days.", + "When a person has relations with a major zavah after she immersed herself on the seventh day of her counting [of \"spotless\" days] or with a minor zavah after she immersed herself on the day on which she must watch herself, he is not liable for kerait, because she immersed herself at the time she was fit to immerse herself when regaining ritual purity.20Even if she later discovers uterine bleeding and is therefore considered impure, they are not considered to have transgressed intentionally, because at the time, the woman was potentially in a state of ritual purity. This woman, however, possessed improper culture, for relations with her and things she touches are tenative.21I.e., as stated in the following halachah, she can retroactively be considered impure.", + "What is meant by their being \"tentative\"? If the day on which she immersed herself is completed without her discovering any uterine bleeding, everything which she touched after she immersed herself is ritually pure and there is no liability for relations with her. If, however, she discovers blood on this day after immersing herself, she is considered as a zavah retroactively. Anything which she touched is retroactively considered as impure and she and the man who engaged in relations with her are obligated to bring a sacrifice.22For inadvertently violating the transgression against relations with a zavah. Therefore she is forbidden to her husband until the evening, lest she bring herself to a situation involving doubt.", + "When a zavah counts six \"spotless\" days and discovers uterine bleeding on the seventh day, even if it is close to sunset,23If, however, the bleeding is not discovered until after nightfall, she is considered to have regained ritual purity and then become impure anew as a minor zavah. all of the days counted previously are invalidated24I.e., it is not only that she loses the one day; all of the days that she had counted previously are also invalidated. The seven \"spotless\" days must be consecutive [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:10)]. and she begins a new reckoning of seven \"spotless\" days after the impure day.", + "If [a woman] discharges semen25I.e., she engaged in relations with a man and then discharged his semen from her vagina. This is speaking about a situation in which the couple engaged in relations when forbidden. Alternatively, she engaged in relations before becoming a zavah and discharged the semen after entering that state of impurity. For the semen to render her impure, it must be less than three full days old. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:11). during the days she is counting, she invalidates one day. She is like a zav who has a seminal emission who invalidates one day [in his counting].26See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 3:2.
If she discovered uterine bleeding on the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days of her \"days of zivah,\" she is not considered a major zavah. Instead, from the state of a minor zavah, she becomes a niddah. For the twelfth day is the beginning of her days of niddah27As stated in Halachot 5 and 6, there are only eleven days of zivah. Afterwards, the days of niddah begin again. and a woman who discovers bleeding in her days of niddah does not become a zavah, as we explained.28See Halachah 4 which states: \"Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of niddah.\" Thus she will have only discovered blood on two days of zivah. That is not sufficient to render her a major zavah.", + "What is the intent of the Torah's wording [Leviticus 15:25]: \"After the time for niddah\"? That if she discovered bleeding on the three days that follow her niddah [bleeding], she is a zavah,29I.e., we do not say that her menstrual bleeding is extended. Instead, this bleeding is considered as a new phase, governed by different laws. i.e., she discovered bleeding on the eighth day after the onset of the days of niddah, the ninth day, and the tenth day, i.e., the first three of the eleven days of zivah.
[The following laws apply if a woman] discovers bleeding on the eleventh day of zivah and she immersed herself in the evening on the night of the twelfth day and engaged in relations.30For she is required to wait for one \"spotless\" day before engaging in relations (Ra'avad). The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is a Rabbinic requirement. Although she is impure and the man who engaged in relations with her becomes impure and the laws regarding the impurity of the places where they both sit and lie apply, the couple are not liable for kerait. [The rationale is that] the twelfth day is not joined with the eleventh day for her to be considered a zavah. Her immersion that night is effective in saving her from [being liable to bring] a sacrifice.31Needless to say, however, she is forbidden to engage in such relations.", + "If she immerses herself on the twelfth day after sunrise, she is forbidden to her husband until the evening as is the law with regard to any minor zavah.32By Rabbinic Law as stated in Halachah 14 and notes. She may, however, touch articles that are ritually pure, as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:8. If [her husband] transgresses and engages in relations with her, neither of them are liable at all.33Since she immersed herself, her previous impurity departs and any new bleeding is not associated with the bleeding of zivah as the Rambam continues to explain. Even if she discovers blood on the twelfth day after they engaged in relations it is of no significance. For this is the blood of niddah and it is not associated with [the bleeding of] the previous day.", + "If she discovers bleeding at the conclusion of her seventh day of niddah during bein hashamashot,34The period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. There is an unresolved doubt among the Rabbis if this time is considered as the conclusion of the previous day, the beginning of the following day, or a separate time of its own. See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4. and then discovers bleeding on the ninth day and the tenth day, there is an unresolved doubt if she is considered a [major]35I.e., she is certainly a minor zavah. zavah.36She must count seven \"spotless\" days before engaging in relations. Also, she brings a sacrifice, but it is not eaten, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6. For perhaps the [blood] discovered at first was on the eighth night and thus it is as if she discovered blood on three consecutive days at the beginning of her days of zivah.
Similarly, if she discovered bleeding on the ninth and tenth days of her days of zivah and discovered bleeding again at the conclusion of the eleventh day during bein hashamashot, there is an unresolved doubt if she is considered a [major] zavah. For perhaps the final discovery [of bleeding] was on the eleventh day and she will have discovered [bleeding] on three consecutive days during her days of zivah.", + "When a niddah inspects herself in the midst of her days of niddah and discovers that her bleeding has ceased, even if it ceased on the second37On the first day, however, such an inspection is of no consequence, for as the Rambam states at the conclusion of the halachah, on the first day, we assume that she will continue to bleed. day of her menstrual period, and either, inadvertently or intentionally, did not inspect herself again until many days after her [days of] niddah and discovers impurity,38I.e., uterine bleeding. we do not say that she was impure for all those days and [hence,] she is a zavah.39I.e., we do not consider her to have bled for the entire time from the time she first inspected herself until the time that she discovered the bleeding. Instead, throughout the entire time that she did not inspect herself, we operate under the presumption that she is pure.40I.e., we say that the uterine bleeding did not begin until it was discovered. This reflects a general principle: Once uterine bleeding is known to have stopped, we do not think that it has begun again until it is discovered. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the woman immersed herself or not.
If she inspected herself and found impurity, even if she checked herself on the seventh of her days of niddah, if she did not inspect herself again [before] bein hashamashot to separate herself from the impurity of niddah, but instead waited [several] days and afterwards inspected herself and found that she was pure, there is an unresolved doubt if she is considered a [major] zavah.41For perhaps she had continued bleeding from the conclusion of her days of niddah until shortly before she made an inspection. We have no way of knowing either way and hence, give her the status of a zavah because of the doubt.
If she discovered impurity, she is definitely a zavah. [The rationale is that since] at the beginning she discovered impurity and at the end, she discovered impurity, we operate under the presumption that she did not stop bleeding.42Although we do not have certain evidence that she continued to bleed for this entire time, we operate under that assumption for the reason the Rambam mentions.
On the first day of menstruation, even though a woman [conducted an inspection and] found that she was pure, it is as if she discovered impurity. For on the first day of menstruation, we operate under the presumption that a woman's flow will continue.43From the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:2) and the notes of the Dagul Mervavah, it would appear that if the woman's flow stops in the late afternoon of the first day, it is considered to have ceased.", + "When a zavah inspects herself on the first day of [the seven days]44After making a hefsek taharah, an inspection that determines that the bleeding has ceased on the previous afternoon, before sunset. she must count and finds herself pure and then did not inspect herself until the seventh day and found that she was pure, she can be assumed to be pure.45Nevertheless, at the outset, a woman should inspect herself twice on each of these seven days [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:4)]. It is as if she inspected herself for all of the seven days and discovered herself to be pure.", + "Similarly, if she inspects herself on the first day of [the seven days] she must count and finds herself pure and [inspects herself] on the eighth day and found that she was pure, she can be assumed to be pure.46I.e., despite the fact that she waited an extra day and did not immerse herself as soon as she was allowed, she is still considered as pure.
If she checked herself on the third day of zivah and discovered that the bleeding had ceased, but did not check herself on the first day of counting and then checked herself on the seventh day, she can be assumed to be pure.47See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:4) which mentions a difference of opinion on this matter, quoting also the opinion of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that one must make an inspection on both the first and the seventh day.
The same laws apply to a zav48Who must also inspect himself and count seven \"spotless\" days. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 3. with regard to all these inspections if he finds himself pure and it is considered as if he counted these days.", + "Whenever there is a doubt whether a woman is niddah or a zavah, she must count seven \"spotless\" days49As is required of a zavah. because of the doubt. She immerses herself on the night preceding the eighth day50Like a niddah who may not immerse herself during the day. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband. She must bring the sacrifice of a zavah, but it is not eaten as will be explained in the appropriate place.51Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6." + ], + [ + "When a pregnant woman begins to feel pain, the labor pains take hold of her, and there is a flow of blood before she gives birth, that bleeding called \"the blood of the throes.\"
What are the laws that govern it? If it comes during her days of niddah, it is considered as niddah bleeding and she is impure as a niddah. If it comes in her days of zivah, she is pure.1This law applied in the Talmudic era. As explained in Chapter 11, in subsequent generations, Jewish women accepted further stringencies upon themselves and such bleeding was considered as impure. [This is derived from Leviticus 15:19]: \"When blood flows within her flesh.\" According to the Oral Tradition , we learn that the bleeding must come from herself, and not because of a child.
[The above applies] provided she gives birth to a living child. If, however, she miscarries, [the laws of \"the blood of] the throes\" do not apply.
Even if the blood is flowing together with contractions and pain for fourteen days2Even though there are only eleven \"days of zivah and thus some of this bleeding must come during her \"days of niddah,\" since the bleeding began during the \"days of zivah,\" she is granted an additional leniency. Niddah 38b derives this concept through Biblical exegesis. before she gives birth, this is considered as \"the blood of the throes\" and she is pure. If, however, the bleeding began fifteen days or more before birth, the bleeding is considered as \"the blood of zivah\" and the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.3As explained in Halachot 5-7.", + "When does the above apply? When the contractions, throes, and pain did not cease, but instead, she continued having difficulty until she gave birth. If, however, she discovered bleeding for three days or more during her \"days of zivah\" amid pain and throes, but the pains cease and the throes ease after three days and she is able to remain comfortable for 24 hours or more, she is a zavah.4I.e., the bleeding is considered as ordinary \"blood of zivah.\" For if the bleeding was coming as a result of the child, the pain and the throes would not cease [for that long]. If she gives birth afterwards, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.5As explained in Halachot 5-7.", + "When she discovers bleeding for one day without pain and then for two days with difficulty and then gives birth, [discovers bleeding] for two days without pain and then for one day with difficulty and gives birth, or [discovers bleeding] for one day with difficulty, then for one day without pain, and then for one day with difficulty and gives birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah do not apply to her.
If, however, she discovers bleeding for one day with difficulty and then for two days without pain and then6From the following halachah, the intent appears to be \"on the next day,\" i.e., on the fourth day of this sequence. gives birth, [discovers bleeding] for two days with difficulty and then for one day without pain and gives birth, or [discovers bleeding] for one day without pain, then for one day with difficulty, and then for one day without pain and gives birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.7As indicated by the general principle the Rambam cites. If the bleeding before birth is not accompanied by pain, it is not coming as a result of the birth.
This is the general principle: When there are throes in proximity to birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah do not apply to her. When there is ease in proximity to birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.", + "When the third day of her sighting blood is the day on which she gives birth, even if the entire day is characterized by ease, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah do not apply to her. [The rationale is that] the day she gave birth is close to difficulty.8Since she gave birth on that day, she certainly experienced difficulty on it. For it is impossible to give birth without difficulty. Hence, the bleeding on the third day is attributed to the birth (Kiryat Sefer).
If she discovered bleeding for two days and miscarried on the third day, but did not identify what emerged in the miscarriage,9We are not sure if she discharged a fetus without bleeding or merely an extensive amount of bleeding. See Niddah 21b. This reinforces the position that it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding. her status is doubtful. There is a question if the laws of zivah or the laws of a woman who gave birth apply to her.10In which instance, she is impure because of the birth. She must, however, count one \"spotless\" day before immersing herself, because of the two days on which she experienced bleeding.", + "What are the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah? She must abide seven spotless days.11I.e., seven days without uterine bleeding. This is extremely rare after birth. Hence it is undesirable for a woman to be given this status. Afterwards, she immerses herself at night and is permitted to her husband. Only then do the laws of \"the blood of purity\" apply to her. She must bring an offering of a zavah and the offering of childbirth. Accordingly, if she gives birth to a male, even if her bleeding ceases on the day she gives birth, she should count seven \"spotless\" days and immerse herself. If she gives birth to a female and counts seven \"spotless\" days which conclude with the fourteen days [she is impure because of] birth or after them, she can immerse herself and she is permitted to her husband. If the days of her counting conclude within the fourteen days, she is forbidden to her husband until the fifteenth night.12She must immerse herself on the fifteenth night. For within the fourteen days, she is considered as a niddah and her immersion is of no consequence (Kessef Mishneh).", + "What is implied? If she discovered bleeding for three days and then counted seven \"spotless\" days, there are [only] ten days and she remains forbidden to her husband until the fifteenth night.13Because of the birth of a female. We do not allow her to immerse herself during the day like a zavah. For the entire fourteen days, she is like a niddah.
Why do we not require a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah to count seven \"spotless\" days after the seven days [of impurity that follow] the birth of a male or the fourteen days [of impurity that follow] the birth of a female?14Seemingly, that would be necessary, for she is impure at the time she is counting. Because the days following birth and the days of niddah in which blood is not sighted are counted as part of the seven \"spotless\" days, as will be explained.15In Halachah 11.", + "When a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah does not cease bleeding,16For seven \"spotless\" days. [the laws of] \"the blood of purity\" do not apply to her. Instead, any uterine bleeding is considered as the bleeding of zivah. If, however, she counted seven \"spotless\" days, completed the fourteen days [following the birth of] a female, and then immersed herself, [the laws of] \"the blood of purity\" apply to her [should] she sight bleeding during the 40 days following the birth of a male and the 80 days following the birth of a female.17For once she immersed herself after counting seven \"spotless\" days, her bleeding is no longer impure, as reflected in the following halachah.", + "If she counted seven \"spotless\" days, but did not immerse herself immediately and afterwards18I.e., on the day(s) after the seven \"spotless\" days and the fourteen days associated with the birth of a female were completed. discovered bleeding, she may [nevertheless] immerse herself. She is permitted to her husband immediately, for all of the days of purity are not fit neither for niddah, nor for zivah.19Thus the fact that she discovered bleeding does not change her state. Nevertheless, until she immerses herself, the blood itself is impure and renders others impure like the blood of niddah.20See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:2.", + "[The following laws apply when a woman] gives birth to a female and after the fourteen days of impurity, she becomes pregnant again. She then [begins to miscarry and] the blood of childbirth begins to flow with the 80 days [of blood of purity]. This is also considered as \"pure\" blood. Although generally, we do not consider bleeding which precedes miscarriage as bleeding which precedes childbirth,21I.e., bleeding which precedes miscarriage renders a woman impure, while bleeding in the throes of childbirth does not. [an exception is made in this instance]. For any blood that she sights during the days of purity is pure until she [actually] miscarries. When she miscarries, she becomes impure because of the birth. If [the fetus] she miscarries was male, she is impure as if she gave birth to a male. If [the fetus] she miscarries was female, she is impure as if she gave birth to a female. She counts the days of impurity and then the days of purity from the second \"birth.\"
Even if she was pregnant with twins and miscarried one on one day and miscarried the other after several days passed, she counts days of impurity and days of purity from the second [miscarriage].", + "When the flow of a zavah ceases, she begins to count her seven \"spotless\" days, and then the blood of the throes of childbirth comes in the midst of the \"spotless\" days, it does not nullify her counting. [On the contrary,] the days of bleeding are counted as part of the seven days.22The Rambam's ruling is based on the concept that since this blood is not impure, there is no reason why it should interrupt her counting. It is only impure bleeding that nullifies a woman's calculations.
The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam's ruling, explaining (based on Niddah 37a) that although the blood that precedes childbirth does not nullify a woman's counting, since she sights bleeding on these days, they cannot be considered as \"spotless\" days and therefore are not included in her reckoning.
Similarly, if she gave birth in the midst of the seven \"spotless\" days, the birth does not nullify her counting. Indeed, the days of birth can be counted in the seven [\"spotless\"] days23Provided she does not discover bleeding on them. If, however, she discovers bleeding, as stated in the following halachah, her counting is not nullified, but the days cannot be counted as \"spotless,\" because this blood is impure (Maggid Mishneh). even though she is impure. [This is indicated by Leviticus 15:28]: \"If she has become pure from her zivah.\" Implied is that since she has become pure from her zivah - even though she is impure for other reasons, e.g., the impurity of childbirth, the impurity of niddah, or the impurity of tzara'at24An affliction which is popularly - though incorrectly - translated as leprosy. See Leviticus ch. 13 and Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at. - she may count on them. These types of impurity and the like do not nullify her counting.", + "When a woman does not discover bleeding in her niddah days25With this statement, the Rambam is implying two points:
a) as mentioned above, a woman returns to her cycle of niddah at the advent of the appropriate day, regardless of whether she has counted seven \"spotless\" days or not.
b) The seven \"spotless\" days need not be consecutive.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, the Ramban and others differ with the Rambam concerning these points (Maggid Mishneh). To reiterate, none of these points are at all relevant in the present day. For, as will be explained in ch. 11, from the late Talmudic era onward, Jewish women accepted the practice of counting seven \"spotless\" days after any and all uterine bleeding. and the days following childbirth, they may be counted as part of her seven \"spotless\" days. If she does discover bleeding during these days, these days are not counted, nor do they nullify her previous reckoning. Instead, she completes her counting, adding to the days counted previously, when her bleeding ceases. For the only bleeding that nullifies a woman's counting is zivah bleeding. These types of bleeding invalidate only that very day.", + "After you have understood all the fundamental principles which we have explained, you will be able to comprehend our Sages' statement26Niddah 38a. By quoting this and the other instances mentioned until the end of the chapter, the Rambam is also supporting his interpretation of \"the days of niddah\" and \"the days of zivah,\" explaining these passages according to his conception of these principles. that a woman may discover uterine bleeding for 114 consecutive days without becoming a [major] zavah.
What is implied? [The first days are] the last two days before her days of niddah.27I.e., the tenth and eleventh days of the days of zivah. [They are followed by] the seven days of niddah, two days [of zivah] which follow the days of niddah,28From this, we see that the three days of zivah bleeding must be consecutive. If they are interrupted by other days, even by days on which the woman suffers uterine bleeding, she is not considered as a zavah. 14 days of [pre-birth] difficulty, the 80 days associated with the birth of a female, the seven days of niddah, and two days [of zivah] which follow the days of niddah.
From this, one learns that any bleeding that a woman discovers after the completion of the days associated with childbirth marks the beginning of her days of niddah. We do not pay attention to the previously existing times when she would be expected to menstruate.
Accordingly, there is a doubt whether a woman who discovers bleeding bein hashamashot29Between sunset and nightfall, at which time, there is, as explained above, a doubt whether it should be considered part of the previous day or the coming day. is a niddah. For perhaps it is considered as if she discovered the bleeding at night, when her days of niddah could begin.", + "We have already explained30Chapter 4, Halachah 6; Chapter 6, Halachot 9-11. that when a woman continues her niddah bleeding for seven days, she is permitted to engage in relations on the night of the eighth day after she immerses herself.31Provided of course, the bleeding ceases before nightfall. A minor zavah who watches herself for one pure day and immerses herself is permitted to engage in relations in the evening. A major zavah must count seven \"spotless\" days. Then she immerses herself and is permitted to engage in relations on the night of the eighth day. There are only eleven days between [one set of] the \"days of niddah\" and a second set. During these eleven days, [a woman who discovers uterine bleeding will be either a minor zavah or a major zavah.", + "When you will remember all of these fundamental points, you will understand our Sages' statement32Niddah 54a. that a woman who has established a fixed [continuous] pattern in which she discovers bleeding on one day and does not discover it on the following day. At the outset, she may engage in relations on the night and day of the eighth day,33For as stated in the previous halachah, a woman may immerse herself and engage in relations directly after her \"days of niddah\" even if she discovered bleeding on the last day. i.e., the first day after her \"days of niddah.\" [On the whole,] she may engage in relations only four nights34I.e., the nights, but not the days. during eighteen days.35After eighteen days, the entire cycle repeats itself for her \"days of niddah\" begin again. She may not engage in relations during the days which are pure, because the days must be watched because of the [previous] impure day.36I.e., a minor zavah must watch one day for every impure day. Therefore the woman must watch the tenth day, because of the bleeding of the ninth, the twelfth day, because of the bleeding of the eleventh, etc. In addition to the day and the night preceding and following the eighth day, he is allowed to engage in relations only on the nights preceding the eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth, and seventeenth days. For the days which precedes these nights are pure. The other nights were preceded by days in which she discovered uterine bleeding. Accordingly, if on the impure days, she always discovers bleeding at the beginning of the night, she may only engage in relations on the eighth day which is the first day after her \"days of niddah.\"", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for two impure days and then to experience two pure days, she may engage in relations on the eighth, the twelfth, the sixteenth, and the twentieth.37After the eighteenth day, she returns to her \"days of niddah.\" The Rambam, nevertheless, mentions the twentieth day, because she is permitted to engage in relations on that day, because although it is in her \"days of niddah,\" since she does not discover bleeding, she is not rendered impure. Although the cycle does not repeat itself in exactly the same manner צ i.e., her status in the second 18 days is opposite from the first צ she may engage in relations the same number of nights.
She is not permitted to engage in relations on the eleventh, fifteenth, and nineteenth days, for these days must be watched because of the impurity of the preceding two days.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for three impure days and then to experience three pure days, she may engage in relations on two of the three pure days that follow her \"days of niddah.\" For the first of them must be watched because of the two impure days that follow her \"days of niddah.\"38I.e., she will have discovered bleeding on the eight and ninth days, rendering her a minor zavah and requiring that she watch one pure day. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again. For she will be established as a major zavah,39After discovering blood on the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days. but will never count seven \"spotless\" days [to purify herself].40For she only has three \"pure\" days, before she bleeds again.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for four impure days and then to experience four pure days, she may engage in relations on one day after her [\"days of] niddah.\"41For the eighth day, the day immediately following her days of niddah is not impure. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again.42For as explained in the previous halachah, she will never reach seven \"spotless\" days to purify herself from the state of zivah. This principle also applies in the following two halachot.", + "13If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for five impure days and then to experience five pure days, she may engage in relations on three days after her [\"days of] niddah.\"43For the eighth, ninth, and tenth days are pure. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again.", + "13If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for six impure days and then to experience six pure days, she may engage in relations on five days after her [\"days of] niddah.\"44For the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days are pure. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for seven impure days and then to experience seven pure days, she may engage in relations during the first pure week that follows her [\"days of] niddah.\" That is followed by an impure week which establishes her as a zavah.45For the first four days of this week of impurity fall during her \"days of zivah.\" The week which follows is required to count [seven \"spotless\" days] and it is forbidden to engage in relations during it. Thus in four weeks she is allowed to engage in relations for only one week. Throughout her entire life, she may engage in relations for eighteen days in eighteen weeks.46After eighteen weeks, she returns to her original situation, discovering bleeding for her seven \"days of niddah\" and then begins the entire cycle again.
What is implied? During the fifth week, she is a zavah. The sixth week in which she is pure is required to count [seven \"spotless\" days]. During the seventh week, she is a zavah. During the eighth week, she must count. During the ninth week, when she discovers bleeding, five of these days are [during her] \"days of niddah\" and two are [during] the beginning of her \"days of zivah.\"47Since she discovered bleeding during only two days of zivah, she is not considered as a major zavah and is not required to count seven \"spotless\" days. [Hence,] she must watch one day48As is required of a minor zavah. of the tenth week and may engage in relations for six [days]. During the eleventh week when she discovers bleeding, two are the conclusion of the days of zivah49Since she discovered bleeding during only two days of zivah, she is not considered as a major zavah and is not required to count seven \"spotless\" days. and five are during \"the days of niddah.\" During the twelfth pure week, she may engage in relations for five days.50For the first two days are \"days of niddah\" that where preceded by days on which she discovered bleeding. Hence she is forbidden to engage in relations on them. During the thirteenth week, she is a zavah. During the fourteenth week, she must count. During the fifteenth week, she is a zavah. During the sixteenth week, she must count. During the seventeenth week, she is a zavah. During the eighteenth week, she must count.
She continues to count in this manner forever.51For as stated above, every eighteen weeks, she returns to her original cycle. Thus she will be able to engage in relations on eighteen days in eighteen weeks. If she did not have such a physical difficulty, and she would be a niddah for a week and be pure for eleven days, she would be able to engage in relations for eleven weeks, i.e., 77 days, out of the eighteen weeks.", + "When she discovers bleeding for one impure week and then is pure for a week, and thus can engage in relations for eighteen days, this is approximately52A day and a fraction less. one fourth of the days [on which she would ordinarily be allowed to engage in relations]. This is what our Sages53Niddah 54a. This represents the Rambam's understanding of that passage. As the Maggid Mishneh relates, the Ramban has a different conception of the meaning of \"days of niddah\" and \"days of zivah.\" According to his conception, our Sages' words can be interpreted exactly.\" [implied when] saying: \"She may engage in relations for a fourth of her days.\"", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for eight impure days and then to experience eight pure days, she may engage in relations for fifteen days amid 48 days.54The Maggid Mishneh notes that there is a difficulty, because the cycle does not renew itself after 48 days. Instead, it is not until 144 days that the cycle is renewed. Again, it is because of his interpretation of \"days of niddah\" and \"days of zivah\" that he somewhat contorts the interpretation of Niddah, loc. cit.. The Maggid Mishneh notes that in this instance as well, the interpretation of the Ramban leads to a straightforward explanation of that passage.
What is implied? Of the first eight days, seven are her \"days of niddah\" and one is the first of the \"days of zivah\" that follow the \"days of niddah.\" She must watch one of the eight pure days and can engage in relations on seven of them. Afterwards, come seven impure days. Two of them are the final days of her \"days of zivah\" and six are in her days of niddah. Then come eight pure days. The first of them is the conclusion of her \"days of niddah.\"55Hence she may not engage in relations on it. It nevertheless serves as a \"spotless\" day to release the prohibition from the two days of zivah bleeding. She may engage in relations on the remaining seven.
Then come eight impure days. Four of them are the final days of her \"days of zivah\" and four are in her \"days of niddah.\" Thus she is a major zavah and must count seven \"spotless\" days. Afterwards, come seven pure days. She counts for seven of them and may engage in relations for one day. Thus she may engage in relations for fifteen days in each 48.56In truth in the first 48 out of 144 as stated above.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for nine impure days and then to experience nine pure days, she may engage in relations for eight days in every eighteen days forever.57In this instance, the Rambam's interpretation also produce an effective calculation. For the woman's physical cycle is renewed every eighteen days and precisely that time is duration of the cycle of niddah and zivah.
What is implied? Of the nine impure [days]: Seven of them are her \"days of niddah\" and two are \"days of zivah\" that follow her \"days of niddah.\" She must watch one day58For she does not become a major zavah if she bleeds for two days. of the nine pure days and may engage in relations on the remaining eight. This pattern continues forever.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for ten impure days and then to experience ten pure days - and the same rules prevail for more than ten, indeed even 1000 days, if the same number of days are pure as impure59In this instance, the pattern will always return to the same starting point, for in all instances, the woman will have three days of zivah among her impure days and seven \"spotless\" days among her pure days. She will thus always become a zavah and require seven \"spotless\" days to become pure. Even though in the subsequent cycles, the first day she discovers bleeding may not be one of her \"days of niddah,\" the same laws still apply. - the number of days when she may engage in relations will equal the number of days [from when she began bleeding]60We have made this addition so that the Rambam's statements follow his interpretation of \"days of zivah.\" See the Maggid Mishneh. as a zavah.
What is implied? If there are ten impure days, seven of them are days of niddah and three days of zivah. [Therefore on] her ten pure days, she must count seven and may engage in relations on three. Thus there will be three days when she may engage in relations and three days of zivah. Similarly, when she is impure for 100 days and pure for 100 days. The first seven are days of niddah and the following 93 [start on] her \"days of zivah.\" Hence, of her 100 pure days, seven must be counted and she may engage in relations on 93 of them. Similar principles apply with regard to 1000 days or any other number of days." + ], + [ + "There are women who have vesetot, established times [when they menstruate] and other women who do not have vesetot. Instead, they feel nothing until the blood is actually released1I.e., the onset of menstruation is not associated with a specific physical symptom, as stated in Halachah 2. and they do not have a fixed day on which they menstruate.
[The intent when speaking of] a woman who has a veset is that there is a specific day - [e.g.,] from the twentieth [day of the month] to the twentieth or from the twenty-fourth to the twenty-fourth, or more or less - [on which she begins to menstruate].", + "Before the onset of menstruation, she will demonstrate physical symptoms,2From the Rambam's wording, it appears that for a woman to establish a veset, two factors are necessary: a) that there be a fixed monthly pattern when menstruation begins, and b) the onset of menstruation be preceded by physical symptoms. The other halachic authorities do not rule in this manner. They maintain that either of these two factors is independently powerful enough to establish a veset (Maggid Mishneh). Their view is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, ch. 189). [e.g.,] she yawns, sneezes,3Our translation of these two terms is based on Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:8). There are other commentaries who offer different interpretations. feels anxiety at the opening to her stomach and lower intestinal area, the hairs of her flesh will stand up, her flesh will become warm, or any similar physical symptoms.4For these physical symptoms to be considered as a veset, they must be repeated three times before the onset of menstruation (Niddah 63a). She will experience these - or at least one of these - symptoms at the fixed time when she [will menstruate] on the established day.", + "We have already explained5Chapter 4, Halachah 16. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, most other authorities differ with the Rambam with regard to these requirements. that any woman who does not have a [fixed] veset is forbidden to engage in relations until she makes an internal examination first. If she has a [fixed] veset, she is forbidden to engage in relations through the entire time of the veset. If her veset is during the day, she is forbidden to engage in relations throughout the entire day.6The Tzemach Tzedek notes that Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:6 states that a woman may touch ritually pure articles during the time her veset is expected. It is only when she actually discovers bleeding that she conveys ritual impurity upon these articles. He explains the difference between that law and the laws governing relations based on Shulchan Aruch HaRav 189:97 by saying that we fear that relations will cause menstruation to come earlier. If her veset is during the night, she is forbidden to engage in relations throughout the entire night. She should begin counting her \"days of niddah\" and her \"days of zivah\"7I.e., the seven \"days of niddah\" and the eleven \"days of zivah.\" from the day of the veset at all times.8The commentaries have noted somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam's statements. As he stated in Chapter 6, according to his conception, the cycle of niddah and zivah begin again after eighteen days. Now what if a woman has a 20 day cycle or a 25 day cycle? According to the Rambam's statements here it would seem that \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah\" should be counted from the day of the veset, i.e., each 20 days or 25 days.", + "Therefore women must be careful with regard to vesetot until they know the day and the hour when a veset is established. If her pattern was to begin menstruation on the twentieth day9The Maggid Mishnehinterprets this law as speaking about the intervals between the onset of menstruation (veset haflagah). This interpretation is borne out by the manner in which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:14) quote this law. From the Siftei Cohen 189:40, it appears that the Rambam is speaking about the twentieth and the twenty-third of the month (veset hachodesh in halachic terminology). and the twentieth day came and she did not menstruate and she did menstruate on the twenty-third, she is forbidden [to engage in relations on] the twentieth and twenty-third.10The twentieth is forbidden because as the Rambam continues to explain, once a veset has been established, it is not uprooted until it passes three times without the woman menstruating. The twenty-third is forbidden, because since she began menstruating on that day, we fear that she will begin menstruated upon it in the following month. See also Halachah 8.
Similarly, if a second time she did not menstruate on the twentieth and [instead,] began to menstruate on the twenty-third day, both days remain forbidden.11For the same reasons as stated in the previous note. If for a third time, she did not menstruate on the twentieth and [instead,] began to menstruate on the twenty-third day, the twentieth day is purified12I.e., she is no longer forbidden to engage in relations on that day. and the veset is transferred to the twenty-third day. For a woman does not establish a veset until she establishes it three times, nor does she uproot a veset until she bypasses it three times.", + "When a veset is established because of outside factors, even if recurs several times, it is not a veset, because [menstruation] came as a result of an outside factor.13According to the Maggid Mishneh, the \"jumping\" mentioned in the following clause illustrates this principle. The \"jumping\" is an external factor that is not dependent on a woman's internal physical pattern. Even if on three separate occasions, a woman menstruates as a result of \"jumping,\" she is not considered to have established a fixed veset. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:17) quotes this principle. The Rama quotes the Hagahot Maimoniot which state that although the jumping is not regarded with the severity of a fixed veset, it is considered as an irregular veset. Until a situation passes when the woman does not menstruate after jumping, she is forbidden to engage in relations afterwards. The Tur rules that even an external factor can cause a veset if a pattern recurs on three consecutive occasions.
If a woman jumped14Perhaps \"jumping\" can be interpreted as \"undergoing strenuous exercise\" which could be considered as a cause for hastening the onset of menstruation. and menstruated and [again] jumped and menstruated, she establishes a veset for the specific day without considering whether she jumped. What is implied? She jumped on Sunday and menstruated. After an interval of 20 days,15I.e., the day of menstruation is not counted in the interval. she again jumped on Sunday and menstruated. Then after an interval of 19 days, she jumped on the Sabbath and did not menstruate, but menstruated after the Sabbath without jumping, she establishes [a fixed veset] for Sunday after a twenty day interval.16The Maggid Mishneh deals with question what would happen if the woman jumped and menstruated on Sunday for a third consecutive time. Would her veset be established for the interval only in connection with jumping? Or would the interval itself be considered as a veset. There would be a difference in law if on the fourth occasion after the interval, she did not jump. Is she forbidden to engage in relations or not. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that according to the Rambam, she would be forbidden, because the Rambam does not attach any significance to the external factors. Other authorities - and this view is sustained by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:18) - maintain that unless she jumps, she is not forbidden after the fourth interval. For it is clear that the interval causes her to menstruate and not jumping,17Even though she jumped on the previous day, that jumping is not considered as significant and is not associated with her monthly pattern. Note the Maggid Mishneh's explanation of the approach of the Rashba which differs. and the interval has been established as the onset of menstruation on three occasions. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a woman begins menstruating on the fifteenth of one month, and menstruates on the sixteenth of the following month, the seventeenth of the month which follows that, and the eighteen of the month which follows that, she establishes a veset which advances.18There must be four months in the cycle, so that there are three months during which she advanced a day. In such a situation in the fifth month, she must expect to menstruate on the nineteenth.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:7) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also that of Rabbenu Chananel and the Ra'avad which maintains that a veset is established even after only three months of such a pattern.
If during the fourth month, she begins menstruating on the seventeenth, the veset is not established.19For she did not increase a day in the fourth month. Instead, [in the following month,] she suspects that she will menstruate on the day on which she menstruated during the previous month.20I.e., on the seventeenth of the month. She does not have to be concerned with the fifteenth and the sixteenth. Since she did not begin menstruating on that day in the month which followed it, she need not be concerned with it any longer.
This requirement applies to any woman who does not have a veset kevua, a fixed time when she is known to begin menstruating. According to the halachah at present, a woman in such a situation must refrain from relations on three occasions: the day or the night of the date of the month on which she menstruated in the previous month, the day or the night which matches the interval between her onset of menstruation in the previous and that of the month which preceded it, the day and night of the thirtieth day since the onset of menstruation. If that day arrives and she does not menstruate, that day becomes pure and is no longer suspected. For only a date that has been established by three [consecutive onsets] need be uprooted by three consecutive occasions when menstruation does not occur.", + "If her pattern had been to begin menstruation on the fifteenth and she changed21On one occasion. to the sixteenth, [relations] are forbidden on both.22On the fifteenth because of the existing pattern, and on the sixteenth because of her menstruation in the previous month. The point of this halachah is that when a woman deviates from an established veset, she must show concern both for that established veset and for the date (and interval) resulting from the previous month. If, [in the following month,] she changed to the seventeenth, the sixteenth is released and the seventeenth becomes prohibited. The fifteenth remains prohibited.23Because it must pass three times without her menstruating upon it. If, [in the following month,] she changed to the eighteenth, the eighteenth becomes prohibited24In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, in this instance, since she increased by one day each month, she established a fixed veset according to that pattern. Thus in the following month, she must show concern over the nineteenth.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that in addition to showing concern for the nineteenth, the woman must show concern for the eighteenth, since this was the day on which her menstruation actually began. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:7), however, he does not mention this point. and all the other dates are released.", + "If her pattern had been to begin menstruation on the twentieth day and she changed to the twenty-second, they are both forbidden.25The twentieth as a fixed veset and the twenty-second because of the deviation in the previous month. If, [in the following month,] the twentieth arrives and she does not menstruate, but she does menstruate on the twenty-second, they both remain forbidden. If, [in the following month,] the twentieth arrived and she began menstruating, she is considered to have returned to her fixed pattern.26And it must be bypassed on three new occasions to be uprooted. As long as the veset is not uprooted by being bypassed on three successive months, it becomes reaffirmed when the onset of menstruation recurs on it once. The twenty-second is released, because it was not established through three [onsets of menstruation].", + "A woman does not establish a veset in the midst of her \"days of niddah\" during which she has menstruated.27According to the Rambam's interpretation of \"days of niddah,\" the interpretation of this ruling is straightforward. Once a woman has sighted bleeding in her \"days of niddah,\" she cannot establish a veset on any of her other days of niddah. According to interpretation of the Ramban, the explanation is somewhat more complex. See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. Similarly, with regard to the other instances mentioned in this halachah, the explanation according to the approach of the Ramban - which as stated previously is accepted as halachah by most authorities - the explanation differs from that of the Rambam. Since she menstruates on one of these days, she cannot establish a veset in any of the seven. Similarly, a woman does not establish a veset in her eleven \"days of zivah.\" She may, however, establish a fixed veset in her \"days of niddah\" when she has not menstruated.
If she established a veset in her \"days of zivah,\"28The same laws would apply if she discovered bleeding only once during her \"days of zivah\" (without the phenomenon recurring three times). Perhaps the Rambam's intent is to emphasize that even if the phenomenon recurs three timmes, it can be uprooted when it is bypassed once. she must show concern over that veset.29As described in the following halachah. Whenever a veset is established in [a woman's] \"days of zivah,\" it is uprooted if it is bypassed even once. It does not have to be bypassed three times. [The rationale is that] it is an accepted presumption that a woman's [menstrual] blood is withdrawn on these days.30I.e., since it is unlikely that she will menstruate on these days, we treat any veset that has been established as an extraordinary event. Although she must take it into consideration, it can be uprooted easily.", + "What is meant by \"she must show concern over that veset\"? If she sighted bleeding on this veset for even one day, she must wait as a niddah because of the doubt.31Like a niddah, she is forbidden to engage in relations for seven days. [In the following month,] she is forbidden to engage in relations on that day even if she did not sight bleeding as32Our translation follows an emendation of the text based on authoritative manuscripts. See the Noda B'Yehudah, Vol. II, Responum 93, which explains this version. on the other days of the vesetot. If she discovers bleeding for three successive days, she is a zavah.33And must wait until seven \"spotless\" days pass. I.e., because of the doubt concerning her status, she is given both the stringency applying to a niddah - she is forbidden for seven days after even one sighting of blood - and the stringency associated with a zavah - she must count seven \"spotless\" days if she sights bleeding for three consecutive days (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When a woman frequently inspects herself at all times, her conduct is praiseworthy.34The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:1) interprets the Rambam's ruling as applying not at the time of relations. (For if she inspects herself before relations, her husband might think there is reason to refrain from relations.) At present, however, Rabbis have counseled woman not to inspect themselves unless there is a reason. For at times, the inspection itself can cause bleeding. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16. [This applies] even if she has established a fixed veset. For bleeding may come at times other than her veset.
During the eleven days of zivah, we assume that she is pure.35For it is unlikely for her to menstruate then. [Hence,] she need not inspect herself. After her days of zivah,36When it is likely for her to menstruate. however, she should inspect herself.", + "When a woman remains passive37Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads \"If she forgot and did not....\" and does not inspect herself, either because of forces beyond her control or intentionally, she is assumed to be pure until she inspects herself and discovers [that she is] impure.38For we do not suspect that she became impure unless she actually discovers bleeding. Slightly different principles apply with regard to the veset on which she can be expected to begin menstruation arrives as explained in the following halachah and notes.", + "[The following laws apply when] a woman did not inspect herself at the time of her veset39The initial and preferred course of conduct is that when a veset passes without a woman discovering uterine bleeding, she should inspect herself to ensure that this is so. She is forbidden to engage in relations unless she makes such an inspection. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:4). and inspected herself a few days afterwards and discovered that she was impure. Retroactively, she is considered impure from the time of her veset with regard to matters of ritual purity and impurity, as will be explained.40Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:5. There it is explained that since she discovered bleeding afterwards, we assume that she menstruated at the expected time and became impure. Nevertheless, she does not render a man who engaged in relations with her impure retroactively41A man who engages in relations with a niddah becomes impure. Nevertheless, a man who engaged in relations with a woman between the time of her veset and the time she discovered the bleeding is not placed in this category. For although we suspect that the woman became impure, there is no certainty that indeed this took place. and she may not count [the days of niddah] except from the time she discovered the bleeding.42A woman who is a niddah remains impure for seven days. These seven days do not begin from her veset, but from the time when she actually discovered the bleeding. If [in the inspection], she discovered that she is pure, we operate under the assumption that she is pure.43For although we suspect that menstruation will begin on the veset, if there is no evidence that this indeed happened, we do not assume that it did.", + "Similarly, when a woman discovers bleeding due to a wound that she has in her uterus, she is pure, even if she discovers the bleeding at the time of her veset.44The basic principle upon which this law is based is stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 20. In this halachah, the Rambam is merely clarifying that the fact that a woman has a fixed veset does not change the basic position. The blood is also pure. [The rationale is that the obligation to show concern for] vesetot is Rabbinic in origin, as will be explained in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav.45Chapter 3, Halachah 9. I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a woman is not impure until she actually discovers bleeding. Our Rabbis ordained that she should show concern for her veset, but they also limited the extent of that concern as reflected in the above laws.", + "A blind woman should conduct an internal examination herself and show [the ed] to her friends.46Since she cannot see, she obviously cannot inspect the ed, the cloth used for the examination. The Rambam (based on Niddah 13b) is emphasizing that she is relied upon to carry out a thorough internal examination. A deaf-mute47Who is considered the same as a mentally incapacitated individual. If, however, she is merely deaf or mute, she is considered as a mentally capable individual [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:8)]. and a mentally or emotionally incapacitated woman must be inspected by intellectually capable women48For these women cannot be relied upon to carry out a proper internal examination themselves. so that their vesetot can be established. [Afterwards,] they are permitted to their husbands.49A word of clarification is necessary. Our Rabbis ordained a marriage arrangement for deaf-mutes. They did not, however, ordain such an arrangement for mentally or emotionally incapable individuals.", + "Should a woman err and be unaware of the day when her \"days of niddah\"50Although in this and the following halachah, the Rambam uses the term veset, the intent of the term in this context is reflected by our translation. begins, if she menstruates, she must be concerned that she is a zavah.51I.e., she must observe both the stringencies incumbent on a niddah and those incumbent on a zavah as the Rambam continues to explain. Therefore if she menstruated for one day or two days, she must nevertheless wait a full seven52Before purifying herself as is required of a niddah. lest the blood have come in her \"days of niddah.\" And if she discovers bleeding for three days, she must count seven \"spotless\" days, lest she be in the midst of her \"days of zivah.\"", + "What must she do to redefine when her \"days of niddah\" begin, to know if she is definitely a zavah or that if there is a question concerning that53See the following halachah., and to know when her \"days of zivah\" begin? Everything is dependent on [the number of days] during which she discovers [bleeding].
If she discovered bleeding for one day or for two days, she counts the remainder of the seven54Days of niddah. and begins counting the eleven55Days of zivah. days after these seven.56The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Ramban's understanding of the terms \"days of niddah\" and \"days of zivah,\" this entire discussion is unnecessary. And according to the Rambam's understanding of these terms, it is somewhat difficult. For as stated above, the Rambam maintains that from the first time a woman menstruates her \"days of niddah\" are set. Nevertheless, in this situation, the Rambam maintains that, rather than leave a woman in a situation where she is continuously in doubt, our Sages advised her to begin counting \"her days of niddah\" anew from the time she menstruated.", + "If she discovered bleeding for three days, there is a doubt whether she is a zavah.57I.e., and therefore she must keep both sets of stringencies as mentioned above. The rationale for this ruling is that it is possible that the bleeding took place in her \"days of zivah.\" But, as the Rambam continues to explain, it is possible that this is not the case. For perhaps one of these days preceded her \"days of niddah\" and two were at the beginning of her \"days of niddah.\" Similarly, if she discovered bleeding for four days, [there is a doubt whether she is a zavah]. For perhaps two of these days preceded her \"days of niddah\" and two were at the beginning of her \"days of niddah.\" She must observe the five as the remainder of the seven and [count] the eleven days after these five.", + "Similarly, if she discovered bleeding for nine days,58The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for from five to eight days. It is unnecessary for the Rambam to state this, because it is readily apparent. The Rambam feels it necessary to mention nine days, because this includes a new concept: that we allow for the possibility that she was bleeding for all seven days of niddah. Thus in addition to these seven days, we add two days of zivah. there is a doubt whether she is a zavah. Perhaps two of the days preceded her days of niddah\" and seven are her \"days of niddah.\" She begins counting the eleven days after the ninth day [on which] the bleeding stopped. Similarly, if she discovered bleeding for eleven days,59The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for ten days. It is unnecessary to mention, for the rationale is the same as for eleven days. there is a doubt whether she is a zavah. Perhaps two of the days preceded her days of niddah,\" seven are her \"days of niddah,\" and two days followed her \"days of niddah.\" Thus there remain nine days within her \"days of zivah.\"60And her \"days of niddah\" begin when they are completed.", + "If she discovered bleeding for twelve days, she is definitely a zavah. For even if two of the days preceded her days of niddah\" and seven are her \"days of niddah,\" there are three days61The number of days necessary for her to be considered a major zavah. following her \"days of niddah. Thus there remain eight days within her \"days of zivah.\" The same laws apply if she discovered bleeding for thirteen days. There remain seven days within her \"days of zivah\" and they are the days on which she counts [seven \"spotless\" days].", + "Even if a women's menstruation continues for even 1000 days, as soon as the bleeding stops, she should count seven \"spotless\" days. After these seven days, a woman who erred begins anew her \"days of niddah.\"62I.e., this is sufficient for her to correct her reckoning.", + "Thus we learn: Whenever a woman errs, she never counts less than seven days from the time which her bleeding stops. Nor does she count more than seventeen. Afterwards, come her \"days of niddah.\"
What is implied? If she discovered bleeding for one day and then it stopped, she should count seventeen days. Six to complete her \"days of niddah\" and eleven as her \"days of zivah.\" If she discovers bleeding for thirteen days or more she counts seven \"spotless\" days after the bleeding ceases. Afterwards, her \"days of niddah\" begin as explained [above]." + ], + [ + "According to Scriptural Law,1In contrast to Rabbinic Law as defined by the following halachah.
The Turei Zahav 190:1 interprets the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh as stating that even if we are certain that a woman experienced uterine bleeding, if she did not experience the physical sensations that accompany menstruation, she is not impure according to Scriptural Law. a woman does not become impure as a niddah or a zavah until she experiences a physical sensation,2The physical sensation described here is not the heaviness, nausea, or stomach contractions which sometimes precipitate a woman's menstrual bleeding. [These sensations are also halachicly significant, but are related to another aspect of the niddah laws - the determination of vesetos, the time when her menstruation could be expected to begin (see Chapter 8, Halachah 2).] Instead, here the intent is either: a) an awareness of the opening of the uterus, or b) shivers or shudders as in a state of shock. Certain authorities also speak of a third sensation: that of a flow of moisture in the uterine channel. See the commentaries to Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 183:1). It must be emphasized that today, many authorities rule that a woman is unable to identify these sensations. menstruates, and discovers blood which emerges within her flesh as we explained.3Chapter 5, Halachah 2. She becomes impure from the time she menstruates and onward only.4I.e., according to Scriptural Law, she does not become impure retroactively.
If she does not experience a physical sensation, but conducts an internal examination, and discovers bleeding within the vaginal channel, we operate under the presumption that it was accompanied by a physical sensation,5Carrying out the internal examination, however, prevented her from feeling that sensation. as explained previously.6Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the discovery of bleeding in the vaginal channel renders her impure.", + "According to Rabbinic Law, whenever a woman discovers a bloodstain on her flesh7As clarified in Halachah 8. or on her clothes,8As clarified in Halachot 9-11. she is impure, as if she discovered bleeding within [the vaginal channel] on her flesh. [This applies] even if she did not experience a physical sensation [and] even if she conducted an internal examination and did not discover bleeding.9We do not say that the fact that she did not discover any internal signs of bleeding indicates that the bleeding originated elsewhere. This impurity is [because of our] doubt;10Since we are speaking about a Rabbinic institution and there is doubt involved, there is some room for leniency as will be explained.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why we do not consider this a question of multiple doubt (s'fek s'feika) in which case we rule leniently. In this instance, it is possible that the blood came from her flesh and it is possible that it came from an outside source. And even if it came from her flesh, it is possible it came from the uterus and it is possible it came from the ovaries.
The Kessef Mishneh offers two resolutions: a) because of the serious nature of the prohibition involved, our Sages were stringent despite the multiple doubt;
b) when the woman has no outside factors to which the blood can be attributed, our Sages ruled stringently and maintained that it is considered as if the bleeding is definitely from her flesh. Thus there is only one doubt: whether the bleeding comes from the uterus or the ovaries.
Kin'at Eliyahu offers a third resolution: Essentially, there is one question involved? Did the bleeding originate in the uterus or elsewhere? Where elsewhere - the ovaries or an outside source - does not multiply the doubt involved. perhaps the stain came from uterine bleeding.", + "Similarly, according to Rabbinic Law: Whenever a woman discovers bleeding at a time other than her veset11If she discovers bleeding at the time of her veset, we assume that she began menstruating then, since that is when she ordinarily menstruates, as stated in the following halachah. Otherwise, we assume she began menstruating beforehand. and whenever she discovers a bloodstain, she is impure retroactively for 24 hours.12I.e., any articles that she touched within that time are considered as if they are ritually impure. We assume that she began menstruating before she discovered the bleeding and therefore consider her impure retroactively. If she conducted an internal examination within this time and discovered that she was pure, she is impure retroactively until the time of the inspection.13I.e., we reduce the time of impurity from 24 hours, because she conducted an internal examination in the interim. Nevertheless, we still follow the basic premise that she is considered impure retroactively.
Although she is impure retroactively, she does not cause a man who engages in relations with her to become impure, as we explained.14Chapter 8, Halachah 13. Note Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:8 which states that although the man who engages in relations with her is not governed by the severe rules that apply to one who had relations with a niddah, he is still considered ritually impure for touching the woman. Nor may she begin counting her \"days of niddah\" or counting because of the stain except from the time she discovered the bleeding or the stain.
Whenever a woman discovers a stain, her reckoning [of her veset] is confused. For it is possible that the bleeding came from the uterus and her veset must be recalculated.15As stated in Chapter 8, a woman must calculate the day on which she is expected to begin menstruated. In this instance, she cannot do so, for she does not know whether to begin counting anew from the time she discovered the stain or perhaps her original cycle has not changed.", + "When a woman discovers bleeding at the time of her veset, she does not become impure retroactively. Instead, [the impurity begins] at the time [of discovery]. Similarly, a woman who is pregnant, nursing, a virgin,16These terms are defined in this and the following halachah. The rationale is that these women are not expected to menstruate. Hence, we do not show concern for the possibility that they menstruated at an earlier time. or elderly do not become impure retroactively.
What is meant by a pregnant woman? A woman whose pregnancy has become obvious, i.e., she is three months pregnant.17Even if she discovers her pregnancy earlier, she must take the bleeding into consideration until three months. What is meant by a woman who is nursing? A woman within 24 months of childbirth, even if her child died, she weaned him, or gave him to a nursemaid.18Conversely, although a woman continues nursing beyond this times, she is not granted this leniency (Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 4:1).", + "[The term] \"virgin\" refers to a girl who has never menstruated even through she experienced uterine bleeding because of marriage19I.e., hymeneal bleeding. or because of birth.20As stated in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 4:3, this principle applies the first two times she menstruates.
The term \"elderly woman\" refers to a woman who did not menstruate for 90 days near her old age.21I.e., once three months pass without her menstruating, we assume that she will no longer menstruate according to a set pattern. When is she considered elderly? When she is called an old woman [by others] and she does not protest.
[The laws that apply when] a pregnant, nursing, or elderly woman [discovers] a stain are the same as when she discovers bleeding. She does not become impure retroactively. With regard to a virgin who has never menstruated and who is still a minor, a stain that is discovered is pure until she menstruates on three successive months.", + "What is the difference between a stain which is found on a woman's flesh and one found on her clothing? There is no minimum measure for a stain found on a woman's flesh.22She becomes impure no matter how small it is. A stain on a garment, by contrast, does not render a woman impure unless it is the size of half a Cilikean bean (a gris)23A gris is half a bean. Cilik is a place where beans grow very large [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:112)]. Most contemporary experts consider this to be the size of an American dime. which is equivalent to a square large enough to contain nine lentils, i.e., three rows of three. If it is smaller than this, she is pure.24It is possible that the blood came from a louse that was inadvertently killed (see Halachah 23). Since the question is one of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently and consider the woman pure. When, however, the stain is on her flesh, we rule stringently, because lice are not usually found on one's flesh (Kessef Mishneh).
The distinction between a stain on one's body and on one's clothes is not accepted by all authorities. Ra'avad, Ramban, and Rashba differ and maintain that there is no difference between the two. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:6) quotes both opinions without stating which one is favored.
If [a stain] is composed of small spots, they are not considered as a single entity.25I.e. unless one of the spots is the size of a gris, the woman is considered pure. We are not concerned with the combined area of the spots. If it is extended, it is considered as a single entity.26In this instance, if the combined area of the stain is the size of a gris, the woman is considered as impure.", + "[When] a stain is discovered on an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the woman is pure and she need not be concerned about it.
What is implied? If a woman sat on a utensil made of stone,27All of the following are examples of articles that are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Rambam discusses all of these types of utensils in Hilchot Keilim. Commenting on the citation of this law in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:10), the Rama (and Pitchei Teshuvah 190:19) also give the example of a toilet seat as an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. earth, animal dung, on fish skin, on the outside of an earthenware utensil,28For an earthenware utensil only contracts ritual impurity from its inside. or on a cloth that is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths29A cloth of this size is considered too small to serve any purpose and hence, is not considered as a garment or utensil. and blood was discovered on the above, she is pure. Even if she inspected earth,30And found there were no bloodstains on it. then sat on it, and when she arose, a stain was discovered, she is pure. For our Sages did not decree that a woman would be impure when a stain was discovered on an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.31As mentioned above, the designation of a woman as impure because of a stain that is discovered is a Rabbinic decree. When our Sages instituted the decree, they allowed for leniency in certain instances. Nor did they decree [that a stain discovered on an article susceptible to ritual impurity renders a woman] impure unless that article is white.32Niddah 61b relates that originally our Sages thought to prohibit women from wearing colored garments as part of the mourning customs introduced because of the destruction of the Temple. Afterwards, they reconsidered and recommended that they wear such garments as the Rambam explains. If, however an article is colored, we are not concerned with a stain. For this reason, our Sages ordained that a woman should wear colored garments33On days other than her seven \"spotless\" days. so that she be protected from problems arising due to stains.", + "[A woman] does not become impure because of a bloodstain found on every place on her body, only due to those found opposite her genital area.
What is implied? If a stain is found on her heel, she is impure. For perhaps she touched her genital area when she sat.34In the Talmudic era, people would sit on rugs on cushions on the ground and when sitting in this manner, it is possible that a woman's foot will touch her genital area. Similarly, she is impure if a stain was found on her calves or on the inner side of her ankles, [the portions of her legs] that will touch each other when she stands with her feet and calves together. If it is found on the tip of her toe, she is impure. Perhaps [blood] dripped from the uterus to her foot when she walked.
Similarly, if blood is found in any place where her menstrual blood could have spattered when she walked, she is impure. Similarly, if blood is found on her hands, even on the backs of her fingers, she is impure. For the hands are active.35And it is possible that unknowingly, she touched a place on her body where there was menstrual blood (Maggid Mishneh). If, however, blood is found on the outer or side portions of her calves and, needless to say, if it is found from her thighs upward,36When restating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:11) uses the wording \"if it is found above her genital area.\" It also states that if a woman lifted her legs above her waist, she is impure even if a stain is found on the upper portion of her body. she is pure. For this is certainly blood that was spattered on her from another place.37I.e., we assume that the blood came from an external source. For it is not ordinary that her menstrual blood would spatter to these portions of her body.", + "When a bloodstain that is found on a woman's body is long like a strand or round, or made up of small drops, the length of the stain was across the width of her thigh, it looks like it came from below upward,38I.e., the shape of the stain appeared to indicate that the blood was spattered upward, rather than dripped downward. since it is opposite her genital area, she is impure. We do not say: Had it dripped from her body, it would not be found in such a form.39I.e., even when the shape of the stain appears to indicate that it came from an external source, as long as its position leaves open the possibility that it came from uterine bleeding, we rule stringently. Instead, we are stringent with regard to all blood that is found in these places, even though there is a doubt concerning it.", + "A stain that is found below the belt on a woman's garment40The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:12) rules that this law applies even when the stain is found on only the external part of her garment. renders her impure.41For the possibility exists that it came as a result of uterine bleeding. See Halachot 19-20 which explain that when there is justified reason to suspect that the stain came from an external source, she is pure, even though the stain is found on the lower portion of her garment. If it is above the belt, she is pure. If it is found on her sleeve, if it could reach her genital area,42Even when she bends (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). she is impure. If not, she is pure.", + "If she would remove her garment and cover herself with it at night, she is impure wherever blood is found.43Because it is possible that she and the blanket both shifted position while she was sleeping. Similarly, if blood is found anywhere on her girdle, she is impure.", + "If a woman wears one tunic for three days or more during a time that is not part of her \"days of niddah\" and inspected it and discovered three stains or one stain that contains the measure of three stains,44I.e., it is three times the size of a gris. there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.45She must wait seven \"spotless\" days before engaging in relations. She brings the sacrifice required of a zavah, but because of the doubt concerning her status, it is not eaten. For it is possible that each day, she stained the garment.46Three stains are sufficient to render her a major zavah. She is not, however, definitely given this status, for it is possible that the three stains came on one day.
Similarly, if she wore three garments that had been inspected47I.e., she wore the three garments at the same time, one on top of the other. for three days in her \"days of zivah\" and discovered a stain in each of them, there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.48For it is possible that she experienced bleeding on three successive days. [This applies] even if the stains are one opposite the other.49And thus it is likely that the three stains came from the same bleeding. Nevertheless, since we are not certain of this, she is considered a zavah because of the doubt.", + "[The following rules apply if] she found one stain that did not contain the measure of three stains.50I.e., it is smaller than three times the size of a gris. If she inspected herself throughout bein hashamashot51Bein hashamashot refers to the time between sunset and the appearance of the stars. The intent is not that a woman should continue to inspect herself throughout this entire time. Instead, what is meant is that she should insert a small cloth into her vagina and leave it there for this entire time. of the first day and found that she was pure, but did not inspect her clothes and on the third day, discovered this stain which is not the measure of three stains, she need not worry about being a zavah.52For she will have verified that she had not experienced bleeding on the first day.
If she did not inspect herself throughout bein hashamashot, she must suspect that she is a zavah. [The rationale is that] she did not inspect her garment and continued wearing it for three days during her \"days of zivah.\"53Since she was wearing the garment for three days, the possibility exists that she experienced bleeding for three days, but all the stains were in the same place.", + "If she discovered a stain on her garment on one day and then experienced bleeding for two successive days or experienced bleeding for two [successive] days and discovered a stain on the third day, there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.54Since on one of the days, she became impure because of a stain without feeling the physical sensations associated with menstruation, her impurity is not of Scriptural status. For to be considered as a zavah according to Scriptural Law, she must experience these physical sensations.", + "When a woman discovers a stain and then discovers bleeding, she associates the stain with the bleeding for a 24-hour period.55If the bleeding was discovered within 24 hours of the stain, we assume that the stain came about because of the subsequent bleeding and therefore she is governed by the same laws that would apply had she experienced only the bleeding as stated in Halachah 16. [This applies] whether she inspected herself at the time she discovered the stain and found herself to be pure or whether she did not inspect herself. If, however, she discovers one stain after another stain within 24 hours, she does not associate one stain with the other unless she carried out an inspection in the interim. If, however, she carried out an inspection and found herself to be pure between [the discovery of the first] stain and the second, they should not be associated with regard to the counting of zivut.56The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his understanding of Niddah 53b. The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's interpretation of this passage and harshly dismisses the Rambam's conclusions. The Maggid Mishneh both supports and explains the Rambam's position.", + "What is implied? She discovered a stain on Friday during the first hour of the day and then she discovered menstrual bleeding at any time until the first hour of the day on the Sabbath, she does not count [her impurity] from [the time she discovered] the stain. Instead, she associates the stain with the bleeding. [This applies] even if she did not inspect herself [after discovering the stain] and did not know whether she was impure or not. Thus if she discovers bleeding on Sunday and on Monday, she is a [major] zavah.57But if she does not discover blood on Monday, she is not a major zavah, i.e., we pay no attention to the stain that she discovered on Friday.
(Any time the term zavah is mentioned subsequently in this chapter, she is considered as a zavah.)
If, however, she discovered bleeding during the second hour on the Sabbath, she is considered as if she was impure for two days: Friday because of the stain she discovered and the Sabbath because of the bleeding, because there are more than 24 hours between them. Hence, if she discovers bleeding on Sunday, she must suspect that she is a zavah.58She is not definitely placed in that category, because one of the days is associated with a stain, as stated in Halachah 14.", + "[The following rules apply if] she did not experience bleeding on the Sabbath, but instead discovered a stain during the first hour on the Sabbath. If she inspected herself on Friday and discovered that she was pure, she only counts from [the time of] the later stain [that was discovered] on the Sabbath, because they both were discovered within the same 24 hour period. If she did not inspect herself and did not know whether or not she was in fact pure between the two, she begins counting from Friday. Thus if she discovers bleeding on Sunday, she must suspect that she is a zavah.59Because she experienced either a stain or bleeding on three consecutive days..", + "If she discovered the second stain during the second hour of the Sabbath day, she is considered as impure for two days, for the two are not within the same 24 hour period. [This applies] whether she inspected herself or did not inspect herself. [In such a situation,] if she discovers bleeding on Sunday after 24 hours have passed, she must suspect that she is a zavah.60Because she experienced either a stain or bleeding on three consecutive days..
[The following laws apply if] she discovered a third stain during the first hour on Sunday. If she inspected herself and discovered that she was pure, they are not considered as coming in succession61I.e., instead of being concerned that she discovered stains on three consecutive days, she associates the stain of the Sabbath and that of Sunday and counts them only as one. and she need not suspect that she is a zavah. If she does not carry out such an inspection, she must suspect that she is a zavah.62For each of the stains is considered individually.", + "[The following rules apply] whenever there is a stain that causes a woman to be considered impure and there is a factor to which she could attribute the stain, saying: \"The stain came because of this factor.\"63The principles mentioned in this halachah are illustrated in the halachot that follow. If [the stain] is found on a garment, she is pure. For our Sages did not say that one should rule stringently regarding these matters, only leniently.64Since the impurity associated with a stain is a matter of Rabbinic Law, we follow the principle: Whenever there is a doubt involved a matter of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:18)]. If the stain is found on her flesh, she is impure because of the doubt and she may not attribute the stain to the external factor.65Since the stain is found on her flesh and not on her clothes, we assume that it is more likely to come from the uterus than from an external factor. If she has a greater reason to attribute a stain on her flesh [t an outside factor] than one on her clothes,66E.g., she has a wound on her flesh. she may attribute even a stain on her flesh [to the factor] and she is pure despite the doubt.", + "What is implied? If she slaughtered an animal, a beast, or a fowl, became occupied with stains, sat next to people who were, or passed through a marketplace of butchers and blood was found on her outer garment, she is pure. She may attribute the stain to these factors for it is [likely] to have come from them.", + "[The following rules apply if] the stain was found on her flesh alone. If the stain is at her belt or lower, she is impure.67Provided the stain is found on a portion of her body from which the blood could have dripped from the uterus as stated in Halachah 8. If she turned upside down and flipped,68This phrase was not found in the texts of the Mishneh Torah possessed by the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh. Therefore they raised objections to the Rambam's ruling. even [a stain] from her belt and above renders her impure.69Ordinarily, however, such a stain does not alter her status even though it is found on her flesh alone. For if the blood had come from slaughtering or from the market, it would also have been found on her garments. Since it was found on her flesh and not on her garments, she is impure.", + "If she has a wound, even if it is covered by a scab, if it could be opened and discharge blood70E.g., if it was scratched [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:18)]. and blood was found on her flesh, she may attribute the stain to her wound.71And thus her status does not change. Note, however, Halachah 25. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a stain is found on both her garments and her flesh, she may attribute it with all [the external factors] possible.72For we can assume that it came from the outside first to her garments and then to her flesh. Hence she may attribute the blood to any of the factors mentioned in Halachah 20, as if the blood was found on her garments alone. And she may explain that [the stain was caused by] a louse, for perhaps when she sat down, a louse was killed and this blood came from the louse.73This applies even if she did not see that she killed a louse. If she knows that she killed an insect and it is possible that it produced a stain larger than a gris, she may attribute the stain to that [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 8:2)].
Until when [does the above apply]? [When the stain is no larger than] a gris. If, however, the stain is larger than a gris, she may not attribute it to a louse. [This applies] even if there is a crushed louse on the stain. Since the stain is larger than a gris, she may not attribute it to a louse.74For it is an accepted principle that a louse contains no more than a gris of blood. Hence if the stain is larger, that is an indication that the blood came from another source. Note Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:28) which rules leniently and explains that it is possible that there were two lice here, one which she killed previously and the one which is found crushed on her garment.", + "Similarly, she may attribute the stain to her son or her husband.75As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, even if she did not know that they touched her with soiled hands, if their hands were soiled, she may assume that this is the fact. For it is likely for a husband to touch his wife and a child to touch his mother.If they were occupied with blood, their hands were soiled, or they had a wound, she may attribute the stain to them saying that they touched her without her knowing it and the blood came from them.76If, however, their hands are not soiled, we do not attribute a stain to them unless the blood could have spattered upon her [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:19)].", + "We do not consider the possibility that blood was [transferred] from one place to another to attribute a stain to it. What is implied? If a woman had a wound on her shoulder and a stain was discovered on her calf,77It is highly improbable that blood dripped from her shoulder to her calf. we do not say: Maybe she touched the wound with her hand and then touched this other portion of her body.78There are instances where we postulate that a person's hands are active and the possibility exists that one transferred impurity from one place to another. Nevertheless, this concept is used only to lead to a stringency, not as a source for leniency. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. We attribute neither stains on her body, nor those on her garment [to such wounds].79The Maggid Mishneh states that if it is possible that the garment passed over the wound when it was removed, we can attribute a stain on a garment to such a wound. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:16) quotes this conclusion.", + "[The following laws apply when] two women were occupied with [slaughtering] one fowl and it contained only an amount of blood equal in size to a sela. If a stain the size of a sela is found on both of them, they are both impure.80Since the fowl did not contain enough blood to produce two stains of this size, we assume that one came from another source and attribute it to menstrual bleeding. Since we don't know which of the women was soiled by the fowl and which was not, we rule that they are both impure.
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 190) rules that this law applies only when the two women come to inquire about their status together. If they come one after the other, he rules that they are both considered pure. The Turei Zahav 190:17 differs, maintaining that although the ruling of the Bayit Chadash has parallels in other contexts, the logic should not be applied in this instance. The Nekudot HaKessef, however, accepts the ruling of the Bayit Chadash.
If a woman was occupied with blood that could produce a stain no larger than a gris and a stain the size of two grisim was found on her, she may attribute a gris to the blood with which she was occupied with and a gris to a louse.81As stated in Halachah 23. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 190:26) states that although there are opinions which rule that a woman is impure in such an instance, we follow the more lenient view, for the entire issue is one of Rabbinic Law. If, however, the stain was larger than two grisim, she is impure.", + "If she was occupied with red [blood], she may not attribute a black [stain] to it. If she was occupied with a fowl that had many different colors of blood and one of them was found on her, she may attribute [the stain] to [the fowl].
If she was wearing three outer garments, if there is an external factor to which she could attribute [a stain], she may attribute even [a stain] on the bottom garment to it.82Although there is reason to say that if the stain came from the outside, it would certainly be found on the outer garment as well, we still rule leniently, because there is the possibility that the outer garment was raised up at the time the blood was spattered. If she [knows of] no external factor to attribute it to, she may not attribute it to any factor, even if it is found only on the upper one.83Thus had the stain come from the woman's body, it would be far more likely to be found on the lower garment.
What is implied? If she passed through a butcher's market place, even if the stain is found only on the bottom garment, she may attribute it to the blood of the butcher's. If she did not pass through a butcher's market or the like, even if the stain is only on the upper garment, she is impure. If she is in doubt whether or not she passed through [such a place] or whether or not she was occupied [with an object that could produce a stain], she may not attribute it [to an external factor].84Although we rule leniently in questions involving stains, that is when we know that there is definitely a factor that could cause a stain involved. In this instance, we are not certain that there is indeed such a factor involved.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:22) adds that this ruling applies only in a city where there is a set place for butchering and the like. In places where these activities are carried out in many different places, a woman can attribute a stain to such a factor even if she is not certain that she passed such a place.", + "When a city has pigs [that roam freely] or [such animals] enter it at all times, [a woman] need not be concerned with stains that are found on her outer garment.85For the pigs eat small crawling animals and spatter their blood on passersby. Needless to say in most modern cities, this law does not apply.", + "When a woman lent her garment to a niddah, whether a Jewess or a gentile woman,86According to Scriptural Law, the laws of niddah do not apply to gentile woman, but according to Rabbinic Law, every gentile women is considered as if she is a niddah. The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions which maintain that even if the gentile woman is not known to be a niddah, the stain can still be attributed to her, because her halachic status is that of a niddah. This opinion is also reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:41). Even according to this conception, the gentile woman must be of the age that it is possible that she will experience menstrual bleeding. See Halachah 33 for further clarification regarding the fundamental principle on which this halachah is based. and then put it on before checking it,87The Rambam's wording teaches us another concept: We are not concerned about stains on clothing unless the clothes were checked first (Maggid Mishne). she can attribute a stain she finds upon it to the niddah who wore it.88Since the niddah and the gentile woman are already impure and will not suffer any difficulty if the stain is attributed to them, we indeed consider them as the source of the bleeding.
[Similarly,] if she lent [a garment] to a minor zavah on a day that she is impure,89The day on which she experienced uterine bleeding. one who is experiencing [the post-birth] blood of purity,90This was the law in the era of the Talmud when the laws of \"the blood of purity\" were observed after childbirth. As will be explained in Chapter 11 and notes, at present, this leniency is no longer observed. or to [a woman who was] a virgin and is experiencing [hymeneal] bleeding [which is] pure, she may attribute the stain to them.91In all these instances, attributing the stain to the borrower does not change her halachic status. The minor zavah is impure and the woman after childbirth and the virgin are pure regardless of the stain.
As stated in Chapter 11, the concept of a minor zavah does not apply in the present age and instead, she is considered as equivalent to a major zavah. Hence a stain can certainly be attributed to her. The laws concerning a woman with hymeneal bleeding or a woman after childbirth are different, for in the present age, we do not consider such woman as ritually pure. Instead, uterine bleeding - and even a stain - renders them ritually impure. Accordingly, since the status of these woman will be impaired because of the discovery of the stain, there is reason to assume that it should not be attributed to them alone, but instead, both the borrower and the lender should be considered impure as in the following clause. {See the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 190) which cites such views.} The commentaries explain, however, that according to the Rambam, this law applies even in the present era. Indeed, it is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:42) and the Shulchan Aruch only quotes laws that apply in the present era.
The Siftei Cohen 190:54 explains that even though the halachic status of these women changed in the present era, their physical tendency did not change. They frequently experience uterine bleeding and hence, we attribute the stain to them.
[A different ruling applies,] however, if she lent [a garment] to a minor zavah on the day she is watching or a major zavah during her seven \"spotless\" days, put it on before checking it and then discovered a stain. [In such an instance,] the halachic status of both is impaired., the lender and the borrower. For perhaps this one caused the stain or perhaps the other did.92Both the lender and the borrower are not likely to experience uterine bleeding and for both, it will impair their halachic status. Since we do not know which one is responsible for the stain, both share the resulting halachic liability.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam's ruling and maintain that the owner of the garment is pure. Since the status of the woman who is seeking to attain ritual purity is already impaired when compared to that of the owner, the stain is attributed to her alone despite the fact that her status will become further impaired by this ruling.
If she lent [the garment] to a woman who is watching herself because of the discovery of a stain, she may not attribute the stain to her. [The rationale is that] we do not attribute one stain to another.93Although a woman is considered impure because of a stain, we do not consider it a certain enough sign of uterine bleeding to attribute another stain to it.", + "[The following law applies when a woman] inspected her outer garment and then inspected herself94When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:40) omits mention of the fact that the woman inspected herself as well as her garment. and discovered that she was pure and afterwards, lent that garment to a colleague. If the borrower wore the garment and then a stain was discovered upon it when she returned it, the borrower is impure. She cannot attribute the stain to the owner, because the owner inspected it before she lent it to her.", + "[The following laws apply when] a tall woman wears an outer garment belonging to a short woman and a stain is discovered upon it. If [the place where the stain is located] reaches her genital area, she is impure.95I.e., the owner is definitely impure; in this instance, the borrower is also impure, because it is possible that the stain comes from her. If it does not, she is pure, because [it is probable] that the stain came from the short woman.", + "When three woman wore one garment in succession and afterwards, a stain was found upon it, [they are all impure].96Since there is no reason to attribute the stain to one more than the other and they all share the same halachic status, they are all considered as impure. Similarly, if they slept in one bed together97With their bodies intertwined [see Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:50) based on Niddah 61a]. and a blood [stain] was found under one, they are all impure.98Based on Niddah, loc. cit., the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) interpret this as referring to an instance when the woman all climbed into the bed from the same side. See Halachah 34.
If one of them inspected herself immediately99The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh interpret this as meaning that she inspected herself within the same day or night as the stain was discovered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:51) states that the inspection must be made immediately thereafter. and found herself impure, the [other] two are pure.100For we assume that the woman who found herself impure is the source of the stain.
The commentaries question if this clause applies only with regard to the bed or also with regard to the garment. The Maggid Mishneh asserts that it applies to the garment as well. The Kessef Mishneh, however, argues against his position.", + "[The following principle applies when, in the above situation, the women] all inspected themselves and discovered that they were pure. A woman who is not likely to discover bleeding may attribute the stain to one who is likely to discover bleeding. Thus the one who is unlikely [to discover bleeding] will be pure and the one who is likely will be impure.
What is implied? If one of the woman is pregnant and another is not pregnant, the pregnant101See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. woman is pure102For she is unlikely to experience uterine bleeding. and the one who is not pregnant is impure. If one was nursing103For we assume that the woman who found herself impure is the source of the stain.
The commentaries question if this clause applies only with regard to the bed or also with regard to the garment. The Maggid Mishneh asserts that it applies to the garment as well. The Kessef Mishneh, however, argues against his position. and one was not nursing, the one who is nursing is pure.104See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. If one is an elderly woman,105See Halachah 5 for the definition of this term in the present context. and one is not elderly, the elder woman is pure.106See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. If one has not experienced menstrual bleeding107This is the meaning of the term betulah in this context. See Halachah 5. and one has, the one who has no experience is pure.108See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. If they are all pregnant, all elderly, all nursing, or all have not experienced menstrual bleeding, they are all impure.109Since there is no reason to favor one over the other, we rule stringently with regard to all of them.", + "[The following laws apply when] three women ascended from the foot of a bed,110And thus each one did not pass over the place where the other slept. See the notes to Halachah 32. and went to sleep. If a blood[stain] was discovered under the middle one, all three are impure.111Because either of the woman on the sides could have shifted position slightly and the blood have come from her. If [a stain] was discovered under112If, however, the stain was discovered on the top sheet, they are all impure, because the top sheet is likely to shift position during their sleep. the innermost one, she and the woman to her side are impure and the outermost one is pure.113For it is unlikely that one twisted and turned to that degree. If [the stain] was under the outermost, she and the woman to her side are impure and the innermost is pure. If, however, they did not ascend from the foot of the bed, and thus they have no order, if a blood[stain] is discovered under any one of them, they are all impure.", + "When does the above apply? When the woman all inspected themselves and found themselves to be pure. Thus none of them could attribute [the stain] to the other as we explained. If, however, one of them inspected herself and discovered that she was pure, the woman who is pure can attribute the stain to the one who did not check, and that woman is impure.", + "Whenever a stain is found on a garment and there is no external source to attribute it to, it, [nevertheless,] does not cause a woman to be considered impure until it is proven to be blood.114The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as follows: If a stain that appears to be blood is discovered, a woman must consider herself impure. If, however, there is a question in the minds of the experts whether or not she is truly impure, they could verify the woman's status through the test the Rambam mentions. It is not, as the Ra'avad appeared to understand that the Rambam maintained, that a woman should not consider herself impure unless she verified that the stain was blood through the process described. This interpretation is quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:31). See also Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 4. If a doubt arises for [the experts]115I.e., the sages to whom women would turn to determine whether a stain was blood or not. whether [a stain] was blood or [simply] red dye, they [wash the stain] with [the following] seven cleaning agents in order. If it is washed away or its color becomes weaker,116See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6). it is a bloodstain and [the woman] is considered impure. If the stain remains the same color, it is a dye and [she] is pure.117The Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam concerning this point, maintaining that the seven cleansing agents are used to help purify a garment, not to determine whether a woman is pure. As explained in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, loc. cit., the Rambam also appreciates the role of these cleansing agents in restoring the ritual impurity of a garment. If, however, the cleansing agents are not effective, it becomes obvious that the stain is not blood. Hence, not only the garment, but also the woman is considered as pure.", + "These are the seven cleaning agents in the order [in which they should be used]: the saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, lye,118We have given the popular translation. In his edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6), Rav Kappach identifies the Arabic term used by the Rambam as a cleaning agent made from the plant \"althaea officinalis.\" natron,119Again, we have used the common translation. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam defines the term is referring to a blue stone that becomes dissolved in water easily and which is used to clean hair and garments. cumin powder,120Again, we have used the common term. Rav Kappach (loc. cit.) defines the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a plant known as anabis setifera. and bleach.121Rav Kappach (loc. cit.) defines the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a plant known as saponaria officinalis. [The garment] must be rubbed three times with each cleansing agent and it must be passed back and forth while being rubbed.
If a person did not use these cleansing agents in the above order or used them all at once, his deeds are of no consequence.122I.e., the fact that the stain remains is not considered evidence that it is not blood.
Note Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:31) which states that because we are unsure of the identity of some of these seven cleansing agents, we do not employ this examination process in the present age. If he used the last substances before the first ones, the fact that he used the last ones - i.e., the first ones in the proper order - is significant. He may then use [merely] the last ones - which he used first - so that he will have used all seven in order.", + "What is meant by \"the saliva of a person who has not eaten\"? [Saliva taken from a person who did not eat from the beginning of the night and slept the second half of the night and gave this saliva before he ate the next morning. [Moreover,] he must not have spoken excessively for the first three hours of the day. If, however, a person arose and repeated his studies before three hours of the day passed, his saliva is not placed in this category. For speaking nullifies the power of the saliva and causes it to be like water.
What is meant by beans that have been chewed? Beans that have been chewed thoroughly until a large quantity of saliva has been mixed with them. What is meant by urine that has soured? Urine that is three days old or more.", + "[The following laws apply to] any woman who becomes impure because of a stain. If she discovers the stain during her \"days of niddah,\" she must consider herself a niddah because of the doubt. She must remain [impure] for seven days and immerses herself on the eighth night. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.
If she discovered [the stain] during her \"days of zivah,\" because of the doubt, she must consider herself as a minor zavah or a major zavah as clarified in this chapter.123Halachot 12-18. She must remain [impure] for one day if she is a minor zavah or count seven \"spotless\" days if there is a doubt whether she is a major zavah.
All this stems from Rabbinic decree as we explained.124Halachah 2. Therefore if a man engages in relations with such a woman in conscious violation, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct125The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment. and he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice.126If he engaged in relations with her inadvertantly." + ], + [ + "Every woman who gives birth is impure like a niddah, even if she did not suffer uterine bleeding.1The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 5, Halachah 13, the Rambam rules that when a woman discharges a piece of flesh from the vagina, it must be accompanied by bleeding. For discharging that piece of flesh is not considered as giving birth. With regard to giving birth (or miscarrying), however, the Torah deems a woman is impure, whether or not the birth is accompanied by bleeding. [This applies whether] a woman gives birth to a living child or one which is still born, and even is she miscarries [and discharges a fetus]. If [the fetus is] male, she remains impure [for seven days as is required after giving birth to] a male.2See Chapter 4, Halachah 2. If it is female, she remains impure [for fourteen days as is required after giving birth to] a female.
[The above applies,] provided the form [of the fetus] is complete. And the form of a fetus will never become complete in less than forty days. [This applies] to both a male and a female.", + "If a woman miscarries within forty days, she is not impure because of birth.3A miscarriage is usually accompanied by uterine bleeding. Thus the woman will become impure (as a niddah or as a zavah). However, the unique laws that apply to childbirth do not apply to her.
Even if she had conceived previously, until she reaches the fortieth day, the embryo is not given the halachic status of a fetus and none of the laws applying to childbirth apply. [This applies] even on the fortieth day.
If a woman miscarried on the forty-first day after relations,4I.e., the forty-first day after she immersed herself in the mikveh and engaged in relations that night. there is a doubt whether she is considered as having miscarried.5I.e., it is possible that she conceived after engaging in relations that night, but we are not certain. Hence, her status is doubtful. [Hence,] she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah.6Since it is possible that the fetus was male, it is possible that it was female, and it is possible that it was not considered a fetus in the halachic sense at all, the woman must take all these possibilities into consideration. See Halachah 21 which defines the laws incumbent on a woman in this situation. If the human form could be barely detected in the fetus without it being clear and obvious, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.7In this instance, it is clear that the embryo had developed into a fetus. Hence the laws that apply to ordinary uterine bleeding need not be considered. Nevertheless, since we are uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must take both of these factors into consideration. See Halachah 20 which describes the laws that a woman must follow in such a situation. This is called a developed8Rekem, the root of the term merukam, means \"embroidered.\" Implied is that the form of the embryo is beginning to take shape. embryo.", + "What is meant by a developed embryo? At the beginning of the formation of the human body, it is the size of a lentil. His two eyes are like the two eyes9Alternatively, as two drops of a fly's discharge. of a fly, [slightly] separate from each other. His two nostrils are like two eyes of a fly that are close to each other. Its mouth is a hairsbreadth open and its hands and feet are not distinct.
If its form becomes more defined than this, but it still cannot be distinguished as either male or female, we do not check it in water, but in oil. For the oil will burnish it. One should bring a wood chip with a smooth edge and use it to probe the genital area [of the fetus] from above downward. If there is an obstruction, it can be determined as male.10For ultimately, the male organ will grow there. If the genital area appears like a split barley corn, it is a female and need not be checked. A woman is not granted the leniency of \"the blood of purity\" for such underdeveloped embryos; the fetus must have hair on its head.", + "When a woman discharges a white mass and when cut open a bone is found within, she is impure, because of birth.11For we assume that the mass was a dead fetus. The fact that it contains a bone indicates that it had developed sufficiently to acquire the features mentioned in the previous halachah. Obviously, certain factors had caused the fetus to be crushed and the features obliterated. If she discharges an embryo filled with water, blood, worms,12Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:3) which interprets the Hebrew as referring to \"flesh that appears to be cut in the form of worms.\" or flesh, since it is not developed,13I.e., developed to the point it possesses the features mentioned in the previous halachah. the woman need not suspect [that she is impure] because of birth.14Moreover, if there is no apparent blood on the discharge, she is not impure as a niddah (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.; see also Chapter 5, Halachah 13).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3) states that in the present age, we follow the approach of the Rashba who rules that we are not knowledgeable enough to make the fine distinctions necessary to define when an embryo is developed or not. Hence, a woman should always consider herself impure because of birth.", + "When a child is born through Cesarean section, the mother is not impure because of birth. She [need] not [observe] the days of impurity, [nor is she granted] days of purity. [This is derived from Leviticus 12:2]: \"When a woman will conceive and give birth to a male....\" [The laws of that passage apply] only when she gives birth from the place she conceives.
When a woman has difficulties in giving birth and [ultimately,] gives birth through Cesarean section, the blood from the birth throes which emerges from the womb is considered as the blood of zivah or the blood of niddah.15Depending on the day of her cycle on which the blood emerged.
Although the Torah considered the blood that emerges during birth pure (Chapter 6, Halachah 1), that apples when the woman gives birth in an ordinary manner, and not when she gives birth by Cesarean section (Rashi, Niddah 41a). The blood that emerges from the operation is itself impure.16The blood itself is impure, because the uterus itself is impure and it conveys impurity on the blood. Therefore anyone who touches the blood is impure until the evening. The blood does not, however, convey impurity on the woman unless it comes into contact with her after it emerges from her body. If no blood emerged from the womb, the woman is pure. Although the blood that emerges from the operation is impure, the woman does not become impure unless she suffers bleeding from her vagina.17Niddah, loc. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 20:18.", + "When a fetus is cut up inside a woman's womb,18I.e., the woman was unable to birth the baby and the doctors saw that to save the woman's life, the fetus would have to be killed and taken out limb by limb. whether it emerged according to the order of the limbs, e.g., first a foot emerged, then a calf, and then a thigh, or it emerged in an abnormal order, the woman is not considered impure until the majority of the body emerges.19I.e., the point brought out by this halachah is not whether the woman becomes impure, but when the impurity takes effect. The Siftei Cohen 194:9 states that the law stated by the Rambam applies according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic decree, she is impure as soon as one limb emerges. If its entire head comes out intact, it is as if the majority [of the body] emerged.20Although the Mishnah (Niddah 3:5) uses the phrase \"the majority of the head,\" the Rambam maintains that the entire head must emerge for this law to apply. See the Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh. If it was not cut up and it emerged in the ordinary manner, it is considered as having been born when its forehead emerges, even though it was cut up afterwards.21I.e., complications arose and it was necessary to cut up the fetus to remove it from the womb entirely.", + "If a fetus sticks out its hand22The Maggid Mishneh questions whether the same laws apply with regard to a foot. The Tur states that they do, while the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:11) quotes the Rambam's ruling verbatim. [from the womb] and then returns it, its mother is impure due to birth as a result of Rabbinic decree.23Although Genesis 38:28 states: \"And when she was giving birth, he stuck out a hand,\" Niddah 28a rules that this should not be interpreted as an implication that sticking out a hand is considered as giving birth. Instead, according to Scriptural Law, the woman does not become impure until the majority of the body of the fetus emerges. The woman does not receive \"days of purity\" until the entire fetus - or [at least] the majority - emerges as we stated.24I.e., as implied by the previous halachah.", + "[The following laws apply when] a woman miscarries and discharges something resembling an animal, beast, or fowl.25In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:2), the Rambam explains that although it is abnormal for a woman to discharge a fetus with such an appearance, there are exceptional situations from time to time. These and the forms mentioned in the following halachot are definite possibilities. If its face resembles that of a human,26As defined in the following halachah. it is considered as a birth even though the remainder of the body resembles an animal, beast, or fowl. If it is male, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male. If it is female, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female. If it cannot be determined whether it is male or female, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.
If its face does not resemble that of a human, it is not considered as a fetus and its mother is not impure due to birth.27The Maggid Mishneh states that this law also applies in the present era, as indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 12. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro differs, citing the Ra'avad and the Ramban and explaining that the Rabbis of the present era did not feel that they were expert enough to determine if the face of a fetus resembled that of a man or not. Hence they ruled that woman is impure. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3), he follows this approach.
Note also Halachah 17 which states that if the discharge of such a fetus is accompanied by bleeding, the woman is impure even if the fetus does not resemble a human. [This applies] even though the remainder of the body resembles that of a human, its hands and feet resemble those of a human, and it is male or female.", + "What is meant by the human form of a face? That the forehead, eyebrows, eyes, cheeks, and the contour of the jaw share the human form. Even if the mouth, the ears, and the nose resemble that of an animal or a beast, [the fetus] is considered as a birth.", + "When a woman miscarries and discharges something resembling a snake, the mother is impure due to birth.28The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that in the previous two halachot, he stated that for a fetus to be considered as having a human form, it must have the majority of a human facial form intact, not merely the eyes. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the eye of a snake resembles that of a human much more closely than that of other animals. Hence, there is room for the Rambam's ruling. [The rationale is that] the form of its eye is round like that of a human. When a woman miscarries and discharges a human form that has wings of flesh, the mother is impure due to birth.
[The following rules apply when a fetus] is created with one eye and one thigh. If they are on the side, it is considered as half a human and the mother is impure due to birth. If they are in the center, the mother is pure, because this is another creature.", + "[The following laws apply when a fetus] is created with its windpipe closed, its body lacking [form] from the navel downward, but instead is a mass of flesh, its skull being merely a mass of flesh, its face was amorphous and its features could not be distinguished, it has two backs and two backbones, the contours of the head of the fetus she discharged could not be distinguished, or the contours of its hand could not be distinguished, the mother is not impure due to birth.29This ruling is based on Niddah 23b which states that any fetus that is created in a manner that is not fit for its soul to be created (i.e., it is not viable) does not cause the mother to be impure due to birth. Since a fetus with these defects would not live, the mother is not impure. See the Kessef Mishneh which questions the details of certain of the examples cited by the Rambam.
If, however, she miscarried and discharged a hand or a foot that was cut off, we operate under the assumption that it came from a complete fetus and it is included in the sum of the majority of its limbs.30As stated in Halachah 6, when the majority of the limbs of a fetus emerge, the mother is considered as impure due to birth. The present halachah is stating that if previously many of the limbs of a fetus emerged and then the mother discharged this cut off hand or foot, it is not considered as part of a separate fetus, but instead, part of the fetus that already emerged. Hence, if together with the limbs that previously emerged, it equals the majority of the fetus, the woman is impure (Maggid Mishneh).
From Rabbi Akiva Eiger's interpretation of Niddah 28a, the source for this halachah, the following explanation can be given. When a woman discharges a cut off hand or foot, even if we have not seen the remainder of the fetus, we assume that she discharged them already. Hence, she is considered impure. We do not suspect that maybe the fetus she discharged was not viable.", + "There are times when from the remainder of the blood from which a fetus is formed will coagulate and form a mass that resembles the tongue of an ox. It is wound around a portion of the fetus and is called a sandal. A sandal will never be formed without a fetus. If a similar mass is formed without a fetus, it is not called a sandal. Most fetuses will not have a sandal with them.
There are times when a pregnant woman will receive a blow on her stomach and the fetus will be damaged and will become like this sandal. There are time when the [resulting sandal] will retain its facial features and there are times when the fetus will dry up and change its appearance and blood from elsewhere will coagulate upon it to the extent that its facial features cannot be recognized.
Accordingly, when a woman miscarries and discharges a male fetus together with a sandal, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female. For perhaps this sandal was a female fetus. [The Sages] ruled stringency and considered her impure due to a [female] fetus even though it did not possess any facial features. [The rationale is that] she is impure due to birth regardless because of the fetus [discharged] with it.", + "The thick membrane that is like a goatskin in which the fetus is formed and which surrounds the fetus and the sandal - if there is a sandal with it - is called the placenta. When the time comes for the fetus to emerge, it tears it and emerges. At the beginning of its creation, it resembles a thread of the woof that is hollow like a trumpet and thick like the craw of a chicken. A placenta must be at least a handbreadth in size.31Implied is a leniency. If a woman discharges something resembling a placenta, but which is smaller than a handbreadth, she is not impure due to birth. The Maggid Mishneh quotes Ramban and Rashba who rule that in the present age, we are stringent and rule her impure even if it is smaller than a handbreadth lest an error be made.", + "When [a woman] miscarries and discharges a placenta, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female. [The intent is] not that a placenta is a fetus, but there will not be a placenta without a fetus.
If she discharged a fetus and then discharged a placenta, we show concern about the placenta and it is considered as a fetus. We do not say: \"This is the placenta of the fetus that miscarried.\" For we associate the discharge of the placenta only with a viable birth.
Accordingly, if the woman gave birth to a viable child and then discharged a placenta - even after 23 days32Based on Niddah 27a, it appears that this is the maximum number of days granted between a birth and the emergence of the placenta.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro notes that there are authorities who maintain that the 23 days include the day of the birth, while the Rambam maintains that the day of the birth is not included. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3), he quotes the Rambam's ruling. - we assume that [the placenta] came as a result of the child. We do not suspect that there was a second fetus. [Instead, we assume] that the child tore through the placenta and emerged.", + "[When a woman] discharges a placenta and afterwards bears a viable child, we suspect that the placenta came as the result of another fetus.33I.e., the woman had been carrying two fetuses. The emergence of the fetus indicates that she had miscarried and discharged one previously. We do not associate it with the child that was born afterwards, for it is not usual for the placenta to emerge before the fetus.34Since the fetus is carried within the placenta, in a viable birth, the placenta will never emerge before the fetus carried within it.
If a portion of the placenta emerges on Sunday and a portion emerges on Monday, we count [her days of impurity] from the first day and we count her days of purity only from the second day as a stringency.35I.e., as soon as the first portion of the placenta emerges, the woman becomes impure. Nevertheless, her days of purity do not begin until the appropriate time (7 or 14 days) passes after the second day. And they end after 40 or 80 days from the first day, not from the second day.", + "If [a woman] miscarries and discharges something resembling an animal, beast, or fowl and a placenta is connected to it, we do not suspect that there is [another] fetus.36As stated in Halachah 8, the discharge of these type of creatures does not render the woman impure. When she discharges a placenta that is connected to them, we assume that they were carried within the placenta. Hence, just as they do not render the woman impure, the placenta also does not.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:7) cites this law without qualification, the Siftei Cohen 194:7 states that just as we are stringent in the present era with regard to the law stated in Halachah 8, we are stringent with regard to this law and rule that the woman is impure. If they are not connected to [the placenta], we treat it with severity as if there were two fetuses. For we say that maybe the fetus that was carried in this placenta became effaced, and maybe the placenta of this fetus that appears like an animal or beast became effaced.37I.e., we are concerned with the possibility that the woman was carrying two fetuses. Although only one fetus - the animal-formed one - and one placenta emerged, we suppose that originally there was another fetus and another placenta and they were effaced. We assume that the fetus that was effaced was ordinary and hence, the woman is considered as impure.", + "In all instances when we are concerned that [the emergence of] a placenta [indicates that a fetus emerged previously], a woman is not given days of purity.38I.e., the forty or eighty day period when uterine bleeding does not render a woman impure is not granted in this situation, for we suspect that perhaps the woman never in fact gave birth.
[The following laws apply to] every [woman] who miscarries and discharges something that does not resemble a human fetus39As mentioned in Halachah 8. or a fetus that is within 40 days of conception whose form has thus not been completed.40As mentioned in Halachah 2. If [the emergence of] the fetus was accompanied by bleeding, the woman is either a niddah or a zavah.41The ruling depends on the day of her personal cycle on which the woman miscarries: Is it one of the days of niddah or one of the days of zivah? If it emerged dry, without any bleeding, she is pure.42This ruling depends on our Sages' statement (Niddah 21a) that it is possible for the uterus to open without the woman experiencing any bleeding.
This statement is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and there are some Rishonim who follow the other position and therefore rule that the woman is impure. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:2) follows this view and rules that even if the woman does not notice any bleeding, she must assume that bleeding did in fact take place.", + "When a woman gives birth to twins - a boy and a girl - she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female.43I.e., she must observe 14 days of impurity and then is given 66 days of purity. We do not restrict her to 26 days because of the birth of the boy. If she gives birth to a tumtum44A person whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus it is impossible to determine his or her gender. or an androgynus,45A person who has both male and female sexual organs. There is an unresolved halachic question with regard to the classification of such a person's gender. she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.46Since there is a doubt concerning the issue, the woman must observe the stringencies resulting from either option. If she gives birth to twins, one that is male and one that is a tumtum or an androgynus, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.47Since it is possible that the tumtum or the androgynus is - or is considered as - a female, the woman must also take the laws governing the birth of a female into consideration. If one [of the twins] is female and one is a tumtum or an androgynus, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female.48For even if the tumtum or androgynus was considered as a male, there would be no need for any further severity as stated at the beginning of the halachah. For the gender of a tumtum and an androgynus is a matter of doubt: Maybe they are male or maybe female.49In particular, there is a difference between the two. With regard to a tumtum, the child has a specific gender, we simply are not able to identify it. With regard to an androgynus, by contrast, the doubt involves the child's halachic status.", + "When a woman is known to be pregnant miscarries and it is not known what she miscarried, e.g., she passed a river and miscarried there, miscarried into a pit, or miscarried and a beast dragged away the fetus, we assume that she discharged a human fetus.50And not one of the forms mentioned in Halachah 8. Hence, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.51Because we do not know the gender of the fetus, she must take both possibilities into consideration. If, however, she was not known to be pregnant, miscarried, and did not know what she miscarried, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah.52For it is possible that she was less than 40 days pregnant, in which instance the fetus is not considered as being born, and she is governed by the laws applying to a niddah, as stated in Halachah 2.", + "What are the laws that apply wherever we said: \"She is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female\"? She is forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like a woman who gives birth to a female. The status of the first seven is definite;53For even if the fetus was male, she would be impure for this time. that of the latter seven is doubtful.54For we do not know that the fetus was female.
We do not grant her any \"days of purity\" beyond the fortieth day [from the birth] as is the law with regard to one who gives birth to a male.55In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:3), the Rambam explains the rationale for this ruling. There is a question of Scriptural Law involved. Whenever doubt arises in such a situation, we follow the more stringent approach. If she discovers menstrual bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth days from birth, it is not \"pure blood.\"56As would be the ruling was she to have given birth to a female. As explained in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, today Instead, because of the doubt, we consider it as niddah bleeding, or zivah bleeding if it comes in the \"days of zivah,\" as we explained.57In Chapter 7, Halachah 12, the Rambam writes that \"that any bleeding that a woman discovers after the completion of the days associated with childbirth marks the beginning of her days of niddah.\" Accordingly, the first time a woman in such a situation discovers uterine bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth day after birth, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah. If she discovers bleeding a second time, the question of whether the doubt involves the niddah or zivah state depends on the day when the bleeding is discovered.
Similarly, if she discovers [uterine bleeding] on the eighty-first day alone, she is considered as a niddah because of the doubt.58I.e., she is not merely a minor zavah.
Apparently, the Rambam's intent is speaking about a woman who discovered uterine bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth day after birth and then a second time on the eighty-first day and according to the niddah-zivah cycle, the eighty-first day is a day of zivah. (For example, she discovered uterine bleeding previously on the seventieth day.). In that instance, there is a doubt whether she is considered a niddah, for if the fetus was female, this would be considered the beginning of the niddah cycle, or a zavah, for if the fetus was male, her cycle would have begun earlier. See the following halachah and notes.
According to this interpretation, however, the word \"alone\" which the Rambam adds appears to be in error. She must observe the seven days of niddah. [The rationale is that] perhaps she gave birth to a female and her \"days of niddah\" do not begin until after the conclusion [of the days of purity], as we explained.59Chapter 7, Halachah 12.", + "What are the laws that apply wherever we said: \"She is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah\"? She is forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like a woman who gives birth to a female. If she discovers blood on the eighty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah.60The Rambam is speaking about a situation when a woman discovers uterine bleeding for the first time after a miscarriage. Ordinarily, her niddah cycle would start at that time. Nevertheless, since the possibility exists that her miscarriage did not involve a fetus, she must continue her previous reckoning of the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah.\"
Similarly, if she discovered uterine bleeding on the seventy-fourth day and the eighty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah.61If the fetus was male, the bleeding on the seventy-fourth day would have been considered the beginning of her \"days of niddah\" and the eighty-first day, the beginning of her \"days of zivah.\" Thus she would be only a minor zavah. Nevertheless, there is also a possibility that the fetus was female. In such an instance, any bleeding before the eighty-first day is insignificant and the eighty-first day begins the niddah cycle. Hence we rule more stringently and consider her a niddah, because of the doubt. Similarly, if she discovered [uterine bleeding] on the forty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah even though she discovered bleeding on the thirty-fourth day. She is forbidden to her husband until the forty-eighth day, as is the law for a woman who gives birth to a male.62This would be the law were we certain that she had miscarried a male fetus. Her status is doubtful, for it is possible that her miscarriage is not considered a birth at all. In that instance, the bleeding would be either niddah or zivah bleeding, depending on her cycle.
We do not grant her any \"pure days\" at all, like a niddah. [The following rules apply with regard to] any bleeding that she discovers from the day on which she miscarried until the eightieth day beginning from seven days after she miscarried. If it is discovered in her \"days of niddah, she is a niddah, because of the doubt. And if it is discovered in her \"days of zivah,\" she is a zavah, because of the doubt. For throughout the days after birth, [the previous patterns concerning] the expected times of menstruation do not apply.63I.e., were we to know for certain that she had given birth, there would be no concept of days of niddah and days of zivah. Hence, in the present situation, although the woman must observe the stringencies of niddah and zivah, it is only because of the doubt.
Similarly, if she discovers uterine bleeding on the eighty-first day, her situation is still problematic and she must consider herself a niddah because of the doubt as explained [above]. [This applies] even if she discovers bleeding for only one day. When she establishes a pattern of menstruation after eighty days, her difficulties will cease and she will be either definitely a niddah or definitely a zavah.64Depending on the day of her cycle on which the bleeding is discovered. Similarly, from the time she miscarried for seven days, she will be definitely impure [like] a niddah65Either because of the miscarriage or because the bleeding is considered as blood of niddah. Either way, she is definitely impure for seven days. if she miscarried in the midst of her days of niddah, as we explained.66In Halachah 20." + ], + [ + "All of what was said with regard to [the laws of] niddah, zivah, and childbirth applies with regard to Scriptural Law. [The Jews] would follow these laws when the Supreme Sanhedrin held sessions and it included great sages who were familiar with [the types of] blood. If a doubt arose [for the lesser judges] with regard to the discovery of blood or the days of niddah and zivah, they could ascend to the Supreme Sanhedrin and ask them. As the Torah promised concerning them [Deuteronomy 17:8]: \"If a matter of judgment is unknown to you concerning one type of blood or another, or one judgment and anotherו [you shall ascend to the place that God shall choose].\"1I.e., to the Temple in Jerusalem. See Hilchot Mamrim, chs. 1 and 4, which discuss the authority of the Supreme Sanhedrin and how it served as the final governing body for Jewish Law.
[\"Concerning one type of blood or another\"] means \"between the blood of niddah and the blood of zivah. In that era, Jewish women would be careful concerning this matter and would pay attention to their monthly patterns and would always count the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah.\"", + "It is very difficult to keep track of the counting of the dates. Many times doubts will arise. For even if a woman discovered bleeding on the day she was born, she must begin counting the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah,\" as we explained.2Chapter 4, Halachah 4. Therefore a girl cannot become impure as a zavah until she is ten days old. For if she discovered bleeding on the day that she was born, she would be a niddah for seven days. [Then to be a zavah, she would have to discover bleeding] on the three days directly following the \"days of niddah.\" Thus [she would be] ten days [old].
Thus we learned that she begins counting the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah\" from the first time she discovers uterine bleeding throughout her entire life. [This applies] even if [the first time] she discovers bleeding is when she is a minor.", + "During the era of the Sages of the Gemara, many doubts arose with regard to the appearance of blood3As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7-12, in the Talmudic era, our Sages felt capable of distinguishing between different shades of red and were able to identify some shades as pure and others as impure. In the Rambam's era and certainly in later ages, the Rabbis felt incapable of making such distinctions. and the reckoning of the pattern of menstruation. For it was not within the potential of all women to calculate the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah.\" Therefore our Sages ruled stringently concerning this matter and decreed that a woman should consider all her days as \"days of zivah\" and consider any bleeding that she discovers as zivah bleeding because of the doubt.4The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rambam did not clarify his statements concerning this Rabbinic ordinance because it was only a temporary measure. It does not reflect Scriptural Law, nor does it reflect Rabbinic Law as practice, because it was later supplanted by the stringency Jewish women accepted upon themselves as stated in the following halachah.
To explain: Niddah 66a relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi ordained that any woman who discovers uterine bleeding should wait six \"spotless\" days before immersing herself . If, however, she discovers bleeding for three consecutive days, she must wait seven \"spotless\" days. Thus if the bleeding had come in her days of niddah, she would have waited the seven days required by Scriptural Law (the day she discovered the bleeding and the six \"spotless\" days). And if the bleeding had come in her days of zivah, all that is required by Scriptural Law is for her to wait one spotless day. This is the ordinance to which the Rambam referred.", + "In addition, Jewish women accepted a further stringency upon themselves. They accepted the custom that wherever Jews live, whenever a Jewish woman discovers [uterine] bleeding, even if she does not discover more than a drop the size of a mustard seed and the bleeding ceases immediately, she must count seven \"spotless\" days.5The stringency implied by this practice is that even if bleeding is sighted for only one day, the woman counts seven \"spotless\" days. [This stringency applies] even if she discovered the bleeding during her \"days of niddah.\"6According to Scriptural Law, there is no need for her to count seven \"spotless\" days in such a situation. Instead, she may immerse after the seventh day regardless. Nevertheless, women accepted this stringency upon themselves.
Whether the bleeding continued for one day, two days, an entire seven days, or longer, when the bleeding ceases, she counts seven \"spotless\" days as is required of a major zavah and immerses on the night of the eighth day despite the fact that there is a doubt whether she is a zavah.7I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse herself during the day on the seventh day. She need not wait until evening. Nevertheless, since a niddah is required to wait until the evening to immerse herself, women standardized their conduct and ordained that all immersion be performed at night unless there are extenuating circumstances. Note, however, Halachah 17. Or she may immerse during the day on the eighth day in a pressing situation, as explained.8Chapter 4, Halachah 8. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.", + "Similarly, every women who gives birth in the present age is considered as one who gives birth while a zavah and she must count seven \"spotless\" days, as we explained.9Chapter 7, Halachah 5.
According to Scriptural Law, if a women is not a zavah when she gives birth, she may immerse herself after seven or fourteen days, even if she was bleeding the entire time. In the Talmudic era, however, it became customary to observe the stringency described by the Rambam. The rationale is that since every discovery of bleeding renders her a zavah, she is always considered as having given birth in that state (Maggid Mishneh).
When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) emphasizes that this practice does not supplant Scriptural Law. Thus if a woman counts seven \"spotless\" days directly after giving birth to a girl, she must still wait the fourteen days required by the Torah before immersing.
It is the commonly accepted custom in Babylon, in \"the cherished land,\"10Eretz Yisrael. Spain, and the West,11Morocco and North Africa. that if a woman discovers bleeding in the days after childbirth,12The Hebrew term used by the Rambam has a specific meaning, the days between the seventh and fortieth days after a woman gives birth to a male or the days between the fourteenth and eightieth days after she gives birth to a female. she must count seven \"spotless\" days after the bleeding stopped. [This applies] even if she first counted seven \"spotless\" days and immersed [after giving birth].
We do not grant her any pure days at all. Instead, whenever a woman discovers bleeding whether it is bleeding associated with childbirth or \"pure blood,\" it is all impure. She must count seven \"spotless\" days after the bleeding ceases.", + "This law was instituted in the era of the Geonim. They decreed that there be no concept of \"pure\" blood. For the stringency that women accepted upon themselves in the era of the Sages of the Talmud applies only to a woman who discovers bleeding that would render them impure. [In this instance, they accepted the custom of] waiting seven days. Blood which she discovers during her \"days of purity\" after counting [seven \"spotless\" days], by contrast, is not a matter of concern [according to Scriptural Law]. For the days of purity are not subject [to concern] with regard to niddah or zivah as we explained.13Chapter 7, Halachah 7.", + "We have heard that in France,14Whose halachic tradition differed from that of the Sephardic community in many particulars. even today, relations are allowed [despite] \"pure\" bleeding as was the law in the Talmudic era after [the woman] counts [seven \"spotless\" days] and immerses herself because of the impurity resulting from giving birth in the zivah state. This matter is dependent on local custom.15The Rambam is referring to one of the principles mentioned in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah: Laws ordained by the Sages of the Talmud must be accepted universally throughout the Jewish community. Laws ordained by later authorities are subject to the halachic review of the local authorities.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) writes that it has already become universal Jewish practice to forbid relations when a woman discovers bleeding during her days of purity.", + "Similarly, [stringencies were adopted] with regard to the laws of hymeneal bleeding in the present age. Even if a minor is below the age when she could be expected to menstruate and never discovered uterine bleeding, [her husband] must separate after engaging in the relations which are a mitzvah.16I.e., the first time the couple engage in relations. As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 18-25, according to Scriptural Law, hymeneal bleeding does not represent any difficulty for it is not at all related to niddah or zivah. Hence, according to Talmudic Law, when the wife is a minor, the couple may engage in relations until the hymeneal bleeding ceases. Even a girl who gets married at the age of twelve is granted certain leniency. The later Rabbis, however, required all couples to separate because of hymeneal bleeding.
The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that the groom may complete relations and withdraw while erect even if he knows that bleeding has commenced. Although our Rabbis ordained this stringency, they did not apply it to the first time the couple engaged in relations.
He also states that even if no bleeding is discovered, if the bride was a virgin, we assume that there was a slight amount of blood that was not noticed and rule that she is impure. These laws are quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 193:1).
Whenever she discovers hymeneal bleeding,17I.e., if all the hymeneal blood was not released during the first time the couple engaged in relations and bleeding was discovered after subsequent relations. she is impure. When the bleeding ceases, she must count seven \"spotless\" days [before immersing herself].", + "Moreover, whenever a girl is asked to marry and consents, she must count seven \"spotless\" days after she consents to marry.18The day after she consents is the first of these seven days. If she becomes engaged and there is a considerable time between the engagement and the marriage, the days are counted from the time wedding preparations are made in earnest (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 192:1-2). Afterwards, [she immerses and] becomes permitted to her husband.19This stringency applies to a young girl who never menstruated or an older girl who already experienced seven \"spotless\" days after her last menstruation. [The rationale is that] she might have desired a man and released a drop [of blood] without being aware of it. Whether she is a mature woman or a minor, she must wait seven \"spotless\" days after she consents to marry. Afterwards, she immerses and may engage in relations.", + "All of these matters are additional stringencies that have been practiced by Jewish women from the era of the Sages of the Talmud [onward]. One should never deviate from it. Therefore every women who consents when asked to marry should not marry until she counts [these days] and immerses herself. If she marries a Torah scholar, she may marry immediately and then count after marriage and immerse. [The rationale is that] a Torah scholar will know that she is forbidden and observe [the restriction]. He will not approach her until she immerses.20The Kessef Mishneh and the Maggid Mishneh maintain that the Rambam would agree that not only relations, but also remaining alone with one's wife is forbidden in this situation. The Ra'avad and the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 192) infer that the Rambam is not paying heed to this prohibition. Hence, they differ with his ruling.", + "The laws applying to [the discovery of] stains in the present era [follow the principles] we explained.21In Chapter 9. There is no innovation in this regard, nor are there any [new] customs. Instead, any stain which we ruled was pure, is considered pure. And when [a woman discovers] any of the stains which we ruled were impure - [even] if the stain was not of the size that would generate concern for zivut - she must count seven [\"spotless\"] days, after the day of the discovery of the stain. For the discovery of a stain is not identical with the discovery of bleeding.22The Rambam is saying that for a stain a woman is not required to make a hefsek taharah or count seven days. Instead, it is sufficient for her to count six \"spotless\" days as described in Halachah 3 and notes. For as he explains, the discovery of a stain is not the same as the discovery of bleeding.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the laws applying to the discovery of bleeding also apply with regard to the discovery of a stain. The Maggid Mishneh offers theoretical support for the Rambam's approach, but states that since other Rishonim follow the Ra'avad's view, we should be stringent and accept it. This opinion is followed by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3, 190:1).", + "All the statements we made concerning a woman who miscarried [and discharged a creature that does not resemble a human fetus]23See Chapter 5, Halachah 15; Chapter 10, Halachah 8. and [hence] is pure also apply in the present age.24The Rambam maintains that the Rabbis did not issue a decree concerning such a situation, nor was this included in the stringency which Jewish women accepted upon themselves. The Ra'avad differs, explaining that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable concerning the distinctions between the forms which our Sages made. Hence, because of the doubt, we rule that a woman is impure after any miscarriage.
In this instance as well, the Ra'avad's view is accepted by the Ramban and the Rashba and is cited as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3).
Similarly, when a woman discovers a white or green blood-like secretion25See Chapter 5, Halachah 6. This ruling is accepted by all authorities. or if she discharges a red mass of flesh that is not accompanied by bleeding,26See Chapter 5, Halachah 13. This ruling is also disputed by the Ra'avad and other Rishonim. For they maintain that it is impossible for the uterus to open without there being any bleeding. This view is accepted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:2). she is pure even in the present age. For the stringency involves only one who discovers impure bleeding and the above are not considered as impure bleeding.", + "Similarly, if she had a wound from which blood was flowing27See Chapter 4, Halachah 20. or blood was released with her urine,28See Chapter 5, Halachah 17. Other Rabbis also do not require stringency with regard to these matters in the present age. she is pure. Innovations [in practice] were made only with regard to all women who discover impure bleeding as explained [above] and also that all different shades of blood are considered impure.29As stated in Halachah 3, the later Rabbis felt incapable of distinguishing between different shades of red as the Sages of the Talmud were capable of doing.", + "In certain places, the practice is that a woman must consider herself a niddah for seven days even though her bleeding lasted only one day. [Then] after these seven, she must count seven \"spotless\" days. This is not a [proper] custom.30The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 196:11) also mentions the practice cited by the Rambam. He also negates it saying: \"There is no reason for the practice. A person who is lenient earns a reward and hastens his [involvement in] the mitzvah.\" Instead, it is an error on the part of the one who ruled in this manner and is not worthy of being given any consideration.31Although the halachic authorities are unanimous in their support of the Rambam's ruling. The custom he quotes has a Rabbinic source in Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Metzora, sec. 7. Instead, [the law is that if a woman experiences] one day of menstrual bleeding, she should count seven \"spotless\" days afterwards and immerse on the night [following] the eighth day,32The Rama (loc. cit.) mentions that the Ashkenazic custom is not to begin counting seven until the fifth day after the woman discovered menstrual bleeding. which is the second day after her [\"days of] niddah.\" She is [then] permitted to her husband.", + "Similarly, in certain places, the practice is - and support for this is found in the responsa of some of the Geonim - for a woman who gives birth to a male not to engage in relations until the conclusion of forty days and for one who gives birth to a female [to refrain] until after eighty days33By this practice, they distort the meaning of Leviticus, ch. 12, as interpreted in Chapter 4, Halachah 5. even though they discovered bleeding only during the [first] seven days. This is not a [proper] custom. Instead, these responsa are in error and indeed [the observance of this practice] in these places is of a heretical nature.34For as indicated by the association with the Sadducees, they undermine the authority of the Oral Law. They learned this interpretation from the Sadducees.35A deviant sect which tried to sway our people from Jewish practice by denying the authority of the Oral Law. It is a mitzvah to compel [these people] to remove [this improper custom] from their hearts and to return them to [the observance of] the words of the Sages who require only the counting of seven \"spotless\" days as explained.", + "A woman does not ascend from her state of ritual impurity and cease being considered as an ervah until she immerses herself in a mikveh that is halachicly acceptable while there are no substances intervening between her flesh and the water.36For an immersion can be disqualified when there are substances intervening between one's flesh and the waters of a mikveh. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:7 and the laws that follow. In Hilchot Mikveot, we will explain what defines a mikveh as acceptable and what disqualifies it, the manner in which one should immerse, and the laws concerning intervening substances.
If, by contrast, she washes in a bath - even if all the water in the world passes over her - her state is the same after washing as before washing [and a man who engages in relations with her is liable] for kereit. For there is no way of ascending from a state of ritual impurity to one of purity except through immersing in the waters of a mikveh, a spring, or a sea which is like a spring, as will be explained in Hilchot Mikveot.", + "In the present age, although the seven \"spotless\" days [are observed only because of] doubt,37As explained in Halachot 3 and 4 and notes. if a woman immerses herself during them, it is as if she did not immerse herself.38Since a niddah or a zavah does not change her state if she immerses herself before the required time, we apply this same ruling to a woman in the present age. If she immerses herself on the seventh day,39I.e., after sunrise. the immersion is valid even though it is forbidden to do so at the outset, lest one engage in relations on the seventh day after the immersion.40We fear that she may discover uterine bleeding after engaging in relations, but before nightfall, and thus nullify the entire seven \"spotless\" days. In that instance, her immersion is of no consequence. [The rationale is that] she immersed in the appropriate time even were she to have definitely been a zavah.41For according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse at this time, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 11. And if the woman is a niddah, she may certainly immerse according to Scriptural Law, for the time of her impurity has passed.", + "It is forbidden to a person to embrace his wife during these seven \"spotless\" days. [This applies] even if she is clothed and he is clothed.42This and the following restrictions were imposed lest they lead to relations, as the Rambam states in the following halachah. He should not draw close to her, nor touch her, not even with his pinky. He may not eat together with her from the same plate.43The Ra'avad states: \"Our custom is that [they may not eat] even on the same table.\" The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 195:3) quotes the Ra'avad's ruling, but offers the following leniency. One may place an object between the two to make a distinction. The general principle is he must conduct himself with her during the days she is counting as he does in her \"days of niddah.\" For [relations with her] are still punishable by kereit until she immerses herself, as we explained.44In Halachah 16.", + "A niddah may perform any task which a wife would perform for her husband except washing his face, hands, and feet, pouring him a drink, and spreading out his bed in his presence.45Implied is that if he is not present, she may make his bed. Outside his presence, making his bed is a household task. In his presence, it could suggest an invitation for intimacy. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, ch. 195) and commentaries for a further delineation of stringencies that must be observed until a woman purifies herself. [These were forbidden as] decrees, lest they come to sin.46I.e., relations.
For this reason, she should not eat with him from the same plate, nor should he touch her flesh, lest this lead to sin. Similarly, she should not perform these three tasks for him during her seven \"spotless\" days. It is permitted for a woman to adorn herself during her \"days of niddah,\" so that she does not become unattractive to her husband." + ], + [ + "When a Jew engages in relations with a woman from other nations, [taking her] as his spouse or a Jewess engages in relations with a non-Jew as his spouse, they are punished by lashes, according to Scriptural Law.1Licentious relations with a gentile man or woman are not included in the scope of this Scriptural prohibition, as stated in the following halachah. As [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: \"You shall not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son.\"
This prohibition applies equally to [individuals from] the seven [Canaanite] nations and all other gentiles.2Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam, explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam's opinion has a source in the Sheiltot D'Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the verse cited by the Rambam: \"For he shall sway your son away.\" Kiddushin 68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the verse and thus including all those who might sway a person's heart. Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this perspective. This was explicitly stated in Ezra3Although the verse is contained in the Book of Nechemiah, the Rambam considers Ezra and Nechemiah as one book. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. Similarly, Sanhedrin 93b states that none of the books of the Tanach are named after Nechemiah.
The verse cited by the Rambam is part of the oath taken by the people to remain true to their faith upon their return to Zion. At that time, the gentiles living in the land were not Canaanites. [Nechemiah 10:31]: \"That we will not give our daughters to the gentiles in the land and that we will not take their daughters for our sons.\"", + "The Scriptural prohibition applies only to marital relations.4The Tur, loc. cit., differs with the Rambam concerning this point as well, stating that there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and non-Jew. When, by contrast, one engages in relations with a gentile woman with a licentious intent, he is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" according to Rabbinic Law. [This is a] decree, lest this lead to marriage.
If [a Jew] designates [a gentile woman] for licentious relations, he is liable for relations with a niddah, a maid-servant, a gentile woman, and a licentious woman.5This was a decree passed by the court of the Hasmoneans when they saw that the Jews were sharing intimacy with Greek women (Avodah Zarah 36b). The transgressor is given stripes several times, once for each of the Rabbinic prohibitions he ignored. If he did not designate her for himself, but instead, [engage in relations with her] spontaneously, he is only liable for relations with a gentile woman. All of these liabilities are Rabbinic in origin.6According to Scriptural Law, if a Jew engages in relations with a gentile woman in public \"the zealot may strike him,\" as stated in Halachah 4. The Hasmoneon's decree, however, applies even when relations were carried out in private.", + "When does the above apply? When the man who engaged in relations was an Israelite. If, however, a priest engages in relations with a gentile woman, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, because of the prohibition against relations with a zonah.7The term zonah is generally translated as \"prostitute.\" It has, however, a precise halachic definition, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1. [This prohibition applies] both to a non-Jewish zonah and a Jewish one. He receives lashes for relations alone, for he cannot consecrate her.8Note the contrast to the laws applying to a Jewish zonah, as mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 2.", + "Whenever a man has relations with a gentile woman in public, i.e., the relations are carried out in the presence of ten or more Jews, if a zealous person strikes him and kills him, he is considered praiseworthy and ardent.9The Ra'avad rules that the zealous person must warn the transgressor before striking him. The Maggid Mishneh states that the concept of a warning is relevant only with regard to execution by the court and not to the independent actions taken by a zealous person. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 425:4) quotes the Ra'avad's view. [This applies whether the relations were] in the context of marriage or licentious in nature. This matter is a halachah conveyed to Moshe at Sinai.10I.e., a law which is not commanded by the Written Torah, yet communicated by the Oral Tradition. Support for this can be derived from Pinchas' slaying of Zimri.11As Numbers, ch. 25 relates, the Jews began worshiping idols, because they were lured to by Midianite women. Enraged Moses commanded that the worshipers be executed. Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, took a Midianite woman and confronted Moses, engaging in relations before him. When Pinchas saw this, he slew Zimri, giving expression to the law mentioned by the Rambam.", + "The zealous person can strike [the fornicators] only at the time of relations, as was the case with regard to Zimri, as [Numbers 25:8] states: \"[He pierced] the woman into her stomach.\"12Our Sages relate that Pinchas' javelin went through Zimri's back and into her gut, killing them both in the midst of relations. If, however, [the transgressor] withdraws,13Even if he transgressed already. he should not be slain. Indeed, if [the zealous person] slays him, he may be executed [as a murderer].14Needless to say, a warning must be given and two acceptable witnesses must observe the slaying.
If the zealous person comes to ask permission from the court to slay him, they do not instruct him [to],15The initiative to slay the transgressor must be totally that of the zealous person. For the court has no obligation - and there no license - to exact such punishment. even if this takes place at the time [of relations]. Not only that, if the zealous person comes to kill the transgressor and he withdraws and kills the zealous person in order to save himself, the transgressor is not executed for killing him.16For the zealous person is considered as a rodef, pursuer, whom the intended victim has the right to slay, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 1.
When a Jew has relations with the daughter of a resident alien,17As explained in Chapter 14, Halachah 7, this refers to a non-Jew who accepted the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 9:6), the Rambam states that the woman herself - not only her father - must not be an idolater. the zealot may not strike him. [The transgressor] should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "If the zealot did not strike him, nor did he receive stripes from the court,18The Maggid Mishneh writes that if he was given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" by the court, he is no longer liable for kereit. Our Sages (Makkot 23b) state a similar concept with regard to a person who receives lashes for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition. The Rambam extends the idea to include a person who is punished on the basis of Rabbinic decree. his punishment is explicitly stated in the words of the prophetic tradition. He is liable for karet,19This applies even if relations are conducted in private. as [Malachi 2:11-12] states: \"Judah desecrated that which is sacred to God, [by] loving and engaging in relations with the daughter of a foreign god. May God cut off from a man who does this any progeny and descendant.\" [Implied is]20As interpreted by Yevamot 22b, 23a. that if he is an Israelite, he will not have progeny among the wise who will raise issues, nor a descendant among the scholars who will respond. If he is a priest, he will not have [a descendant] who \"presents an offering to the Lord of Hosts.\" Thus you have learned that a person who shares intimacy with a gentile woman is considered as if he married a false deity, as the verse states: \"engaging in relations with the daughter of a foreign god.\" And he is called one who \"desecrated that which is sacred to God.\"", + "Although this transgression is not punishable by execution by the court, it should not be regarded lightly, for it leads to a detriment that has no parallel among all the other forbidden sexual relations. For a child conceived from any other forbidden sexual union, is [the father's] son with regard to all matters and is considered a member of the Jewish people, even if he is a mamzer.21Indeed, Horiot 13a states that a mamzer who is a scholar receives precedence over a High Priest who is unlearned. A son conceived by a gentile woman, by contrast, is not considered his son. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 7:4:] \"For he shall sway your son away from following Me.\" She turns him away from being one of those who follow God.", + "This matter causes one to cling to the gentile nations from whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has separated us, and to turn away from following God and to betray Him.", + "When a gentile engages in relations with a Jewish woman, if she is married, he should be executed.22For the gentiles are prohibited against adultery. If she is single, he is not executed.", + "If, by contrast, a Jewish male enters into relations with a gentile woman, when he does so intentionally, she should be executed.23Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who questions the source for the Rambam's ruling, arguing that the passage from Numbers cannot be interpreted as definitive proof. She is executed because she caused a Jew to be involved in an unseemly transgression, as [is the law with regard to] an animal.24See Chapter 1, Halachot 16-18. [This applies regardless of] whether the gentile women was a minor of three years of age,25If, however, she is younger than three, the relations are not considered significant. or an adult, whether she was single or married. And it applies even if [the Jew] was a minor of nine years old, [she is executed].26From that age onward, sexual relations in which he engages are significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
This [punishment] is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, as [Numbers 31:16-17] states: \"Behold they were [involved] with the children of Israel according to the advice of Balaamו.27Who advised the Midianites and the Moabites to have their women seduce Jewish men to provoke God's wrath. Execute any woman fit to know a man through lying with a male.\"", + "Servants that have been immersed for the sake of servitude and accepted the mitzvot in which servants are obligated,28See Chapter 14, Halachah 9. have departed from the category of gentiles, but have yet to enter the category of Jews. For this reason, a maidservant is forbidden29I.e., the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, as indicated by the conclusion of this halachah and the following halachot. to a free Jew. [This applies to] both one's own maid-servant and a maid-servant belonging to a colleague.
When a person enters into relations with a maid-servant, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by the Rabbis.30And not lashes, as is the punishment for the violation of a Scriptural commandment. [It is obvious that a Scriptural prohibition is not involved,] for it is explicitly stated in the Torah that a master may give a Hebrew servant a Canaanite maid-servant31Were there to be a Scriptural prohibition involved, it would not be relaxed in the case of a servant. [for the sake of relations]32So that the offspring will be the master's. and that she is permitted to him, as [Exodus 21:4] states: \"If his master will give him a wife.\"", + "The Sages did not issue a decree with regard to this matter,33Forbidding such relations to a Hebrew servant (Ma'aseh Rokeach). nor did the Torah require that lashes be given for [relations with] a maid-servant unless she was designated for a [Jewish] man, as we explained.34Chapter 3, Halachah 13.", + "This transgression should not be light in one's eyes, because it does not involve lashes according to Scriptural Law. For this [act] also causes the son to be turned away from following God. For a son born of a maid-servant is a servant and is not a [full] member of Israel. Thus he causes [Israel's] holy seed to be profaned and produce servants. Behold Onkelos the translator35Who composed the standard Aramaic translation of the Torah. included relations with a servant and a maid-servant in [the prohibitions, Deuteronomy 23:18]: \"There shall not be a promiscuous man and there shall not be a promiscuous woman.\"36The Rambam does not fully accept the view of Onkelos. For Onkelos defines the scope of the Biblical prohibition as including these relations and the Rambam does not, as evident from the fact that the Rambam does not consider these relations as punishable by lashes. (The Rambam also has a different conception of the prohibition of relations with \"a promiscuous woman\"; see Hilchot Ishut 1:4.) Nevertheless, the Rambam uses the view of Onkelos as support for his condemnation of this act (Mayim Chayim; see also Beit Shmuel 16:6).", + "When a person engages in relations with a maid-servant, even in public, a zealous person may not strike him, not even at the time of the transgression.37In contrast to relations with a gentile woman (Halachah 4). Similarly, if one marries a maid-servant,38In contrast to marriage to a gentile woman (Halachah 1). he does not receive lashes according to Scriptural Law. For from the time she immersed and accepted the mitzvot, she departed from the category of gentiles.", + "If [the identity of] a Jewish child becomes confused with that of the child of a maid-servant, the status of both [children] is doubtful.39When explaining this possibility the Talmud gives the example of women who gave birth together in a cave. Today, unfortunately, such confusion has happened in hospitals. Each of them is considered as possibly a servant. [Hence] we compel the owner of the maid-servant to free them both.40Otherwise, because of the doubt, neither of the children would be able to marry. They could not marry a Jewess, for perhaps they were servants, nor a maid-servant, for perhaps they were Jews (compare to Hilchot Avadim 7:7). If [the owner died and] the son [whose identity was confused] is the [only] son of the servant's master, when they come of age, they should free each other.41Since we do not know which is the servant and which is the master, they must both free each other. And thus the servant will certainly have been freed by the master.
Before they reach adulthood, however, it is impossible for one to free the other, because a minor may not free a servant. Then they will be permitted to marry within the Jewish people.", + "If the children whose identities were confused were female, they are both considered as possibly a maid-servant. If a person enters into relations with either of them, the offspring is considered as a servant because of the doubt.42In this instance, the Rambam does not say that the owner must free the offspring, because there is no obligation for a woman to marry and bear children. Compare to Hilchot Avadim, loc. cit.; see Maggid Mishneh, Beit Shmuel 16:7. The master may not, however, compel either of them to work. For they both can require him to prove his claims.
Similarly, if the identity of a gentile child becomes confused with that of a Jewish child, we immerse both of them as converts and they are both considered as possibly a convert.43Thus they are forbidden to marry a priest, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 3 (Maggid Mishneh).", + "Whenever any of the gentiles convert and accept all of the mitzvot in the Torah44As described in Chapter 13. or a servant is freed,45At which time his conversion process is completed. they are considered as Jews with regard to all matters,46I.e., there is no difference between a convert and a native Israelite with regard to any matter of Jewish observance. as [Numbers 15:15] states: \"For the community: there will be one law [for you and the convert].\" A convert may marry within the Jewish community immediately, i.e., a male convert or freed servant may marry a native-born Jewess and an Israelite47But not a priest (Maaseh Rokeach). may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant.
There are four nations from which [converts] are exceptions: Ammon, Moab, Egypt, and Edom. When a person from one of these nations converts, he is like an Israelite with regard to all matters with the exception of marriage within the Jewish community.", + "What are the laws that apply to them [in that context]? It is forbidden to marry an Ammonite and a Moabite forever. This applies to the males and not the females,48The rationale for this leniency is explained as follows. The Torah explains the reason for this prohibition: \"Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the way.\" Now it is not appropriate for women to greet travelers with food. Hence, since the sin does not apply with regard to women - the consequence of it - the prohibition against marrying into the Jewish people also does not apply with regard to them. as [Deuteronomy 23:4] states: \"An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of God.\" It is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai that it is a male Ammonite and a male Moabite who are forbidden to marry a native-born Israelite forever,49They may, however, marry women who converted to Judaism or freed maid-servants. Shaar HaMelech also states that these individuals may even marry maid-servants who were not yet freed. [including] even their son's grandson forever. An Ammonite woman and a Moabite woman are, by contrast, permitted immediately50Indeed, Ruth the maternal ancestor of King David - and ultimately of Mashiach - was a female Moabite convert. Initially, and indeed for several generations, there were questions whether she and her descendants were allowed to marry within the Jewish. Ultimately, however, the ruling stated by the Rambam was accepted throughout the Jewish community. See Yevamot 76b. as are [converts] from other nations.", + "An Egyptian and an Edomite convert - both a male and a female - are forbidden to marry among the Jewish people for the first and second generations. The third generation, however, is permitted, as [ibid.:9] states: \"Children who are born to them [may enter the congregation of God in the third generation].\"", + "When a female Egyptian converts while she is pregnant, her son is considered a second [generation Egyptian convert]. When a second [generation] Egyptian male [convert] marries a first [generation] Egyptian female [convert] or a first [generation] Egyptian male [convert] marries a second [generation] Egyptian female [convert], the child is considered a second generation [convert].51Rashi differs and maintains that the child's status depends on that of its mother. Thus if the mother is a second generation Egyptian convert, the child is a third generation convert and is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:4) quotes both views. [This is derived from the phrase]: \"Children who are born to them.\"52The Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is that everyone knows that birth involves both a man and a woman. Hence the child must be the third generation from both of the male and the female. The verse made the matter dependent on birth.", + "When a male Ammonite convert marries a female Egyptian,53Who has converted. the offspring are considered as Ammonites.54The Maggid Mishneh refers to Yevamot 78b and maintains that this ruling applies only when the offspring are male. If they are female, they are not considered as Ammonites (and hence, permitted). Instead, they are considered as Egyptian and forbidden for three generations, i.e., we follow the greater blemish. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:7). When a male Egyptian convert marries a female Ammonite, the offspring are considered as Egyptians.55This also can be considered as applying only when the offspring are male. If they are female, some opinions considered them as permitted (as a female Ammonite) and others as Egyptian [Rama (Even HaEzer, loc. cit.)]. This is the general principle: Among gentiles, the identity [of the offspring] is determined by the male. Once they convert, [the offspring] is given the identity that is of the lowest status.", + "A person from the seven [Canaanite] nations who converts is not forbidden to marry among the Jewish people according to Scriptural Law.56This ruling depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the prohibition: \"You shall not intermarry with them\" mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. As explained, according to the Rambam, the verse applies to all gentiles, not only Canaanites, and only before they convert. Once they convert, all gentiles - except the four nations mentioned in the previous halachot - may marry freely among the Jewish people.
The other authorities, by contrast, maintain that the prohibition applies to the Canaanite nations alone and after conversion. Otherwise, they maintain, it is unnecessary, for there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. It is known that of them, only the Gibeonites converted.57Note Joshua, ch. 9, which relates how the Gibeonites deceived the Jewish people and established a covenant with them. Joshua decreed that they be forbidden to marry among the Jewish people,58Because of the deception they perpetrated. both males and females.
He instituted this prohibition only during the time a Sanctuary is standing, as [Joshua 9:23] states: \"[You shall be] wood-choppers and water-drawers for the house of my God.\" He made their ban dependent on the Sanctuary.", + "They are called Netinim, \"the designated ones,\" for they were designated for the service in the Sanctuary. David came and decreed that they should never be allowed to marry among the Jewish people, even at a time when the Sanctuary is no longer standing. This is explicitly stated in Ezra [8:20]: \"From the Netinim whom David and the officers designated for the service of the Levites.\" From this, we see that he did not make the matter dependent on the Sanctuary.59For the narrative in Ezra speaks of a time when the Temple had already been destroyed.", + "Why did David and his court pass this decree against them? Because he saw that they were characterized by brazenness and cruelty. For they asked to kill and hang the seven sons of Saul, God's chosen one,60As related in II Samuel, ch. 21, there was a famine for three years in Eretz Yisrael. Through prophetic vision, David learned that the reason for the famine was Saul's oppression of the Gibeonites (exactly what Saul did to oppress them is a matter of discussion among the Rabbis). David asked the Gibeonites what they desired to be appeased for this oppression. They answered that they wanted to slay seven of his descendants. David handed over seven of Saul's descendants to them and they hung them and left their corpses on the gallows. For this act of cruelty, David decreed that they should never marry among the Jewish people. For Israel should be characterized by kindness and mercy. See Chapter 19, Halachah 17, which further develops this theme. and they did not have mercy upon them.", + "When Sannecherib, King of Assyria, arose, he confused the identity of all the nations, mixing them together, and exiling them from their place.61I.e., in order to thwart the possibility of local peoples organizing rebellions against him, Sannecherib destroyed the national identity of people by exiling them from their native lands and forcing them to intermingle with other peoples. The Egyptians that live in the land of Egypt at present are of other nationalities. This also applies with regard to the Edomites in the field of Edom.
Since these four forbidden nations became intermingled with all the nations of the world [with] whom it is permitted [to marry once they convert], all [converts] are permitted. For when anyone of them separates himself [from them by] converting, we operate under the presumption that he became separate from the majority.62This principle applies in many instances when forbidden and permitted substances or individuals become mixed together. See for example, Yoma 84b, Zevachim 73a,b. Therefore in the present age, in all places, whenever a convert converts, whether he be an Edomite, an Egyptian, an Ammonite, a Moabite, a Kushite, or from any of the other nations, whether male or female, he or she is permitted to marry among the Jewish people immediately.63The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:10) quotes this ruling, but states that according to the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, Sannecherib did not succeed in erasing the identity of the Egyptians and the prohibition against marrying their converts still applies." + ], + [ + "Israel entered the covenant [with God]1Tosafot, Keritot 9a, refer to this as the covenant which separated the Jews from the other nations. The Rambam is emphasizing that all of these acts where performed in preparation for the Giving of the Torah when the covenant took effect. with three acts: circumcision, immersion, and offering a sacrifice.", + "Circumcision took place in Egypt, [before the Paschal sacrifice, of which Exodus 12:48] says: \"No uncircumcised person shall partake of it.\" Moses our teacher circumcised [the people]. For with the exception of the tribe of Levi, the entire [people] neglected the covenant of circumcision in Egypt.2See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3 which describes the extent of the Jews' assimilation in Egypt. Regarding this, [Deuteronomy 33:9 praises the Levites,] saying: \"They upheld Your covenant.\"", + "Immersion was performed in the desert before the Giving of the Torah, as [Exodus 19:10] states: \"Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and have them wash their garments.\" Sacrifices [were also offered then], as [ibid. 24:5] states: \"And he sent out the youth of the children of Israel and they brought burnt offerings.\" They offered them as agents of the entire Jewish people.", + "Similarly, for [all] future generations, when a gentile desires to enter into the covenant, take shelter under the wings of the Divine presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah,3Implied is that together with these ritual acts, the gentile must also accept the yoke of Jewish observance. As Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:3) emphasizes this is a fundamental element of the conversion process. he must undergo circumcision,4If he had been circumcised as a gentile, a small amount of blood must be drawn from him for the sake of conversion [Chapter 14, Halachah 5; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:1)]. immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice. A woman [who converts] must undergo immersion and bring a sacrifice, as [Numbers 15:15] states: \"As it is for you, so shall it be for the convert.\" Just as you [entered the covenant] with circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice; so, too, for future generations, a convert must undergo circumcision, immersion, and must bring a sacrifice.", + "What is the sacrifice that a convert [is required to bring]? A burnt offering of an animal or two turtle-doves or two fledging doves. Both of [the doves] must be brought as burnt offerings.5In contrast to other situations when a pair of such doves are offered and one is brought as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. In the present age, when there are no sacrifices,6For the Temple is destroyed. [a convert] must undergo circumcision and immersion.7The Rambam mentions the two acts in the desired order: circumcision and then, immersion. Nevertheless, if a convert immerses before circumcision, there is a difference of opinion among the later Rabbis if the immersion is acceptable or not [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 268:1)]. Hence he should immerse again because of the doubt (Siftei Cohen 268:2). When the Temple is rebuilt, he must bring a sacrifice.8Yevamot 46a quotes an opinion which requires the convert to actually set aside the money. The Talmud's conclusion, however, is that it would be undesirable to do so, lest the funds be used for other purposes which is a transgression.
It must be emphasized that even before the convert brings a sacrifice, he is considered as a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.", + "When a convert is circumcised, but does not immerse himself, or immerses himself, but was not circumcised, he is not considered a convert until he perform both of these activities. He must immerse himself in the presence of three men.9Numbers 15:16 states: \"There will be one judgment for you and the convert.\" Since the verse uses the term judgment, Yevamot 46b states that like in a judgment, three judges are necessary.
There are opinions that emphasize that this is merely an asmachta, a Rabbinic ruling that uses a Biblical verse as a support. Kin'at Eliyahu explains the rationale for this view. Were the concept to have its source in Scriptural Law, judges possessing semichah, the unique ordination that ceased in the Talmudic era, would be required and thus it would be impossible to accept converts in the present age. Since a court is required, he may not immerse on the Sabbath or on festivals, or during the night.10For a court does not hold sessions at these times. Another reason why the immersion should not be performed at this time is that it amends the person's state, and that is not permitted on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the Rambam considers the first rationale of primary importance (Kessef Mishneh). If, however, they had him immerse [at night], he is a convert.11The Rashba explains that a legal case that is begun during the day may be completed at night. Hence, the convert's immersion may also be accepted at night.", + "We immerse a minor who seeks to convert based upon the guidance of the court.12Conversion, a change in status, must be brought about through a conscious decision by the convert. A minor is not considered as able to make mature decisions and is not held responsible for his conduct. Therefore he cannot make the decision to convert. Nevertheless, the Jewish court makes this decision on his behalf.
The converted child, however, has the option of refuting the conversion when he comes of age. If he protests his conversion at that time, he is considered a gentile and need not observe the mitzvot. If, however, he accepts his conversion when he comes of age, but regrets afterwards, he is bound by his original decision. For it is an advantage for a person [to convert].13A person cannot act on another person's behalf unless it is considered to his benefit, but our Sages consider becoming part of the Jewish people a benefit sufficient enough to justify their actions. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although the Torah and its mitzvot compel a person to restrain his conduct, as long as he is young and has not become habituated to forbidden conduct, he will be able to accommodate himself to the Torah's guidelines. When a pregnant woman converts and immerses herself, her child does not require immersion.14For the fetus is considered as part of her body and her immersion is sufficient for the fetus as well.
When [a convert] immerses himself alone and converts alone - or even if he does this in the presence of two persons15For two people do not constitute a court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:10). - his conversion is not valid.16For as mentioned in the previous halachah, three judges must be present.
The Rambam's perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Rabbenu Asher maintains that the requirement applies only at the outset. After the fact, even if a gentile circumcised himself and immersed on his own, the immersion is acceptable, provided he accepted the mitzvot in the presence of three Jews. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:3) mentions both opinions, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher. If he comes and says: \"I converted in the court of so-and-so and they had me immerse,\" his word is not accepted with regard to license to marry among the Jewish people17As indicated by Halachah 10, this refers to a situation where previously, we know that the person was a gentile. If not, different laws apply. In all instances, the person must observe the mitzvot because of his statements. We, however, do not rely on his word alone with regard to marriage. unless he brings witnesses [who testify to the truth of his statements].", + "[The following rules apply if] he was married to a native-born Jewess or a convert and he already fathered children. If he says: \"I converted alone,\" his word is accepted with regard to the disqualification of his self,18And he is not allowed to continue living with his wife until he performs the conversion rites again.
The Siftei Cohen 268:22 quotes Rabbenu Asher who rules that his statements are of no consequence whatsoever. For example, if he enters into relations with a married Jewish women. If he was a gentile, the woman would be able to continue living with her husband, but if he was Jewish (i.e., his conversion was acceptable), the relations are considered as adulterous and she is forbidden. According to Rabbenu Asher, his word is not accepted and she is not forbidden. but not with regard to the disqualification of his children.19The Maggid Mishneh questions how is it possible to disqualify his children. Even if he was indeed a gentile, the children would be Jewish. He explains that there is a halachic difference in a situation where both the parents converted privately. In that instance, were we to disqualify the children because of their statements, there would be a change in status. He must immerse himself again in the presence of a court.20Rabbi Akiva Eiger adds that according to the Rambam, he must also have blood drawn from his male organ as is the case of a convert who was circumcised while a gentile.", + "[The following laws apply with regard to] a female convert who we see conduct herself according to the ways of Israel at all times, for example, she immerses herself after being a niddah,21According to the authorities that, after the fact. do not require a convert's immersion to be performed in the presence of a court, this immersion also could serve as the immersion for the sake of conversion. she separates terumah from dough, or the like, and to a male convert who follows the paths of Israel, for example, he immerses himself after a seminal emission, and performs all the mitzvot. These are considered as righteous converts even though there are no witnesses to testify before whom they converted. Nevertheless, if they come to marry among the Jewish people, we do not allow them unless they bring witnesses or they immerse themselves in our presence. The rationale is that their identity was originally established as gentiles.", + "If, however, a person comes and says that he was a gentile, but that he was converted by a court, his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] the mouth that forbade him was the same that permitted him.22I.e., we knew nothing of the person's identity before he came before us. He was the one who raised the doubt whether he was Jewish - by saying that he was a convert - and he resolved it - by saying that he converted in a proper court. This follows the principle of miggo, if he desired to lie, he could have told a more effective lie, saying that he was a native-born Israelite.
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael in the Talmudic era. For [at that time,] all the people there could be assumed to be Jewish. In the Diaspora, however, he must bring proof of his conversion.23The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining that there are two Talmudic opinions: one that accepts the convert's word both in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora and one that requires him to bring proof in both places. Similarly, the Ramban and the Rashba differ and maintain that the convert's word is accepted in all places. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:10) mentions the Rambam's view, but appears to follow that of the Ramban and the Rashba. Today the custom is for a court to be careful and investigate a convert's conversion before allowing him to marry among the Jewish people. [Only] afterwards may he marry a Jewess. I say that this is an additional stringency adopted to protect the purity of our lineage.", + "Just as we circumcise and immerse converts; so, too, we circumcise and immerse servants which are acquired from the gentiles for the sake of servitude.24For becoming a servant is also a change of status, causing the servant to depart from the status of a gentile, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 11.
When a person acquires a servant from the gentiles and the gentile takes the initiative and immerses with the intent of becoming a free man, he acquires his own person,25Yevamot 45b-46a explains the rationale for this law: The gentile owner who sold the servant does not own his physical person in the same manner as a Jew does. That ownership is a new factor established through immersion. Hence, if the servant takes the initiative, he can avoid being acquired. provided he says while immersing: \"Behold I am immersing before you for the sake of conversion.\" If he immerses himself in the presence of his master, he does not have to make an explicit statement.26For taking this independent act in the presence of his master is considered as if he made an explicit statement. Instead, since he immersed himself, he attains his freedom.27He must, however, reimburse the master for his value [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 267:9)].
For this reason, [when having the servant immerse,] the master must push him into the water28By manifesting his control over him in this manner, he emphasizes that he is acquiring him as a servant. until he arises at which time he is in his servitude. He must tell him that he is having him immerse for the sake of servitude in the presence of the judges. A servant must also immerse only in the presence of three judges and during the day as a convert, for it is a partial conversion.", + "When a servant is freed, he must immerse himself a second time29The Maggid Mishneh cites views that maintain that this immersion is Rabbinic in origin. Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Tosafot who emphasize that it is a Scriptural requirement. in the presence of three men during the day,30As required of a convert (Halachah 6). for through this act, his conversion is completed and [his status] becomes that of a Jew. It is not necessary for him to accept the mitzvot and [for the judges] to inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, for they already informed him when he immersed himself for the sake of servitude.31See the initial halachot of the following chapter which describe the manner in which a gentile and a servant are informed about the mitzvot.", + "Converts, servants, and freed servants must be immersed in a mikveh that is acceptable for a niddah to immerse in. All of the substances that [disqualify her immersion because] they intervene [between the water and her flesh] disqualify the immersions, of converts, servants, and freed servants.32See Hilchot Mikveot which elaborates at length concerning both concepts mentioned in this halachah: what makes a mikveh acceptable and which substances disqualify an immersion when they intervene between a person's flesh and the water. For this reason, a servant or a convert should trim his nails and hair [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 268:2); see also Siftei Cohen 268:7].", + "One should not think that Samson who saved the Jewish people, and Solomon King of Israel, who is called \"the friend of God,\"33See II Shmuel 12:25, as interpreted by Menachot 53a, et al. married gentile woman who did not convert. Instead, the matter can be explained as follows: The proper way of performing the mitzvah is when a male or a female prospective convert comes, we inspect his motives for conversion. Perhaps he is coming for the sake of financial gain, in order to receive a position of authority,34Tosafot cites the narrative (Shabbat 31a) which relates that a gentile came to Hillel and asked him to convert him on the condition that he become the High Priest. Hillel agreed. Later the convert discovered the error of his ways and accepted Jewish practice genuinely. Tosafot explains that from the outset, Hillel recognized his potential sincerity and therefore accepted him even though originally, his motives were self-oriented. The Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen 268:23 state that Hillel's example may be emulated and the Jewish courts have the prerogative of making a decision to accept a convert even though at the outset, he seeks to convert for ulterior motives. or he desires to enter our faith because of fear. For a man, we check whether he focused his attention on a Jewish woman. For a woman, we check whether she focused her attention on a Jewish youth.
If we find no ulterior motive, we inform them of the heaviness of the yoke of the Torah and the difficulty the common people have in observing it so that they will abandon [their desire].35For as the Rambam continues to explain, a convert's lack of observance could have a negative effect on the entire people. There is no obligation to convert. A gentile who observes the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants is on a very high rung. Hence unless a gentile is motivated by a very sincere commitment, it is preferable for him not to change his status and serve God in his present state. If they accept [this introduction] and do not abandon their resolve and thus we see that they are motivated by love, we accept them, as [indicated by Ruth 1:18]: \"And she saw that she was exerting herself to continue with her and she ceased speaking with her.\"36At first, Naomi tried to dissuade Ruth from converting. When, however, she saw her sincerity, she allowed her to join her. See Chapter 14, Halachah 1, which describes how this concept is applied.", + "For this reason,37I.e., because their motives were not genuine, as the Rambam continues to explain. the court did not accept converts throughout the reign of David and Solomon. In David's time, [they feared] that they sought to convert because of fear and in Solomon's time, [they feared] that they were motivated by the sovereignty, prosperity, and eminence which Israel enjoyed. [They refrained from accepting such converts, because] a gentile who seeks to convert because of the vanities of this [material] world is not a righteous convert.
Nevertheless, there were many people who converted in the presence of ordinary people38I.e., these individuals did not know that the converts should not be accepted. during the era of David and Solomon. The Supreme Sanhedrin would view them with skepticism. Since they immersed themselves, they would not reject them, but they would not draw them close until they saw what the outcome would be.39I.e., would they accept Jewish practice genuinely.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:12) interprets this to mean that the conversion was effective. They are Jews and have all the privileges and responsibilities of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, as an initial and preferred option, our Sages would not allow them to marry within the Jewish people and the like until they had established their sincere commitment to the Torah and its mitzvot.
It must be emphasized that, according to the Shulchan Aruch, we are speaking about people who convert for ulterior motives, but still accept the yoke of the Torah and its mitzvot. When a person \"converts\" without accepting the Torah and its mitzvot at all, the conversion is invalid, even if he becomes circumcised and immerses in a mikveh. For that reason, non-halachic \"conversions\" are unacceptable. See the notes to Halachah 18.", + "Solomon converted women and married them and similarly, Samson converted [women] and married [them]. It is well known that they converted only because of an ulterior motive and that their conversion was not under the guidance of the court. Hence the Tanach40See Judges 14:3, I Kings 11:4. considered it as if they were gentiles and remained forbidden. Moreover, their conduct ultimately revealed their initial intent. For they would worship their false deities and build platforms for them. Therefore the Scriptures considered it as if [Solomon] built them, as [I Kings 11:7] states: \"And then, Solomon built a platform.\"", + "When a court did not check a [potential] converts background and did not inform him of the mitzvot41The Maggid Mishneh states that even if the court does not notify the potential convert of the mitzvot, the conversion is effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:12) when quoting this law, changes the text to \"the reward for the mitzvot,\" implying that the gentile must accept the mitzvot before immersion. As the commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch explain, according to the Shulchan Aruch, if a convert does not accept the observance of mitzvot, the conversion is not acceptable even if he becomes circumcised and immerses. This concept is particularly relevant in the presence age when there are many non-halachic \"conversions.\" and the punishment for [the failure to observe] the mitzvot and he circumcised himself and immersed in the presence of three ordinary people, he is a convert. Even if it is discovered that he converted for an ulterior motive, since he circumcised himself and converted, he has departed from the category of gentiles and we view him with skepticism until his righteousness is revealed.
Even if afterwards, [the convert] worships false deities, he is like an apostate Jew. [If he] consecrates [a woman,] the consecration is valid,42Hence a get (formal bill of divorce) is required before the woman can marry another Jew. and it is a mitzvah to return his lost object.43The basic concept is that a convert who sins is considered as a Jew who sins. Even if he or she commits serious transgressions, the conversion is not revoked. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that if the convert intentionally worships false deities, a lost object that belonged to him is not returned, as indicated by Hilchot Gezeilah ViAvedah 11:2. For since he immersed himself he became a Jew. For this reason,44I.e., because despite their sins, they remained Jewesses. Samson and Solomon maintained their wives even though their inner feelings45I.e., their connection to idolatry. were revealed.", + "For this reason, our Sages said:46Yevamot 47a. It must be emphasized that sincere converts are given the highest praise. In a renowned letter to a convert named Ovadiah, the Rambam states: \"We [i.e., native-born Jews] share a connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Your connection is with the One who spoke and created the world.\" \"Converts are as difficult for the Jewish people to bear as a leprous blemish.\" For most converts convert for an ulterior motive and [later] cause Jews to stray. It is difficult to separate from them once they have converted. Look at what happened in the desert at the worship of the Golden Calf and Kivrot HaTa'avah.47Our Sages explain that in both instances, it was the erev rav, the mixed multitude of converts who accompanied the Jews out of Egypt, who enticed the people to perform these sins. Kivrot HaTa'avah refers to the incident, Numbers, ch. 11, where the people complained because they desired other food in addition to the manna. Similarly, most of [the complaints in the instances when] our people tried God were instigated by the mixed multitude." + ], + [ + "What is the procedure when accepting a righteous convert? When one of the gentiles comes to convert, we inspect his background.1See Chapter 13, Halachah 14. If an ulterior motive for conversion is not found,2See Chapter 13, Halachah 14. we ask him:3The halachah is quoted from Yevamot 47a. As early as the Talmudic era, potential converts were dissuaded in this manner. \"Why did you choose to convert? Don't you know that in the present era, the Jews are afflicted, crushed, subjugated, strained, and suffering comes upon them?\" If he answers: \"I know. Would it be that I be able to be part of them,\"4Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Yevamot, loc. cit. we accept him immediately.", + "We inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, i.e., the unity of God and the prohibition against the worship of false deities. We elaborate on this matter.5Because they are the fundamentals of our faith (Maggid Mishneh). We inform him about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones. We do not elaborate on this matter.6This law, quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:2) indicates that even the opinions which require a convert to accept the observance of the mitzvot do not require him to accept all of the mitzvot individually. Instead, he must make a general commitment to confirm to Jewish practice. We inform him of the transgression of [not leaving] leket, shichachah, pe'ah,7These refer to different obligations from the crops that must be left for the poor. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, ch. 1. and the second tithe.8Although this is the version in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah, many manuscripts and early printings state \"the tithe for the poor.\" This fits both the context and the Rambam's source, Yevamot 47a.
These mitzvot are mentioned because the giver has no control over them. When a prospective convert sees that Judaism places such financial obligations upon him, he may regret his choice (Rashi, Yevamot, loc. cit.). And we inform him of the punishment given for [violating] the mitzvot.
What is implied? We tell him: \"Before you came to our faith, if you partook of fat, you were not liable for your soul to be cut off. If you desecrated the Sabbath, you were not liable to be stoned to death. Now, after you convert, if you partake of fat, you are liable for your soul to be cut off. If you desecrate the Sabbath, you are liable to be stoned to death.\"
We do not teach him all the particulars lest this cause him concern and turn him away from a good path to a bad path. For at the outset, we draw a person forth with soft and appealing words, as [Hoshea 11:4] states: \"With cords of man, I drew them forth,\"9This can be interpreted as referring to the warnings concerning the transgressions. and then continues: \"with bonds of love.\"10And this to the encouragement based on the knowledge of the reward for mitzvot.", + "Just as he is informed of the punishment [for disobeying] the commandments; so, too, he is informed about the reward for [their observance]. We tell him that by observing these mitzvot, he will merit the life of the World to Come. For there is no completely righteous man other than a master of wisdom who observes these mitzvot and knows them.", + "We tell him: \"Know that the World to Come is hidden away only for the righteous; they are the Jews.11The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements here noting that in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:5 and other sources, he states that the pious among the gentiles have a share in the World to Come. Among the resolutions offered is that \"All of Israel have a share in the World to Come\" (Sanhedrin 10:1). By virtue of the essential Godliness of the Jewish soul, they are granted a portion in this eternal good. A gentile must, however, earn his portion through his deeds. It is not \"hidden away\" for him. The fact that you see Israel suffering difficulty in this world [reflects] the good that is hidden away for them. For they cannot receive an abundance of good in this world as the gentiles do. For they hearts may become uplifted and they will err and lose the reward of the World to Come, as [Deuteronomy 32:15] states: \"Jeshuron became fat and rebelled.\"12I.e., the outcome of prosperity was not increased observance, but the opposite: rebellion against God's will.", + "The Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring upon them an abundance of retribution solely so that they will not perish. For all the other nations will perish and they will prevail. We elaborate on this concept to make them feel cherished. If [the prospective convert] retracts and does not want to accept [the mitzvot], he goes on his way. If he accepts [their observance], we do not have him wait, but instead circumcise him immediately.13For we do not postpone the performance of a mitzvah. If he was circumcised, we draw the blood of circumcision from him.14I.e., a small wound is made on his male organ to draw blood for the sake of the covenant. The expression \"the blood of the covenant\" is derived from Exodus 24:8. See also Zechariah 9:11. We wait until he heals entirely15For we fear that, otherwise, the immersion might cause the wound to become infected (Rashi, Yevamot 47b).
The commentaries ask: Why don't we have him immerse first and then circumcise himself? In this way, he will not have to delay his conversion any longer. The Ramban (cited by Turei Zahav 268:4) states that we fear that he might refuse to become circumcised. This will be problematic for the immersion will have completed the conversion process. Hence, we have him become circumcised before the conversion is irreversible. and then immerse him.", + "Three [judges] stand over him and inform him about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones a second time while he stands in the water.16Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that since the immersion completes his conversion, the convert must accept the yoke of mitzvot at that time. If the convert was female,17And thus it would be immodest for her to enter the mikveh in the presence of the judges. women position her in the water until her neck while the judges are outside. They inform her about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones while she is sitting in the water. Then she immerses herself in their presence. Afterwards, they turn their faces away and depart so that they will not see her when she ascends from the water.", + "What is meant by a resident alien? A gentile who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other [six] universal laws commanded to Noah's descendants. He does not circumcise himself or immerse. We accept this commitment and he is considered one of the pious gentiles.
Why is he called a resident? Because we are permitted to allow him to dwell among us in Eretz Yisrael, as explained in Hilchot Avodah Zarah.18See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6 which states that in an era when the Jews have undisputed authority over Eretz Yisrael, they may not allow an idolater to dwell in the holy land. Only when a gentile accepts these seven universal laws is he granted this privilege. The rationale for the Rambam's ruling is derived from the prooftext he cites (Exodus 23:33 : \"They shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me.\" Since gentiles may turn into a negative spiritual influence, they should be prevented from dwelling in the land. If, however, a gentile has made a commitment to the observance of these seven laws, he will not lower the moral climate of the land.
As explained by the commentaries to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, the Rambam's opinion is not universally accepted. The Ra'avad interprets the prooftext as referring to the seven Canaanite nations alone. Never, he claims, were other gentiles prohibited from living among us.", + "We accept resident aliens only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed.19The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore when the tribes of Reuven and Gad, and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (this took place approximately 150 years before the destruction of the First Temple), the laws of the Jubilee ceased to be observed according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:8). In the present era, even if a gentile makes a commitment to observe the entire Torah with the exception of one minor point,20The Rambam's source ( Bechorot 30b) states: \"one minor point of Rabbinic Law.\" The commentaries question why the Rambam omits this point. he is not accepted.21As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, loc. cit., in the present era, we accept only full converts. Implied is that in the present era, were we to have the authority, we should prevent gentiles from living in Eretz Yisrael.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, explaining that with regard to certain matters the status of a gentile who accepts the observance of the seven mitzvot in the present age is more severe than that before the revocation of the Jubilee laws and in other matters, it is more lenient. According to his opinion, however, there is no reason why a gentile should be prohibited against living in Eretz Yisrael. In his gloss to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, the Kessef Mishneh states that even the Rambam would agree. For since the gentile is living a moral lifestyle, there is no reason to fear that he will lead a Jew to sin. The Rambam's directive here is directed at the courts. They cannot formalize a resident alien's status in the present age.
In that vein, it must be emphasized that although the concept of a resident alien does not apply in the present age, we are obligated to teach the gentiles the seven universal laws commanded to Noah's descendants, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Melachim 8:10.", + "When a servant is purchased from the gentiles, we do not say: \"Why did you choose to convert?\"22As we tell a prospective convert. We do not make this statement to a servant, for he is not coming to convert on his own volition. Instead, we say to him: \"Do you desire to enter the category of Jewish servants and become one of the observant of them?\" If he agrees, he is informed about the fundamentals of the faith, about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones, and the punishments and rewards [associated with them] as we notify a convert. [Then] we immerse him23A male servant is also circumcised before conversion. It is questionable why the Rambam does not mention this point. as we immerse a convert and inform him [of the mitzvot] while he is in the water.
If he does not desire to accept [the status of a servant], we are patient with him for twelve months. Afterwards, we sell him to a gentile. It is forbidden to maintain him for a longer period.24He must be sold to the Diaspora or to a gentile (Hilchot Avadim 8:12). If at the outset, he established a condition that he would not be circumcised or immersed, but instead would be a resident alien, it is permissible to maintain him in that status.25The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 267:4) writes that in the lands where he lived (Central Europe), it was forbidden to convert a gentile to Judaism. Therefore it is taken for granted that the servant was purchased on the condition that his status not be altered. Hence, he may be maintained indefinitely as a gentile. A servant may be maintained in this status only during the era when the Jubilee is observed.", + "The only sexual relations forbidden to a gentile are: his mother, his father's wife, his maternal sister, a married woman, a male, and an animal, as will be explained in Hilchot Melachim UMilchomoteihem.26Hilchot Melachim 9:5. Other relations forbidden the Jews are permitted to them.", + "When a gentile converts or a servant is freed,27See Halachah 17 which emphasizes that even while a servant, a servant need not show concern for these prohibitions. he is like a newborn baby. Any relatives whom he had as a gentile or a servant are no longer considered his relatives. If both he and they convert, he is not obligated for relations with any of them.", + "According to Scriptural Law, a convert may marry his mother or his maternal sister after they convert. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade this so that [the converts] will not say: \"We came from a more severe level of holiness to a less severe one. Yesterday, this [relationship] was forbidden and today, it is permitted.\"28I.e., it would appear that he was bound by more severe prohibitions before conversion.
Similarly, when a convert engages in relations with his mother or his sister when they have not converted, it is considered as if he had relations with a woman with whom he was not related.", + "What is the law that applies to converts with regard to relations with their relatives. As we explained, if one was married while a gentile to his mother or his sister and they converted, we separate them as explained [above]. If he was married to any one of the other forbidden relations and he and his wife converted, they are not forced to separate.29This applies even to maternal relatives. Since they were married before, we do not force them to separate (Siftei Cohen 269:2). We do not fear that these converts will say that they entered a lower level of holiness, because there are relations - a mother and a sister - which they are forbidden. This makes it obvious that the distinction in the laws results from their change in status (Kessef Mishneh).
A convert is forbidden to marry his maternal relatives after they convert according to Rabbinic Law. He may, however, marry his paternal relatives. [This applies] even when he certainly knows that these persons are his paternal relatives,30I.e, one might say that the reason for the prohibition is that one is certain that he is related to his maternal relatives. Those reputed to be his paternal relatives, however, might in fact not be related to him at all, because the man reputed to be his father may not be his parent. For the gentiles are known to be promiscuous. This is not the reason for the leniency. Instead, the Torah does not have any conceptual of paternal lineage with regard to a gentile (Maggid Mishneh). for example, twins, in which instance it is clear that the father of one is the father of the other. Nevertheless, our Sages did not enforce a decree with regard to one's paternal relatives.
Accordingly, a convert may marry the wife of his paternal brother, the wife of his father's brother, his father's wife,31There are opinions which forbid the wife of the convert's father [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De'ah 269:3)]. The Siftei Cohen 269:4 adds that the convert should also refrain from relations with the sister of his father. and his son's wife. [This applies] even if they married his brother, his father, his father's brother, or his son after they converted.32For their conversion is of no consequence in this context. They are considered as having no family ties. Similarly, his mother's paternal sister, his paternal sister, and his daughter who converted are permitted to him. He may not, however, marry his maternal sister, his mother's maternal sister, nor a woman who married his maternal brother after he converted. If, however, a woman married his brother while he was a gentile,33But was never married to the brother according to Jewish Law. she is permitted to him.", + "When two twin brothers were not conceived in a state of holiness, but they were born in a state of holiness,34I.e., they were conceived before their mother converted and born after she converted. each are liable [for relations with the other's wife] because of the prohibition against relations with a brother's wife.35For it is considered as if the two brothers are ordinary Jews and bound by the laws that apply to members of our people. Nevertheless, they may not fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum, for they are not brothers in the complete sense [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 269:4)].", + "When a man marries a female convert and her daughter who converted or two maternal sisters [who converted], he should remain married to one of them and divorce the other.36This is a Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the marriages are valid. Nevertheless, our Rabbis were stringent and forbade this union, for were the women to be native-born Jewesses, this would be forbidden. Hence, formal divorce proceedings are necessary. If he married a female convert and she died, he is permitted to marry her mother or her daughter.37In this instance, as well, were the women to be native-born Jewesses, this would be forbidden. See Siftei Cohen 269:10 which cites opinions that maintain that the Rabbinic prohibition applies after the woman's death as well. For our Sages ordained their decree only during [the woman's] lifetime.
It is permissible for a man to marry two paternal sisters who converted, for our Sages did not ordain any decrees with regard to paternal relations, as explained.38In Halachah 13. Note the contrast to the previous clause which speaks about relations with maternal sisters.", + "[Our Sages] did not ordain any decrees with regard to shniot39This term refers to relatives more distantly removed than those forbidden by Scriptural Law. Relations with them are forbidden by Rabbinic decree, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 8; Hilchot Ishut 1:6. Since the prohibition is a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sage's did not add a further safeguard with regard to a convert. For we do not ordain a safeguard for a safeguard. who convert. Therefore a convert may marry his maternal grandmother. Similarly, a person may marry a convert and the mother of her maternal grandmother40Our translation follows the text of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The Siftei Cohen 269:12 justifies this reading, explaining that relations with a woman's maternal grandmother (the version in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah) is a Scriptural prohibition, not a Rabbinic safeguard. or her and the daughter of her daughter's daughter. Similar laws apply with regard to the remainder of the shniot.", + "A servant is permitted to marry his mother while he is a servant.41I.e., before he is freed. Needless to say, this applies with regard to his daughter, his sister, or the like. [Since] he has already departed from the category of gentiles,42See Chapter 12, Halachah 11. the intimate relations forbidden to the gentiles are not forbidden to him. And [since] he has not entered the category of the Jewish people, the intimate relations that are forbidden to the converts are not yet forbidden to him.", + "It appears to me43This phrase points to a conclusion deduced by the Rambam for which he has no explicit source in previous Rabbinic literature. The Ra'avad, however, considers the concept as blatantly obvious.
The Maggid Mishneh adds that he is also executed for relations with a married Jewish woman and questions why the Rambam does not mention this transgression. that if a servant engages in homosexual or Sodomite relations, they should be executed.44The word \"executed\" is plural. Both men or the man and the animal are executed (Or Sameach). For these two prohibitions are universally applicable.", + "Servants who are freed are like converts. All of the relationships forbidden to converts are forbidden to them and all those permitted to converts are permitted to them.
A person may give his maid-servant to his own servant or to a servant belonging to his colleague. At the outset, he may give one maid-servant to two servants.45I.e., we do not enforce monogamy. Nor must they follow any restrictions. Instead, they are like animals. There is no difference whether a maid-servant is set aside for a servant or not, for there is no concept of marriage except within the Jewish people or among gentiles themselves,46See Hilchot Melachim 9:5. but not among servants themselves or between servants and the Jewish people." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the Torah's prohibition against relations with a mamzer? [The term refers to a person conceived from] a forbidden sexual relationship.1These refer to a variety of incestuous and adulterous relationships as listed in the beginning of this text. A niddah is an exception. A son conceived from such relationships is blemished,2I.e., he has a spiritual taint to his character. but is not a mamzer. When, however, a man enters into any other forbidden sexual relationships, whether through rape, or willingly, whether conscious of the prohibition or not,3The difference between whether relations were willful, forced, or inadvertent is relevant only with regard to the punishment received by the man and woman. The child born of the offspring is considered as a mamzer regardless. This law teaches us an important lesson with regard to sexual morality. The effects of our deeds on our offspring is binding, regardless of whether we repent and/or seek to refine ourselves afterwards. the offspring produced is a mamzer. Both male and female [mamzerim] are forbidden forever, as [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: \"[A mamzer shall not enter God's congregation.] Also the tenth generation...,\" i.e., [the prohibition is] everlasting.", + "When a mamzer marries a Jewish women or a Jewish man marries a female mamzer, once they enter into relations after consecration, they are punished by lashes.4As is the punishment for the violation of any Scriptural commandment. If the man consecrates the woman, but does not enter into relations, he does not receive lashes.5For the consecration alone does not involve the violation of a Scriptural commandment. If they enter into relations without consecration, they6Here the Rambam mentions both the man and the woman, for both are forbidden to engage in relations. In the former clause, he refers to the man, because the consecration is his responsibility. do not receive lashes because of relations with a mamzer.7The Rambam's wording implies that the couple do receive lashes for their relations, for they have violated the prohibition: \"There shall not be a promiscuous woman\" (Deuteronomy 23:18 which forbids relations that are not carried out for the sake of marriage (Maggid Mishneh, based on Hilchot Ishut 1:4).
The Rambam's opinion is that the prohibition against relations with a mamzer applies only within the context of marriage - depends on the prooftext cited above: \"A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of God,\" i.e., shall not marry among the Jewish people. According to the Rambam, the implication is that the prohibition must involve marriage (Rav Avraham, the son of the Rambam, as quoted in the Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad, the Ramban, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others do not agree with the Rambam's ruling and maintain that this prohibition applies even if there was no consecration. Relations alone are sufficient to establish liability. See the discussion of the issue in the Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh. For the only instance where relations that involve a negative prohibition incur the punishment of lashes without the woman being consecrated is relations between a High Priest and a widow, as will be explained.8Chapter 17, Halachah 3.
When a man remarries his divorcee after she married another person, 9I.e., and her second husband died or divorced her. The Rambam describes the prohibition against a man remarrying his divorcee after she was consecrated by another man in Hilchot Gerushin 11:12. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam feels it necessary to emphasize that the offspring of such relations are not mamzerim even though the prohibition is not punishable by kereit, because Deuteronomy 24:4, the source for the prohibition describes such relations as \"an abomination.\" That term is often used with regard to the ariot, the more severe sexual prohibitions. the offspring are acceptable. For she is not considered an ervah.", + "When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a Jewish woman, the child is acceptable. [This applies] whether the woman is unmarried or married, whether she was raped or engaged in relations willingly.10Thus although the woman committed adultery and is forbidden to her husband, the child is not considered as a mamzer. The rationale is that we pay no attention to the seed of the gentile or the servant, as stated in Halachah 4. Halachicly, it is as if the woman conceived the child independently. When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a female mamzer, the offspring is a mamzer.11This law is based on the same rationale. Since we pay no attention to the seed of the servant or the gentile, the child takes on the same quality as the mother. Just as she is disqualified, so, too, is he. When a mamzer enters into relations with a female gentile, the offspring is a gentile. If [the child] converts, he is fit to marry within the Jewish people like other converts.12For there is no difference between him and other gentiles. See the following halachah. If [a mamzer] enters into relations with a maid-servant, the offspring is a servant. If he is freed, the offspring is acceptable like other freed servants. He may marry a Jewish woman.", + "This is the general principle: When a child is born from a servant, a gentile, a maid-servant, or a female gentile, he is like his mother.13Whether Jewish, gentile, or a servant.
The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:17) quote views which state that if the offspring is female, she may not marry into the priesthood. We are not concerned with the father. For this reason, [the Sages] permitted a mamzer to marry a maid-servant to purify the lineage of his descendants. For he can free them and they will be free men.14The mamzer will purchase the servant and treat her as his wife. The children she bears him will be his property and they will not be mamzerim. If he desires, he may free them, at which point, their status is the same as other converts. If, by contrast, a mamzer would marry a convert, although there is no prohibition involved, the offspring would be mamzerim (Halachah 7). [Our Sages] did not ordain a decree forbidding a maid-servant to a mamzer,15As she is forbidden to an ordinary Jewish male by Rabbinic decree (Chapter 12, Halachah 11). so that he can legitimize his sons.16There are Rabbis today who advise that this practice should be followed by mamzerim. They should meet gentile woman, have them convert as servants, and live with them.", + "When a person who is half a servant and half a freed man17E.g., a slave was owned by two partners, one of whom freed him and one did not. See Hilchot Avadim 5:4. engages in relations with a married woman, a son born of that relationship has no way of legitimizing [his marriage relationships], because the dimension of him which is a mamzer18The dimension of the father which was free causes him to have a dimension of mamzerut. For a free man who engages in relations with a married woman conceives a mamzer. and the dimension of him which is an acceptable Jew19For when a servant engages in relations with a married woman, the offspring are acceptable. are intermingled. Therefore he is forbidden to engage in relations with a maid-servant.20This is forbidden to him as to other acceptable Jews, because of the dimension of his being that shares that status.
Rashi differs with this approach and maintains that he should be permitted to engage in relations with a maid-servant. See Chelkat Mechokek 4:19, Beit Shmuel 4:28. and his offspring share his status forever.21He may marry a convert or a freed servant, but their offspring share his status as stated in the Halachah 7.", + "When a gentile engages in relations with a maid-servant who immersed herself, the offspring are servants. When a servant who immersed himself engages in relations with a female gentile, the offspring are gentile. He is given his mother's status. When, however, a gentile engages relations with a gentile maid-servant or a gentile servant engages relations with a gentile woman, the status of the offspring follows that of the father.", + "A mamzer may marry a female convert and a female mamzer may marry a male convert, the offspring of both relationships are mamzerim.22The Beit Shmuel 4:35 emphasizes that although such marriages are permitted, there is a certain unadvisable dimension to it, for it is undesirable to increase the number of mamzerim among the Jewish people. For the status of the offspring follows that of the blemished one. [The license for such a marriage is derived from] the verse: \"[A mamzer shall not enter] God's congregation.\" The congregation of converts is not considered as \"God's congregation.\"", + "When a female convert marries a male convert and gives birth to a son, he is permitted to marry a female mamzer even though he was both conceived and born in holiness.23I.e., although he and his parents are considered as full Jews with regard to all matters, the prohibition against marrying a mamzer does not apply to him. This also applies to the son of his grandson [- or any other descendant -] until his connection with conversion is forgotten and it is not known that he [descends from] converts.24The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:22) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of Rabbenu Asher which states that after ten generations a convert is forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Afterwards, he will be forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Converts and freed servants are bound by the same laws.25See Chapter 13, Halachah 11.", + "When a convert marries a native-born Jewess26Although there are some Rishonim who differ with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view. or a native-born Jew marries a convert, the son is a Jew in all contexts and is forbidden to marry a female mamzer.", + "There are three categories of mamzerim: one that is definitely a mamzer, a mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt, and a mamzer by Rabbinic decree. What is meant by one who is definitely a mamzer? The offspring of a relationship that is definitely incestuous or adulterous, as we explained.27In Halachah 1 of this chapter.
A mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt is the offspring of a relationship that we are unsure whether it is adulterous or incestuous. For example, a man engaged in relations with a woman who was consecrated, but we are unsure if the consecration was effective,28See Hilchot Ishut 4:21-22 for examples of such questionable consecrations. or who was divorced, but we are unsure whether the divorce was effective,29See Hilchot Gerushin 5:13 for examples of such questionable divorces. or a similar situation.
A mamzer by Rabbinic decree: for example, a woman who heard that her husband died and remarried and then discovered that her husband was alive. Afterwards, her [first] husband engaged in relations with her while she was still married with her second husband, the offspring is a mamzer by Rabbinic decree.30See Hilchot Gerushin 10:7 which explains this situation. Although the marriage of the second husband is not valid, for a married woman cannot be married to another man, our Sages decreed that the second marriage be considered binding with regard to this point: That a child fathered by her first husband be considered a mamzer.", + "When an unmarried woman becomes pregnant through a promiscuous relationship, we ask her: \"What is [the status of] this fetus\" or \"...this child\"? If she replies: \"It is the child of a man of acceptable lineage; I entered into relations with an Israelite,\" her word is accepted and the son is acceptable.31The Maggid Mishneh quotes an opinion that maintains that this ruling applies only after the fact. As an initial and preferred option, a native-born Jewess should not marry such a person. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:26) quotes the Rambam's ruling. See also Chapter 18, Halachot 13-15.
Despite the fact that we have no existing presumption regarding the child's lineage, we rule that he or she is acceptable. The rationale is that the child has no alternative; its status depends on this ruling (Maggid Mishneh). [This applies] even if most of the inhabitants of the city in which she engaged in relations are of unacceptable lineage.32E.g., they are mamzerim.", + "If the child's mother was not questioned until she died, or she was a deaf-mute, mute, or intellectually or emotionally unstable, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable.33For we have no way of determining the status of the father and it is possible that the father was a mamzer. [This ruling applies even] if she said: \"I engaged in relations with so-and-so, the mamzer\" or \"...with so-and-so, the netin.\"34I.e., her word is not effective in conclusively determining the child's status as a mamzer for the reason the Rambam proceeds to state. Her word is accepted in having the child deemed as legitimate, but not in having him deemed as a mamzer. See also Halachah 14 and Chapter 18, Halachah 14. Even if that person agrees with her statement, [the child's status is only doubtful. The rationale is:] Just as she engaged in relations with the person who admitted to her statement; so, too, she engaged in relations with others.35We assume that she was promiscuous with more than one person and thus we have no way of determining the identity of the child's father. Thus the presumed father has no way of knowing whether or not the child was actually his (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam maintains that this rule applies even when the woman does not have a reputation for promiscuity. See Chelkat Mechokek 4:25 and Beit Shmuel 4:40 which discuss this issue.
This [child] is called a shituki.36Shituki means \"one who is silenced.\" Rashi, Yevamot 37a, explains that this name is given because the child will call out for his father and his mother will silence him. He knows the identity of his mother, but does not definitely know the identity of his father.", + "Similarly, a child that is found in the marketplace - he is called an asufi37The term asufi means \"one who was gathered in,\" i.e., the child was taken in from the street. - is considered as a mamzer whose status is questionable.38Halachah 31 qualifies this ruling, stating that it applies only when it appears that the parents abandoned the child to die. If it is evident that the parents desired the child to live, e.g., they circumcised it, they gave it medical treatment, and/or placed it in a location where it was likely to be found, we assume that it was of acceptable lineage and was abandoned only because its parents were unable to provide for it. for we do not know his [lineage].", + "[The following rules apply when] an unmarried woman engages in promiscuous relations says: \"This child is the son of so-and-so.\" If that person is of acceptable lineage, the son is considered acceptable. Nevertheless, her word is not accepted for the child to be considered as the man's son.39I.e., he does not inherit the named person's property, nor is his wife freed from the obligation of chalitzah if he dies childless (Maggid Mishneh). See Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 3:4 where the latter law is discussed. It appears to me, however, that we give consideration to her words and because of the doubt, that child is forbidden to marry the relatives of the [named] person.
If the [named] person is a mamzer, we do not accept her word to definitely deem the offspring as a mamzer on this basis, as we explained.40See Halachah 12. Instead, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable.", + "[Different laws apply with regard to] a father who [makes statements with regard to] a child who is presumed to be his son. If he says: \"This son of mine is a mamzer,\"41I.e., he is not my son, but born from an adulterous relationship. his word is accepted.42Note Hilchot Nachalot 4:3 which states that once a father acknowledges a child as his son, he cannot declare him as illegitimate afterwards. If the son himself has children, his word is not accepted.43For by invalidating the legitimacy of the son, he would automatically be invalidating the lineage of his offspring and the Torah did not give him that power as the Rambam continues to explain. See also Hilchot Nachalot 4:2. For the Torah accepted his word with regard to his son alone. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:17:] \"He will recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated.\" [Implied is that] he makes his identity known to others.44The verse speaks of a father recognizing his heirs in connection with the division of his estate. If the father states that he did not father a son that was presumed to be his, that son is thus identified as a mamzer, for he will have been conceived through adultery.", + "Just as a father's word is accepted when he says: \"This son of mine is my firstborn,\" so, too, his word is accepted if he says: \"This son of mine is a mamzer,\" or \"...the son of a divorced woman\" or \"...the son of a woman who performed chalitzah.\"45The latter two concepts are relevant with regard to the sons of priests as will be explained in Chapter 19. Similarly, if his wife was pregnant, his word is accepted if he says: \"This fetus is not my child. It is a mamzer.\" The child is definitely deemed as a mamzer.
If a person says that he himself is a mamzer, his word is accepted with regard to the prohibition against him marrying a native-born Jewess.46His statement is not accepted as testimony, for a person may not testify against himself. Nevertheless, the restrictions he placed against himself are binding. It is as if he took a vow, forbidding himself to marry a native-born Jewess (Beit Shmuel 4:53) He is, however, forbidden to marry a female mamzer47For we fear that he made these statements in order to be granted this leniency. until it is definitely known that he is a mamzer. The same laws apply to his son. If he has grandchildren, his word is not accepted with regard to the disqualification of his grandchildren. He can disqualify only himself.", + "[The following laws apply when] a woman who was consecrated48According to Jewish Law, marriage is a two-staged process involving: a) consecration, kiddushin or erusin, and b) marriage, nissuin, when the couple begin living together as man and wife. From the time of consecration onward, however, the woman is forbidden to engage in relations with other men. becomes pregnant in her father's home. The offspring is assumed to be a mamzer.49These laws differ from those applying to a married woman, as stated in Halachot 19-20. The rationale is that we do not assume that a couple that is merely consecrated share intimacy with the same degree of consistency as a married couple. Nor is a consecrated woman likely to the same degree of fidelity as a married woman. He is forbidden to marry both a native-born Jewess and a female mamzer.50He is forbidden to marry a native-born Jewess for it is possible that he is a mamzer. He is forbidden to marry a female mamzer, because it is possible that he is an acceptable Jewish male.
If his mother was questioned and said: \"I became pregnant from the man who consecrated me,\" her word is accepted and the child is considered acceptable.51As in Halachah 11. In this instance, since a bond has already been established between the couple, it is even more reasonable to accept her statements. This is speaking about a situation where the husband is not present to be questioned (Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:27). The Rama states that the child is also considered as the presumed father's son with regard to receiving a share in the inheritance. If, however, that man contravenes her and says: \"I never engaged in relations with her,\" the child is considered a mamzer. For even if the child was assumed to be his son, his word is accepted if he says: \"My son is a mamzer.\"52As stated in Halachah 15. In contrast to a situation where the presumed father could not be asked, this child is definitely a mamzer and is forbidden to marry a native-born Jew or Jewess (ibid.).
[Even in the latter situation,] the woman is not assumed to be a zonah.53The term literally means \"promiscuous woman,\" but has a specific halachic meaning, as the Rambam states in Chapter 18, Halachah 1: \"A woman who entered into relations with a man who she is forbidden to marry.\" After consecration, every man would be prohibited to this woman.
The Torah gave the husband the right to determine his son's status. He does not, however, have the right to determine that of the woman (Ketubot 13a). Instead, her word is accepted if she says: \"I engaged in relations with the man who consecrated me.\" [Since] she is not a zonah, if she married a priest,54After her first husband died. she need not be divorced55Nevertheless, since the man who consecrated her contradicts her statements, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry a priest (Beit Shmuel 4:47). Similarly, if the person who consecrated her is a priest, he is forbidden to marry her. and offspring which she bears him are acceptable [as priests].56If the woman had been forbidden to the priesthood, her offspring would not be considered priests, as stated in Chapter 19.", + "If people at large gossip about her while she is consecrated, [saying that] she was promiscuous with the man to whom she was consecrated and with others, the child is a mamzer whose status is questionable.57This is speaking about an instance when we cannot clarify the child's status by asking the mother. [This applies] even if the man to whom she was consecrated was intimate with her in her father's home. For just as she acted loosely with the man to whom she was consecrated, she could have acted loosely with others. If she was questioned and said: \"This fetus was conceived by the man to whom I am consecrated,\" the child is acceptable as explained [above].", + "When a married woman58We have translated the term according to the prevalent understanding of the Rambam's ruling. Note, however, the Rama (Even HaEzer 4:29) who questions whether these laws also apply with regard to a woman who was only consecrated. is pregnant and says: \"This fetus is not my husband's,\" her word is not accepted to render the child illegitimate. [Instead,] we assume that the child is acceptable. For the Torah accepted only the word of the father. If the father says that it is not his son or he is overseas,59And thus could not have fathered the child. we assume that the son is a mamzer.60The Beit Shmuel 4:52 interprets the Rambam's words as meaning \"the child is a mamzer of questionable status,\" for the possibility exists that he was conceived by a gentile.
If the woman said: \"I was impregnated by a gentile,\" or \"...by a servant,\" the child is acceptable.61As indicated by Halachah 11, the woman's word is accepted with regard to defining the legitimacy of her child's lineage. For the husband cannot deny her words.62He does not know with how many people and with whom she was promiscuous. A fetus will not remain in its mother's womb for more than twelve months.63Although a full-term pregnancy is nine months, our Sages spoke of the possibility of a woman carrying a baby for twelve months. Although this is abnormal, when a man left his home between nine and twelve months before a child was born, they desired to consider that possibility rather than deem the child as a mamzer. See Yevamot 80b.
Rama (Even HaEzer 4:14) states that the above leniency is granted only when we do not see moral lapses in the woman's conduct. If, however, she conducts herself in an unbecoming manner, we suspect the child's lineage.", + "Although there is a rumor circulating to the fact that a woman has committed adultery and everyone is gossiping about her, we do not suspect that her children are mamzerim. [The rationale is that] the person who most frequently has relations with her is her husband. It is permitted to marry her daughter, even as an initial and preferred option.64Rashi (Yevamot 27b) states that one should marry the offspring only when there is no other alternative. With regard to her own status, we suspect that she is a zonah.65And hence may not marry a priest. Even an Israelite should refrain from marrying such a woman (Maggid Mishneh). After the fact, if she marries a priest, we do not require a divorce (Beit Shmuel 4:24). If her conduct was very lewd, we also suspect the lineage of her children.66Sotah 27b raises this question, but leaves the matter unresolved. Accordingly, it is appropriate to be stringent (Maggid Mishneh).", + "According to Scriptural Law, a person suspected of being a mamzer is permitted to marry among the Jewish people.67According to the Rambam, the general principle is that according to Scriptural Law, whenever there is a doubt whether an act is forbidden, there is no prohibition. Our Rabbis, however, decreed that when there is a doubt with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, we are stringent. Others differ and maintain that according to Scriptural Law, if there is a doubt concerning a prohibition, it must be observed. There is a special leniency, stemming from a verse from the Torah, when a doubt arises whether a person is a mamzer or not. See Chapter 18, Halachah 17. [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: \"A mamzer shall not enter God's congregation.\" [Implied is that] one who is definitively a mamzer may not marry among the Jewish people, not one whose status is questionable. Nevertheless, our Sages raised the level [of purity required] with regard to lineage and forbade those of questionable status from marrying among the Jewish people.
Accordingly, a male and a female who are definitely mamzerim may marry. A mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt,68See Halachah 10. a shituki,69See Halachah 12. or an asufi70See Halachah 13. are forbidden to marry native-born Jewesses.", + "[A man of the latter status] is forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Even a female mamzer whose status is questionable is forbidden to him. For perhaps one of them is not a mamzer, but the other is definitely a mamzer. A mamzer by Rabbinic decree may marry a female mamzer by Rabbinic decree.71For there is no Scriptural prohibition involved. Similarly, in any other instances [where a person is forbidden to marry] because of a doubt, one person of this status may not marry another.72As the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah.", + "What is implied? Shitukim, asufim, and those whose status as mamzerim is indefinite are forbidden to marry each other. If they married, the union may not be maintained. Instead, they must divorce with a formal bill of divorce.73For the marriage, though forbidden, is binding according to Jewish Law. The offspring of such relationships are [mamzerim of] indefinite status like their parents.
Individuals of indefinite status like this have no option except to marry converts.74As stated in Halachah 7. The status of their offspring follows their blemish.", + "What is implied? When a shituki or an asufi marries a female convert or a freed maid-servant, a convert, or a freed servant marries a female shituki or asufi, the offspring are shitukim or asufim.", + "When an asufi is found in a city inhabited by gentiles, whether the majority are gentiles or the majority are Jews, the child is considered as a gentile of indefinite status with regard to his lineage.75We treat him as neither a Jew nor a gentile as the Rambam continues to illustrate. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the ruling follows the principle: Whenever a doubt arises and the permitted and the forbidden entities are fixed, we do not follow the majority, but instead, consider the situation as equally balanced. If he consecrates a woman, she needs a bill of divorce because of the doubt.76I.e., the couple are not allowed to remain married for perhaps he is a gentile, but a formal divorce is necessary, for perhaps he is a Jew and the consecration is binding. If someone kills him, he is not executed for doing so.77For perhaps he is a gentile.", + "If the court had him immersed for the sake of conversion78As is the law which applies with regard to any child convert (Chapter 13, Halachah 7). or he immersed on his own initiative after he attained majority, his status is the same as any asufi that is found in Jewish cities.79He is bound by the restrictions applying to a mamzer whose status is doubtful despite the possibility that they might not apply because he is a convert.
The Ra'avad rules that in such a situation, he is considered as any other convert and allowed to marry a native-born Jewesses The Maggid Mishneh explains the rationale for the Ra'avad's position, stating that there is a multiple doubt involved: Maybe he is not of Jewish origin, and if he is of Jewish origin, maybe he is not a mamzer. Moreover, the entire prohibition against an asufi is Rabbinic in origin. (For according to Scriptural Law, only a mamzer whose status is definite is forbidden). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:33) quotes the Rambam's view. The Chelkat Mechokek 4:31 questions why the Ra'avad's view is not cited, but the Beit Shmuel 4:54 explains that according to the Rambam, with regard to questions of lineage, we are stringent even in such situations.
If the majority of the inhabitants of the city are gentile, it is permitted to feed him meat from animals that were not ritually slaughtered.80This and the following laws apply when the person did not convert (Maggid Mishneh). For the principle that we consider the populations as equally balanced applies only with regard to questions of lineage. If the majority were Jewish, we return his lost articles as is the law with regard to Jews. If the populations are equally balanced,81The Kessef Mishneh notes that Ketubot 15b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, could be interpreted as making such a statement only in a situation where the majority of the inhabitants are Jewish. He, however, offers an interpretation of the passage which conforms to the Rambam's ruling. it is a mitzvah to maintain his life82I.e., we must support him in situations of need. and we remove an avalanche from him on the Sabbath.83To save his life even though doing so involves violation of the Sabbath laws.
The Maggid Mishneh cites opinions which maintain that this ruling applies even if the majority of the inhabitants are gentiles. For when a question of life and death is involved, we do not require a majority. See Hilchot Shabbat 2:20-21 and notes for an explanation of the matter. With regard to damages, we follow the same principle that applies in all cases of doubt in financial law: When a person who seeks to expropriate [money] from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.84There are certain situations where the laws applying to gentiles are more severe than those applying to a Jew. For example, if an ox belonging to a gentile that is not known to gore does in fact gore an ox belonging to a Jew, the gentile is required to pay full damages. A Jew, by contrast, would be required to pay only partial damages. If such a situation would arise with regard to a person whose identity is in doubt, he could tell the plaintiff: \"If you prove I am not a Jew, I will pay full damages.\"", + "It appears to me that whenever there is a gentile woman or a maid-servant who is fit to give birth in a city, since an asufi that is discovered there is considered to possibly have the status of a gentile or a servant, if he marries a female convert as we stated,85Halachah 23. I.e., if he marries without undergoing conversion (Chelkat Mechokek 4:36). there is a doubt whether his wife is a married woman.86For perhaps he is a gentile or a servant. Just as he could have been born by a Jewish mother, he could have been born by one of these. We do not consider the degree of probability involved. One who enters into relations with her is not liable, because we do not execute individuals when there is a doubt involved.87Needless to say, such relations are forbidden. The Rambam is emphasizing that punishment is not meted out. Because punishment is not given unless we are certain there is a prohibition involved.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's view and maintains that even with regard to capital punishment, we follow the probability. Hence if the majority of the inhabitants of the city are Jewish, we assume that the asufi is Jewish and his consecration of the woman is binding. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that in all instances, the asufi is not considered as definitely Jewish.
Similarly, it appears to me that when a shituki marries a woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah,88A woman who could be a close relative with whom relations are forbidden. See the following halachah. there is a doubt whether she is a married woman, for consecration is not effective with regard to the ariot.", + "What is meant by \"a woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah\"? Any woman whose father or brother was alive when his mother became pregnant89For perhaps the woman he marries is his sister (since he does not know the identity of his father, it is possible that her father was also his father) or the sister of his father. or any woman who was divorced or widowed. For it is possible that she is his father's wife or the wife of his father's brother.90I.e., before she was divorced or widowed her husband (or her husband's brother) fathered the shituki.", + "What is the source on which I rely to say that a shituki or an asufi are not forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah?91The license the Rambam speaks about applies according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, a shituki is forbidden to marry a native-born Jew or Jewess (Halachot 21-23). For an acceptable child whose mother was questioned92See Halachah 11. is not forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah. And it is written in the Torah [Leviticus 19:29]: \"Do not desecrate your daughter to have her act promiscuously.\" [Commenting on this verse,] our Sages state:93Yevamot 37b. The verse refers to a situation where a father allows his daughter to act promiscuously and thus it will not be known who is the father of her child. If this would happen in numerous instances, there would be many children who did not know the identity of their fathers and it would be possible for a brother to marry his sister. If this would happen, a father will marry his daughter and a brother will marry his sister.
If the law was that anyone who does not definitely know the identity of his father would be forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah, this situation could not arise and the earth would never become filled with incestuous relations.94For if a man who did not know the identity of his father were restricted in the above manner, there would be no room for our Sages' concern, for he would be prohibited against marrying any woman whose ties could in any way be incestuous. From this,95I.e., from the fact that our Sages did not enforce such a restriction. we learn that we do not forbid ariot and consider them as relatives because of the doubt unless we definitely know that she is forbidden to him as an ervah. For were we to say this, all of the orphans in the world who did not know their fathers would be forbidden to marry in all situations lest they encounter a forbidden relationship.", + "When a child was abandoned on the road and afterwards,96Before the child was brought home. one came and said: \"He is my son and I abandoned him,\" his word is accepted. Similarly, the mother's word is accepted. If the child was taken in from the marketplace and afterwards, his father and mother came and said: \"This is our son,\" their word is not accepted. [The rationale is that] he has already been categorized as an asufi.
In the years of famine, their word is accepted. It is because of the famine that they abandoned him, for they desire that others sustain them. Therefore they remained silent until the child was gathered in.", + "If the child was found circumcised, bundled, salted,97It was customary in the Talmudic era to apply salt to newborn babies to strengthen their limbs. blue eye-paint98This substance was used in the Talmudic era for both medicinal and cosmetic purposes. was applied to his eyes, an amulet was placed around his neck,99I.e., the mystical writing in the amulet was intended to protect the child. it was placed under a interwoven tree that a wild beast could not enter and was close to the city, or it was found in a synagogue near the public domain or at the side of the public domain, the laws pertaining to an asufi do not apply. Since [the parents] are protecting the child so that it does not die, we can assume that it is acceptable.100We assume that a mother may want to abandon a child who is a mamzer so that it will die and there will be no sign of her sin. If, however, she and/or the father performed acts which indicate that they desired the child to live - even though they did not desire to care for it themselves - we assume that the child was of legitimate origin.
If, however, it is abandoned in the midst of the road or far away from a city, even under a tree, or in a synagogue, or it is found hanging in a place accessible by a wild beast,101I.e., in a place where it would most likely die or be killed. it is considered as an asufi.", + "A mid-wife's word is accepted if she states: \"This child is a priest,\" \"...a Levite,\" \"...a netin,\"102See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23. or \"...a mamzer,\" because the child's lineage has not been established and is not known.
When does the above apply? When her faithfulness has been established and an objection is not raised against her. If, however, an objection was raised against her and one person said: \"She is testifying falsely,\" her word is not accepted.103The Beit Shmuel 4:60 explains that generally, the protest of one witness is not accepted against testimony which was previously accepted. In this instance, however, the child's identity is not known at all and there is no existing presumption regarding his status. Hence the protest cancels out the original testimony. The child is considered as acceptable,104Even though the midwidfe said that he was a mamzer. but is not considered as [a priest or Levite].105If the midwife said he was of this lineage.", + "It is a clear matter that a shituki is forbidden to marry a shituki and an asufi is forbidden to marry an asufi, because their status is doubtful.106I.e., it is possible that one of them will be acceptable and one illegitimate. Nevertheless, even mamzerim of a definite status and netinim may intermarry. The offspring is a mamzer.107For the child takes on the blemished identity, as stated in Halachah 7. A shituki or an asufi are permitted to marry netinim and other converts. The offspring is considered as [a mamzer] of doubtful status." + ], + [ + "A man with maimed testicles or a severed member who married a native-born Jewess and engaged in sexual relations1As explained in Chapter 15, Halachah 2, all of the prohibitions against sexual relations that involve the violation of a negative commandment alone involve a situation where the woman has been consecrated. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there are other authorities who differ with the Rambam on this matter. is punished by lashes, as [Deuteronomy 23:2] states: \"A person with maimed testicles or a severed member may not enter the congregation of God.\"
Such a man may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant. Even a priest with maimed testicles may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant, because the holiness [of the priesthood] does not rest upon him. He is permitted to marry even a female netin2See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23. or a woman whose status is in doubt.", + "Since a man with a maimed organ is forbidden to marry among the Jewish people, [our Sages] did not decree against his marrying a female netin or a woman whose status is in doubt.3To anyone other than a halachic authority, the Rambam's ruling appears problematic: A woman whose status is in doubt is either a female mamzer or an acceptable native-born Jewess. In either case, this man would be forbidden to marry her. Why then is he permitted when her status is not clarified?
Halachically, however, Kiddushin 73a interprets the phrase \"He shall not enter God's congregation,\" as forbidding one from marrying only a person whose lineage is definite. The Rambam maintains that even the Sages did not enforce a decree in this instance. (See Beit Shmuel 5:2.) A man with maimed testicles or a severed member is, however, forbidden to [marry] a female mamzer4The Rambam's position is that although having a maimed organ disqualifies a priest from the holiness of the priesthood, it does not disqualify an Israelite from the holiness with which he is endowed. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and states that a man with a maimed organ may marry a female mamzer. The Maggid Mishneh mentions other authorities who follow both of these views. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:1) follows the position of the Rambam, while the Rama mentions the other view. whose status is definite, because this prohibition is of Scriptural origin.", + "What is meant by maimed testicles? Anyone whose testicles have been wounded. What is meant by a severed member? Anyone whose shaft has been cut off.
There are three organs to which wounds can disqualify a male: the shaft, the testicles, and the tract in which the semen develops. If one of these three was wounded or crushed, the man is disqualifed.5In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2), the Rambam states that any difficulty which renders a man sterile according to medical knowledge disqualifies him from marriage.", + "What is implied? If the shaft is wounded, crushed, or cut off from the corona or above the corona,6I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person. he is disqualified. If a portion at the top of the corona is cut off, but even a hairsbreadth [of the corona] remains which surrounds the entire shaft, he is acceptable. If the shaft was cut like a pen is sharpened or like a funnel above the corona,7I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person. he is acceptable.8Rashi (Yevamot 75b) differs and disqualifies such a person. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:3) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.", + "If the shaft is perforated below the corona, he is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] the corona itself is perforated. If when the person ejaculates, semen emerges from the hole, he is unacceptable. If the hole becomes closed, he returns to acceptable status. If the shaft is perforated below the corona when the portion above is in the midst of corona, he is disqualified. For the entire corona must be intact [for the person to be acceptable].", + "If the seminal tract becomes obstructed and the semen emerges from the urinary tract, he is unacceptable.", + "If both or one of the testicles9The Rama (Even HaEzer 5:7) states that there are authorities who do not disqualify a person if one testicle is intact. He states, however, that since a Scriptural prohibition is involved, it is preferable to follow the more stringent view. were severed, wounded, or crushed or one was lacking or pierced by a hole, he is unacceptable. If both or one of the seminal tracts are severed, crushed, or wounded, he is unacceptable.", + "If one of the seminal tracts was perforated into the urinary tract and the person urinates from two sources - the seminal tract and the urinary tract - he is acceptable.10For this difficulty will not prevent him from conceiving a child.", + "Whenever we have used the term \"unacceptable\" in this context, the implication is that [the malady] was not caused by the hand of heaven, e.g., [his testicles] were severed by a man or a dog, he was struck by a sharp end, or the like. If, however, he was born with maimed testicles or a severed member, or without testicles, he became ill because of a bodily ailment and these organs ceased to function, or an ulcer arose in them that caused them to waste away or be severed,11Rabbenu Asher differs with regard to the latter two instances and does not consider illness and the like as \"by the hand of heaven.\" Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:10) quotes both views without stating which one should be followed. [See also Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2) which discuss whether or not this ruling involved a change of mind for the Rambam.] he is permitted to marry among the Jewish people. For all of these blemishes are caused by the hand of heaven.", + "It is forbidden to destroy a male's reproductive organs. This applies to humans and also to animals, beasts, and fowl, both from a kosher species and from a non-kosher species, in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. Although [Leviticus 22:24] states: \"And you shall not do this in your land,\"12Which could be understood as implying that the prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisrael. According to the Oral Tradition,13Sifra to the above verse. we learned that this [prohibition] is applicable in every place. The verse teaches that one should not act in this manner among the Jewish people, not with their own bodies, nor with the bodies of others.
Whoever castrates [a person or an animal] should be lashed14The punishment given for the violation of a Scriptural commandment. according to Scriptural Law everywhere. Even a person who castrates a person who has been castrated should be lashed.", + "What is implied? One came and severed a person's member, another cut off or pulled away his testicles and a third cut his seminal tract; all receive lashes. Similarly, if one crushed a person's member, another pulled it away, and a third cut it off, all receive lashes. [This applies] although the last person castrated a person - or an animal, beast, or fowl - who had already been castrated.
A person who castrates a female - whether a human or other species - is not liable.15The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:11 interpret the Rambam's statements as meaning that although there is a prohibition against doing so, lashes are not given.", + "It is forbidden to have a man or a male of another species drink a potion that causes him to lose his sexual potency. Lashes are not given, however. A woman is permitted to drink a potion to cause her to lose her sexual potency so that she will not conceive.16This ruling serves as the basis for contemporary Rabbis to permit women to take oral contraceptives.
If a person bound a man and set a dog or other animal upon him until his sexual organs were maimed or he made him sit in water or snow until his sexual organs lost their potency, he is not given lashes unless he castrates him by hand. It is, however, fitting to subject him to stripes for rebellious conduct.17The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment.", + "It is forbidden to tell a gentile to castrate one of our animals. If the gentile took the animal and castrated it on his own initiative, it is permitted.18As long as the gentile acted on his own initiative, the Jew is not obligated to suffer a loss. If a Jew acts deceitfully in this context,19I.e., encouraging a gentile to castrate the animal without actually telling him to do so. he should be punished and required to sell the animal to another Jew. He may [sell it] to his son who is past majority, but not to his son who is below majority, nor may he give it to him.20For a son below majority is not considered as having an independent financial domain. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 5:14) who mentions more particulars concerning this issue." + ], + [ + "There are three women who are forbidden to all priests [by Scriptural Law]: a divorcee, a zonah,1This term is defined in depth in the following chapter. and a challalah.2This term is defined in Chapter 19. There are four [forbidden to] a High Priest. These three and a widow.
Bound by [the prohibitions applying to a High Priest] are one anointed with the oil of anointment3As was the practice until the later years of the First Temple. or one who assumed his position by wearing the additional garments,4I.e., in the later years of the First Temple, the oil of anointment was entombed together with the Holy Ark. From that time onward, the High Priests assumed their position by wearing the eight garments of the High Priest. [See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Megilah 1:9).] one serving in that capacity, a High Priest who was appointed and then removed from the office, and a priest anointed to lead a war.5See Hilchot Melachim 7:1 which states:
In both a milchemet mitzvah (a war that it is a mitzvah to wage) and a milchemet hareshut (a war that we have license to wage), a priest is appointed to address the nation before the battle. He is anointed with the oil of anointment and is called, the meshuach milchamah.
Although this individual is not a High Priest with regard to the Temple service, since he was anointed, certain of the dimensions of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him. All of these are commanded [to marry] a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow.6I.e., a High Priest - and the others mentioned - are bound by a positive commandment to marry a virgin and a negative commandment to marry a widow.", + "Any priest who marries7The Rambam's wording is somewhat inexact. For the prohibition applies even if the priest merely consecrated the woman and entered into relations with her. Marriage (nissuin) is not required (Kiddushin 78a). one of these three women - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - and engages in relations is punished by lashes. If he enters into promiscuous relations with her, he does not receive lashes for [violating the prohibitions against] a zonah, a divorcee, and a challalah.8He does, however, receive lashes for violating the prohibition against promiscuous relations, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 1:4). [This is derived from the fact that Leviticus 21:7 states the prohibition using the term:] \"They shall not take.\" [Implied is that the prohibition does not apply] unless he takes - marries - [the woman] and enters into relations with her.9According to the Rambam's understanding of Kiddushin 78a,b for the prohibition to apply both marriage and intimate relations are necessary. If the priest performs one of these acts without the other, the Scriptural prohibition does not apply. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that the prohibition applies even when consecration is not involved.", + "When, by contrast, a High Priest enters into relations with a widow, he receives lashes even though he did not consecrate her. [This is derived from ibid.:15 which states]: \"And he shall not desecrate....\" As soon as he engages in relations with her, he desecrates her and disqualifies her from the priesthood.10According to the literal meaning of the verse, the object of the verb \"desecrate\" is \"his offspring.\" If a priest enters into a relationship with one of these women, his offspring are challalim, \"desecrated,\" and are not considered as members of the priestly family. Nevertheless, Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets the phrase non-literally, explaining that the verb refers to the woman. By entering into relations with the priest, she becomes \"desecrated\" from the priesthood, i.e., forbidden to marry a priest. Moreover, the fact that the prohibition against a High Priest entering into relations with a widow mentions that term implies that causing the woman to be placed in such a status is prohibited. Since she is given that status even if the relations are held outside of marriage, marriage is not a fundamental element of the prohibition. A zonah, challalah, and divorcee, by contrast, are disqualified from the priesthood before one enters into relations with them.11As stated in Halachah 1. Therefore a High Priest alone receives lashes for merely entering into relations with a widow even though she was not consecrated. For he desecrates her and he is warned against desecrating people of acceptable lineage, [other] women and his offspring.", + "When a High Priest consecrates a widow and enters into relations with her, he receives two sets of lashes: one because of the prohibition: \"He shall not take a widow,\" and one because of the prohibition: \"He shall not desecrate.\" Whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest marries one of these four, but does not engage in relations, he does not receive lashes.", + "Whenever [the priest] receives lashes, the woman [with whom he engages in relations] is given lashes.12For the prohibition against these relations involve the woman as well as the man. See Keritot 10b, Yevamot 84b. Whenever he does not receive lashes, she does not receive lashes. For there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to punishments with the exception of a designated maidservant as explained.13Chapter 3, Halachah 14.", + "Any priest - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - who enters into relations with a gentile woman receives lashes for relations with a zonah.14See Chapter 18, Halachah 1. [There is a difference between her and a Jewish woman,]15In which instance, the prohibition applies only if she was consecrated (Halachah 2). because she cannot be consecrated. He is forbidden to enter into relations with any zonah, whether a Jewess or a gentile.", + "A woman who has undergone the rite of chalitzah (a chalutzah)16When a man dies childless, his widow is required to marry her deceased husband's brother in the rite called yibbum. She is forbidden to marry anyone else. If he does not desire to marry her, he must release her through the ritual called chalitzah. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25, Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah. is forbidden to a priest according to the Rabbinic tradition, for she resembles a divorcee.17Just as a divorcee is released from her connection to her husband through a get, a childless widow is released from her obligation to her brother-in-law through chalitzah. [If he engages in relations with such a woman,] he is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"18The punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic commandment.
When a priest marries a woman whose status as a chalutzah is doubtful,19E.g., her brother-in-law performed the chalitzah rite, it was, however, questionable if he was obligated to do so or not, or if he was in fact her brother-in-law or not. he is not compelled to divorce her.20If, however, she was definitely a chalutzah, we would compel him to divorce. For a person should be compelled to observe a Rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, before he marries her, he should be prevented from doing so. Since there is a possibility that a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, we should prevent him from risking its violation. If, however, the couple are already married, we follow the principle \"When there is a question of a Rabbinic prohibition involved, we rule leniently.\" She is acceptable21I.e., she is not considered as a challalah, a woman who entered into forbidden relations with a priest. and her child is acceptable.22I.e., he or she is not considered as a challah. For our Sages did not decree against a woman whose status as a chalutzah is doubtful, only against one who is definitely in that category. When it is questionable if a woman is a divorcee,23A woman was divorced in a manner whether it was questionable whether the divorce was effective or not and afterwards, here husband died. a widow,24As related in Halachah 12, this applies to a situation in which there is a question whether a man consecrated a woman in an effective manner or not and then dies. Hence, there is a question whether she is a widow. a zonah,25See Chapter 18, Halachah 12. or a challalah,26The offspring of a priest who had relations with a woman concerning whom a doubt existed whether she was forbidden to him or not (Chapter 19, Halachah 9). [a priest who marries her] is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" and required to divorce her with a get.27He is required to divorce her, based on the principle \"When a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we take the more stringent view\" (Maggid Mishneh). In this instance, since there is a possibility that a Scriptural prohibition is involved in the marriage to each of these women, we rule stringently and require a divorce. A get is required, for even if there is a prohibition involved - and certainly if there is no prohibition involved - the consecration is binding. For the woman to be able to remarry, she must be divorced.", + "There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless:
a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time;28Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:5 gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become trefe, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time.
b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited;29This concept is exemplified in the following two halachot. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 7:2.
c) when the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.30This principle is exemplified by Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 which relates that a person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.", + "Accordingly,31I.e., on the basis of the principle that a prohibition that includes additional factors takes effect. When a woman was a widow and then she became a divorcee,32I.e., her second husband divorced her. and then she became a challalah,33By having relations with a priest. and then she became a zonah,34By engaging in relations with a person whom she is forbidden to marry. should a High Priest engage in relations with her afterwards, he receives four sets of lashes for engaging in relations once. For a widow is forbidden to a High Priest, but permitted to an ordinary priest.", + "When she becomes a divorcee, she becomes forbidden by an additional prohibition [for] she is also forbidden to an ordinary priest. Therefore, [even for the High Priest,] another prohibition aside from that against relations with a widow is added to her. She is, nevertheless, still permitted to partake of terumah.35I.e., if her father was a priest, after her marriages, she returns to his home and may partake of terumah. Alternatively, if her second husband was an ordinary priest and she gave birth to a child, she may partake of terumah because of her child. If she becomes a challalah, another prohibition is added to her, for she is forbidden to partake of terumah. She is, nevertheless, still permitted to marry an Israelite.
If she becomes a zonah, another prohibition is added to her, since there is a type of promiscuous relations that would cause her to be forbidden to an Israelite, e.g., a married woman engaged in adultery voluntarily.
The same principle applies36I.e., the priest is liable for additional sets of lashes. to an ordinary priest who engaged in relations with a divorcee who became a challalah and then a zonah. He receives three sets of lashes for engaging in relations once. If this order is altered,37I.e., she becomes a zonah first. If other prohibitions precede her becoming a zonah, she receives the appropriate number of lashes (Maggid Mishneh). she only receives one set of lashes.38For the other prohibitions would not add anything once she becomes forbidden in this manner.", + "When a woman is widowed from several men or divorced from several men, [a High Priest or a priest] receive only one set of lashes for each time they engage in relations.39The fact the she was widowed or divorced several times does not increase the number of prohibitions involved. A woman is forbidden as a widow whether she was widowed after [only] consecration or after marriage.", + "When the brother of a High Priest dies, even if the deceased had [merely] consecrated his wife,40And thus she is still a virgin and fit to marry a High Priest. [the High Priest] should not perform the rite of yibbum. Instead, he should perform chalitzah.41In Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 6:10, the Rambam states that the woman must perform chalitzah, because were her yevam to perform yibbum, he would acquire her as his wife. Moreover, according to law, he should perform yibbum, because whenever the observance of a positive commandment conflicts with the observance of a negative commandment, the positive commandment takes precedence. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade yibbum lest he engage in relations with her a second time. In such an instance, relations with her are forbidden and there is no mitzvah. For the positive commandment of yibbum applies only the first time the couple engage in relations.
If a woman became his yevamah while he was an ordinary priest and he was then appointed as the High Priest, he should not perform yibbum once he has been appointed.42For the reason mentioned in the previous note. [This applies] even if he already gave his word43The Hebrew term the Rambam uses maamar has a specific halachic meaning. As explained in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1, although according to Scriptural Law, the yibbum relationship is established through intimate relations, our Sages ordained that before engaging in relations, a yevam declare his intent to his yevamah. They equated this declaration with consecration. [that he would marry] her while he was an ordinary priest.44For a maamar does not establish a relationship. If, however, he consecrated a widow and was then appointed as a High Priest, he should marry her.45Because she is already his wife.
If she was consecrated, but the status of the consecration was questionable and then the person who consecrated her died, she is considered a widow of questionable status.46And because of the doubt, she is forbidden to a High Priest.", + "It is a positive commandment for a High Priest to marry a virgin maiden.47The term \"maiden\" refers to a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1). When she reaches the age of maturity,48Twelve and a half. This is the meaning of the term throughout this chapter. she becomes forbidden to him,49Since he must marry a virgin, he is forbidden to marry anyone other than a virgin. Even if he consecrated the woman beforehand, if he has not married her and she attains maturity after he is appointed as a High Priest, he may not marry her as stated in Halachah 17. as [Leviticus 21:13] states: \"He shall marry a virgin woman.\" \"Woman\" implies that she is not a minor. \"Virgin\" implies that she has not reached maturity. What is implied? She has departed from the category of a minor, but has not fully reached maturity, i.e., a maiden. He may never be married to two women at the same time.50As stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:10, a High Priest may not have two wives while he is performing the Yom Kippur services. Here the Rambam is stating that the prohibition applies not only on Yom Kippur, but throughout the year.
The Ra'avad notes that II Chronicles 24:3 speaks of Yehoyeda the High Priest and the marriage of two women, seemingly contradicting the Rambam's ruling. The Ra'avad interprets the verse as stating that Yehoyeda married the women himself. (Similarly, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling.) Rambam LeAm, however, advances the interpretation that the verse is stating that Yehoyeda had Yoash marry the women. [This is derived from the singular form of the term] \"woman,\" i.e., one, but not two.", + "A High Priest may not marry a woman who has lost her virginity even if she never engaged in relations.51I.e., she lost her virginity through an accident of some sorts. If she engaged in anal intercourse, it is as if she engaged in vaginal intercourse.52And she is forbidden to a High Priest. If she engaged in [anal]53This addition is necessary, for if she lost her virginity through relations with an animal, she is disqualified (Meiri). intercourse with an animal, she is permitted.", + "A High Priest who married a woman who had engaged in relations previously is not punished by lashes.54For he is guilty of transgressing merely a positive commandment and lashes are not given for such a transgression. He must, however, divorce her with a get.55Since a transgression is involved in engaging in relations with her, he is compelled to divorce her. Nevertheless, a bill of divorce is necessary for the consecration is binding. If he married a woman past the age of maturity or one who lost her virginity for reasons other than relations, he may remain married to her.
If he consecrated a woman who had previously engaged in relations and then he was appointed as the High Priest, he may marry her after his appointment.56As stated in Halachah 12 with regard to a widow.", + "If he raped or seduced a virgin maiden, he may not marry her.57For he is commanded to marry a virgin and she is not. Even though it is he himself who caused her to lose her virginity, she is not acceptable. Since she is not a virgin, a transgression is involved every time he enters into relations with her. Hence, he is obligated to divorce her.
In the instance mentioned in the previous halachah, he had already consecrated the woman, but in this instance, he did not consecrate her first (Maggid Mishneh). [This applies] even if he raped or seduced her while he was an ordinary priest and was appointed as the High Priest before he married her. If he married her, he must divorce her.", + "If he consecrates a girl while she was a minor and she reaches full maturity while [consecrated] to him before he marries her, he should not marry her.58Because, as stated in Halachah 13, he must marry a maiden, a girl between twelve and twelve and a half. [The rationale is that] her body underwent a change.59And thus she is considered as a different person and, in an abstract sense, not the same woman whom he consecrated. In this manner, the Rambam (based on Yevamot 59a) makes a distinction between this instance and one in which a priest consecrated a widow and then was appointed as High Priest, as mentioned in Halachah 12. If he married her, he need not divorce her.60For even if at the outset, she was passed the age of maturity when he married her, he is allowed to remain married to her, as stated in Halachah 15.", + "[The prohibition against marrying a divorcee applies] whether she was divorced after consecration or after marriage. If, however, a girl is released from marriage through the rite of mi'un, she is permitted to a priest, as we explained in Hilchot Gerushin.61As explained in Hilchot Gerushin, ch. 11, according to Scriptural Law, when a girl's father dies before she reaches the age of twelve, there is no way that she can marry until she reaches that age. Nevertheless, our Sages gave her mother and/or brothers the right to marry her off if they believe that it is to her advantage. Because this marriage does not have a basis in Scriptural Law, a get is not required to absolve it. Instead, the girl may simply leave her husband's house. To formalize the absolution of the relationship all that is necessary is for her to declare that she desires to leave the marriage in the presence of two witnesses. Since the relationship was never binding according to Scriptural Law, she is not disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. [This applies even if] her husband first divorced her with a get, then remarried her, and then she was released through mi'un.62As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, even if at one point she was divorced with a get, since she was released through mi'un, the fact the she was divorced previously is not of consequence. For it is obvious that the divorce is unnecessary.
Any woman who is not fit to perform the rite of chalitzah,63E.g., a man who performed chalitzah with his deceased brother's widow without realizing that she was pregnant and hence, not required to perform this rite before remarrying. but nevertheless performs it is not disqualified from [marrying] a priest.", + "[The following rules apply if] a rumor begins to circulate: \"So-and-so, the priest wrote...\" or \"...gave a get for his wife,\" and she lives with him and serves him.64In the case of an Israelite, there would be no difficulty, for it is possible that he remarried his divorcee. In the case of a priest, however, this would be forbidden, for a priest is forbidden to marry any divorcee even his own. She is not forced to be divorced from her husband.65For a rumor that follows a marriage is not sufficient grounds to require a divorce. If she married another priest,66After being widowed from her first husband. she should be forced to be divorced.67Since the rumor preceded the second marriage, the second priest should not have married her, because of the doubt regarding the validity of the marriage that the rumor caused. And since he married her in possible violation of the law, he is forced to divorce her.", + "If a rumor circulated in a city68As stated in Hilchot Ishut 9:22, we are speaking about a rumor that has been substantiated by a court. It is not conclusive evidence that a woman has been consecrated, but it is far from mere hearsay. If a rumor has not been substantiated in a court, it is of no substance. that a woman was consecrated and then divorced after consecration, her [status] becomes suspect, as explained in Hilchot Gerushin.69Chapter 10, Halachah 20. If, however, a rumor is circulated that she is a chalutzah, her [status] does not become suspect.70Since a chalutzah is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic ordinance, when we are not certain the woman performed this rite, there is no prohibition, as stated in Halachah 7. The Ra'avad, however, rules stringently and maintains that since we are speaking about a rumor with substance, even a rumor that she is a chalutzah can cause her to be forbidden.", + "If a rumor is circulated that a virgin has engaged in relation, her [status] does not become suspect and she may marry a High Priest. If a rumor is circulated that she is a maid-servant, her [status] does not become suspect and she may marry a priest.71We do not disqualify a woman when there is a question about her lineage unless there is explicit testimony that she is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh).
If a rumor72This refers even to a rumor substantiated in court (Beit Shmuel 6:30). circulates in a city that she is acting promiscuously,73And committed adultery or engaged in relations that would cause her to be forbidden to the priesthood as explained in the following chapter. her [status] does not become suspect. Even if her husband separated from her because she violated [the practices of modesty required by] the Jewish faith74E.g., going out to the marketplace with her hair uncovered, spinning flax in the marketplace in a manner that shows her arms to men, playing frivolously with youths, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 24:12. or because [of the testimony] of witnesses [concerning] unseemly conduct,75I.e., testimony regarding conduct that leads to the conclusion that she committed adultery although the adulterous relations themselves were not observed, as mentioned in ibid.:15. but he died before giving her a get, she is permitted [to marry] a priest. For a woman like the above should not be forbidden [to a priest] unless there is definite testimony [that she acted promiscuously] or she admits [doing so] herself.76For in such instance, she accepts the prohibition upon herself, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 9." + ], + [ + "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah1The term literally means \"a promiscuous woman.\" Halachically, however, it has a specific meaning as the Rambam continues to explain. This concept is relevant because a priest is forbidden to marry a zonah as mentioned at the beginning of the previous chapter. used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess,2Even if she is a virgin, and even if she converts (Halachah 3). a Jewish woman who engaged in relations3Even against her will. It is the fact of the relations, not her intent, that causes her to be placed in this category. See Halachot 5-6. with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable,4Even a prohibition that stems from a positive commandment, as mentioned in Halachah 3. or a woman who engaged in relations with a challal5A child born from a relationship forbidden to a priest, as mentioned in Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6. As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's view. even though she is permitted to marry him.6There is no prohibition against a challal marrying any Jewish woman, even the daughter of a priest (see Chapter 19, Halachah 11).
Accordingly, a woman who engages in relations with an animal, even though she is liable for execution by stoning is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood,7She may even marry a High Priest (if she engaged in anal intercourse with an animal), as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 14. for she did not engage in relations with a man. [Similarly, when] a man engages in relations with a woman in the niddah state even though she is liable for kerait, she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, for she is not forbidden to marry him.", + "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone, although she is liable for lashes,8As stated in Hilchot Ishut 1:4. she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from [marrying] into the priesthood. For she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations].
[When, by contrast, a woman] engages in relations with a man with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment that is universally applicable - the transgression is not specific to priests - or with whom they are forbidden by a positive commandment, she is forbidden to marry him, she is a zonah.9The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, offering a more lenient view, explaining that although a woman who enters into relations with any of the above individuals is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, these relations do not cause her to be considered as a zonah and she and a priest are not punished by lashes if they engage in relations. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:8) quotes the Rambam's view. Needless to say, [this applies if she engages in relations with a man] who is forbidden to her as an ervah, a gentile, or a servant.", + "Similarly, a female convert or a freed [maid-servant] - even if she was converted or freed when she was less than three years old10At that age, even if she had engaged in relations, her hymen would regenerate and she would be considered as a virgin (Ketubot 11b). Nevertheless, she is not considered as a native-born Jewess.
The Ra'avad rules that such a woman is not considered as a zonah. Nevertheless, she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, based on the interpretation of Ezekiel 44:22 advanced by Kiddushin 78a which states that a priest must marry only from \"the seed of the House of Israel.\" Note the discussion of this difference of opinion by the Maggid Mishneh. See also Chapter 19, Halachah 12, which states that as long as converts marry among each other, their descendants are forbidden to marry into the priesthood. - since she is not a native-born Jewess, she is deemed a zonah and is forbidden to [marry] a priest.
On this basis, [our Sages said: A woman who has relations with] a gentile, a netin,11See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which defines this term and the prohibition against such a man marrying a native-born Jewess. a mamzer,12See Chapter 15 which describes the prohibition of such a man marrying a native-born Jewess. an Ammonite or Moabite convert, a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert,13See Chapter 12, Halachot 18-21, which describes the prohibition of such converts marrying a native-born Jewess. a man with maimed testicles or a severed member,14See Chapter 16 which describes the prohibition of such a man marrying a native-born Jewess. or a challal who has relations with a [nativeborn] Jewess causes her to be considered as a zonah and to be forbidden to [marry into] the priesthood. If she was a priest's daughter, she is disqualified from [partaking of] terumah.15Leviticus 22:12 states \"When the daughter of a priest is [possessed] by a foreigner, she may not partake of the terumah of holiness.\" Yevamot 68a states: \"Since she engaged in relations with someone who is forbidden to her, she is disqualified.\" Similarly, a yevamah who engaged relations with a man other than her yevam becomes a zonah.16Since she is forbidden to marry anyone other than her yevam relations with any other man cause her to be considered as a zonah.
An aylonit17The term aylonit refers to a woman who does not have female physical characteristics. Her breasts do not protrude, she stiffens during sexual relations, and her lower abdomen does not resemble that of a woman. She is considered incapable of giving birth (Hilchot Ishut 2:4-6). is permitted to [marry] a priest. She is not a zonah.", + "When a man engages in relations with one of the shniot18These refer to distant relatives whom the Rabbis forbade as safeguards to Scriptural prohibitions. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6 for a list of these prohibitions. or the like, e.g., a man who engages in relations with a relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitzah or with the woman with whom he performed chalitzah, he does not cause her to be deemed a zonah. For she is not forbidden to him according to Scriptural Law, as we explained in Hilchot Yibbum.19See Hilchot Yibbum 1:12-13 which explains that once a woman is obligated to undergo chalitzah, there is no Scriptural prohibition against engaging in relations with her or her relatives. Nevertheless, our Sages instituted these prohibitions as safeguards.", + "We thus learned that a woman's being deemed as a zonah is not dependent on her engaging in forbidden relations, for when a man engages in relations with a niddah or a harlot or when a woman engages in relations with an animal, the woman has engaged in forbidden relations and yet she is not deemed a zonah. When, by contrast, [a woman] marries a challal, she engages in relations that are permitted, as will be explained,20Chapter 19, Halachah 16. and yet she is deemed a zonah. Thus the matter is dependent on the spiritual blemish alone. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the spiritual blemish comes only from a man who is forbidden to her or a challal, as we explained.", + "Whenever a woman engages in relations that cause her to be deemed a zonah, she becomes disqualified as soon as the man's organ enters her21We are translating the term heara; see Chapter 1, Halachah 10. whether she engages in relations against her will or willingly, whether in conscious violation or inadvertently, whether through vaginal or anal intercourse. [This applies] provided she is at least three years old and the man with whom she engages in relations is nine years old or more.22For below these ages, any sexual contact in which these individuals engage is not significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 13-14. Therefore when a married woman engages in adultery, whether against her will or willingly, she is disqualified from [marrying into] the priesthood.23I.e., if the woman's husband dies after the adulterous relations without divorcing her, she may not marry a priest. Alternatively, as the Rambam continues to explain in the subsequent halachot, if she is the wife of the priest, she may not remain married to him.", + "When the wife of a priest is raped, [if her husband engages in relations with her afterwards,] he is punished by lashes because of her defilement. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 24:4]: \"Her first husband who sent her away cannot return and take her as a wife after she has been defiled.\"24As the Rambam implies, the prohibition indicated by this verse is not explicitly referring to a woman married to a priest. Instead, halachically (see Hilchot Gerushin 11:14), it is interpreted as referring to all married women who are defiled by adultery. The wife of an Israelite who was raped is an exception, but not the wife of a priest.
The commentaries question the exactness of the Rambam's statements here, because in this instance two separate prohibitions - the prohibition against relations with one's defiled wife and the prohibition against a priest engaging in relations with a zonah - are involved. See the Maggid Mishneh for a discussion of the issue. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 22. All [women] were governed by the general principle: If they engaged in [adulterous] relations, they are forbidden to their husbands. The Torah singles out an exception: the wife of an Israelite who was raped.25See Hilchot Ishut 24:19. She is permitted to her husband, as [implied by Numbers 5:13]: \"And she was not seized.\" The wife of a priest remains forbidden, because she is a zonah.26I.e., despite the fact that she is not held responsible for the adulterous relations, they create a spiritual blemish that prevents her from marrying a priest.", + "When the wife of an Israelite is raped, although she is permitted to her husband,27For the adulterous relations were carried out against her will. she is forbidden to [marry into] the prietshood.28After her husband dies.
When the wife of a priest tells her husband: \"I was raped or inadvertently, I engaged in relations with another man,\" or one witness testifies against her that she committed adultery whether willingly or unwillingly, she is not forbidden to him.29Testimony is not considered binding unless it is made by two witnesses. Thus the testimony of one witnesses is not of consequence. Similarly, a person's testimony cannot be used against himself. Hence, the woman's own testimony is not of consequence.
There is one instance where the testimony of one witness is significant. When the husband issued a sotah warning to his wife. See Hilchot Ishut 24:18). [The rationale is that we suspect] that perhaps she set her eyes on another [man].30And seeks to be released from her husband so that she may engage in relations with him. If he considers her as trustworthy, or he considers the witness as trustworthy and he accepts his word,31And thus he believes that his wife committed adultery. he should divorce her so that there is no doubt regarding the matter.32For since he believes either his wife or the witness, he will be consenting to a transgression each time he enters into relations with her. Accordingly, he has a moral and spiritual obligation to divorce her (Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.)", + "Although the wife of a priest who tells her husband: \"I was raped,\" is permitted to her husband as explained, she is forbidden to any other priest33The Beit Shmuel 6:25 states that the Rambam's ruling applies only as an initial and preferred option. After the fact, if she marries a priest, they may remain husband and wife unless he believes her statements. after her husband dies.34The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining that since the woman's statements were rejected, they are considered of no consequence afterwards. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling and it is accepted as law by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:13).
The Ra'avad's rationale is that if the woman is able to provide a satisfactory explanation why she originally stated that she was forbidden, her word is accepted, as is the case with regard to other similar situations. The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this logic. See Chelkat Mechokek 6:12 and Beit Shmuel 6:26 which discuss this issue. For she has acknowledged that she is a zonah and caused herself to be forbidden, making herself a prohibited entity.", + "When a priest35In contrast to an Israelite, as the Rambam continues to explain. consecrates a woman, whether a minor or past majority, and afterwards engages in relations with her and claims that she had engaged in relations previously,36The husband's word is accepted as stated in Hilchot Ishut 11:8-15. The rationale is that we operate on the presumption that a man will not take on the expense and trouble of making a wedding and then forfeit it because of a spurious claim. she is forbidden to him because of the doubt involved:37Since the doubt involves a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently. perhaps she engaged in relations before she was consecrated or perhaps it was afterwards.38For if the relations took place afterwards, even if she was raped, she is forbidden to her husband as a zonah. When, by contrast, an Israelite makes such a claim, there are two doubts involved:39And when there are two doubts involved, even when a Scriptural prohibition is concerned, we rule leniently. Maybe [the forbidden relations] preceded the consecration or maybe they came afterwards. Even if we say that they came afterwards, maybe she was raped or maybe she participated willingly. For a raped woman is permitted to an Israelite, as we explained.40See Halachah 7.", + "Therefore if a girl's father consecrated her to an Israelite when she was less than three years old and [when they married, the Israelite] claimed that he discovered that she had engaged in relations previously, she is forbidden to him because of the doubt. For there is only one doubt involved: Maybe the relations were against her will41Although a minor who willfully commits adultery is not punished, she is forbidden to her husband (Chapter 3, Halachah 2). or maybe she engaged willingly.42Since she was consecrated before the age of three, even if she had engaged in relations beforehand, her hymen would have regenerated. Thus there is only one doubt involved. When there is a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition involved, [we rule] stringently.", + "Any woman who was given [a sotah] warning43A formal warning delivered in the presence of witnesses not to enter into privacy with a specific man (Hilchot Sotah 1:1). by her husband, entered into privacy [with the man she was warned against], but did not drink the sotah waters is forbidden to [marry] a priest,44I.e., if her first husband dies without divorcing her. because there is an unresolved question whether or not she is a zonah.45Drinking the waters would have tested her virtue. Since she did not undergo this test, the matter is unresolved and hence she is forbidden to a priest. [This applies] whether she did not wish to drink [the waters],46See Hilchot Sotah 2:1, 3:2 which imply that the refusal to drink the waters is tantamount to an admission of guilt. her husband did not wish to compel her to drink the waters,47In such an instance, the woman is forbidden to her original husband, but he must pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Hilchot Sotah 2:1). there was testimony that prevented her from drinking,48Hilchot Sotah 1:14 states that if even one witness testifies that he saw the woman commit adultery after receiving the sotah warning, she becomes forbidden to her husband. the warning was delivered by the court,49Hilchot Sotah 1:10 states that, when a husband is unable to supervise his wife's moral behavior, the court may issue such a warning on his behalf. In such an instance, however, the woman is not compelled to drink the sotah waters. or she was one of the woman who is not fit to drink.50Hilchot Sotah 2:2 lists fifteen women who are not given the option of drinking the sotah waters. Whatever the reason that she did not drink, she is forbidden to [marry into] the priesthood because of the doubt [that has been created].", + "[The following rules apply if we] saw that an unmarried woman engaged in relations with a man who then departed. She is asked: \"Who is the man with whom you engaged in relations?\" If she says, \"He is an acceptable man,\"51I.e., neither a mamzer, nor a gentile, nor another individual who would disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. her word is accepted. Moreover, even if we see that she is pregnant and we ask her: \"From whom did you conceive?\" and she says, \"From an acceptable man,\" her word is accepted and she is permitted [to marry] a priest.52This represents the legal abstract. Our Sages, however, applied stringencies as indicated by the following halachah.", + "When does the above apply? When the place where she engaged in relations was on a thoroughfare or in a carriage in the fields where everyone passes by,53This factor is necessary to allow for us to apply the principle: \"Whenever an entity is separated, it is considered as having been separated from the majority.\" When, as stated in Halachah 15, the relations occur in a place where an entity is kevua, in its fixed place, we do not follow the majority. and most of the passersby are acceptable and most of the inhabitants of the city from which these passersby departed are acceptable. [The rationale for this stringency is that] our Sages elevated the standards required with regard to lineage54Compare to Chapter 15, Halachah 11, which states that when the lineage of the child is involved, the woman's word is accepted even when the majority of the men are not acceptable. The rationale for the difference is that with regard to the child, there is no alternative. If the child is not deemed acceptable, he or she will not be able to marry within the Jewish people. If, however, the woman's word is not accepted, she will still be able to marry anyone other than a priest (Maggid Mishneh). and required two majorities.55I.e., instead of requiring a simple majority as is the usual standard.
If, by contrast, most of the people passing by would disqualify her, e.g., they were gentiles, mamzerim, or the like, even if most of the inhabitants of the city from which they came were acceptable, we are suspect regarding her [status]. Perhaps she engaged in relations with a person who would disqualify her. Hence, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry a priest.56This ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:17). That source, however, also cites the view of the Tur and other Rishonim which maintains that if she states that the person with whom she engaged in relations are acceptable and the majority of the people are acceptable, she may marry into the priesthood at the outset. The Beit Shmuel 6:31 also cites a third, more lenient view. If she marries one, she need not divorce.57After the fact, we rely on the halachic abstract stated in the previous halachah. This applies even if most of the people are unacceptable (Beit Shmuel 6:32). [This ruling also applies] if most of the inhabitants of the locale were unacceptable even though most of the passersby were acceptable.", + "If we saw that she engaged in relations in a city or she became pregnant in a city, [more stringent rules apply]. Even if there was only one gentile, challal, servant, or the like58I.e., persons who would disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. dwelling in the city, the initial and preferred option is that she not marry a priest. [The rationale is that] whenever entities are in their permanent locale, [probability is not taken into consideration. Instead, all doubts] are considered as equally balanced.59The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: When the woman goes to the unacceptable man for relations, he is considered as in his established place and hence, the doubt is considered equally balanced. Even when the unacceptable man comes to the woman for relations - in which instance, he has been separated from his natural place, and hence the principles of probability should apply - we rule stringently. This is a safeguard, lest one rule leniently when the woman goes to the man.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 6) rules more leniently, maintaining that if the man comes to the woman, we follow the principles of probability. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:18) mentions both views without stating which one should be followed. If she already married [a priest], she need not be divorced because she says: \"I engaged in relations with an acceptable man.\"60And after the fact, we rely on her word.", + "When a woman is dumb, deaf,61In these two instances, we assume that she lacks the intellectual sophistication to know the status of the man with whom she engaged in relations. she says: \"I don't know the identity of the man with whom I engaged in relations,\" or she was a minor that cannot differentiate between a man who is acceptable and one who is not, she is considered as a zonah of questionable status.62In all instances, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry into the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh). A child born from these relations is considered a mamzer of questionable status, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 12. [After the fact,] if she married a priest, she must be divorced63Since a question of Scriptural Law which cannot be clarified is involved, we rule stringently. unless there is a twofold majority of men with whom she could have engaged in relations that are acceptable.64In such an instance, we are not concerned with the doubt because of the high probability that the man was acceptable.", + "When a woman taken captive is redeemed and she is three years old or more,65The minimum age from which time onward sexual relations are significant. she is forbidden to [marry] a priest, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. Perhaps a gentile engaged in relations with her.
If there is a witness that a gentile did not enter into seclusion with her, she is acceptable to the priesthood.66As the Rambam proceeds to explain, since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, we do not follow the Scriptural requirements applying to witnesses. Therefore although ordinarily the testimony of two acceptable witnesses is required, in this instance, we accept the testimony of only one witness and moreover, accept testimony from witnesses - women, servants, and relatives - who would ordinarily be disqualified. Even a servant, a maid-servant, or a relative67There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries whether the testimony of a woman's son or daughter is acceptable. If they mention the matter in the course of conversation, their word is accepted as evident from the following halachah, If, however, a son or a daughter deliver testimony on their mother's behalf, most authorities maintain that the testimony is not accepted (see Chelkat Mechokek 7:1; Beit Shmuel 7:3). is acceptable with regard to this testimony. [Moreover,] when two women who were taken captive give testimony on behalf of each other, their word is accepted.68Even though one could argue that each one is lying on the other's behalf. [The rationale is] that all the prohibitions involving questionable situations are of Rabbinic origin.69Whenever there is a question whether or not a Scriptural prohibition applies, we rule stringently. This principle, however, is a point of Rabbinic Law. According to Scriptural Law, since the prohibition is not definitely established, one need not observe it. Therefore they ruled leniently with regard to a woman taken captive.", + "Similarly, a minor who states [that a woman was not touched by her captors] in the course of conversation.70A minor is not acceptable as a witness. Nevertheless, if he makes statements in the course of his conversation which indicate that a woman - his mother or any other woman - was not molested by her captors, those statements can serve as evidence to grant the woman license to marry a priest.
The rationale is that these statements are considered to reflect the truth. We suspect that the child is telling us a representative account of what happened. Hence, since the prohibition was instituted only because of doubt, such statements are sufficient to allay our suspicions. With regard to the principle of accepting statements made in the course of conversation, see Hilchot Gerushin, Chapter 13, and commentaries.
There are authorities (Rabbenu Nissim) who maintain that a child's word is also accepted when he gives testimony directly. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:1) also quotes that view although he appears to favor the above perspective. An incident occurred with regard to a child who was captured together with his mother. In the course of conversation, he said: \"My mother and I were captured by the gentiles. When I went out to draw water from the well, I was thinking about my mother. [When I went] to gather wood, I was thinking about my mother.\" Our Sages [permitted] her to marry a priest because of his words.71Because the implication is that his mother was not molested.", + "A husband's word is not accepted if he testifies72Or if he makes the statements in the course of conversation (Maggid Mishneh; Beit Shmuel 7:4). The Rama (Even HaEzer 7:2), however, mentions opinions that grant leniency when he makes such statements in the course of conversation. that his wife who was taken captive was not defiled.73The rationale is based on the principle: \"A person may not give testimony on his own behalf\" [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:2)]. Similarly, her maid-servant may not testify on her behalf.74For we fear that she may lie to cover up for her. A maid-servant belonging to her husband, however, may testify on her behalf. And statements made by her maid-servant in the midst of conversation are accepted.75For we do not assume that she will know that these statements may be used to advance the cause of her mistress.", + "When a priest testifies that a woman who had been taken captive is pure, he may not marry her. [We suspect that] he focused his attention on her.76We suspect that he desired to marry her and therefore testified that she was not defiled even though he did not have definite information to that effect. Although we enforce this stringency with regard to the priest himself, we accept his testimony with regard to others and allow her to marry another priest (Chelkat Mechokek 7:6, Beit Shmuel 7:7). If he redeemed her and testified on her behalf, he may marry her, for if he did not know that she was pure, he would not have paid money on her behalf.77For other persons might come and testify that she was defiled in which instance, he would be forced to divorce her. Hence were he not sure that the matter was true, he would not risk forfeiting his money (Ketubot 36b).", + "When a woman says: \"I was taken captive, but I am pure,\" her word is accepted. [The rationale is] that the mouth that forbid her granted her license.78We would forbid her from marrying a priest only because of her own statements and in those very statements, she maintains that she is pure. [This applies] even if there is one witness who testifies that she was taken captive.79For the testimony of one witness is not halachicly significant. Based on Rashi (Ketubot 23b), the Beit Shmuel 7:8 states that this applies even if the witness testifies that the woman was defiled. If, however, there are two witnesses who testify that she was taken captive, her word is not accepted unless one person testifies that she is pure.
If there were two witnesses who testified that she was taken captive, one witness who testifies that she was defiled and another who contradicts his statements and testifies that she is pure and that a gentile did not enter into seclusion with her until she was redeemed, she is permitted.80The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies even if the witness who testified that she was defiled testified first. Although one might think that once the first witness testifies, her status would be established as forbidden, our Sages ruled leniently with regard to a woman taken captive. [This applies] even if the one who testifies that she is pure is a woman or a maid-servant.", + "When a woman stated: \"I was taken captive, but I am pure,\" and a court granted her license to marry [a priest], she may marry [one] as an initial and preferred option. Her license is not revoked [even if] afterwards two witnesses come and testify that she was taken captive.81Had the witnesses made their statements first, the woman would not have been granted this license. Nevertheless, once she is given permission to marry into the priesthood, that permission is not rescinded unless there are witnesses that she was defiled. Even if her captor enters afterwards and we see that she is a captive under his dominion, her license [to marry a priest] is not revoked. We provide her with protection until she is redeemed.82I.e., watchmen who will observe her and prevent her from being raped by her captors. Although she did not enjoy this protection beforehand, we grant it to her at present.
All of the particulars in this halachah are taken from an actual incident that took place. As Ketubot 23a relates, the daughters of the Sage Shmuel were taken captive. They were transported to Eretz Yisrael. They told their captors to wait for them outside and entered the court of Rabbi Chaninah and said: \"We were taken captive, but we are pure.\" The Sages permitted them to marry into the priesthood.", + "If two witnesses came and stated that [a woman] was defiled, even if she had married and even if she bore children [to her husband, the priest], she must be divorced.83For testimony delivered by two witnesses establishes a halachic reality which must be reckoned with. If one witness came and testified [that she was defiled], his testimony is of no consequence.84The Chelkat Mechokek 7:9 and the Beit Shmuel 7:12 states that even if the witness came after she was given license to marry into the priesthood, but before she actually married, his testimony is of no consequence and the license is not rescinded. This applies even if witnesses had also come and testified that she had been held captive.
If the woman says, \"I was taken captive, but I am pure, and I have witnesses that I am pure,\" we do not say: \"Let us wait until the witnesses come.\" Instead, we grant her license [to marry into the priesthood] immediately. Moreover, even if a rumor is circulated that there are witnesses that she was defiled,85The Chelkat Mechokek 7:11 quotes the Ritbah who maintains that this ruling applies even if the rumor was substantiated in court. As long as there is not actually testimony, her status remains unchanged. we grant her license [to marry into the priesthood] until the witnesses come. [The rationale is that] we are lenient with regard to a woman taken captive.", + "When a father states: \"I consecrated my daughter and I had her divorced,\"86As is his right until she reaches maturity [Hilchot Ishut 3:11 (see also 9:10). [as long as] she is a minor,\" his word is accepted.87And she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood. \"I consecrated my daughter and I had her divorced while she was a minor,\" when she is past majority, his word is not accepted with regard to her being considered as a divorcee.88For his word is accepted only as long as the matter is in his hands (see Kiddushin 64a).
[When he says,] \"She was held captive and I redeemed her,\" his word is not accepted whether she is a minor or past majority. For the Torah deems him trustworthy only with regard to having her forbidden because of marriage, for it is written [Deuteronomy 22:16]: \"I gave my daughter to this man,\"89Since he has the right to consecrate her and effect her divorce, his word is accepted with regard to her status. but not to have her disqualified as a zonah.90The Beit Shmuel 7:15 explains that we do not accept his word based on the principle of miggo. To explain: one might think that since the father's word would be accepted were he to claim that he consecrated her and had her divorced, we accept his word if he claims that she was taken captive, for had he desired to lie, he could have claimed that she was divorced. We do not follow that argument, because the statement that she was taken captive involves a more encompassing prohibition, causing her to be forbidden to partake of terumah as well as being forbidden to marry a priest.", + "When the wife of a priest is forbidden to him because she was taken captive, [we grant a leniency]. Since [the prohibition was instituted because] of a doubt,91I.e., the prohibition was instituted because we suspect that she was defiled. The Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 7) states that, based on the Rambam's statements, if there are witnesses that the woman was defiled, this leniency is not granted. she is permitted to dwell together with him in the same courtyard, provided his children and the members of his household will always be there to watch him.92And see that the couple do not engage in intimacy.", + "[The following laws apply when] a city was held under siege and conquered. If the gentiles surrounded the city from all sides so that it was impossible for [even] one woman to escape93This ruling (as continued in the following three halachot) reflects the Rambam's interpretation of Ketubot 27b. There are several other interpretations of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:10) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of dissenting authorities. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 12:24 which states a ruling dependent on the same passage. without being seen and placed under their dominion, all of the women in [the city] are forbidden [to marry into] the priesthood. They are considered as if they were held captive for perhaps they were raped by gentiles. [The only exception] are those less than three years old as explained.94See Halachah 17.", + "If it was possible for one of the woman to escape without being detected or there was one hiding place in the city - even if it could hold only one woman - it saves all [the women from being deemed forbidden].95Even if the woman admits that she did not escape or hide, her word is accepted, based on the principle of miggo. As stated in the following halachah, had she desired to lie, instead of saying merely that she was not molested, she could have claimed to have escaped or have hidden.", + "How does it save [the women from being deemed forbidden]? The word of every woman who claims \"I am pure\" is accepted. Since she could have said: \"I escaped when the city was conquered,\" or \"I was in a hiding place and I was saved,\" her word is accepted if she says: \"I did not escape, nor did I hide, but I was not defiled.\"96See the Chelkat Mechokek 7:15 which state that the Rambam's words imply that the woman must come to court and make these statements to be granted license to marry into the priesthood. They also mention Rabbenu Nissim's view that does not require this measure, but instead permits all women in these situations to marry into the priesthood automatically.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to a battalion from that country who settle in the city and are not afraid. Therefore we fear that they raped the women. With regard to a battalion from another country, which swept through the city, pillaged and passed on, the women are not forbidden.97As mentioned above, there are opinions that differ and maintain that even when the battalion is from another country, the women are forbidden. [The rationale is that] they do not have time to rape, because they are busy gathering spoil and fleeing.98The Kessef Mishneh maintains that even when the conquering army is from another country, if they remain in the city for a longer period, the women are forbidden from marrying into the priesthood. We suspect that since there was no immediate pressure to flee, the soldiers may have raped the local women. If, however, they took the women captive and they were under their dominion, they are forbidden [to the priesthood]99As are any women taken captive by gentiles as stated above. even though Jews pursue [the battalion] and rescued [the women] from them.100Since our Sages forbade women taken captive, that prohibition is universally enforced, regardless of the length of time the women were in captivity (Kessef Mishneh).", + "When a woman was imprisoned because of financial matters, she is permitted [to marry into the priesthood].101I.e., we do not suspect that she was raped, because the gentiles will fear to rape her lest they be forced to forfeit the money owed them [Ramah (Even HaEzer 7:11)]. These laws apply not only to jails, but instances when women are held captive by men for other reasons. When she is imprisoned with regard to matters involving capital punishment, she is forbidden to the priesthood.102I.e., we fear that she was raped by her jailers. Therefore if her husband is a priest, she is forbidden to him.103If, however, the husband is an Israelite, there is no prohibition. We do not fear that the women would try to save her life by seducing her jailers or accepting their advances. Were that to be the case, the relations would be considered voluntary and thus she would be prohibited to her husband.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:11). The Ramah quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and other Ashkenazic authorities who maintain that a woman would be forbidden to even an Israelite husband for the reasons stated above. He does, however, mention more lenient views.
When does the above apply? When the Jews have power over the gentiles and they are afraid of them. When, by contrast, the gentiles are in power, even when a woman is imprisoned because of financial matters, she is forbidden since she was taken under the dominion of the gentiles104The commentaries question if these laws apply with regard to contemporary prison conditions when it is less likely for the prison staff to ravage women held under their jurisdiction. unless there is a witness who testifies on her behalf as is the law regarding a woman taken captive, as explained above.105Halachah 17." + ], + [ + "What is meant by a challalah? [A woman] born from [relations] forbidden to the priesthood.1I.e., the women mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 1. Similarly, any woman who is forbidden to the priesthood who engaged in relations with a priest becomes a challalah. A priest who commits a transgression himself, however, is not deemed a challal.2The fact that he engaged in forbidden relations does not detract from the essential holiness endowed to him by his priestly lineage.", + "[The above applies] whether she engaged in relations by coercion or inadvertently3For the spiritual blemish brought about by the forbidden relations has an effect regardless of her intent or lack of it. or whether it was vaginal or anal intercourse, as soon as the male organ enters her, she becomes a challalah. [This applies] provided the priest is nine years of age or older and the woman forbidden him is three years of age or older.4For only when the male and the female are these respective ages are their relations considered significant.", + "What is implied? When a priest who is nine years old engages in relations with a divorcee or with a zonah or a High Priest enters into relations with such women or with a widow, or marries a non-virgin and enters into relations with her,5Note the contrast to the following halachah. Although a non-virgin is forbidden only on the basis of a positive commandment (Chapter 17, Halachah 13), offspring from such a relationship are challalim. these women become challalot for all time. If they conceive a child from such relations, whether from relations with the priest who caused them to be deemed a challalah or whether with another priest, the offspring are challalim.
When, however, a priest consecrates a woman who is forbidden to the priesthood and she is widowed or divorced from the consecration, she does not become a challalah.6Needless to say, a divorcee may not marry a priest. The Rambam is emphasizing that if she is divorced, in addition to the prohibition of a divorcee, she is also prohibited as a challalah. If she marries, even if she does not engage in relations, she becomes a challalah even if it is discovered that she is a virgin.7For as Ketubot 11a states, a woman who is divorced after marriage is considered as if she has engaged in relations. The Chelkat Mechokek 7:23 and the Beit Shmuel 7:36 discuss this ruling, mentioning views that differ slightly.", + "When a High Priest marries a woman past majority or one who lost her signs of virginity through means other than intercourse, she does not become a challalah.8For after the fact, he is allowed to remain married to such a woman, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 15. Similarly, if he enters into relations with a non-virgin outside the context of marriage, she does not become a challalah.9For the prohibition forbidding her to him applies only within the context of marriage (Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Although he performs a transgression for entering into intimacy without the intent of marriage (see Hilchot Ishut 1:4), that prohibition is not restricted to the priesthood and offspring are deemed challalim, only when the prohibition against the relations is exclusive to the priesthood.", + "When a priest engages in relations with one of the women forbidden as an ervah with the exception of a woman in the niddah state or with one of the woman who is forbidden because of a negative commandment that is universally applicable, he causes her to be deemed a zonah, as explained.10Chapter 18, Halachah 1. If he - or another priest - engage in relations with her a second time, she becomes a challalah11Since she became a zonah, the prohibition against relations with her is exclusive to the priesthood. and her offspring from [a priest] are challalim.
Accordingly, if a priest engages in relations with a woman who is obligated to undergo yibbum and she conceived from their first relations, the offspring is acceptable to marry into the priesthood. [The rationale is that] the prohibition [against relations with such a woman] is not restricted to the priesthood. She becomes a zonah as we explained.12Chapter 18, Halachah 2. For the relations do involve a transgression. If he engaged in relations with her a second time and she conceived and gave birth, she becomes a challalah and her offspring are challalim, for [these relations]13I.e., relations with a zonah. are forbidden exclusively to the priesthood.", + "Similarly, when a priest engages in relations with a convert or a freed maid-servant, he causes her to become a challalah14For they are forbidden exclusively to the priesthood, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 3. and his offspring from her are challalim.15Even if they are conceived during the first time the couple engage in relations [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:14)]. The rationale is that even before the priest engages in relations with such women, they are deemed as zonot. When a priest engages in relations with a woman in the niddah state, the offspring are acceptable and are not challalim. For the prohibition [against relations with] a woman in the niddah state is universally applicable and is not exclusive to the priesthood.", + "When a priest marries a divorcee who is pregnant - whether with his child or that of another man - and she gives birth after she became a challalah, the child is acceptable, for it was not conceived from forbidden seed.16As Kiddushin 77a states, the determination of whether a child is deemed as a challal or not depends on whether it was conceived through a transgression or not. The mother's status at the time of birth is not significant.", + "We have already explained,17In Chapter 17, Halachah 7. that a woman who has undergone chalitzah is forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree. Therefore, when a priest engages in relations with such a woman, she becomes a challalah and her offspring, challalim. All of this is based on Rabbinic decree. When, by contrast, a priest engages in relations with one of the shniot,18Relatives forbidden by Rabbinic decree as listed in Hilchot Ishut 1:6. she is acceptable19See Chapter 18, Halachah 4. and his descendants from her are acceptable, for these prohibitions are universally applicable and are not exclusive to the priesthood.", + "When a priest engages in relations with a woman whose status as a zonah is questionable, e.g., a woman concerning whose status as a convert or as a freed maid-servant is questionable, when he engages in relations with a woman whose status as a divorcee is questionable,20The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:20) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Tur and the Rama state that the same laws apply to a woman who underwent a chalitzah ceremony of questionable validity. Based on the distinction between such a woman and a woman whose status is a divorcee is questionable which the Rambam makes in Chapter 17, Halachah 7, the Beit Shmuel 7:40 maintains that the Rambam would not accept such an addition. or a High Priest engages in relations with a woman whose status as a widow is questionable,21See Chapter 17, Halachah 12. the woman is deemed as a challalah of questionable status and her offspring are considered challalim of questionable status.", + "Thus there are three categories of challalim: a challal according to Scriptural Law, a challal according to Rabbinic decree, a person whose status as a challal is a matter of question.
Anyone whose status as a challal is a matter of question must observe the severities incumbent on the priesthood and those incumbent on ordinary Israelites.22Otherwise, there is a possibility that he will be violating prohibitions of Scriptural origin. He may not partake of terumah.23Lest he is an Israelite to whom this is forbidden. See Hilchot Terumah 6:7. He may not become impure due to contact with the dead24Lest he is a priest to whom this is forbidden. and he must marry a woman fit to marry a priest. If he partakes of terumah, becomes impure, or marries a divorcee, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. The same laws apply to a challal by Rabbinic decree.
When, however, a person is definitely a challal according to Scriptural Law, he is like [any other] non-priest. He may marry a divorcee and become impure due to contact with a corpse. [This is derived from Leviticus 21:1 which] states: \"Speak to the priests, the descendants of Aaron.\" [Implied is that the prohibition that follows25The prohibition against contact with a corpse. does not apply] even to the descendants of Aaron unless they are priests.", + "A male priest who is forbidden to marry a zonah and a challalah is forbidden to marry a female convert and freed maid-servant for they are equivalent to zonot as we explained.26Chapter 18, Halachah 3. A woman of the priestly family, however, is permitted to marry a challal, a convert, or a freed servant. For women of acceptable lineage were not forbidden against marrying men of unacceptable lineage.27I.e., those forbidden to the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh). See, however, Halachah 21 and notes. [This is derived from the phrase \"the descendants\" [- literally, the sons -] of Aaron,\" i.e., sons and not daughters. Thus a convert is permitted to marry a female mamzer28See Chapter 15, Halachah 7. and also, the daughter of a priest.", + "When converts and/or freed servants marry among themselves and give birth to a daughter - even after several generations - this daughter is forbidden to marry a priest,29Kiddushin 78b states that after the destruction of the Temple, the priests accepted this stringency upon themselves. for the seed of a native-born Jew has not intermingled with them. If one married such a woman, she need not be divorced since she was both conceived and born in holiness.30Note the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 7), the Chelkat Mechokek 7:29 and the Beit Shmuel 7:42 who note that the Rambam requires the girl to be both conceived and born within the Jewish people. When, however, a convert or a freed servant marries a native-born Jewess or a native-born Jew marries a female convert or a freed slave, their daughter is acceptable to marry into the priesthood at the outset.", + "When an Ammonite convert31Who is forbidden to marry a native-born Jewess (Chapter 12, Halachah 18). or a second generation Egyptian convert32Who is likewise forbidden (ibid.:19). marry a native-born Jewess, the intimate relations they share involve a transgression and the women become zonot as we explained.33Chapter 18, Halachah 3. As Yevamot 36a states, the women themselves may not marry a priest, but their daughters may. Nevertheless, their daughters may marry into the priesthood as an initial and preferred option.34For a female Ammonite is permitted and a third generation Egyptian is permitted.", + "When a challal marries an acceptable woman, his descendants from her are challalim. This also applies to the son of his son's son35We have not used the term grandson or great grandson, because if a female descendant is involved, the next generation are not challalim. and indeed, even for 1000 generations. For the male son of a challal is a challal for all time. If the offspring is female, she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, because she is a challalah.
When, however, an Israelite marries a challalah, the offspring are acceptable.36Neither the son, nor the daughter are considered challalim. Therefore if one of the offspring is female, she may marry into the priesthood at the outset.", + "Priests, Levites, and Israelites are permitted to marry among each other.37E.g., there is no restriction against a priest marrying the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite. The status of the child is determined by that of the father.38Thus in the instance mentioned in the previous note, the offspring would be considered as priests. [Similarly,] Levites, Israelites, and challalim are permitted to marry among each other and the status of the child is determined by that of the father. [This is derived from Numbers 1:18]: \"And they established the lineage of their families, according to their father's household.\" [Implied is that] the household of one's father is one's family and not the household of one's mother.", + "Levites, Israelites, challalim, converts, and freed servants are permitted to marry among each other. When a convert or a freed servant marries the daughter of a Levite, the daughter of an Israelite, or a challalah, the offspring is an Israelite.39I.e., neither a Levite or a challal. When an Israelite, a Levite, or a challal marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant, the status of the child is determined by that of the father.40Thus the offspring of a Levite are Levites and the offspring of challalim are challalim.", + "We operate under the presumption that all families are of acceptable lineage and it is permitted to marry their descendants as an initial and preferred option.41The Rambam is stating that it is not necessary to investigate thoroughly the lineage of a family before marrying into them. If it is a common presumption that a family is of acceptable lineage, one may marry a family member at the outset. When we know nothing of the lineage of the family, there are some authorities [Remo as quoted by the Tur (Even HaEzer 2)] who maintain that we do question his lineage and require proof that he is acceptable. Others (Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Nissim) differ and maintain that even if we do not know anything about a family's lineage, we assume that they are acceptable. See the discussion of the issue by Beit Shmuel 2:3.
The debate concerns the practice in the Talmudic age and in subsequent eras when Jewish observance was strong. At present, particularly in contemporary communities when there are many non-observant Jews and non-halachic divorce and similar problems are rampart, it is customary for Rabbinic courts to be careful and investigate the lineage of people before performing a marriage. Nevertheless, if you see two families continuously quarreling with each other, you see one family that is always involved with strife and controversy, or you see a person who frequently quarrels with people at large and is very insolent, we suspect [their lineage]. It is fitting to distance oneself from such people for these are disqualifying characteristics.
Similarly, a person who always slurs the lineage of others, casting aspersions on the ancestry of families or individuals, claiming that they are mamzerim, we are suspicious that he himself is a mamzer. Similarly, if he calls others servants, we suspect that he is a servant. For whoever denigrates others, denigrates them with a blemish that he himself possesses.
Similarly, whenever a person is characterized by insolence and cruelty, hating people and not showing kindness to them, we seriously suspect that he is a Gibeonite. For the distinguishing signs of the holy nation of Israel is that they are meek, merciful, and kind. With regard to the Gibeonites, [II Samuel 21:2] states: \"The Gibeonites are not of the Jewish people.\" For they acted extremely brazenly and would not be appeased. They did not show mercy to the sons of [King] Saul, nor did they show kindness to the Jews to forgive the descendants of their king,42As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 12, Halachah 23, as related in II Samuel, ch. 21, there was a famine for three years in Eretz Yisrael. Through prophetic vision, David learned that the reason for the famine was Saul's oppression of the Gibeonites (exactly what Saul did to oppress them is a matter of discussion among the Rabbis). David asked the Gibeonites what they desired to be appeased for this oppression. They answered that they wanted to slay seven of his descendants. David handed over seven of Saul's descendants to them and they hung them and left their corpses on the gallows. For this act of cruelty, David decreed that they should never marry among the Jewish people. while [the Jews] had shown them kindness and allowed them to live.43Joshua, Chapter 9, relates that after the Jews' conquest of Jericho and Ai, the inhabitants of Gibeon:
Acted cunningly... They took old sacks upon their donkeys, old and rent wine bottles... old, worn and patched shoes... and came to Joshua at Gilgal. They told him:... \"We have come from a distant country. Therefore, make a covenant with us.\" Joshua made a covenant with them... and the princes of the congregation swore to them.
After the ruse was discovered, Joshua and the people honored the covenant and allowed the Gibeonites to live. Moreover, they even came to their defense when they were attacked by other Canaanite nations.", + "When [the purity of] a family's [lineage] has been disputed, i.e., two individuals testify44The Beit Shmuel 2:6 cites the opinion of Rashi (Kiddushin 76a) which maintains that even if the two people cast aspersions on the family's lineage without delivering formal testimony, such investigations must be made. that a mamzer or a challal has intermingled with that family or there are servants among them,45We are not concerned that a servant intermingled among them, for even if a servant did conceive a child with a woman from a priestly family, the child is acceptable. Our suspicion is that one of the priests had relations with a maid-servant and she bore him a son or daughter who was raised as a member of the priest's family (Chelkat Mechokek 2:2). the matter is questionable. If the family are priests, one should not marry a woman from them until he46See Halachah 21and notes which discuss whether a woman is required to make such an investigation or not. investigates the lineage of four - actually eight47I.e., the obligation is to check the lineage of four women: her mother, the mother of her maternal grandfather, her paternal grandmother, and the paternal grandmother of her paternal grandfather. Nevertheless, to verify the acceptability of the lineage of these women, it is necessary to verify that their mothers are also of acceptable lineage, thus reaching a total of eight (Rabbenu Nissim).- of her maternal ancestors: her mother, her maternal grandmother, the mother of her maternal grandfather, the maternal grandmother of her maternal grandfather. Similarly, he must investigate the lineage of her paternal grandmother, the mother of her paternal grandmother, the mother of her paternal grandfather, and the mother of the mother of her paternal grandfather.", + "If the family whose lineage was disputed were Levites or Israelites, it is necessary to check [the lineage of] another pair of women. Thus one must check ten maternal ancestors.48I.e., one must add the mother of her maternal grandmother and the maternal grandmother of her paternal grandmother (Merkevet HaMishneh).
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, noting that from Kiddushin 76a, it would appear that one would have to check the lineage of twelve or sixteen women. [The rationale is that unacceptable people] intermarry among Levites and Israelites more frequently than among priests.", + "Why is it necessary to check the lineage only of the woman's maternal [ancestors]? Because whenever men argue with each other, one will malign the other with a blemish that exists in his lineage. Thus if he was unacceptable, the matter would have been made known.49I.e., after the blemish was mentioned in quarrels, it would become a matter of public knowledge and investigated accordingly. Women, by contrast, do not malign [each other] with regard to blemishes in their lineage.50Hence, their blemished lineage would not be public knowledge.", + "Why must a man make an investigation when he desires to marry a woman from a family concerning whom the presumption of acceptable lineage has been impaired and yet a woman who desires to marry into this family is not required to make an investigation? Because woman of acceptable lineage were not warned against marrying [men of] unacceptable lineage.51The Rambam's statements (based on his interpretation of Kiddushin 76b) have attracted the attention of the commentaries who raise a basic question: The prohibition against marrying an unacceptable partner (e.g., a mamzer) applies equally to men and women (see Chapter 1, Halachah 1). Why then is a woman not warned with regard to this matter?
The Maggid Mishneh (quoting Rashi's commentary to Kiddushin 76a) states that here, the Rambam intent is that since the Torah did not forbid a woman of the priestly family from marrying a challal, our Sages did not require a woman to make an investigation even when there is a question whether her future husband is entirely unacceptable.
According to Rashi who interprets \"disputing a family's lineage\" (Halachah 18) as merely casting aspersions, this interpretation is tenable. After all, we have no hard and fast evidence that the man's lineage is unacceptable. But according to the Rambam, who defines that term as referring to testimony delivered in court, the original question remains. Since there is a firm possibility that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, why shouldn't a woman be required to make an investigation? Among the resolutions offered is that of the Chelkat Mechokek 2:5 is that the Rambam would require an investigation even when a woman desires to marry. Nevertheless, the investigation need not include all of the eight (or ten) women mentioned by the Rambam. Such thoroughness is required only when a man seeks to marry.
See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Halachah 18 and the Chelkat Mechokek 2:3 which cite differing opinions which also require a woman to make a full-fledged investigation of the lineage of a man she desires to marry if there are questions concerning his lineage.", + "Whenever a person is called a mamzer, a netin a challal, or a servant and he remains silent, we suspect [the lineage of] him and his family52We assume that he would not remain silent when his lineage is slurred unless there was some truth to the assertions.
The Ra'avad states that the Rambam's statement (taken from Ketubot 14b) held true only in the Talmudic era when a person who insulted a colleague's lineage was placed under a ban of ostracism. Hence when a person remained silent instead of appealing to the court, we could assume that he was admitting to the accuser's assertion. In the present era, by contrast, there is no punishment given for making such slurs. Hence, the insulted person would have no benefit in bringing the matter to the court's attention. Accordingly, it is preferable to remain silent.
The Ramban and the Rashba explain that the Rambam's words apply with regard to a family concerning which there already exist doubts with regard to their lineage. When, by contrast, their lineage is considered unblemished, it is preferable for them to remain silent. Rabbenu Nissim states that the insulted person's silence is considered significant only when it is common for him to protest other matters. If, however, he usually remains silent, the fact that he does so in this situation as well is of no consequence. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 2:4) quotes the Rambam's words and the Rama quotes the latter views. and do not marry women from this [family] unless an investigation was made as we explained.53As explained in Halachot 18-19. The investigation is sufficient to clarify any difficulties, for the suspicion created by his silence is not a more serious factor than the testimony of the witnesses mentioned in Halachah 18 (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When there is a suspicion that a person concerning whom there is a question whether he is a challal married into a family,54I.e., there is a report that a man of questionable status married into a family, but the identity of that man and that of his wife are not known. every widow from that family is forbidden to a priest at the outset.55One might think that because of the multiple doubt involved the woman would be permitted at the outset. Nevertheless, because of the stringency of the laws of proper lineage, this leniency is not taken. [After the fact,] if she married [a priest], she need not be divorced because there are two questions involved: Maybe this is the widow of that challal56And as is stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1, a woman who engaged in relations with a challal is forbidden to the priesthood. or maybe it is not? Even if you say that she was his widow, maybe he was a challal or maybe he was not?57Since there is a multiple doubt (sefek sefeikah), the woman is permitted.
If, however, a person who was definitely a challal married into a family, every woman58I.e., both widows and daughters (Kessef Mishneh). from that family is forbidden to a priest until he conducts an investigation. If he marries [such a woman without an investigation], she must be divorced. The same laws59I.e., the first clause applies to a person's whose status as a mamzer is a matter of question and the second clause to whose unacceptable status is definite (Kessef Mishneh).
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions opinions that rule more stringently and forbid marriage even when there is a report that a person about whom a question was raised whether or not he is a mamzer married into a family. In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 2:5), however, he quotes the Rambam's view. apply if a person regarding whom there is a question whether he is a mamzer or a person who is definitely mamzer became intermingled in the family. For the same prohibition applies to the priesthood with regard to the wife of a challal and the wife of a mamzer, as we explained.60Chapter 18, Halachah 1." + ], + [ + "[The status of] all of the priests of the present era1When the priests do not serve in the Temple and there is no Sanhedrin to verify their lineage. is accepted on the basis of a prevailing assumption.2I.e., they are regarded as priests by people at large even though there is no definite proof of their lineage. They may only eat sacred food that is eaten [within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael],3I.e., in contrast to sacrificial meat which may be eaten only in the Temple courtyard or within the city of Jerusalem depending on the type of sacrifice involved. provided it is terumah mandated by virtue of Rabbinic decree [alone].4As explained in Halachah 3, in the present age, the mitzvah of terumah has the status of a Rabbinic commandment. As reflected by the commentaries to Hilchot Terumah 2:1, according to the Rambam, Scriptural Law requires us to separate terumah from all types of produce usually eaten by humans. The mitzvah does not apply only to the grain, grapes, and olives singled out by Deuteronomy 18:4. [Even] terumah mandated by Scriptural Law and challah mandated by Scriptural Law, by contrast, may be eaten only by a priest whose lineage is established.", + "What is meant by a priest whose lineage is established? Anyone concerning whom two witnesses5Note the Maggid Mishneh who elaborates, explaining that although generally, the testimony of one witness is sufficient with regard to issues involving Scriptural prohibitions, an exception is made with regard to terumah. testify that he is a priest, the son of so-and-so the priest, and the descendant of so-and-so the priest, extending back until we reach a person whose lineage need not be checked, i.e., a priest who served at the altar. [Such a person's lineage need not be verified, because] were the High Court not to have made investigations about him, they would not have allowed him to perform service [in the Temple].6See the conclusion of the tractate of Middot and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:11, which describes the manner in which the lineage of the priests was checked.
Accordingly, we do not investigate the lineage of anyone who served at the altar or who served on the Sanhedrin. For only priests, Levites, and Israelites of acceptable lineage are appointed to the Sanhedrin.7See Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:1.", + "In the present era, even in Eretz Yisrael,8As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Bikkurim 5:5,7, in the Biblical era, there was a distinction between the mitzvah of challah as observed in Eretz Yisrael and as observed in the Diaspora. For according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. challah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment. [This is derived from Numbers 15:18:] \"When you come into the land....\"9The continuation of the verse describes the mitzvah to separate challah. [Implied is when] all of you enter and not when only a portion enter.10As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Terumah 1:26 and Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:16, after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael by Assyrians and the Babylonians the sanctity of the land was nullified and there was no obligation to keep the agricultural laws of Eretz Yisrael. When Ezra led the people back to Eretz Yisrael after the 70 years of the Babylonian exile, the majority of the people did not accompany him. (Moreover, he did not conquer the land.) Hence, his sanctification of Eretz Yisrael was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, he and his court ruled that those mitzvot should be observed as a Rabbinic ordinance.
This reflects the Rambam's view. Although other Rishonim (Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen) differ and maintain that Ezra's settlement of the land was sufficient to sanctify it according to Scriptural Law, the Rambam's approach is accepted by most authorities. When Ezra ascended [to Eretz Yisrael], the entire people did not ascend.
Similarly, in the present era, terumah is a Rabbinic commandment.11The Rambam maintains that the laws regarding terumah and the tithes are derived from those applying to challah (Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Terumah 1:26). Therefore it is eaten by the priests of our era [whose lineage is established merely] by presumption.", + "When two witnesses testify that they saw a person partaking of terumah mandated by Scriptural Law, his lineage is established. We do not elevate a person [to the level that his priestly] lineage is [considered as] established based on the fact that he delivers the Priestly Blessing [to the people], reads the Torah first,12In the Talmudic era - as is still the practice in certain communities - when a person was given an aliyah, he would read the Torah himself, rather than have it read for him by others. or is given terumah in the granaries,13Although all of these practices are signs of the priesthood, we do not consider them as conclusive evidence of a priest's lineage. or because of the testimony of one witness.", + "When a priest whose lineage was established says: \"This son of mine is a priest,\" we do not consider [the son as a priest whose] lineage is established14The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's words could be interpreted to mean that the child is considered a priest with regard to marriage. Nevertheless, he does not possess the advantage of being considered of established lineage unless testimony is given. on the basis of his statement unless he brings witnesses who testify that the child is his son.15The father's statement is, however, sufficient to have considered as a priest with regards to matters applicable in the present age, as stated in Halachah 10.", + "[The following laws apply when] a priest whose lineage has been established departs to another country together with his wife whom we know to be of acceptable lineage. If he comes together with her and children who relate to them as parents and says: \"This is the woman who departed together with me and these are her children,\" he does not have to bring witnesses to testify about the woman or the children.
[If he says:] \"She died and these are her children,\" he must bring witnesses who testify that these are his children.16More precisely, that they are the sons borne him by his deceased wife. He need not bring witnesses that his wife was of acceptable lineage, for her status as being acceptable was already established when she departed from us.", + "When a priest whose lineage was established goes out to another country and comes together with his wife and his sons, saying: \"I married this woman and these are her sons,\" he must bring proof that the woman is acceptable. He does not have to bring witnesses that these are her sons, provided the children relate to her as a mother.
If he comes together with two wives and brings proof regarding one, he is required to bring proof about the sons, even though the children are young and relate to her as a mother. For perhaps they are the sons of the other women, but relate to the woman whose lineage is established as a mother.", + "If he comes together with sons and says: \"I married a woman and she died. These are her sons,\" he must bring witnesses that the woman was acceptable and that these are her sons.\" These laws also apply with regard to an Israelite of established lineage and a Levite of established lineage. Afterwards, we can testify with regard to this son so that he will be fit for the Sanhedrin.17And his daughters fit to marry priests.", + "We do not elevate a person's lineage [based on mention in] a document to the priesthood. What is implied? If it is stated in a document: \"So-and-so, the priest, borrowed from so-and-so this-and-this amount,\" and witnesses sign below, we do not operate under the assumption that this priest is of acceptable lineage. For perhaps, they signed only with regard to the loan.18And did not pay attention to the fact the person was described as a priest.
With regard to what does the above apply? With regard to considering the person as a priest of acceptable lineage. [Different principles apply] with regard to the presumption that he is a priest like the other priests of the present age and license to partake of terumah and challah mandated by Rabbinic decree and to be given other sacred articles [granted priests within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael].19E.g., the sheep exchanged in place of a donkey, the first shearing of a sheep, and the like. [These privileges are granted on the basis of] mention in a legal document, the testimony of one witness, or the fact that a person recites the priestly blessing or reads the Torah first.", + "Similarly, whenever a priest says: \"My son is a priest,\" his word is accepted with regard to feeding him terumah20This refers even to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. Ketubot 25b explains that this ruling is based on the principle of miggo. If the priest desired to transgress, he could feed his son terumah without having him declared a priest. See also Halachah 3. and having him accepted as a priest.21To be given an aliyah first and to bless the people. He need not bring proof regarding his sons or his wife.", + "When two people come to a particular city, one says: \"I and my colleague are priests,\" and the other says, \"I and my colleague are priests,\" their word is accepted and they are both considered as priests22For the testimony of one witness is effective. even though it appears that they are in collusion.23And there is room to suspect that each is lying on the others behalf.
Similarly, if one witness says: \"I saw this person recite the Priestly Blessing,\" \"...eat terumah, \"...received terumah in the granary,\" or \"...read first from the Torah and a Levi read after him,\"24If a Levi did not read after him, the fact that he read first is not significant. For perhaps there were no priests present and an Israelite was called instead or he was given the honor because of his stature as a Torah scholar. he is considered a priest on the basis of this statement. Similarly, if one testified that a person read second from the Torah after a priest, he is considered as a Levite.", + "If one delivers testimony in court saying that he saw a person and his brothers divide terumah left to them by their father the priest, we do not consider him a priest because of this testimony. Perhaps he is a challal and took his portion of the inheritance of terumah in order to sell it.", + "In the present era, when a person comes and says: \"I am a priest,\" his word is not accepted and we do not consider him a priest on the basis of his own statements. He should not read from the Torah first, recite the Priestly Blessing,25The Maggid Mishneh explains that the above are forbidden him, because - as stated in Halachah 9 - when an observer sees a person performing such acts, he may consider that person a priest.
Rav Moshe Cohen and the Rama (Even HaEzer 3:1) maintain that, in the present era, it is customary to accept a person's word if he claims to be a priest. For the only serious problem with regard to observance is partaking of terumah and we do not separate terumah in the present age. Note the Chelkat Mechokek 3:1 who raises questions regarding the license for this person to recite the Priestly Blessing. See also the Maggid Mishneh who mentions that this custom was also practiced in his era. He strongly protests against it, calling it \"an erroneous custom.\" or partake of sacred food that is eaten [within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] unless there is one witness who corroborates his statements.
He does, however, cause himself to be forbidden [to marry] a divorcee, a zonah, and a challalah; nor may he become impure because of contact with a corpse.26Since he considers himself a priest, it is as if he has taken a vow not to perform these activities. If he marries such a woman or becomes impure, he receives lashes.27The commentaries have questioned this statement, for it has not been formally established that the person is a priest. Nevertheless, since he considers himself a priest, as far as he is concerned, the warning given him will be have been of substance and the punishment deserved. Hence he is given the lashes. The woman is not given lashes, for as far as she is concerned, the matter is not definitely established (Maggid Mishneh). A woman [who may not marry into the priesthood] who engages in relations with him is deemed a challalah of questionable status.28Hence if another priest engages in relations with her, he is not given lashes. Her offspring are also challalim of questionable status and her daughter may not marry into the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh; Chelkat Mechokek 3:3).", + "If the person makes these statements in the course of conversation, his word is accepted.29He is allowed to partake of terumah mandated by Rabbinic decree, for his statements are given the weight of the testimony of one witness.
What is implied? An incident once took place with regard to a person who was speaking in the midst of conversation, saying: \"I remember that when I was an infant and was being carried on my shoulders by father, they took me out of school,30This is proof that he was not a servant, for servants are not taught the Torah (Tosafot, Ketubot 26a). removed my outer garment, and had me immerse in the mikveh to partake of terumah in the evening. My colleagues separated themselves from me and called me: 'Yochanan, who eats challot.' Our holy teacher31Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. had him considered a priest on the basis of these statements.", + "An adult's word is accepted if he says: \"I remember when I was a child32Generally, for testimony to be valid, the person observing the matter must be acceptable as a witness. In this instance, however, formal testimony is not required. Hence leniency is shown. (See Hilchot Edut 14:3). and I saw so-and-so immerse himself in a mikveh and partake of terumah in the evening.\" He is considered a priest on the basis of this statement.
In the present era, when a person comes and says: \"I am a priest,\" and a witness testifies on his behalf, saying: \"I know that his father is a priest,\" we do not consider him as a priest on the basis of this testimony. [We fear that] perhaps he is a challal.33This applies even if there are no rumors that the person's mother is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh). The Chelkat Mechokek 3:9 quotes other authorities who are more lenient. Instead, [the witness] must testify that the person himself is a priest. If, however, the father's identity as a priest is an established fact or two witnesses come and testify that the person's father is a priest, because of his father, we assume [that he is a priest].", + "When the identity of a person's father as a priest has been established, but there is a rumor34We are not speaking about mere hearsay, but a rumor that is substantiated by the court. that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who performed chalitzah, we entertain suspicions and do not treat him as a priest. If one witness comes and testifies that he is acceptable, we treat him as a priest because of his statements.35For the testimony of one witness is powerful enough to negate the rumor. If two witnesses come afterwards and testify that he is a challal, we remove him from the priesthood.36Because the testimony of one witness is of no consequence in the face of the testimony of two witnesses.
If another witness comes and testifies that he is acceptable, we treat him as a priest, because the last witness is joined together with the first.37The fact that the two witnesses do not testify at the same time is not significant (Hilchot Edut 4:4). Thus there are two witnesses testifying that he is acceptable and two testifying that he is unacceptable. Both pairs of witness and the rumor are voided, for two witnesses have the same legal power as 100.38I.e., the intent is that once two witnesses give testimony in court, their statement is given the weight of established fact and needs no further corroboration. Since the statements of the two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, they are both nullified. Nevertheless, the statements of the witnesses who testify that he is acceptable also have the power to nullify the rumor. And the person remains a priest based on the status of his father.39The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if he is considered acceptable only with regard to terumah mandated by Rabbinic Law or also with regard to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. The Beit Shmuel 3:14 states that the Rambam is also referring to terumah mandated by Rabbinic Law.", + "[The following law applies] when a woman [remarried] without waiting three months after [the death of] her [first] husband40A woman is required to wait for such an interim so that the lineage of her children will be established definitively. and gave birth. If it is not known whether the child was conceived by the first - and born after nine months - or conceived by the second - and born after seven - and one of them was a priest and the other, an Israelite, the child is a priest of questionable status.
Similarly, if a son of a priest became intermingled with a child of an Israelite41I.e., as infants, the identity of the children became confused and the doubt was never clarified. and they grow to maturity, they are both considered priests of questionable status. They must observe the stringencies incumbent on Israelites and the stringencies incumbent on priests: They may only marry women fit to marry into the priesthood. They may not become impure through contact with the dead, nor may they partake of terumah. If they marry a divorcee, they are forced to divorce and they do not receive lashes.42They are not given lashes, because it is not certain that they violated a Scriptural commandment. They should, however, be given \"stripes for rebellious conduct,\" because of their disregard of the restrictions the Rabbis placed upon them [Perisha (Even HaEzer 3)].", + "[The following rules apply] if the sons of two priests become intermingled or the wife of a priest married a second priest without waiting three months after the death of her first husband and it is not known whether the child was conceived by the first - and born after nine months - or conceived by the second - and born after seven. The stringencies that would apply as if he was the son of both men must be observed: He must observe the rites of aninut43This term refers to the state of acute morning that applies immediately after the death of one's close relative. See Hilchot Evel 4:6. It is particularly relevant to priests, for one is forbidden to serve in the Temple or partake of sacrificial foods in a state of aninut (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-10 ). because of [both44Yevamot 100b notes a difficulty in the use of the plural in both this and the following clause. Since the ordinary way the mother of this priest could have married a second priest is when her first husband died, how is it possible to speak about the son mourning for that first husband or that first husband mourning for him?
The Talmud answers that this is speaking about a situation where the mother thought she was consecrated to the first husband, but in fact was not. This is not considered a licentious relationship warranting the stringencies mentioned in the following halachah. A formal divorce, however, is not required and hence the woman may marry another priest.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam, one can also interpret the passage as referring to a woman whose father died in her childhood and who was married by Rabbinic decree. Until she attains majority, she may dissolve that marriage through the rite of mi'un. In such an instance, a formal divorce is not required. If she conceives a child, dissolves her marriage, and then marries another priest, the situation mentioned in this halachah may apply. of] them45For perhaps that person is his father. Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this statement as referring to the restrictions placed upon priests for aninut. Since it is possible that the person who died is his father, he should not risk the violation of a Scriptural commandment. With regard to the customs concerning aninut mentioned in Hilchot Evel (one of them being that one does not perform any of the Torah's mitzvot), by contrast, Kinat Eliyahu raises a question: Should one refrain from performing a mitzvah because perhaps the person who died was his father? and they [both] observe the rights of aninut because of him.46For perhaps he is their son. He may not become impure because of them, nor may they become impure because of him.47There is a Scriptural prohibition against a priest becoming impure. That prohibition does not apply when one is certain that the person who died is one's relative. In this instance, however, neither the father or son is certain. He may serve in the priestly watch48The priests were divided into 24 watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week in a cycle of rotation (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3). This priest has the right to serve during the week allotted to both of the individuals suspected of being his father. of both of them, but does not receive a portion.49In this instance, we are speaking of expropriating property (a share in the sacrifices) from the other priests. Hence we follow the principle: When a person seeks to expropriate property, the burden of proof is upon him. If they are both from the same priestly watch and the same beit av,50Each priestly watch was divided into seven batei av, family groupings, who would serve in the Temple one day of the seven (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11). he receives one portion.51For he is certainly entitled to one portion.", + "When does the above apply? When the relationships with both [priests] involve marriage. If, however, one is a licentious relationship, our Sages decreed that [the son's] priestly privileges are suppressed entirely, because he does not have definitive knowledge of the identity of his father. [This is supported by Numbers 25:13]:52Yevamot, loc. cit., explains that this interpretation is not of Scriptural origin. Instead, the law is a Rabbinic decree. Our Sages, however, found a Biblical verse that supported their ruling. \"He and his descendants who follow him will possess [the covenant of priesthood].\" [Implied is that] his descendants will be able to trace their identity to him.", + "What is implied? There were ten priests. One of them departed and engaged in relations [with a woman without revealing his identity]. The son is definitely a priest.53Because all the individuals suspected of being his father were priests. Nevertheless, since he does not know his father's identity and cannot trace his lineage to him, his priestly privileges are suppressed entirely. He may not serve [in the Temple], partake [of sacrificial foods], or receive an allotment [from the sacrifices]. If, however, he becomes impure because of contact with a corpse or he marries a divorcee, he receives lashes, for there is no question of leniency.54For he is definitely a priest and must observe the prohibitions incumbent upon them." + ], + [ + "Whoever shares physical intimacy with one of the ariyot without actually becoming involved in sexual relations or embraces and kisses [one of them] out of desire1Compare to Halachah 6. and derives pleasure from the physical contact should be lashed2As evident from Halachah 3, although such acts are forbidden whenever sexual relations are prohibited, lashes are given only when the woman is one of the ariyot (Maggid Mishneh). according to Scriptural Law. [This is derived from Leviticus 18:30 which] states: \"To refrain from performing any of these abominable practices,\" and [ibid.:6 which] states: \"Do not draw close to reveal nakedness.\" Implied is that we are forbidden to draw close to acts that lead to revealing nakedness.3The verse teaches that not only is undesirable sexual conduct itself forbidden, but also preliminary acts that lead to such conduct.
This teaching is significant from a theoretical perspective. Our Sages teach (Avot 1:1): \"Make a fence around the Torah,\" i.e., enact prohibitions to safeguard Scriptural prohibitions and prevent them from being violated. Our Rabbis, however, question if there is a concept of \"making a fence\" in Scriptural Law, i.e., are there prohibitions that exist solely to prevent one from violating more severe prohibitions?
It would appear that this prohibition would fall into that category (see Halachah 4). Why are these acts of closeness forbidden? Because most likely they will lead to intimacy. One may, however, explain that these acts of closeness are, in and of themselves, \"abominable practices,\" and hence, forbidden.
The above discussion is relevant according to the Rambam's approach. The Ramban [Hasgot to Sefer HaMitzvot (mitzvah 353) differs and does not consider the prohibition mentioned here of Scriptural origin. Instead, he views it as a Rabbinic safeguard, \"a fence\" instituted by the Rabbis to protect Scriptural Law.", + "A person who engages in any of the abovementioned practices is considered likely to engage in forbidden sexual relations.
It is forbidden4The Maggid Mishneh considers the following as Rabbinic safeguards. The Beit Shmuel 21:2 mentions opinions which consider some as having a Scriptural source. for a person to make motions with his hands or feet or wink with his eyes to one of the ariyot, to share mirth with her or to act frivolously with her.5As Avot 1:5 teaches: \"Mirth and frivolity habituate a person to immorality.\" It is even forbidden to smell her perfume6In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4), the Rambam quotes the Pesikta Rabati, ch. 25, which interprets the commandment lo tinaf, as \"Do not take forbidden pleasure with your nose.\" or gaze at her beauty. A person who performs any of these actions intentionally should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.
A person who looks at even a small finger of a woman with the intent of deriving pleasure is considered as if he looked at her genitalia. It is even forbidden to hear the voice of a woman forbidden as an ervah or to look at her hair.", + "These matters are [also] forbidden with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden on the basis of [merely] a negative commandment.
It is permitted to look at the face of an unmarried woman and examine [her features] whether she is a virgin or has engaged in relations previously to see whether she is attractive in his eyes so that he may marry her. There is no prohibition in doing this. On the contrary, it is proper to do this.7For if a person does not look at a woman before he marries her, he may have an unpleasant surprise afterwards (Kiddushin 41a). The Ra'avad suggests that a pious person should rely on the opinion of others rather than looking at his intended himself, but the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:3) quotes the Rambam's view. One should not, however, look in a licentious manner. Behold [Job 31:1] states: \"I established a covenant with my eyes; I would not gaze at a maiden.\"", + "It is permitted for a person to gaze at his wife8Indeed, a woman may adorn herself during this time so that she will not appear unattractive to her husband (Chapter 11, Halachah 19). when she is in the niddah state9This applies only to portions of her body which are usually revealed. He should not look at those portions that are usually covered (Ra'avad). although she is an ervah [at that time]. Although his heart derives satisfaction from seeing her, since she will be permitted to him afterwards, he will not suffer a lapse. He should not, however, share mirth with her or act frivolously with her lest this lead to sin.", + "It is forbidden for a man to have any woman - whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman - perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts.
Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet,10This applies even if the woman does not actually touch him [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:5)]. spreading his bed in his presence,11Implied is that outside one's presence, this is permitted. and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife.12For they all suggest a certain measure of intimacy. Compare to Chapter 11, Halachah 19.
When commenting on the quotation of these laws by the Shulchan Aruch, the Rama mentions certain leniencies, e.g., if the tasks are performed in a public place, if there is no indication of closeness involved.
[A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.13Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who explains that it is permitted to inquire concerning a woman's welfare.", + "When a man embraces or kisses any of the women forbidden to him as ariyot despite the fact that his heart does not disturb him concerning the matter,14I.e., he has no fear that this closeness will lead to intimacy. e.g., his adult sister, his mother's sister, or the like, it is very shameful. It is forbidden15Nevertheless, if one has no pleasure or desire, the act is not punished by lashes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3)]. and it is foolish conduct. [This applies] even if he has no desire or pleasure at all. For one should not show closeness to a woman forbidden as an ervah at all, whether an adult or a minor, except a woman to her son and a father to his daughter.16The Chelkat Mechokek 21:10 adds that one may show physical closeness to one's granddaughter and to one's infant sister.", + "What is implied? A father is permitted to embrace his daughter, kiss her, and sleep with her with their bodies touching17I.e., even unclothed. and a mother may do the same with her son as long as they are young. When they grow and become mature18In Hilchot Keriat Shema 3:19, the Rambam mentions that the children must also reached the age of majority, thirteen for boys and twelve for girls. In our translation, however, we have focused on the physical characteristics, because the Chelkat Mechokek 21:12 emphasizes that this is what is of primary importance. with the girl's body becoming developed,19The Rambam borrows the wording of Ezekiel 16:7 which literally means \"her breasts are developed and her hair has grown.\" they should each sleep in clothing.
If the daughter is embarrassed to stand before her father naked or she married,20The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies even if she is merely consecrated. and similarly, if the mother was embarrassed to stand before her son naked, even if [the children] are minors, when one reaches the point when one is ashamed [of being naked] in their presence, they should sleep together only when clothed.21Even when children reach the stage when they and their parents are required to sleep together while clothed, their parents are still allowed to embrace them and kiss them (Beit Shmuel 7:15).", + "Lesbian relations are forbidden. This is \"the conduct of Egypt\" which we were warned against, as [Leviticus 18:3] states: \"Do not follow the conduct of Egypt.\" Our Sages said:22Sifra, commenting on the above verse. What would they do? A man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, and a woman would marry two men.
Although this conduct is forbidden,23By Scriptural Law. The verse is not merely cited as support for a Rabbinic injunction. lashes are not given for it, for it is not a specific prohibition24As stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 353), this is a general prohibition, including all types of forbidden sexual behavior. As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3, lashes are not given for the violation of prohibitions that are of a general nature. and there is no intercourse at all. Therefore such women are not forbidden to marry into the priesthood as zonot, nor does a woman become prohibited to her husband because of this,25As would apply were this to be considered as adultery. for this is not considered harlotry. It is, however, appropriate to give them stripes for rebellious conduct26This represents a change of opinion from his statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3) where he writes that even according to Rabbinic Law, no punishment should be given. because they performed a transgression. A man should take precautions with his wife with regard to this matter and should prevent women who are known to engage in such practices from visiting her and her from visiting them.", + "A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore a man may do whatever he desires with his wife. He may engage in relations whenever he desires, kiss any organ he desires,27The Beit Shmuel 25:1 quotes many authorities who forbid a man from kissing his wife's genitalia. engage in vaginal or anal intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations, provided he does not release seed in vain.28See Halachah 18.
Nevertheless, it is pious conduct for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of relations, as explained in Hilchot Deot.29In Hilchot Deot, ch. 3, the Rambam elaborates on the concept that all of a person's actions, even his sexual conduct, must be for the sake of heaven. In Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, the Rambam elaborates on refined habits of sexual conduct. He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act was [given to us] solely for the sake of procreation.30In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3), the Rambam writes:
The intent of sexual relations is the preservation of the species and not only pleasure. The aspect of pleasure was introduced only to motivate the created beings toward that ultimate goal....
The proof of this is that desire and pleasure cease after ejaculation; this was the entire goal for which our instincts were aroused. If the goal were pleasure, satisfaction would continue as long as man desired.
", + "A man is forbidden to engage in relations by candlelight.31The point of the laws mentioned in this halachah is that one should not look at one's wife while engaging in relations. If, on the Sabbath,32When it is a mitzvah to engage in relations. he did not have another room and there is a light burning, he should not engage in relations at all.33If one can cover the light or create a partition in front of it in a manner permitted on the Sabbath, there is no prohibition [Chelkat Mechokek 25:4; Rama (Orach Chayim 240:11)].
Similarly, it is forbidden for a Jew to engage in relations during the day, for this is brazen conduct. If he is a Torah scholar, who will not be drawn after this, he may create darkness with his garment and engage in relations. One should not, however, adopt this measure unless there is a great need.34I.e., one feels very aroused (Magen Avraham 240:25). It is the course of holy conduct to engage in relations in the middle of the night35In Hilchot Deot 5:4, the Rambam gives a rationale that at this time a person's food will have been digested and yet, he will not be overly hungry. The commentaries to Nedarim 20b explain that in this manner, the man and his wife will have forgotten all their daytime concerns and will be able to focus their attention on each other and the holiness of the experience.", + "Our Sages do not derive satisfaction from a person who engages in sexual relations excessively and frequents his wife like a rooster. This reflects a very blemished [character]; it is the way underdeveloped people conduct themselves. Instead, everyone who minimizes his sexual conduct is praiseworthy, provided he does not neglect his conjugal duties36See Hilchot Ishut, ch. 14, which explains the frequency of the conjugal duties a husband has to his wife. This factor is dependent on the nature of the husband's work and the manner in which it taxes him. without the consent of his wife. The sole reason while originally it was ordained that a person who had a seminal emission should not read from the Torah until they immerse themselves37See Hilchot Kriat Shema 4:8 which explains that originally, Ezra enacted such a decree for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. Afterwards, our Sages checked and saw that this decree had never fully spread throughout the Jewish community. Hence they nullified it. was to minimize sexual conduct.", + "Similarly, our Sages38Nedarim 20b. forbade a person from engaging in relations with his wife while his heart is focused on another woman. He should not engage in relations while intoxicated, nor while quarreling, nor out of hatred. He should not engage in relations with her against her will when she is afraid of him.39See Hilchot Deot 5:4-5 which states:
[Relations should be conducted] amidst their mutual consent and joy. He should converse and dally with her somewhat, so that she will be relaxed. He should have intercourse [with her] modestly and not boldly.... Whoever conducts himself in this manner [may be assured that] not only does he sanctify his soul, purify himself, and refine his character, but furthermore, if he has children, they will be handsome and modest, worthy of wisdom and piety.
 Nor when one of them is placed under a ban of ostracism. He should not engage in relations [with his wife] after he made the decision to divorce her. If he does so,40I.e., exhibits any of the undesirable behaviors described above. The rationale is, as explained in Avodat HaKodesh and other sources, a person's intent at the time of sexual relations has a major effect in determining the character of his children. the children will not be of proper character. There will be those who are brazen and others who are rebellious and sinful.", + "Similarly, our Sages said41Nedarim, loc. cit.. that whenever an audacious woman demands relations verbally, a man seduces a woman for the sake of marriage, he had the intent of having relations with his wife Rachel and instead, engages in relations with his wife Leah, or a woman does not wait three months after the death of her husband and gives birth to a son whose identity is questionable,42As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, whenever a woman is divorced or widowed, she should wait 90 days before remarrying, so that the identity of her child's father will be clearly established. all of the children born in these situations will be rebellious and sinful who will be purified by the sufferings of exile.", + "It is forbidden for a man to engage in relations with his wife in the marketplaces, streets, gardens, or orchards. Instead, [a couple should be physically intimate] only in a home, so that they will not appear as licentious relations and will not habituate themselves to licentious relations.43For surrendering oneself to one's desires without control within the context of marriage may lead one to surrender oneself to one's desires outside the context of marriage. When a man engages in relations with his wife in such places, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, when a man consecrates a woman via sexual relations,44According to Scriptural Law, a person may consecrate his wife by engaging in relations with her. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade such a practice because of its immodest nature (Hilchot Ishut 3:21). consecrates her in the market place or consecrates her without there being an engagement beforehand, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.45As Hilchot Ishut, ibid.::22 continues, the latter two practices were forbidden as a safeguard to lewd conduct. Our Sages feared that if women would be consecrated in this manner, the people would look at marriage and intimacy in a much baser manner.", + "A visitor is forbidden to engage in relations until he returns home. Our Sages46Kiddushin 12b. forbade a man from dwelling in his father-in-law's home,47For an extended period of time. Needless, to say, there is no difficulty with making a short visit.
With regard to both this and the previous law, the Ra'avad writes that if the couple are given a separate room and they use their own bedspreads, there is no prohibition. The Maggid Mishneh writes that in practice, many people follow this approach, although he does not see a source for this leniency in the Talmud. The Chelkat Mechokek 25:6 and the Beit Shmuel 25:7 quotes the Ra'avad's view. for this is brazen conduct. Nor should he enter a bathhouse with him.", + "A person should not enter a bathhouse with his father, his sister's husband, nor with his student.48Lest this arouse undesirable thoughts [Rashi, Pesachim 51a; see Rama (Even HaEzer 23:6)]. If he needs his student [to assist him], it is permitted. There are places where people followed the custom that two brothers would not enter a bathhouse at the same time.", + "Jewish women should not walk in the marketplace with uncovered hair. [This applies to] both unmarried49I.e., a widow or a divorcee. A woman who never married may wear her hair uncovered (Chelkat Mechokek 21:2). and married women. Similarly, a woman should not walk in the street with her son following her. [This is] a decree, [enacted so that] her son not be abducted and she follow after him to bring him back and she be molested by wicked people who took hold of him as a caprice.", + "It is forbidden to release sperm wastefully.50When stating this prohibition, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:1) adds: \"This transgression is more severe than any of the sins in the Torah.\" Therefore a person should not enter his wife and ejaculate outside of her.51See the commentaries to Genesis, ch. 38, which relate that this was the sin of Judah's two sons: Er and Onan. They married Tamar, but did not desire that she become pregnant. Hence they did not release their sperm within her. Their sin angered God and He caused them to die. A man should not marry a minor who is not fit to give birth.52For in essence, whenever the couple engage in intercourse, he will be releasing sperm without purpose, because she is not old enough to become pregnant. Niddah 13b states that those who marry minors hold back Mashiach's coming.
It must be emphasized that if a man does marry a minor, he is permitted to engage in relations with her [Rama (Even HaEzer 23:5)]. Similarly, relations are permitted in other instances where they will not lead to pregnancy: e.g., when the woman is already pregnant, directly after birth, or she is past menopause. Since a man has conjugal duties to his wife, he is not allowed to ignore them even though she will not become pregnant.
Those who, however, release sperm with their hands, beyond the fact that they commit a great transgression, a person who does this will abide under a ban of ostracism. Concerning them, it is said: \"Your hands are filled with blood.\" It is as if they killed a person.", + "It is forbidden for a person to intentionally cause himself to have an erection or to bring himself to [sexual] thoughts. If a [sexual] thought comes to his mind, he should divert his heart from profligate and destructive matters to the words of Torah53See Chapter 22, Halachah 21. See also Avot D'Rabbi Nattan 20:1 which implies that this is not merely a matter of will power and mind control. Instead, directing one's attention to the Torah awakens spiritual influences which prevent a person's attention from focusing on sexual thoughts. which are \"a beloved hind, arousing favor.\"54This analogy for the Torah is taken from Proverbs 5:19. For this reason, it is forbidden for a person to sleep on his back with his face upward,55Needless to say, it is forbidden for one to sleep on his belly. Instead, he should turn to the side slightly so that he will not develop an erection.", + "One should not look at animals, beasts, and fowls at the time the males and females are coupling. It is, however, permitted for a breeder of livestock to insert a male animal's organ in a female's. Since he is working in his profession, he will not be motivated to [sexual] thoughts.", + "Similarly, it is forbidden for a man to look at woman while they do laundry. It is even forbidden to look at the colored56Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. This also follows the text of Avodah Zarah 20b, the Rambam's apparent source. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah employs a slightly different version. garments of a woman one knows,57When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:1) clarifies that it applies even when the woman is not wearing the garments. The clothes themselves may prompt the man's imagination. lest one be motivated to [sexual] thoughts.", + "When a person encounters a woman in the street, it is forbidden for him to walk behind her.58For watching her body might arouse him. Instead, he should hurry and [position himself so that] she is at his side or behind him. Whoever walks behind a woman in the marketplace is one of the frivolous of the common people.
It is forbidden to pass the entrance of a harlot without distancing oneself four cubits, as [Proverbs 5:8] states: \"Do not come close to the entrance of her home.\"", + "It is forbidden for an unmarried man to extend his hand to his testicles, lest he be stimulated to [sexual] thoughts. Indeed, he should not extend his hand below his navel, lest he be stimulated to [sexual] thoughts. If he urinates, he should not hold the shaft of his organ while urinating. If he is married,59Even if his wife is not together with him (Beit Shmuel 23:4). this is permitted. Whether he is married or not, he should not extend his hand to his organ at all, except when he has to urinate.60See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 3:14) which grants a man permission to hold himself below the corona of his organ, for this does not stimulate him sexually.", + "One of the pious men of the early eras and the wise men of stature prided himself in that he never looked at his male organ. Another said with pride that he had never contemplated his wife's physical form.61See Shabbos 118b, 53b. For their hearts would be diverted from profligate matters to the words of truth which take hold of the hearts of the holy.", + "Among our Sages' commands is that a person should marry off his sons and daughters close to the time they reach physical maturity.62I.e., directly after a youth becomes thirteen (Chelkat Mechokek 1:3). For were he to leave them [unmarried], they may be motivated to promiscuity or sexual thoughts. Concerning this was applied the verse [Job 5:24]: \"Scrutinize your dwelling and you shall not sin.\"63I.e., having foresight with regard to one's children's sexual behavior will prevent sin. See the conclusion of Hilchot Sotah where the Rambam cites the same verse in a different - although somewhat related - context.
It is forbidden to marry a woman to a minor, for this is comparable to promiscuity.64According to Scriptural Law, a man cannot consecrate a woman until he reaches the age of thirteen and demonstrates signs of physical maturity. Hence, if a couple are married beforehand, all relations are comparable to promiscuity. See Chelkat Mechokek, loc. cit. and Beit Shmuel 1:4 who discuss certain views that maintain that it is permitted to marry beforehand.", + "A man is not permitted to abide without a wife.65Lest he be prompted to sexual thoughts. He should not marry a barren woman or an elderly woman who is not fit to bear children.66This certainly applies before the man has fulfilled the obligation to be fruitful and multiply (i.e., he fathered a boy and a girl). Even after he has fulfilled that mitzvah, he should marry a woman capable of bearing children [Hilchot Ishut 15:7, 16; Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 1:8)]. In the latter situation, however, there is room for certain leniencies.
A woman is permitted not to marry at all or to marry a eunuch. 67For she is not bound by the commandment of procreation. A young man should not marry an elderly woman, nor an elderly man, a young woman, for such conduct leads to promiscuity.68We assume that the difference in age will lead to a lack of sexual harmony and cause the man and/or woman to seek fulfillment outside of marriage.", + "Similarly, a person who divorced his wife after they were married69If, however, the woman was merely consecrated, the couple will not have shared familiarity and there is less grounds for suspicion, as mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah. should not live in the same courtyard as she, lest this lead to promiscuity.70In the Talmudic era, the custom was to build blocks of homes that opened up to a communal courtyard. Several of these courtyards would open up to a single lane. If a man and his divorcee would dwell in a single courtyard - and even in a single lane - they would meet each other on a frequent basis. In such a situation, we fear that the familiarity that they shared in the past might lead them to be intimate.
Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that as long as the woman has not remarried, there is no prohibition against relations between the couple. They cite the standard text of Ketubot 27b which reads \"A woman should not marry in his neighborhood.\" They maintain that the prohibition applies only when the woman remarries. She and her new husband should not dwell near her previous husband lest this lead to adultery.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 119:7) quotes the Rambam's wording. The Rama, however, mentions that if a woman remarries, she should not dwell in the same lane as her ex-husband even if he is not a priest. If he was a priest, he should not dwell in the same lane as she.71Since he is also bound by the prohibition against relations with a divorcee, there are more severe restrictions. A small village is considered as a lane.
If he owes her a debt, she should appoint an agent to demand payment from him.72Rather than demand payment herself. In this way, they will share less contact. When a divorcee and her ex-husband come [to court] for a judgment, we place them under a ban of ostracism or subject them to stripes for rebellious conduct.73For one of them should have appointed an agent so that they would avoid meeting each other.
If, however, a woman was divorced [merely] after consecration, she may summon him to court and dwell near him.74Since they never lived together, we do not fear that meeting each other will lead to intimacy. If they shared extensive familiarity, this is forbidden even if [they were divorced merely] after consecration.
Who is forced to move? She is forced to move because of him.75This applies if the home belongs to the husband and even if the woman also owns a home in that courtyard or the couple's home was rented (Chelkat Mechokek 119:27). Ketubot 28a explains that it is more difficult for a man to leave his home than it is for a woman. If the courtyard belongs to her, he is forced to move because of her.", + "A person should not marry a woman with the intent to divorce her, [as alluded to by Proverbs 3:29]: \"Do not devise evil against your loved one, one who dwells securely with you.\" If he notifies her at the outset that he is marrying her only for a limited time, it is permitted.76In this instance, she is not \"dwelling securely,\" because she was informed of the temporary nature of the relationship from the outset. See Yevamot 37b which gives the example of several Sages who would marry women for brief periods of times after informing them beforehand.
See also the Chelkat Mechokek 119:1 and the Beit Shmuel 119:1 which debate whether it is proper for a man to engage in relations with his wife in such a situation. For as stated in Halachah 12, a man should not engage in relations with his wife if he intends to divorce her.", + "A person should not marry one woman in one country and another woman in another country, lest this situation continue for a long time and [ultimately,] a brother may marry his sister, the sister of his mother, or the sister of his father and the like without knowing.77Since they live apart from each other, it is possible that they will not know of the other's existence. If they visit that other locale, they may marry a relative without knowing of the family connection. If [the man with two wives] is a person of stature whose name is known and whose descendants are well known and celebrated, it is permitted.78For then, it will be unlikely that his descendants will intermarry unknowingly.", + "A man should not marry a woman from a family of lepers, nor from a family of epileptics, i.e., that it has been established on three occasions that the descendants of this family have this malady.", + "When a woman was married to two husbands and they both died, she should not marry a third [man].79For we fear that he will die as they did. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 9:1) who mentions certain leniencies concerning this situation. If she did marry, she need not be divorced.80The commentaries cite the Biblical narrative concerning the marriage of Judah's sons to Tamar (Genesis, ch. 38) as proof of these laws. At the outset, Judah did not want her to marry his third son. After he had relations with her, however, he married her and continued living with her as man and wife. Indeed, even if he merely consecrated her, he may consummate the marriage.
An unlearned81The term am haaretz which we translated as \"unlearned\" has broader implications. As indicated by the following halachah, it also has the connotation of one who is not careful in the observance of the mitzvot and whose character is unrefined and underdeveloped. Israelite should not marry the daughter of a priest. For this is comparable to the desecration of Aaron's seed. If they marry, our Sages said82Pesachim 49b. that their marriage will not be propitious. Instead, they will die without children, either he or she will die in the near future, or there will be strife between them.83The commentaries note that Pesachim, op. cit., states \"it will lead to poverty.\" Some resolve the differences by explaining that poverty will lead a family to strife. When, by contrast, a Torah scholar marries the daughter of a priest, this is attractive and praiseworthy, [joining] the Torah and the priesthood as one.", + "A person should not marry the daughter of an unlearned person. For if he dies or is exiled, his children will grow up unlearned, since their mother is not knowledgeable regarding the crown of Torah.84I.e., we can assume that his wife will return to her family and that the children will be raised according to the prevailing atmosphere in that home. From the statements of Rama (Even HaEzer 2:6), we can conclude that if an unlearned person is precise in his observance of the mitzvot, these words of caution do not apply. Nor should he give his daughter to an unlearned person in marriage. For anyone who gives his daughter to an unlearned person is like one who bound her and placed her before a lion. He will strike her and engage in relations and has no shame.
A person should sell everything that he has [so that] he can marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. For if he dies or is exiled, his children will grow up as Torah scholars. And he should marry his daughter to a Torah scholar for there is no shameful conduct or strife in the home of a Torah scholar." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to enter into privacy with any of the woman forbidden as ariot,1This prohibition also includes woman with whom relations are forbidden merely by a negative commandment (Beit Shmuel 22:1). even if she is elderly or a young girl,2And thus there is no apparent motivation toward sexual relations. for this leads to forbidden relations. [The only] exceptions are a woman and her son, a father and his daughter, and a husband with his wife who is in the niddah state.3See the Chelkat Mechokek 22:1 and the Beit Shmuel, loc. cit. which cite opinions that maintain that a man is permitted to enter into privacy with his sister in a temporary situation.
When a bridegroom's wife menstruates before he engages in relations with her, it is forbidden for him to enter into privacy with her.4Since the couple have never engaged in relations, we fear that they will not be able to control their desire. Hence we require them to take this added safeguard. Instead, she should sleep among [other] women and he should sleep among [other] men.5See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 192:4) who discusses this issue in depth, mentioning several stringencies and leniencies. He states the prevailing custom is for a young boy to accompany the groom and a young girl to accompany the bride. Every person should check with a competent Rabbinic authority with regard to the custom followed in their community. If they engaged in relations once and afterwards, she became impure, he is permitted to enter into privacy with her.", + "Jewish men were not suspected of engaging in relations with men or with animals. Hence, there is no prohibition against entering into privacy with them.6The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 24:1) writes that homosexuality had become prevalent in his community and hence, it was deemed appropriate not to enter into privacy with other men. The Bayit Chadash states that in places where this transgression is not widespread, there is no need for taking such precautions. If, however, a person distances himself from entering into privacy even with a male or an animal, it is praiseworthy. Sages of great stature would distance themselves from animals so that they would not be alone with them.7See Kiddushin 81b.
The prohibition against entering into privacy with woman forbidden as ariot has been transmitted by the Oral Tradition.8Kiddushin 80b states that \"there is an allusion to the prohibition against entering into privacy in the Torah.\" The Rambam understands that to mean that the prohibition was conveyed by the Oral Tradition and our Sages found an allusion for it in the Torah. The Tur (Even HaEzer 22), however, follows the opinion of Tosafot who maintains that the prohibition is of Scriptural origin.", + "When the incident concerning Amnon and Tamar occurred,9As II Samuel, ch. 13, relates: Amonon, David's oldest son, lusted for Tamar, his half-sister. He feigned illness and asked that Tamar serve him a meal. While she was serving him, he raped her. David and his court decreed a prohibition against entering into privacy with an unmarried woman. Although an unmarried woman is not an ervah, such an act is considered as entering into privacy with an ervah. Shammai and Hillel decreed a prohibition against entering into privacy with gentiles.10In that era, there already were more substantial social conduct between Jews and gentiles and our Sages felt that there was a need for further safeguards.
Thus when anyone enters into privacy with a woman, whether Jew or gentile, with whom such an act is forbidden, both the man and the woman are given stripes for rebellious conduct and an announcement is made concerning them.11Publicizing their misconduct so that the shame will further inhibit a future recurrence. An exception is made with regard to a married woman. Although it is forbidden to enter into privacy with her, if one does enter into privacy with her, corporal punishment is not administered12The simple meaning of the Rambam's words is that lashes are not administered at all, neither to the man or the woman. The Bayit Chadash (Even HaEzer 22), however, states that punishment should be administered to the man, for it is not necessary to mention the woman with whom he transgressed. lest a rumor be initiated that she committed adultery. Thus a rumor might spread that her children are mamzerim.", + "Whenever a man is forbidden to enter into privacy with a woman, this act is permitted if he is accompanied by his wife, for his wife will guard him [against transgression]. A Jewish woman should not enter into privacy with a gentile man even if his wife is with him. For a gentile's wife will not guard him [against transgression] and they have no shame.13And there is the possibility that he will engage in relations with her in the presence of his wife.", + "Similarly, a Jewish child should not be entrusted to a gentile with the intent that he teach him to read or teach him a craft, for all gentiles are suspect to engage in homosexual relations. Similarly, we do not house an animal in an inn belonging to gentiles, not even a male in an inn with males and a female in an inn with females.14For we fear that the gentiles will engage in sexual misconduct. See Halachah 7.", + "We do not entrust an animal, beast, or fowl to a gentile shepherd, not even a male animal to a male shepherd and a female animal to a female shepherd, because they are all suspect to sodomize animals. We have already explained15Chapter 14, Halachah 10. that [gentiles] are forbidden to engage in homosexuality or sodomy. And [Leviticus 19:14] states: \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.\"16As interpreted by Avodah Zarah 6b, et al, this verse is a command not to place a person in a situation where he is likely to sin. By placing an animal belonging to him in the gentile's possession, the Jew is making it possible for him to sin.", + "Why do we not entrust a female animal to a female gentile? For [all gentiles] are assumed to be promiscuous and when a gentile man will come to sleep with this gentile woman, it is possible that he will not find her and instead, sodomize the animal. Or even if he does find her, he may sodomize the animal.", + "One woman should not enter into privacy even with many men17For we fear that she will enter into relations with one or more of the men in the presence of the others.
The Rama (Even HaEzer 22:5) states that a woman may enter into privacy with two upright men in a city, but not in a field, and only during the day, but not at night). unless the wife of one of them is present.18For in that instance, she will guard him, as stated in Halachah 4. Nor will the other woman engage in relations in her presence, for it is likely that she will publicize the matter (Kessef Mishneh). Similarly, one man should not enter into privacy even with many women,19For in this instance as well, there is the possibility that they will engage in relations. The Rama (loc. cit.) gives permission for many [three (Chelkat Mechokek 22:11) women to enter into privacy with one man, provided his profession does not involve contact with women. But when there are many women together with many men, we do not show concern for the prohibition against entering into privacy.20In such a situation, it is highly unlikely that the people will engage in relations.
If the men were outside and the women were inside or if the men were inside and the women were outside, and one woman - or one man - separated themselves and joined the group of the other sex, the prohibition against entering into privacy applies.
Even a man whose business and profession [brings him into contact] with women21E.g., one who sells clothes or perfumes to women. is forbidden to enter into privacy with them. What should he do? He should involve himself with them while accompanied by his wife or turn to another profession.", + "It is permitted to enter into privacy with two yevamot, two wives of the same man, a woman and her mother-in-law, or a woman and her husband's daughter, a woman and her husband's daughter, or a woman and her mother-in-law's daughter. [The rationale is that] these women hate each other and will not conceal the other's [misdeeds].22Hence the women will be frightened to engage in sexual relations, for they know the matter will become public knowledge. Similarly, it is permitted to enter into privacy with a woman who is accompanied by a young child old enough to understand what sexual relations are, but who would not engage in relations herself. [The rationale is that the woman] would not act promiscuously in the presence of this child, for she will reveal her secret.", + "It is permitted to enter into privacy with a female child less than three years old and a male child less than nine years old. For [our Sages] only issued decrees concerning entering into privacy with a woman fit to engage in relations and a male fit to engage in relations.23And this does not apply below the ages mentioned in the halachah.", + "An androgynus24A person with both male and female sexual organs. may not enter into privacy with women.25For he has a sexual drive for relations with women (Beit Shmuel 22:16). If he does, he is not given physical punishment, because his status is doubtful. A man may enter into privacy with an androgynus or a tumtum.26A tumtum refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a block of flesh and it cannot be determined whether he is a male or female. A male is permitted to enter into privacy with these individuals, because he does not have a sexual drive for anyone other than an actual woman (ibid.).", + "When a married woman's husband is in the [same] city, she need not be concerned about [the prohibition against] entering into privacy with another man, because she will be impressed by the fear of her husband.27She will fear that at any particular time, her husband will come. Hence she will never commit adultery. If a man is overly familiar with her, e.g., they grew up together or she is his relative, she should not enter into privacy with him even if her husband is in the same city.28Because this familiarity may cause her to overstep the bounds of modesty even when her husband is in the city.
Whenever a man enters into a room with a woman, but there is a door29The later commentaries explain that open windows are also sufficient. open to the public thoroughfare, we are not concerned about [the prohibition against] entering into privacy.30Since it is possible for the two to be seen by passersby, they will not transgress.", + "An unmarried man should not teach young children, because the mothers come to the school because of their sons and thus he will be tempted by women.31This applies even in a situation where there is no question of the teacher entering into privacy with the mothers (Beit Shmuel 22:21). Similarly, a woman32This refers to an unmarried woman or one whose husband is out of town. Otherwise, there is no prohibition against entering into privacy (Chelkat Mechokek 22:21). should not teach young boys, because their fathers come because of their sons and thus they will enter into privacy with her. A teacher does not have to have his wife together with him in school,33To avoid the prohibition that stems from his being tempted by women. It is sufficient that she be at home, while he teaches in his place.34According to the Maggid Mishneh, this leniency applies even if the teacher's wife is in another city. As long as he is married, there is no prohibition. The Chelkat Mechokek 22:21 and the Beit Shmuel 22:22 differ and conclude that this leniency applies only when the man's wife lives in the same city where he teaches. If she lives in another city, it is forbidden.", + "Our Sages ordained that women speak to each other while in a lavatory,35The Rama (Even HaEzer 22:13) states that this refers to outhouses in the fields (which was the custom in the Talmudic era), but not to outhouses in the city (which had become the custom in his time). Needless to say, it does not apply in the present age when the lavatories are in the privacy of buildings. so that a man will not enter there and thus be alone with them.", + "We do not appoint even a faithful and observant person to be a guard of a courtyard where women live. [This applies] even if he stands outside, for there is no guardian against promiscuity.36I.e., No matter how upright the person's character, there is the possibility that frequent exposure to women will lead him to undesirable relations.
It is forbidden for a person to appoint a supervisor over his home so that he does not lead his wife to sin.37We fear that if another man was placed in charge of a person's home, he would have frequent contact with the owner's wife and there is the possibility that ultimately the two will commit adultery. As Berachot 63a states: \"Had Potiphar not appointed Joseph as the supervisor of his home, that incident (Potiphar's wife attempted seduction of Joseph) would never have occurred.\"", + "It is forbidden for a Torah scholar to dwell in a courtyard where a widow lives even though he does not enter into privacy with her lest suspicions arise38I.e., people at large will suspect that they are sharing a relationship.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what was forbidden was to dwell with her in the same home. There are no restrictions against dwelling in the same courtyard. According to the Rambam, dwelling in the same home temporarily is permitted as long as one does not enter into privacy with her. The Maggid Mishneh supports the Rambam's interpretation. unless his wife is with him. Similarly, a widow should not raise a dog because of the suspicions that might arise. Nor should a woman purchase male servants - even minors - because of the suspicions that may arise.39I.e., people will gossip that she is intimate with the dog or the servants. In Hilchot Avadim 9:6, the Rambam mentions this restriction only with regard to servants nine years old or above. See the notes to that halachah.", + "We do not relate the hidden matters40Rashi (Chagigah 11b) interprets this as referring to those matters which are not explicit in the Torah. concerning forbidden sexual conduct to three students. [The rationale is that] one will be absorbed in questioning the teacher, the other two will be debating the matter back and forth and will not be free to listen. Since a person's mind is aroused by sexual matters,41The Rambam, based on Chagigah, loc. cit., is explaining why there is a difference between the laws concerning forbidden sexual conduct and those involving other matters. if a doubt arises concerning something he heard, he may [in error] rule leniently. Therefore, we teach only to two. In this manner, the one listening will focus his attention and recall what he will hear from the teacher.", + "There is nothing in the entire Torah that is more difficult for the majority of people to separate themselves from than sexual misconduct and forbidden relationships. Our Sages said:42Sifri, Parshat Bahaaloscha; Shabbat 130b. When the Jews were commanded regarding forbidden sexual relations, they wept and accepted this mitzvah with complaints and moaning, as implied by the phrase: \"Crying among their families,\" [which is interpreted as meaning]: \"Crying about family matters.\"", + "Our Sages said:43Makkot 23b. A person's soul desires and craves theft and forbidden sexual relations. You will never find a community that does not have some people who are promiscuous regarding forbidden relationships and prohibited sexual conduct. Moreover, our Sages said:44Bava Batra 165a. Most people trespass with regard to theft; a minority with regard to forbidden sexual conduct, and all with regard to the shade of undesirable gossip.45This term refers to remarks concerning a colleague that are not actually lashon hara, unfavorable gossip, but which border on that type of speech. See Hilchot De'ot, ch. 7, for a more precise discussion of this issue.", + "Therefore it is proper for a person to subjugate his natural inclination with regard to this matter and train himself in extra holiness, pure thought, and proper character traits so that he will be guarded against them.
He should be very careful with regard to entering into privacy with a woman, for this is a great cause [of transgression]. Our great Sages would tell their students:46See Kiddushin 82b who quotes Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Meir as making such statements. It continues, relating that one of his students mocked Rabbi Meir for making such statements. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that this student committed adultery with his mother-in-law. \"Watch me because of my daughter,\" \"Watch me because of my daughter-in-law,\" so that they would teach their students not to be embarrassed about such matters and distance themselves from entering into privacy with women.", + "Similarly, a person should distance himself from levity, intoxication, and flirtation,47Our translation is based on the words of Rama (Even HaEzer 25:1) and Chelkat Mechokek 25:1. for they are great precipitators and steps [leading] to forbidden relations.
A man should not live without a wife, for this practice leads to great purity.48While married, he will have the opportunity for ordinary male-female relationships and will not develop pent up feelings that seek expression in forbidden relations. And [our Sages gave] even greater [advice], saying:49Kiddushin 30b. \"A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for the thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart which is empty of wisdom.\" And in [Solomon's words of] wisdom [Proverbs 5:19], it is written: \"It50The Torah. See Eruvin 54b which explains the analogy in detail. is a beloved hind, arousing favor. Her breasts will satisfy you at all times. You shall be obsessed with her love.\"" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Professor Twesky.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Professor Twesky.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..875961d515f86d89d352ec50c29f1e281e1730ea --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Professor Twesky.json @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "versionSource": "Maimonoidies Reader", + "versionTitle": "Professor Twesky", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "There is no prohibition in the whole of Scripture which the generality of the people experience greater difficulty in observing than the interdict of forbidden unions and illicit intercourse. The sages have declared that when Israel was given the commandments concerning forbidden unions, they wept and accepted this injunction with grumbling and wailing, as it is said, \"weeping in their families (Numbers 11:10), i.e., weeping on account of the matter of family relations" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c119472d7284a65e79d6366845bf781550832db7 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "license": "CC0", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Similarly, you find that in some places--and you find [this also supported by] responsa of some Geonim--that a woman who gives birth to a male should not have sexual relations until the end of the forty [days after birth], or until the end of the eighty [days after birth] for a woman who gives birth to a female, even though she saw blood only in the seven days [after giving birth]. This custom is just an error in those responsa and [this practice] is [an act of] heresy in those places. They learned this practice from the Tzadokim. It is a mitzvah to compel them to remove [this practice] from their hearts and to return them to the words of the Sages who [required that] she should count only seven \"clean\" days, as we explained." + ], + [ + "If a Jewish person sleeps with a non-Jew in the way of married people, they receive biblically ordained lashes, as it says “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughter to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” (Deuteronomy 7:3) The same law is true concerning the seven nations of the land of Canaan and all other nations. This is also explained by Ezra, “We will not give our daughters in marriage to the peoples of the land, or take their daughters for our sons.” (Nehemiah 10:31) ", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "i.e. The illegitimate children of a Hebrew servant and Caanite maid-servant are not considered Jews. Because of this, his father's seed was wasted because it did not go toward the birth of another Jew. This is said in Deuteronomy 23:18, \"No Israelite man or woman shall become a temple prostitute.\"" + ], + [ + "There are three ways in which someone enters the covenant: by circumcision, by immersion, and by a Temple offering.", + "Circumcision as it was in Egypt, as it says, \"Every uncircumcised person shall not eat of it (the Passover offering).\" Moses our teacher circumcised them and everyone spurned the covenant in Egypt with the exception of the Tribe of Levi. On this it says, \"Your covenant was withheld.\"", + "Immersion was in the desert before receiving the Torah, as is said, \"Sanctify yourselves today and tomorrow; wash your clothes.\" The offering, as is said, \"Send the young ones of Israel to bring elevation offerings\" - and everyone in Israel brought them.", + "Throughout the generations, any non-Jew who wants to enter the covenant and come in under the 'wings of the Presence of God' accepts upon him or herself the yoke of Torah - he needs circumcision, immersion and a Temple offering. If female, she needs only immersion and an offering, as is said \"As for you, so for the foreigner.\" That's to say, just as you (entered via) circumcision, immersion and an offering, so too the foreigner (shall enter via) circumcision, immersion and an offering.", + "What's a convert's offering? An elevation offering or two doves or two turtledoves (and the two are considered an offering). At this time in history where there are no offerings, one needs (merely) circumcision and immersion. Once the Temple is built, one will bring an offering.", + "A convert who was circumcised and has not immersed, or has immersed and not circumcised is not a convert until he is circumcised and immersed. And it is necessary to immerse before three (men). And since the matter requires a Beit Din (counsel) - no immersion is done on the Sabbath, nor Yom Tov (holiday) nor at night. And if he was immersed, he is a convert.", + "A minor convert - is immersed upon the knowledge of Beit Din (counsel), because it is in his interest. A pregnant woman who converts and immerses - her child does not need immersion. If he immersed in front of only himself, and converted to himself, or even in front of two, he is not a convert. If he comes and say \"I converted in the Beit Din of so and so and they immersed me\" - he is not trusted to come into the community until he brings witnesses. ", + "If he married an Israelite woman or a convert and he has children, and he says “I converted myself”, he is trusted to disqualify himself, but not to disqualify his children. And he immerses again before a beit din." + ], + [ + "How do we accept righteous converts? When one comes to convert from being a Gentile and they examine him and they do not find any ulterior motive, they say to him: What did you see that made you want to convert? Don't you know that Israel in these times is rejected, swept away, disturbed, and afflictions come on them. If he says, \"I know, and I am not worthy\" they accept him immediately. ", + "And they inform him of the main principles of the religion, which is the unification of God's name, and the prohibition of idol worship, and they dwell at length on this matter. And they inform him of some of the lenient commandments, and some of the stringent commandments. And they do not dwell at length on this. And they let him know the sin of “gatherings” “forgotten sheaves” “corners of the field” and “second tithe.” And they tell him of the punishments for not keeping the commandments. How so? They say to him: Know that before this point, if you ate forbidden suet, you would not be punished with karet, if you broke Shabbat, you would not be punished by being stoned. But now, after you have converted, if you eat forbidden fat you will be punished with karet, if you break Shabbat, you will be punished by being stoned. And they do not dwell at length on this, nor do they go into detail, lest this causes him to be troubled and turn away from the good path to the evil path. For at the beginning we do not draw a person except with words of appeasement and gentleness. I drew them with human ties, with cords of love. ", + "And just as they inform them of the punishment for keeping commandments so too they inform them of the reward of mitzvoth, and they inform them that by doing these mitzvoth they will earn the world to come, and that no one is perfectly righteous person except for one who is a master of wisdom, who performs these commandments and knows them. ", + "And they say to him: Know that the world to come is hidden only for the righteous, and this is Israel. And the reason that Israel is in pain in this world, it is a good hidden for them for they cannot accept too much goodness in this world, like the other nations, lest they get haughty, and go astray and they lose the reward of the world to come, as it says, \"So Jeshurun grew fat and kicked.\"", + "And God does not bring on them an abundance of punishment so that they will not be lost. Rather, all of the nations of the world are finished off, and they will remain. And they go on at length about this matter, in order to endear it to them. If he retracts and does not want to accept, he can go on his way. And if he accepts, they do not delay him. Rather they circumcise him immediately. And if he was already circumcised they spill some covenantal blood, and they delay him until he fully heals, and then they immerse him. " + ], + [ + "1. What is meant by the Torah's prohibition (Deut. 23:3) against relations with a mamzer? [The term refers to a person conceived from] a forbidden sexual relationship. A niddah is an exception. A son conceived from such relationships is blemished, but is not a mamzer. When, however, a man enters into any other forbidden sexual relationships, whether through rape, or willingly, whether conscious of the prohibition or not, the offspring produced is a mamzer. Both male and female [mamzerim] are forbidden forever, as [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: \"[A mamzer shall not enter Gd's congregation.] Also the tenth generation...,\" i.e., [the prohibition is] everlasting.", + "2. When a mamzer marries a Jewish women or a Jewish man marries a female mamzer, once they enter into relations after consecration, they are punished by lashes. If the man consecrates the woman, but does not enter into relations, he does not receive lashes. If they enter into relations without consecration, they do not receive lashes because of relations with a mamzer. For the only instance where relations that involve a negative prohibition incur the punishment of lashes without the woman being consecrated is relations between a High Priest and a widow, as will be explained. When a man remarries his divorcee after she married another person, the offspring are acceptable. For she is not considered an ervah.", + "3. When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a Jewish woman, the child is acceptable. [This applies] whether the woman is unmarried or married, whether she was raped or engaged in relations willingly. When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a female mamzer, the offspring is a mamzer. When a mamzer enters into relations with a female gentile, the offspring is a gentile. If [the child] converts, he is fit to marry within the Jewish people like other converts. If [a mamzer] enters into relations with a maid-servant, the offspring is a servant. If he is freed, the offspring is acceptable like other freed servants. He may marry a Jewish woman.", + "4. This is the general principle: When a child is born from a servant, a gentile, a maid-servant, or a female gentile, he is like his mother. We are not concerned with the father. For this reason, [the Sages] permitted a mamzer to marry a maid-servant to purify the lineage of his descendants. For he can free them and they will be free men. [Our Sages] did not ordain a decree forbidding a maid-servant to a mamzer, so that he can legitimize his sons.", + "5. When a person who is half a servant and half a freed man engages in relations with a married woman, a son born of that relationship has no way of legitimizing [his marriage relationships], because the dimension of him which is a mamzer and the dimension of him which is an acceptable Jew are intermingled. Therefore he is forbidden to engage in relations with a maid-servant and his offspring share his status forever.", + "6. When a gentile engages in relations with a maid-servant who immersed herself, the offspring are servants. When a servant who immersed himself engages in relations with a female gentile, the offspring are gentile. He is given his mother's status. When, however, a gentile engages relations with a gentile maid-servant or a gentile servant engages relations with a gentile woman, the status of the offspring follows that of the father.", + "7. A mamzer may marry a female convert and a female mamzer may marry a male convert, the offspring of both relationships are mamzerim. For the status of the offspring follows that of the blemished one. [The license for such a marriage is derived from] the verse: \"[A mamzer shall not enter] God's congregation.\" (Deut. 23:3) The congregation of converts is not considered as \"God's congregation.\" (ibid)", + "8. When a female convert marries a male convert and gives birth to a son, he is permitted to marry a female mamzer even though he was both conceived and born in holiness. This also applies to the son of his grandson [- or any other descendant -] until his connection with conversion is forgotten and it is not known that he [descends from] converts. Afterwards, he will be forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Converts and freed servants are bound by the same laws.", + "9. When a convert marries a native-born Jewess or a native-born Jew marries a convert, the son is a Jew in all contexts and is forbidden to marry a female mamzer.", + "10. There are three categories of mamzerim: one that is definitely a mamzer, a mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt, and a mamzer by Rabbinic decree. What is meant by one who is definitely a mamzer? The offspring of a relationship that is definitely incestuous or adulterous, as we explained. A mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt is the offspring of a relationship that we are unsure whether it is adulterous or incestuous. For example, a man engaged in relations with a woman who was consecrated, but we are unsure if the consecration was effective, or who was divorced, but we are unsure whether the divorce was effective, or a similar situation. A mamzer by Rabbinic decree: for example, a woman who heard that her husband died and remarried and then discovered that her husband was alive. Afterwards, her [first] husband engaged in relations with her while she was still married with her second husband, the offspring is a mamzer by Rabbinic decree.", + "11. When an unmarried woman becomes pregnant through a promiscuous relationship, we ask her: \"What is [the status of] this fetus\" or \"...this child\"? If she replies: \"It is the child of a man of acceptable lineage; I entered into relations with an Israelite,\" her word is accepted and the son is acceptable. [This applies] even if most of the inhabitants of the city in which she engaged in relations are of unacceptable lineage.", + "12. If the child's mother was not questioned until she died, or she was a deaf-mute, mute, or intellectually or emotionally unstable, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable. [This ruling applies even] if she said: \"I engaged in relations with so-and-so, the mamzer\" or \"...with so-and-so, the netin.\" Even if that person agrees with her statement, [the child's status is only doubtful. The rationale is:] Just as she engaged in relations with the person who admitted to her statement; so, too, she engaged in relations with others. " + ], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [ + "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.Similarly, in the present era, terumah is a Rabbinic commandment.11 Therefore it is eaten by the priests of our era [whose lineage is established merely] by presumption.Similarly, in the present era, terumah is a Rabbinic commandment.11 Therefore it is eaten by the priests of our era [whose lineage is established merely] by presumption.", + "...In the present era, even in Eretz Yisrael,8 challah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment. [This is derived from Numbers 15:18:] \"When you come into the land....\"9 [Implied is when] all of you enter and not when only a portion enter.10 When Ezra ascended [to Eretz Yisrael], the entire people did not ascend.Similarly, in the present era, terumah is a Rabbinic commandment.11 Therefore it is eaten by the priests of our era [whose lineage is established merely] by presumption.", + "...When two witnesses testify that they saw a person partaking of terumah mandated by Scriptural Law, his lineage is established. We do not elevate a person [to the level that his priestly] lineage is [considered as] established based on the fact that he delivers the Priestly Blessing [to the people], reads the Torah first,12 or is given terumah in the granaries,or because of the testimony of one witness.", + "......" + ], + [ + "Anyone who sleeps with one of the forbidden relationships \"by way of limbs\", or who hugs and kisses in a sexual way and takes pleasure in physical intimacy, receives lashes for a d'Oraisa transgression, as it says (Leviticus 18:30) \"do not do any of these abominable customs etc\" and it says (Leviticus 18:6) \"do not approach to uncover nakedness\", which is to say do not approach things which will bring you to transgressing Arayos.", + "One who engages in these behaviours is suspected of committing Arayos. And it's forbidden for a person to intimate with his hands or feet or to hint with his eyes to any of the Arayos or to laugh with her or to engage in light-headedness. And even to smell her perfume or to gaze at her beauty is forbidden. And one who engages in this deliberately receives lashes of rebelliousness. And one who gazes even at the little finger of a woman intending to derive sexual pleasure is comparable to one who looks at her genitalia. And even to hear the voice of an Ervah or to look at her hair is forbidden.", + "These matters are [also] forbidden with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden on the basis of [merely] a negative commandment. It is permitted to look at the face of an unmarried woman and examine her [features] whether she is a virgin or has engaged in relations previously to see whether she is attractive in his eyes so that he may marry her. There is no prohibition in doing this. On the contrary, it is proper to do this. One should not, however, look in a licentious manner. Behold [Job 31:1] states: \"I established a covenant with my eyes; I would not gaze at a maiden.\"", + "A man is permitted to gaze at his wife when she is in the Niddah state although she is an Ervah [at that time]. Although his heart derives satisfaction from seeing her, since she will be permitted to him afterwards, he will not suffer a lapse. He should not, however, share mirth with her or act frivolously with her lest this lead to sin.", + "It is forbidden for a man to have any woman- whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman- perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts. Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet, spreading his bed in his presence, and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife. [A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger. ", + "When a man embraces or kisses any of the women forbidden to him as arayot despite the fact that his heart does not disturb him concerning the matter, e.g. his adult sister, his mother's sister, or the like, it is very shameful. it is forbidden and it is foolish conduct. [This applies] even though he has no desire or pleasure at all. For one should not show closeness to a woman forbidden to him as an Ervah at all, whether an adult or a minor, except a woman to her son and a father to his daughter.", + "In what manner? a father may embrace and kiss his daughter and she may sleep alongside him with bodily contact, and so too a mother with her son, as long as they are minors. When they have grown up, so that the son has become [pubescent], and the daughter has become [pubescent] reaching the stage of “your breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown” – this one sleeps in his garment and that one sleeps in her garment. If the daughter is ashamed to stand naked before her father, or she is betrothed, and likewise if the mother is ashamed to stand naked before her son – even if they are minors, when they reach the point of being embarrassed, they may not sleep alongside each other except clothed.", + "Women are forbidden to be mesolelot with one another. This is the practice of the Land of Egypt, against which we have been warned, as it is said: \"Like the practice of the Land of Egypt etc. you shall not do.\" The Sages said: \"What did they do? A man marries a man, a woman marries a woman, and a woman marries two men.\" Although this practice is forbidden, no flogging is imposed, since there is no specific negative commandment against it, nor is there any intercourse at all. Consequently, [such women] are not forbidden to the priesthood on account of harlotry, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband on account of it, since there is no harlotry in it. However, a flogging for disobedience (mardut) should be given, since they have performed a forbidden act. A man should be strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women who are known to engage in this practice from visiting her, and prevent her from going to them", + "", + "", + "", + "Similarly, the sages forbade a man to have marital relations while thinking of another woman. Nor may he initiate sex while drunk, nor out of spite or hatred, nor may he rape her or initiate sex while she is afraid. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated nor after he has decided to divorce her. If [the husband] does any of those things, the children will not be proper [citizens] but brazen, rebellious [people] and criminals.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Jewish women should not walk in the market with their hair uncovered. [This applies to] single women and married women. Additionally, a woman should not walk in the market with her child following behind her. [This is] a decree (gezera) enacted to prevent the child being abducted, and her following after them to bring him back and being molested by the wicked people who capriciously abducted him", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "It is forbidden for a man who is not married to touch his private parts so that he doesn't come to sexual fantasy. And he may not even touch anywhere under his belly button lest he come to sexually fantasize. And when he urinates he should not hold his member and urinate. But if he is married this is permitted. And whether married or unmarried he shouldn't put his hand on his member at all except when he must relieve himself." + ], + [ + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "It is therefore fitting for a person to restrain his inclinations in this matter and to conduct himself with utmost holiness, pure thoughts and correct opinions to save himself from them. He should be cautious about seclusion because it is the main cause [of these sins]. The greatest among the Sages told their students, \"watch me becuase it is my daugher\" or \"watch me because of my sister-in law\" [whom one would assume one doesn't lust after] so that their students shouldn't be embarassed from this and would stay far away from seclusion.", + "Similarly, a person should accustom himself to stay far away from levity,drunkenness,and flirting because there are all major causes of the violation of prohibitions regarding forbidden sexual relationships. Also, one should not stay unmarried because this practice [of being married] is a cause of great purity. Greater than all these [our Sages] said that one should turn himself and his thoughts to words of Torah and immerse his mind in wisdom because sexual thoughts do not rule in one's mind except in the mind of one who's heart is turned away from wisdom. Regarding wisdom it is said, \"It is a beloved hind, arousing favor. Her breasts will satisfy you at all times. You shall be obsessed with her love.\"" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c540d69edd278f14bd914ec6f31d670366b3d09 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,572 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Forbidden_Intercourse", + "text": [ + [ + "When a person voluntarily engages in sexual relations with one of the arayot1In Hilchot Ishut 1:5, the Rambam defines the term arayot as \"[Those women] with whom relations are forbidden by Scriptural Law and with whom relations are punishable by kereit as enumerated in Parshas Acharei Mot. mentioned in the Torah, he is liable for kerait,2Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). as [Leviticus 18:29] states: \"Whenever anyone performs any of these abominations, the souls will be cut off....\" [The plural is used, referring to] the man and the woman.3The prohibition and the punishment is incumbent on them both equally. If they transgressed unknowingly, they are liable to bring a fixed4This term is used to distinguish the sacrifice from the \"adjustable guilt offering\" (korban olah viyoreid) that is brought for certain transgressions. See Hilchot Shegagot ch. 1 which describes the fixed sin offering , and ch. 10 which describes the adjustable guilt offering. sin offering. There are some arayot with whom relations are punishable by execution5See Halachot 4-6. in addition to kerait which is applicable in all cases.6Even if they cannot be executed because the court cannot find two appropriate witnesses, they are punishable by kerait.", + "With regard to the arayot that are punishable by execution by the court. If there were witnesses, they delivered a warning,7See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2 which describes the obligation to give a warning and states: \"How is a warning administered? We tell him: 'Desist...\" or 'Do not do it. It is a transgression and you are liable to be executed by the court....'. and the transgressors did not cease their actions, they are executed through the means prescribed for them.", + "Even if a transgressor was a Torah scholar neither execution or lashes is administered unless a warning was given. For [the obligation for] a warning was instituted universally only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally.8The Rambam's ruling reflects a unique instance in which he uses the wording of a Talmudic passage for the opposite intent. Sanhedrin 8b quotes Rabbi Yossi bar Rabbi Yehudah as coining the expression the Rambam employs: \"A warning was instituted only to make a distinction between a person who transgresses inadvertently and one who transgresses intentionally.\" Rabbi Yossi, however, used this concept as support for his contention that a Torah scholar does not need a warning. Since he is knowledgeable, we assume that he is familiar with the laws. If he is transgressing, we can conclude that he is doing so as a conscious act of rebellion. Hence, he is deserving of punishment.
The Rambam differs, maintaining that even a Torah scholar might not be aware that his act violates a particular prohibition. We do not suspect that he did know the law, it was however possible that he was aware of the prohibition, but not know that it applied in this instance, e.g., he knew that adultery was forbidden, but did not know whether or not the woman was married or related to him. The warning will clarify that for him (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).", + "Among the arayot punishable through execution by the court are those for [which the violators are] executed by stoning, those for which they are executed by burning, and those for which they are executed by strangulation.9See Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:1-5 for a description of these different modes of execution.
The following transgressions are punishable by stoning: one who has relations with his mother, with his father's wife,10Even if she is not his mother. his son's wife; she is called his daughter-in-law,11The wording of the Hebrew emphasizes that his son married the woman, not merely engaged in relations with her. one who sodomizes a male, a male who has relations with an animal, and a woman who has relations with an animal.", + "The following arayot are punishable by burning: a person who has relations with his wife's daughter12I.e., from a previous marriage. during his wife's lifetime,13After his wife's death, her daughter is still prohibited to him and they are punishable by kerait. There is, however, no punishment to be administered by an earthly court. As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 8, this applies to any woman prohibited because they are closely related to the person's wife. with the daughter of her daughter, with the daughter of her son, with her mother, with the mother of her mother, with the mother of her father, with his own daughter, with the daughter of his daughter, or with the daughter of his son.", + "The only instance in which forbidden sexual relations are punishable by execution by strangulation is adultery, as [derived from Leviticus 20:10]: \"The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.\" Whenever the Torah mentions \"putting to death\" without further description, the intent is strangulation.14Sanhedrin 52b explains the rationale for this statement as follows: Just as death at the hand of heaven does not leave a mark; so, too, unless another form of execution is explicitly stipulated, death at the hand of the court should not leave a sign. This alludes to strangulation in which the condemned's body is not marred at all.
If [the adulteress] is the daughter of a priest, she should be executed by burning and the adulterer by strangulation, as [ibid. 21:9] states: \"The daughter of a priest, when she begins to act promiscuously, she shall be burnt with fire.\"15See Chapter 3, Halachah 3. If the adulteress is a consecrated16According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-staged process involving consecration (erusin or kiddushin) and marriage (nissuin). Consecration establishes the bond between a man and a woman. From that time onward, she is forbidden to engage in relations with other men. It is not until marriage, however, that the husband and wife relationship is consummated and the couple begin their life together.
In the present era, both of these stages of marriage are completed at the same time. In the Biblical and Talmudic eras, it was customary to wait a year between these two stages. maiden,17I.e., between the age of twelve and twelve and a half and she is a virgin. Otherwise, adultery is punished by strangulation. both she and the adulterer should be stoned,18See Chapter 3, Halachah 4. as [Deuteronomy 22:23-24] states: \"When a virgin maiden.... they shall be stoned with rocks....\" Whenever the Torah uses the phrase \"They shall surely be put to death, they are responsible for their own blood\" [Leviticus 20:11] - they are executed by stoning.19Sanhedrin 53a derives this concept from the fact that this phrase is used with regard to a person who divines with a yidoni concerning whom Leviticus 20:27 explicitly states that he should be stoned to death.", + "All of the other arayot are punishable by kerait alone and are not punishable by execution by the court. Therefore if there were witnesses and a warning was administered, the court punishes them with lashes, for all those who are obligated for kerait are lashed.", + "When a person enters into relations with women who are forbidden by merely a negative commandment,20I.e., the punishment of kerait is not mentioned with regard to them. They include nine forbidden relationships, e.g., a mamzer or a mamzeret to an acceptable Jew or a divorcee to a priest. These nine are mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 1:7. both he and she are lashed. If they do so unknowingly, they are not liable for punishment. When a person enters into relations with one of the shniyot,21Literally, \"secondary.\" In Hilchot Ishut 1:6, the Rambam explains that this term refers to \"women with whom relations are forbidden according to the Oral Tradition. These prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin.\" He continues listing 20 such women with whom our Sages forbade relations as a safeguard for the Scriptural prohibitions. For example, as a safeguard against relations with one's mother, the Sages forbade relations with both of one's grandmothers. Rabbinic Law ordains that he be given \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"22Lashes mandated by Rabbinic decree which are given as punishment for the violation of Rabbinic commandments and for other purposes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, which mentions this punishment. When, however, a person enters into relations with a woman who is forbidden merely by a positive commandment,23Relationships which the Torah does not explicitly prohibit, but the prohibition can be derived from a positive commandment. For example, there is no prohibition against a High Priest marrying a non-virgin. Nevertheless, since he is commanded (Leviticus 21:13 to marry a virgin bride, we assume that it is forbidden for him to marry a woman who is not a virgin. There are two other such relationships: Egyptian and Edomite converts who cannot marry into the Jewish people until the third generation. See Hilchot Ishut 1:8. he need not be punished. If, however, the court [wishes to] administer stripes for rebellious conduct to him to distance him from sin, they have that option.24See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4 which states that the court may administer punishment that is not required by Torah Law if they feel that it will lead to the moral development of the Jewish people.", + "A person compelled [to engage in forbidden relations] is not liable at all, not for lashes nor for a sacrifice. Needless to say, there is no obligation for capital punishment, as [reflected by Deuteronomy 22:26]: \"And to the maiden, do not do anything.\"25The verse cited speaks of the rape of a consecrated maiden in a field where even if she had called for help, there would have been none to save her. Since she was compelled to perform the transgression, she is not held responsible.
To whom does the above apply? To the victim of rape. When, by contrast, a man engages in relations, there is no concept of being compelled against his will. For an erection is always a willful act.26The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, explaining that if a man develops an erection with the intent of having relations with his wife and while he is still erect, he is compelled to engage in forbidden relations, he is considered to have acted against his will. The Maggid Mishneh states that even the Rambam would accept such a ruling.
The Maggid Mishneh states, however, that there are authorities who maintain that if a man is compelled to engage in relations at the pain of death, he is considered to have been compelled to act against his will. Yevamot 53b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, is speaking about a situation when a person is not compelled by forces beyond his control. Other authorities maintain that he is liable, even in such a situation. It is, however, unlikely that the Rambam would maintain that the court should actually carry out capital punishment. For in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4, the Rambam writes that a person who is compelled by gentiles to engage in adulterous or incestuous sexual relations should sacrifice his life rather than do so. If, however, he fails to chose martyrdom and transgresses, he should not be punished by the court. It would be difficult to explain that ruling applies only in a situation when he had already developed an erection for a woman with whom he was permitted to engage in relations and was then compelled to engage in forbidden relations. Thus it would appear that the man is not held responsible for capital punishment engaging in relations at the threat of death. [See Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 20)].
See also the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin 20:2 who states that since developing an erection comes as a result of the man's own pleasure and desire, he is considered to have acted willingly even though he was compelled to engage in the relations.
When a woman is compelled into relations at the outset and afterwards, she consents, she is not liable. Once [a man] compels her to engage in relations, it is beyond her control whether to desire [or] not. For man's natural tendency and inclination is compelling her to desire.27Ketubot 51a states that even if the woman says: \"Let him continue, for had he not taken me by force, I would have hired him,\" she is considered as acting under duress and freed of liability. For it was not until after she was overcome by desire that she consented.", + "A person who inserts the corona into [the woman's vaginal channel] is referred to as one who \"uncovers\" as [Leviticus 20:18] states: \"He uncovered her source.\"28This expression is used with regard to relations with a woman in the nidah state. From that instance, Yevamot 54a derives a connection to the entire Torah. A person who inserts the entire organ is referred to as one who completes [intercourse]. With regard to all the forbidden relations [mentioned] by the Torah, one who \"uncovers\" and one who \"completes [intercourse] are [equally] liable for execution by the court, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Even though the man did not ejaculate and even if he withdrew and did not complete relations, [the man and the woman] both become liable.29If, however, the man merely touches the entrance to the vaginal channel with his organ, he is not liable (see Beit Shmuel 20:3). Whether a person engages in vaginal or anal intercourse,30Based on Leviticus 19:13, Sanhedrin 54a states that both forms of intercourse are equally forbidden. when he \"uncovers\" [the woman], they both become liable for execution, kerait, lashes, or stripes for rebellious conduct. Whether they were lying or standing,31Or Sameach notes that Leviticus 18:23 explicitly mentions a woman standing while engaged in forbidden relations. liability is established by the insertion of the corona.", + "[There is never any liability when] a man engages in forbidden relations without an erection, instead his organ was hanging loosely like the organ of the dead, e.g., one who was sick or a person with a congenital malady, i.e., he was born sexually inadequate. Even though he inserts his organ with his hand, he is not liable for kerait or lashes. Needless to say, he is not liable for execution. For this is not considered sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, [such an act] disqualifies a woman from partaking of terumah.32I.e., if a priest's daughter or a priest's wife is involved in such a sexual act, she is forbidden to partake of terumah just as if she would be forbidden to do so had she engaged in ordinary relations (see Hilchot Terumah 6:6). And the court subjects both of them to stripes for rebellious conduct.33\"Stripes for rebellious conduct\" is a punishment which is not dependent on the Torah's binding laws, but rather is left to the court's jurisdiction based on its conception of what is appropriate for the moral standards of the persons involved and the community. Although such an act is not formally considered as sexual relations, chastisement is necessary to prevent such behavior from continuing.", + "When a person enters into sexual relations with one of the arayot as a casual act,34The Hebrew term kimitasek literally means \"as one was going about his business,\" i.e., he was performing other actions and without any intent, the forbidden act was performed. although he did not intend to do so, he is liable.35Since he derived pleasure from the physical act, he is liable even though originally he had no intent (Yevamot 62b).
This refers only to liability for a sin offering for inadvertent transgression. Needless to say, he is not liable for punishment by the court, because in such instances, he must acknowledge a warning (Maggid Mishneh).
The commentaries question how sexual relations can be performed \"as one was going about his business.\" With regard to the Sabbath prohibitions, we can appreciate the use of such a term. For example, a person intended to cut produce that was not connected to the ground and in the course of doing so also cut produce that was connected to the ground. But with regard to sexual relations, how is it possible to say that a man performed the act without intention? As stated above, \"an erection is always a willful act.\"
Based on Hilchot Shegagot 2:7, the Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to an instance in which a person intended to engage in relations with his wife, but accidentally engaged in relations with his sister.Similar concepts apply with regard to one who enters into relations with women forbidden by a negative commandment alone or with one of the shniyot.36The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's statements and the Maggid Mishneh states that this clause is a printing error, for there is no sacrifice associated with these transgressions. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution, explaining that although he is not punished by an earthly court, nor is he obligated to bring a sacrifice, the transgressor is liable to God. He will reckon with the transgression on His scales of judgment. Rav David Arameah states that this teaches that the person has an obligation to confess his sin.
When, however, a man has relations with one of the arayot after she died, he is not liable at all.37Yevamot 55b derives this concept through the techniques of Biblical exegesis. Needless to say, this applies with regard to those women with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment alone. When, by contrast, one has relations with a person who is trefe38An animal or a person that is sick or wounded and will die within a year. or who has relations with an animal which is trefe, he is liable. [The person or the animal] is [now] alive even though he will ultimately die from this illness. Even when the two signs39I.e., the esophagus and the windpipe were cut. which validate ritual slaughter were slit but [the woman or the animal] is making its last movements, if one enters into relations with [her or it] he is liable until she or it dies or is decapitated.", + "When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more,40I.e., she reaches the date of her third birthday. he is liable for execution, kerait, or lashes and she is not liable41For a minor is never liable for punishment. Even though she consented to the transgression, she is not subjected to punishment, because she is not considered as responsible for her actions (Nidah 44b). Despite the fact that the woman is not punished, the man receives the punishment mandated by the transgression. unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.42For until that age, her signs of virginity will regenerate and hence, relations are not of consequence. Nevertheless, even when the girl is below that age, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4).
Similarly, when an adult woman enters into sexual relations with a minor, if he is nine years and one day old, she is liable for execution, kerait,43In his commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. ), the Rambam states that the punishment of kerait is not given until the violator is 20 years of age. Until that age, the person is considered immature and hence, not held liable by the heavenly court. or lashes and he is not liable. If he is younger than nine years old, they are both free of liability.44For below that age, relations are not of consequence.", + "When a man enters into relations with a male or has a male enter into relations with him, once the corona is inserted [into the anus] they should both be stoned if they are both adults. As [Leviticus 18:22] states: \"Do not lie with a man,\" [holding one liable for the act, whether] he is the active or passive partner.
If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male [minor] was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability.45For sexual relations with a male below the age of nine are not of consequence. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to enter into such relations (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7:4). It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations46Although he is not liable according to Scriptural Law, his act certainly warrants punishment that will discourage him from continuing this pattern of conduct. although his companion was less than nine years old.", + "One is liable for anal intercourse with an androgynus47A person with male and female sexual characteristics. just as one is liable for relations with another male. One who engages in vaginal intercourse with [an androgynus] is not liable.48For there is a doubt regarding the halachic status of such an individual.
There is a doubt concerning the gender of a tumtum.49A person whose genital area is covered with a mass of flesh and whose gender is impossible to detect. With regard to an androgynus, the doubt concerns the individual's halachic status. With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual facts: Which gender is covered by the mass of flesh? Therefore a person who has relations with a tumtum or vaginal intercourse with an androgynus should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.50Since there is a possibility that such relations are prohibited, this punishment should be given to discourage them.
An androgynus may marry a woman.51I.e., although there is a question regarding the status of the androgynus, relations between him and her are permitted (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When a person sodomizes an animal or has an animal insert its organ in him, both the person and the animal should be stoned to death,52Since the animal was the direct cause for the person's death, the animal is also executed. Alternatively, since the person was engaged in an unseemly transgression due to the animal, it is executed (Sanhedrin 54a). as [Leviticus 18:23] states: \"Do not lie down with any animal,\" prohibiting [such relations] whether he sodomizes the animal or has the animal enter him. All [living creatures] animals, beasts, and fowl should be stoned to death.53And it is forbidden to benefit from that animal (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:2). The Torah did not make any distinction with regard to the age of an animal whether it is young or old. \"Any animal\" implies a prohibition on the day of its birth. Whether the person enters into vaginal or anal intercourse with the animal, when he inserts the corona or the animal inserts the corona within him, they are liable.", + "When a boy nine years old sodomizes an animal or has an animal engage in relations with him, the animal should be stoned, but he is not liable.54For a minor is never liable for punishment. Sanhedrin 55b explains that based on the first rationale mentioned previously in note 52, one might think that the animal should not be executed. Nevertheless, the person is worthy of execution because of his deed, it is only that the Torah has pity on him. And the Torah has pity on the person and not on the animal. If the boy was less than nine years old, the animal is not stoned. Similarly, when a girl three years old or more causes an animal or a beast to have relations with her, whether it is an older animal or a younger animal, once the corona of the animal is inserted into her vagina or anus, the animal is stoned to death and she is not liable.55For she is not of age. If she was past majority, they both should be stoned to death. If she was less than three years old, the animal should not be stoned.56For this is not considered relations.", + "When a person lies with an animal inadvertently or a woman causes an animal to have relations with her inadvertently,57The question how such acts can be considered inadvertent has been raised by the commentaries. Among the answers given is that the person was not aware that the act which he performed was forbidden. the animal is not stoned to death even though they are past majority.58Since the person is not executed, according to the first of the rationales mentioned above, the animal should not be executed. Since our Sages did not conclude which of the rationales should prevail, the matter is left undecided and therefore the animal is allowed to live. With regard to [relations with] all the arayot, when one is an adult and the other a minor, the minor is not liable and the adult is liable, as explained. If one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is not liable.59The person sleeping is considered as if he performed the forbidden act under duress. If one [transgresses] intentionally and the other inadvertently, the one who [transgresses] intentionally is liable60For punishment by the court or at the hand of heaven. and the one who transgresses inadvertently must bring a sacrifice. If one acted under duress and one acted willingly, the one who acted under duress is not liable as stated above.61Halachah 13.", + "The witnesses are not required to see [the precise details] of couple's intimate relations, the man inserting [his organ]as one inserts a piston into a pipe. Instead, once they see them clinging together as is the way of all who engage in relations, they may be executed on the basis of this evidence. We do not say: Maybe he did not insert the corona, because we can assume that in this position, the corona was inserted.62This and the following halachot are based on the principle that a chazzakah, a presumption that is firmly established, is binding and considered as actual fact.", + "When an established presumption that people are close relatives has been established, we judge accordingly even though there is no clear proof that they were relatives.63I.e., as long as it is the popular conception that two individuals are related, we judge accordingly. It is not necessary for the court to bring testimony from the midwife that in fact this-and-this woman bore this-and-this child. We give lashes and execute by burning, stoning, and strangulation based on such a presumption.
What is implied? If it is an accepted presumption that a particular woman is a man's sister, daughter, or mother and he had relations with her in the presence of witnesses, he is given lashes or executed by burning or stoning even though there is no clear-cut evidence that the woman is his sister, mother, or daughter, only the accepted presumption.
An incident occurred with a woman who came to Jerusalem carrying an infant on her shoulders and she raised it, [establishing] the assumption that he was her son. [After he grew older,] he had relations with her and they brought her to the court who executed her by stoning.64The punishment given for relations between a mother and her son.
A proof of this law can be drawn from the fact that the Torah speaks of the judgment of execution for one who curses his father and strikes his father65Exodus 21:15, 17. How can we find clear proof that he is his father?66For we have no way of establishing the fact that his father conceived him. Instead, we operate according to the existing presumption. So, too, with regard to other relatives, we operate according to the existing presumption.", + "[The following rules apply when] a man and a woman come from overseas, he says: \"This is my wife,\" and she says: \"This is my husband.\" If in [their new] city, he establishes the presumption that she is his wife67By living together as husband and wife in a way obvious to all. for 30 days,68We see the concept of 30 days used to establish a person's identity in another context: After that period of time, his name may be mentioned in a legal document without fear of deception (Chelkat Mechokek 19:3; see Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 24:4).
Although capital punishment is not enforced in the present age, there are certain aspects of this halachah which are relevant, for there are several halachic contexts in which it is necessary to determine whether or not a woman is married. Today, with the advances in recording keeping and communication, it is customary for the Jewish community - particularly, in Eretz Yisrael and in a partial way, in certain places in the Diaspora - to keep records and to be able to verify whether or not a couple are married. we execute [an adulterer who has relations] with her. Within 30 days, however, we do not execute anyone on the presumption that she is a married woman.69The transgressors are given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" for certainly there is at least a possibility that the couple who claim to be husband and wife are married (Rabbi Akiva Eiger to Halachah 15).", + "When a woman is presumed to be a niddah among her neighbors,70I.e., she wore clothes that she set aside to wear while she is in her niddah state. See Turei Zahav 185:2 who states that even if the woman later gives an explanation for her conduct, her explanation is not accepted and we consider her status to have changed. The Siftei Cohen and others, however, differ. See Chapter 4, Halachah 10. her husband is given lashes for [engaging in relations] with her in the niddah state.71A man is forbidden to have relations with a woman while she is in the niddah state. In this instance, although we do not know for certain that she was in the niddah state, we act according to the presumption created by her conduct.
[The following rule applies when] a person issues a warning [not to enter into seclusion with a specific man]72When a man issues such a warning to his wife and she violates it, he is forbidden to engage in relations with her until she drinks the sotah waters (Hilchot Sotah 1:2). to his wife and she enters into seclusion with him. If one witness comes and testifies that she was unfaithful,73In which instance, she is not given the sotah waters to drink. Instead, her husband is required to divorce her (ibid.:14). her husband was a priest, and he engaged in relations with her afterwards, he receives lashes because of her because he had relations with a zonah.74The term zonah is halachicly defined as any woman who engages in relations with a man forbidden to her. The term literally means \"a prostitute\" or \"a promiscuous woman.\" Here, however, the term is given the specific halachic meaning mentioned above. Whether she willingly or unwillingly engages in such relations, she is placed in this category. A priest is forbidden to engage in relations with such a woman. See Chapter 18, Halachah 12. Although the fundamental element of this testimony is established by one witness,75One might think that it was necessary for the change in the status of the woman to be established through the testimony of two witnesses. [her conduct caused] her identity to be established as a zonah.76I.e., since she violated the warning her husband gave her, we assume that she acted unfaithfully. Hence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to bring about a change in her status.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the man is given lashes for violating a different prohibition, the prohibition against relations with a wife who has been unfaithful. The Ra'avad, however, speaks of the woman being raped and maintains that a woman is not placed in the category of a zonah when only one person observes her being raped.
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Ra'avad's statements, noting that the Rambam does not mention rape at all. The Maggid Mishneh also states that the Rambam does not require lashes when a man engages in relations with his wife after she was unfaithful. The Kessef Mishneh questions that statement, noting that in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, the Rambam specifically rules that a man is given lashes in such a situation. See also the notes to Chapter 18, Halachah 7.", + "When a father says: \"My daughter is consecrated to this person,\" his word is accepted77We are speaking about a girl who is a na'arah between the age of twelve and twelve and a half. Her father has the right to consecrate her to whoever he desires. Therefore we accept his word when he states that he consecrated her, as Deuteronomy 22:16 states: \"I gave my daughter to this man\" (Kiddushin 64a).
(A father's word is also accepted with regard to consecrating his daughter is she is younger. We are, nevertheless, compelled to say that here we are speaking about a na'arah, because punishment is mentioned and a girl below the age of twelve is never punished by the court.) and she must marry him.78Or undergo formal divorce proceedings before marrying another man. [Nevertheless,] if she acts unfaithfully while [consecrated] to him, she is not stoned to death79The punishment given for relations with a consecrated maiden. because of her father's statements unless there are witnesses [who testify] that she was consecrated in their presence.80Although the father's statement is given a certain amount of legal credibility, it is not considered as sufficient basis for capital punishment (Kiddushin 63b).
Similarly, when a woman states: \"I have been consecrated,\" [if it is discovered that she engaged in relations with another man,] she is not executed on the basis of her own statements. Instead, there must be witnesses [that she was consecrated] or she must have established a common conception [that this was the case]." + ], + [ + "The [following] four women: the wife of a man's father, the wife of his son, the wife of his brother, and the wife of the brother of his father, are considered an ervah1The singular of the term arayot mentioned in the first chapter. for him forever, whether after consecration or after marriage, in the lifetime of their husbands or after their deaths, [even] if they were divorced - with the exception of the wife of one's brother who did not leave a son.2When a man dies childless, one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry his widow to propagate his name. This obligation, yibbum in Hebrew, is described in Deuteronomy, ch. 25, and in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah.
If a man engages in relations with one of these woman during the lifetime of their husbands, he is liable for two [sin-offerings3I.e., if he transgresses inadvertently. If he transgresses intentionally, he is liable for execution, by stoning for relations with his father's wife and his son's wife, and by strangulation for relations with his brother's wife and the wife of his father's brother. (For the latter two transgressions are punishable by kerait and so he receives the penalty for adultery alone.)]: for incestuous relations and adulterous relations, for both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.4See Chapter 17, Halachah 8, and notes where this concept is explained.", + "Therefore a person who engages in relations with his mother who is his father's wife is liable for two [sin-offerings], one because [the woman is] his mother and one because she is his father's wife. [This applies] both during his father's lifetime and after his father's death.5Since the Rambam speaks of laws that apply after the father's death, he mentions only two prohibitions. During the father's lifetime, he is liable for a third prohibition: relations with a married woman.
The wives of both a person's paternal brother and his maternal brother are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his brother were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship.6For the prohibition against relations with all blood relatives applies regardless of whether the person was conceived within marriage or outside of it. The wife of the maternal brother of a man's father is, however, forbidden [only] as a shniyah, as explained.7Hilchot Ishut 1:5. This is merely a Rabbinical prohibition. Both a person's paternal sister and his maternal sister are considered an ervah for him. [This applies regardless if he and/or his sister were conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship, e.g., his mother or his father acted promiscuously with others and his sister was conceived promiscuously, as [implied by Leviticus 18:9]: \"one born at home or one born beyond [marriage].\"", + "The daughter of his father's wife who is his paternal sister is an ervah for him, [as ibid.:11] states: \"the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, your father's offspring.\" If, however, a man's father marries a woman and she has a daughter from another man, that daughter is permitted to him.8Even if they were raised in the same household like a brother and a sister, marriage between them is permitted. We are not considered with the possible impression such a union might create [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:11)]. She is not \"your father's offspring.\" Behold one is already liable for [relations] with her because she is a sister, why then [does the Torah mention]: \"the daughter of your father's wife\"? So that one should be liable for this prohibition as well.9And thus be required to bring two sin offerings.", + "Therefore a man who engages in relations with his sister who was born to his father's wife in marriage is liable for two [sin offerings]: one because of \"the nakedness of your sister\" and one because of \"the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife.\" If, however, one's father raped or seduced a woman and conceived a daughter, one is liable only for having relations with one's sister. For the daughter of the woman who was raped is not the daughter of the wife of one's father.10This applies even if afterwards, the father marries the woman who he raped or seduced (Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 196).", + "The sister of his mother is considered an ervah for him. [This applies to both her paternal and maternal sister and applies regardless whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship. Similarly, his father's sister - both his paternal and maternal sister, whether she [was conceived] in marriage or in a promiscuous relationship - is considered an ervah for him.", + "When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and conceives a daughter with her, that daughter is considered an ervah for him.11The fact that her mother was not married to him is not significant. Although the Torah does not state: \"Do not reveal the nakedness of your daughter,\" the prohibition is of Scriptural origin. Since [the Torah] forbade [relations] with the daughter of one's daughter, it did not mention [the prohibition against] one's daughter. This is not from the words of our Sages.12The Rambam's statements touch on an involved issue. In his Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), he writes that every concept derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis has the power of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, commandments derived through these principles are not considered as part of the 613 mitzvot, but are instead \"from the words of our Sages.\"
The prohibition against relations with one's daughter, the Rambam states, is not in that category. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah and Sanhedrin 76a uses different principles of exegesis to derive it, it is not \"from the words of our Sages.\" Instead, it is as if it was explicitly stated in the Torah. From Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:2, it appears that the Rambam's intent is that since the Torah mentions the prohibition against relations with the daughter of one's daughter, the prohibition against relations with one's daughter is obvious. There is no need for the Torah to mention it. It must be mentioned that many other authorities do not follow the same understanding as the Rambam and consider concepts derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis as fully binding Scriptural Law. According to their understanding, there is no difficulty with the prohibition against relations with one's daughter being considered of Scriptural origin. Therefore a person who has relations with a daughter born of his wife is liable for two [sin offerings],13From the Ra'avad's statements, it appears that he does not require a sin offering for relations with one's daughter. The parenthesis are based on the understanding of the Maggid Mishneh. for [relations with] his daughter and for relations with a woman and her daughter.14As stated in the following halachah.", + "When a person consecrates a woman, her close relatives - six women - become forbidden to him as an ervah forever. This applies whether he consummates [the bond through nisuin] or divorces her, in the lifetime of his wife and after her death. They are: a) her mother, b) her mother's mother, c) her father's mother, d) her daughter,15When stating this law, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:13) emphasizes that if a man rapes a woman, after her death, he may marry her daughter who was conceived by another man. The Ramah adds that even if the rapist marries her daughter during her lifetime, he is not compelled to divorce her. e) her daughter's daughter, and f) her son's daughter. If he has relations with one of these women during the lifetime of his wife, both [he and she] are executed by burning.", + "If he has relations with one of these women after his wife's death, they are liable for kerait,16This is based on the Rambam's understanding of Sanhedrin 76b. Rashi, the Ramban, and the Rashba differ and maintain that after the death of the man's wife, he is prohibited against relations with her close relatives, but is not liable for kerait. but they are not executed by the court, as [derived from Leviticus 20:14]: \"In fire, he and they shall be burnt.\" [This implies17The use of the plural term \"they\" should not be interpreted to mean that the man's wife should be executed by being burnt to death. For what evil has she committed? Instead, the intent is that only in her lifetime is the death penalty applied (Rashi, Sanhedrin 76b). that only] when both women - his wife and the woman with whom he had relations - are alive, he and the ervah are executed by burning. When both [women] are not alive, there is no execution by burning.18Sanhedrin, loc. cit., speaks about relations with one's mother-in-law, stating that only when one's wife is alive are these relations punishable by death. Since, however, the prohibition against relations with all the other five women mentioned above is derived from the prohibition against relations with one's mother-in-law, they are bound by the same laws (Maggid Mishneh).", + "Similarly, the sister of his wife is considered an ervah for him until his wife dies.19For Leviticus 18:18 explicitly states that the prohibition against relations with the sister of one's wife is \"in her lifetime.\" While the wife is alive, even if she is divorced, the man is forbidden to engage in relations with her sister [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 15:26)]. After his wife's death, however, he may marry her sister. Both her maternal sister and her paternal sister, whether conceived in marriage or promiscuously, are considered as an ervah for him.", + "If a man transgressed and engaged in relations with one of these seven women, whether intentionally or inadvertently, although he and the woman are liable for execution by the court or kerait, he is not forbidden to engage in relations with his wife.20For his wife has not transgressed and there is no reason that she should become forbidden. The only exception is [when he engages in relations with] the sister of the woman he consecrated. In this instance, his wife is forbidden to him, as explained in Hilchot Gerushin.21The Rambam is referring to Hilchot Gerushin 10:8-10 which states:
A man consecrated a woman, she journeyed to another country, the husband heard she died, and [then] married her sister. [If,] afterwards, it was discovered that she had not died, he must divorce both women.... Why did they require that the sister of the woman whom the man consecrated be divorced? Lest people say that the [first] kiddushin were given conditionally, [the condition was not fulfilled,] and thus the law would allow marriage to her sister. Since the [first] woman's sister was divorced... the man's first wife is also forbidden to him lest people think that he married his divorcee's sister.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam maintains that a divorce is required only in such an instance. If, by contrast, he enters into promiscuous relations with the sister of the woman he consecrated, he may still marry her if she consents. This explanation resolves the protests made by the Ra'avad to the Rambam's statements.", + "When a man engages in promiscuous relations with a woman, the seven relatives mentioned above are not forbidden to him [according to Scriptural Law].22For the verses (Leviticus 18:18, 20:14) on which these prohibitions are based mention \"taking,\" i.e., marriage. Nevertheless, our Sages23See Yevamot 97a. prohibited anyone who had promiscuous relations with a woman from marrying one of these seven relatives during the promiscuous woman's lifetime.24After her death, however, there are no restrictions on marrying her relatives (ibid., for the reason for the decree no longer applies. [The rationale is that] the promiscuous woman will come to visit her relatives. He will thus enter into solitude with her. [Since] he is familiar with her, we fear that they will transgress and thus he will engage in relations with an ervah.25For since he is married to one of her close relatives, she is an ervah for him.
Even if a man is merely suspected of relations with a woman,26In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 11:1), the Rambam states that this applies when the suspicion is verified. he should not marry one of her relatives until the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations died. If, however, he married the relative of the woman with whom he was suspected of having relations, he should not divorce her.", + "When a person was suspected of having relations with an ervah or a rumor to that effect was circulated, he should not dwell together with her in the same lane or appear in the same neighborhood.27This ruling is derived from the law stated in the following clause of the halachah. The Ra' avad questions the Rambam's deduction, stating that extra stringency is appropriate with regard to one's mother-in-law, but otherwise, there is no need to enforce such a restriction. The Maggid Mishneh states that for that reason, lashes were given only with regard to one's mother-in-law, but agrees with the Rambam's ruling, stating that curbs should be placed on any conduct that may lead to promiscuity. See also Chapter 21, Halachah 27. An incident occurred concerning a man who was rumored [to have engaged in relations] with his mother-in-law and our Sages had him beaten28See Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:5 which states that a judge has the power to subject a person to lashes even if he is not liable according to Torah Law. because he passed by the entrance to her home.", + "When a person has promiscuous relations with a woman and her daughter or a woman and her sister or the like, it is as if he had relations with two unrelated woman. One is considered an ervah because of the other only in the instance of marriage, not in an instance of promiscuity. Similarly, if a man's father, son, brother, or father's brother raped a woman or seduced her, she is permitted to him and he may marry her. [The prohibition involving these individuals] mentions \"the wife of\" and here there is no context of marriage.", + "When a man's father or son marries a woman, that man may marry her daughter or her mother as we explained.29Halachah 3. A person may marry the wife of his brother's son.30After she was widowed or divorced. A man may marry a woman and her sister's daughter or her brother's daughter at the same time. It is a mitzvah from the Sages for a man to marry his sister's daughter,31The Maggid Mishneh explains that a person has a natural affection for his close relatives. Those positive feelings provide a fertile ground of support for the marriage relationship to flourish. as [alluded to by Isaiah 58:7]: \"Do not turn away from your own flesh.\" This law also applies to his brother's daughter.32Other Rishonim [Rashi, Rabbenu Tam (Sanhedrin 76) differ and maintain that the mitzvah applies only with regard to one's sister's daughter." + ], + [ + "When a person has relations with the wife of a minor, he is not liable.1For there is no concept of marriage with regard to a male below the age of majority.
The term liable in this context means \"liable for execution\" if the transgression was performed willfully or \"liable for a sacrifice\" if it was performed inadvertently. [This applies] even to a yevamah with whom a nine year old [brother] had relations.2A yevamah is a childless widow whom one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry. Now, relations with a yevamah do not require the conscious intent of the brother who seeks to marry her (Hilchot Yibbum 2:3) and relations carried out by a nine year old are of consequence in certain contexts (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). Hence, one might think that by carrying out relations with the yevamah, the nine year old would acquire her as his wife. See also Hilchot Yibbum 5:18. Similar [laws apply when] a person has relations with the wife of a deaf-mute,3A deaf-mute is not considered of sufficient mental capacity to be responsible for his actions. Hence, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 4:9, he cannot consecrate a woman according to Scriptural Law. Although according to Rabbinic Law, his consecration is binding, he is not held liable for execution or a sacrifice for violating a Rabbinic prohibition. the wife of a mentally or emotionally unstable individual,4In this instance, the consecration is not binding even according to Rabbinic Law (ibid.). the wife of a tumtum or an androgynus,5As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 15, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the halachic status of an androgynus and a doubt with regard to the physiological makeup of a tumtum. Hence we cannot be certain whether the adulterer is engaging in relations with a woman whose marriage is halachicly significant. a female deaf-mute or a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable married to a mentally capable individual,6Since such women are not considered as capable of making responsible decisions, the man's consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law. And since the consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law, there are no punishments that result from it. In particular, however, there is a difference between the two situations, for the consecration of a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable is not effective at all. The consecration of a female deaf-mute, by contrast, is effective according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.). or a woman whose consecration is of doubtful status or whose divorce is of doubtful status. In all of the above situations, one is not liable. If they willfully transgress, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "[The following rules apply if a man] engages in relations with a female minor, the wife of an adult male. If she was consecrated by her father, [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation.7He is given the punishment due any adulterer, for the consecration is binding according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Ishut3:11). This is speaking about a situation where the couple later married. Otherwise, the adulterer would be stoned to death. Also, it is speaking about a situation where the child is over three years old. Otherwise, the relations are not significant. She is not liable for anything,8Neither punishment, nor a sacrifice. For she is a minor and is not responsible for her conduct. [but] she is forbidden to her husband,9As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, a woman who engages in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband. as explained in Hilchot Sotah.10Chapter 2, Halachah 4. The Ra'avad both here and in Hilchot Sotah differs with the Rambam, basing his objections on Yevamot 33b which states \"The seduction of a minor is always considered equivalent to rape.\" Since she is not responsible for her actions, her consent is of no significance. And if a woman is raped, she is permitted to her husband if he is not a priest (Hilchot Ishut 24:19).
The Maggid Mishneh admits that the question raised by the Ra'avad is substantial, but points to a passage in Ketubot 9a which appears to support the Rambam's decision. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 178:3) cites both views without stating which to favor. The Beit Shmuel 178:3 states that the Ra'avad's view is accepted by most authorities.
If she has the right to perform mi'un11Mi'un refers to a means of terminating a Rabbinically originated marriage arrangement. When a girl's father is not alive, our Sages gave her mother and/or her brothers the opportunity to consecrate her. This consecration is not binding according to Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Ishut 4:8, Hilchot Gerushin 11:1). Hence, an adulterer is not punished for relations with her.
This law also applies to a deaf-mute and anyone else whose consecration is acceptable only according to Rabbinic Law (Rav David Arameah)., he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and she is permitted to [remain married] to her husband, even if he is a priest.12A priest is not allowed to remain married to a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, even if she was compelled to do so. Nevertheless, in this instance, she can end her marriage whenever she desires without a formal divorce, it is as if she was never married. Hence, her \"adultery\" is not of consequence.", + "When the daughter of a priest commits adultery while married, she is executed by burning, as [Leviticus 21:9] states: \"When the daughter of a man who is a priest will begin to commit adultery, [she will be burnt by fire].\" [This applies] whether she is married to a priest or an Israelite. [Indeed,] even if her husband was a mamzer13A person born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship whom it is forbidden to marry. or a nitin14See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which explain that this term refers to a person descended from one of the seven Canaanite nations who converted. Such a person is forbidden to marry into the Jewish people. or another whom it is forbidden to marry because of a negative commandment,15When the prohibition against marriage is punishable by execution or kerait, the marriage is not considered valid and there is no punishment for adultery. If, however, it is forbidden only by a negative prohibition, the marriage is binding. [she is given this punishment].
The man who engages in adultery with her is executed by strangulation.16For the Torah states the severe punishment only for the woman herself. Similarly, the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is [executed] by strangulation [if she commits adultery] as is the law with regard to any other married woman.", + "When a man has relations with a consecrated maiden, they are both executed by stoning. They are not liable to be stoned to death until the maiden17The term maiden has a specific halachic definition: a girl who at the age of 12 (or over) manifested signs of physical maturity. She remains in this category for six months (Hilchot Ishut 2:1). is a virgin, consecrated,18But not married. and in her father's home. If she came of age19I.e., the six months mentioned above passed. or she entered the chupah20I.e., completed the marriage ceremony. even if the marriage was not consummated, they are executed by strangulation. [The lesser punishment is given] even if the father gave her to the emissaries of the husband21For from this time, she is no longer under her father's control. and she committed adultery on the way.", + "When a man has relations with a girl who is a minor and is consecrated while she is living in her father's house, he is executed by stoning22Although the verse speaks about \"a consecrated maiden,\" relations with even a younger girl are given the same punishment. and she is not liable.23Since she is a minor, she is not responsible for her actions and is not subjected to any punishment. When a consecrated maiden who is the daughter of a priest commits adultery, she is stoned to death.24I.e., she is given the more severe punishment.", + "When ten men enter into relations with her one after the other while she is a virgin in her father's home, the first is executed by stoning and the remainder, by strangulation.25Because after relations with the first, she is no longer a virgin. Hence, they are given the ordinary penalty for adultery.
When does the above apply? When they had vaginal intercourse. If, however, they had anal intercourse, she is still a virgin and they are all executed by stoning.26For with regard to punishment, there is no difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse.", + "When a consecrated maiden was a freed slave or a convert, even if she was freed or converted before she reached the age of three,27In which instance, even if she had engaged in relations beforehand, her signs of virginity would return. [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation,28Ketubot 44a states that this concept is derived from a Scriptural reference. When speaking of this transgression, Deuteronomy 22:21 states: \"He committed an abuse in Israel,\" i.e., involving a native-born Jewess. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Ketubot 4:3), the Rambam offers a different explanation, one which has raised questions among the commentaries. as is the law with regard to all married women.", + "There is a new law that applies to a person who spreads a malicious report [about his wife].29See Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 3, where this instance is discussed. A man enters into relations with his newly-wed wife and afterwards, claims she is not a virgin. Moreover, he produces witnesses who testify that the women committed adultery before entering into relations with him. If the testimony of the witnesses is not disproved, the women is executed as the Rambam continues to explain. What is this new [law]? That if the gossip is discovered to be true and witnesses come [and testify] that she committed adultery when she was a consecrated maiden, even if she committed adultery after she left her father's house and even if she committed adultery after she entered the marriage canopy before she had relations with her husband, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house. Other consecrated maidens concerning whom a malicious report was not spread are executed by strangulation if they committed adultery after they left their father's home, as we explained.30Halachah 4. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once a woman enters the marriage canopy as a virgin, she is executed by strangulation as are all other married women. The difference of opinion centers on the interpretation of Ketubot 45a. Rashi and Tosafot also differ in their interpretation of that passage.
Thus there are three types of execution for adultery with a married women: strangulation,31An ordinary case of adultery. burning to death,32The daughter of a priest who committed adultery. and stoning to death.33A consecrated maiden who committed adultery in her father's house or a maiden about whom a malicious report was spread and it was discovered to be true.", + "Where is a consecrated maiden who committed adultery stoned to death? If she committed adultery while in her father's house, even though the witnesses did not testify until she went to her father-in-law's house and married, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house.34As Ketubot 45a states, this is intended to dishonor her parents, as if to say: \"See the offspring which you raised.\" If she committed adultery in her father-in-law's house before her father conveyed her [to her husband], she is stoned to death at the entrance to the gate of the city.35As stated in Deuteronomy 22:23. This is a mark of dishonor for the city, a sign that the environment is not moral. The Rambam's ruling is based on his version of Ketubot 45a. Rashi (and the standard published text of that passage) follow a different version.
Or Sameach states that since the transgression did not take place in her father's home, it is not fitting that he be dishonored in this fashion. [This applies] even if [the witnesses] testified concerning her after she returned to her father's house.", + "If witnesses come [and testify] after she comes of age36I.e., six months after she manifests signs of physical maturity. or after her husband has relations with her, she is stoned to death in the place for stoning.37As Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1, 15:1, the place for stoning was a two storey building somewhat removed from the city.[This applies] even if they testify that she committed adultery in her father's home when she was a maiden.38Since she has already come of age, the laws governing her change and she is not stoned at her father's house. If she would commit adultery at this age, she would be executed by strangulation. Hence, when she is punished for the adultery she committed beforehand, her sentence is commuted somewhat and she is not executed at her parents' home (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh himself note that when a man spreads a malicious report about a woman and his statements are proved to be correct, the woman is executed at her father's home. Although she already had relations with her husband, she is executed in the same place as before. This would indicate that her coming of age is also not significant. Rav Akiva Eiger explains that since when a malicious report was proven true, a woman is stoned to death even though she has already married her husband, it obviously is a different type of instance than an ordinary case of a maiden committing adultery.", + "If [a woman] was conceived before her mother converted and born after her mother converted, she is stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city.
[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city. If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, we stone her at the entrance to the court.39For the verse mentions stoning her \"at the entrance to your gates.\" If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, its entrance is not \"your gates\" (Tosafot, Sanhedrin 45b).
[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to her father's house, if she does not have a father or she has a father, but he does not have a house, she is stoned at the place for stoning. The \"entrance to her father's house\" was mentioned only as a mitzvah.40I.e., the optimum manner for the execution to be performed.", + "When a person engages in relations many times with one of the arayot, he is liable for kerait or execution by the court for every time he engages in relations.41With regard to his obligation to bring a sin-offering for inadvertent transgression, see Hilchot Shegagot 5:1 which states that even though a person transgressed several times, as long as he does not become aware of his transgression, he is liable for only one sin offering. If he transgresses inadvertently again after he became aware of his first transgression(s), he must bring another sin-offering. Although the court can only execute the person only once, the different times he engages in relations are considered as different transgressions.
Similarly, if a person is liable for several different transgressions for engaging in relations once,42E.g., he had relations with his brother's wife while she is in the niddah state, in which instance he is liable for relations with a married woman, relations with his brother's wife, and relations with a woman in the niddah state. if he transgressed inadvertently, he must bring a sacrifice for every transgression he performed even though he engaged in relations only once, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot43Chapter 4, Halachah 2. If he transgressed intentionally, it is considered as if he violated many transgressions. Similarly, there is a situation where a person engages in relations once and incurs liability for lashes many times as will be explained.44Chapter 17, Halachot 9-10.", + "The term shifchah charufah employed by the Torah refers to [a woman] who is half a Canaanite maidservant and half a freed woman45Such a situation is possible when a Canaanite maidservant was owned by two partners. One released her from bondage and one did not. In this situation, she is obligated to serve her master one day and on the following day, she is free to do as she chooses. who has been consecrated by a Hebrew servant.46In contrast to other Jewish men, a Hebrew servant is permitted to engage in relations with a Canaanite maid-servant. Hence, the fact that this woman is half a maid-servant will not represent a difficulty for him. And because, she is half a freed woman, he may consecrate her. [Concerning the infidelity of such a woman, Leviticus 19:20] states: \"They shall not die, because she was not freed.\"47And since she was not freed, the Hebrew servant's consecration of her is contingent on her freedom. Until she is freed, they are not fully married. If she was freed entirely, one is liable for execution by the court, for she becomes a married woman in a complete sense, as explained in Hilchot Ishut.48Chapter 4, Halachah 16.", + "[The laws regarding] relations with this maidservant are different than [those regarding] all other forbidden relations in the Torah. For she is lashed, as [ibid.] states: \"There shall be an inquiry.\"49Keritot 11a interprets this phrase as indicating that she - and not the man - should be given the above punishment. He is liable to bring a guilt offering, as [ibid.:21] states: \"And he shall bring his guilt offering.\"50See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 9, which describes the particulars of this sacrifice. Whether he transgresses intentionally or inadvertently with a shifchah charufah, he must bring a guilt offering.
When he enters into relations with her many times, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is required to bring only one sacrifice.51Keritot 9a derives this concept through the principles of Biblical exegesis. If, however, he enters into relations with many different maid-servants, he is liable for each act (Ra'avad; Hilchot Shegagot 9:5). She, however, is liable for lashes for every act of relations if she acted intentionally, as is the law with regard to other instances [where relations are forbidden] by merely a negative commandment.", + "When a person just inserts his corona into the female organ of the shifchah charufah, but does not insert the entire organ, he is not liable. [Liability is incurred only when] he inserts the entire organ.52The term literally means \"complete relations.\" Our translation is based on the definition given by the Rambam in Chapter 1, Halachah 10. It must be noted that Tosafot, Yevamot 55b understands Rashi as interpreting the phrase \"conclude relations\" to mean \"to ejaculate.\" Support for that interpretation is brought from the fact that the prooftext from Leviticus speaks of \"lying with her with seed.\" Somehave also pointed to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 2:5 for support for this interpretation.
He is only liable when she is above majority, had engaged in relations previously and acts intentionally and willfully.53For Keritot 11a teaches: Whenever the woman is lashed, he is required to bring a sacrifice. Whenever she is not punished, he is not liable. And she is not punished unless she is an adult who acts willfully. If, however, she is a minor, she had never engaged in relations, or she transgressed inadvertently, was raped, or was sleeping, he is not liable. Similarly, if he had anal intercourse with her, he is not liable, for with regard to a shifchah charufah an equation was not established between vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse, for [Leviticus 19:20] speaks of: \"ly[ing] while emitting seed.\"54And that is significant only with regard to vaginal intercourse. With regard to other [forbidden] relations, the Torah did not distinguish between one type of relations and the other, for [ibid. 18:22] speaks of \"the ways [in which a man] lies with a woman.\" Implied is that the Torah recognizes two ways of lying with a woman.", + "In every instance concerning a maidservant where we said there was no liability, he is not liable for a sacrifice and she is not liable for lashes. He,55This is the version of the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. Many authentic manuscripts and early printings state \"they,\" i.e., both the male and the female. however, is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" according to Rabbinic Law56For they committed an immoral act which requires punishment lest they continue the pattern. if they were both adults who acted intentionally.", + "When a youth nine years old engages in relations with a shifchah charufah, she is given lashes and he is required to bring a sacrifice,57Since he is already nine years old, his sexual acts are of consequence. Hence, since she transgressed willfully, she is liable. And since she is liable, he is liable for a sacrifice. For a sacrifice is not punishment, but atonement. Although he is still a minor, atonement is still required. In Hilchot Shegagot 9:3, the Rambam clarifies: \"It appears to me that he does not bring [the sacrifice] until he comes of age.\"
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that a minor is never required to bring such a sacrifice, for this sacrifice is a punishment. And since the male is not liable, the female is also not liable. provided that she is an adult, not a virgin, and acts willfully, as we explained.58In Halachah 15. For a man is not liable to bring a sacrifice until she is liable for lashes, as [implied by] the verse: \"There shall be an inquiry.... And he shall bring his guilt offering.\"" + ], + [ + "[A woman in] the niddah1As will be explained, the term niddah refers to a woman who suffers vaginal bleeding at the expected time of her monthly period. state is like all of the other arayot. A person who inserts his corona into her vaginal or anal orifice is liable for kerait. [This applies] even if she is a minor who is three years old, as applies with regard to other arayot.
For a woman can become impure as a niddah even on the day she is born.2Although a woman usually does not begin menstrual bleeding until around the age of twelve. If, however, she does have menstrual bleeding before then, she is bound by the halachic consequences. And a girl who is ten days becomes impure because of zivah.3For if a woman bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period, she is considered as a zavah. The first three days this is possible is the eighth, ninth, and tenth days of her life.
Altough she can become impure from the day of her birth onward, punishment is not allotted for relations with her until she becomes three. For only at that age are relations with her significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13. This concept was communicated through the Oral Tradition. There is no difference between an adult and a minor with regard to the impurity associated with nidah and zivah.", + "[The prohibitions that apply] to one who has relations with a nidah apply throughout the seven days, even if blood was sighted only on the first day. [These same prohibitions] apply to one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a male throughout the seven days [following birth], to one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a female throughout the fourteen days [following birth], to one who has relations with a zavah through the time she bleeds and then counts [seven \"clean\" days].4See Chapter 6, Halachah 8. This applies also to a Canaanite maidservant and one who has been freed. All [of these relations] are punishable by kerait.
[The association is derived as follows:] With regard to a nidah, [Leviticus 15:19] states: \"She will be in her niddah state for seven days.\" With regard to a zavah, [ibid.:25] states: \"All the days of the flow of her impurity will be like the days of her niddah state.\"5Thus establishing an association between the two. With regard to a woman who gave birth to a male,6See Chapter 10. [ibid. 12:2] states: \"She will become impure as in the days of her nidah affliction.\" 7See Chapter 6, Halachah 8. And with regard to a woman who gave birth to a female, [ibid. 12:5] states: \"She will be impure as in her niddah state for two weeks.\"8See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.", + "When does the above - that the impurity is dependent on [the passage of] days - apply? When the woman immersed herself in the waters of a mikveh9A ritual bath that meets the qualifications for this purpose. If she immersed herself in an ordinary bath, by contrast, that is not acceptable as explained in Hilchot Mikveot. after these specifically mentioned days.10If a niddah immerses herself in the middle of these days, however, the immersion is of no consequence. If, however, a niddah, a zavah or a woman who gave birth did not immerse in a mikveh, a person is liable for kerait for having relations with one of them even several years afterwards. For the Torah made the matter dependent on [the passage of] days and immersion, as [Leviticus 15:18] states: \"And they shall immerse themselves [in the water]....\" This teaches a general principle with regard to any impure person: he is in a state of impurity until he [or she] immerses.", + "The prohibitions against relations with a niddah, a zavah, and a woman after childbirth do not apply with regard to relations with gentile women.11Although relations with gentile women are forbidden, none of these particular transgressions apply according to Scriptural Law. For all the defined states of ritual purity and impurity apply only with regard to the Jewish people. The fact that a gentile woman experiences the same physical conditions is not of consequence. Our Sages decreed that all gentiles, male and female, would be considered like zavim at all times, whether or not they experienced such discharges,12I.e., this was a decree imposed to prevent intimate contact with them, regardless of their physical condition. See Hilchot Mitam'ei Mishkav UMoshav 2:10. with regard to matters of purity and impurity.", + "All blood manifest by a woman after childbirth during the 33 days associated with the birth of a male13As the Torah relates (Leviticus 12:2-4), after the birth of a male child a woman becomes impure for seven days. Afterwards, she immerses herself to regain ritual purity. For the next 33 days, even if she suffers uterine bleeding, her state does not change and she remains ritually pure. and the 66 days associated with the birth of a female14As ibid.:5 states, similar concepts apply after a woman gives birth to a female except that she originally becomes impure for 14 days. Afterwards, she remains pure for 66 days. is called blood of purity.15Niddah 36a relates that there is one source of bleeding - the womb - for all 40 (or 80) days. It is just that during the first 7 (14), the Torah rules that this blood is impure and during the final 33 (66), the Torah rules that the blood is pure. It does not prevent a woman from [relations with] her husband. Instead, she immerses herself after seven days [of impurity] for a male and fourteen for a female. She may then engage in relations with her husband16The Kessef Mishneh cites Chapter 7, Halachah 7, which states that the above applies only when a woman is not impure because of zavah bleeding before childbirth. If she is impure for such reasons, she must count seven \"clean\" days before she immerses herself and engages in relations with her husband.
Also, as will be explained (see Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6), at present the custom is not to observe the concept of blood of purity at all. Even if a woman gives birth, she must wait \"seven clean days\" after seeing any uterine bleeding. even though her blood flows.17I.e., she suffers uterine bleeding which would otherwise render her ritually impure.", + "All of those who must immerse themselves are required to immerse themselves during the day with the exception of a niddah and a woman after childbirth.18At present when we do not make any distinctions between niddah and zivah, all women immerse themselves at night. For with regard to a niddah, [Leviticus 15:19] states: \"She will be in her niddah state for seven days.\" Her niddah state prevails for all of the seven days.19She cannot terminate the last day earlier by immersing herself in the daytime. She immerses on the evening of the eighth day. Similarly, a woman who gives birth to a male child immerses on the evening of the eighth day, and one who gives birth to a female immerses on the evening of the fifteenth day, for a woman who gives birth is comparable to one in the niddah state, as we explained.20In Halachah 2.", + "If she21A niddah or a woman after childbirth. delayed the matter for many days and did not immerse herself, when she immerses herself, she should immerse only at night. For if she immerses during the day, an error [may be] made and another niddah may come and immerse herself on the seventh day.", + "If a woman was sick or the place for immersion was far away and women could not reach there and return at night because of thieves,22Although such problems are uncommon today, there are several examples - e.g., woman living in new settlements in Israel's West Bank - where these principles are relevant. because of cold, or because they close the gates of the city at night, she may immerse during the day on the eighth - or subsequent - days.23She should not, however, immerse herself on the seventh day even if she refrains from engaging in relations until nightfall [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 197:4)].", + "Whenever a woman has a veset,24A fixed time when the onset of menstruation can be expected to begin, as will be explained. Since she has a fixed time when menstruation is expected, at other times, we assume that she remains ritually pure. If she does not have a fixed time when menstruation can be expected to begin, her husband must ask her concerning her state. He cannot make any assumptions (Maggid Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh). her husband can assume that she is [ritually pure and] permitted until she tells him \"I am impure\" or she is established as a niddah in her neighborhood.25By wearing clothes designated to be worn at this time.
If a woman's husband went overseas and left her ritually pure, when he comes he does not have to ask her [concerning her state]. Even if he finds her asleep, he may enter into relations with her26Without inquiring about her ritual state. as long as it is not the time when she is expected to menstruate.27Even if there was ample time for her to have become impure due to menstruation, to wait the appointed time, and then to immerse herself, he may assume that she did that. Since she was pure when he left her, we may assume that all of the above transpired [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:11)]. He need not suspect that perhaps she is a niddah. If he left her a niddah, she is forbidden to him until she tells him: \"I am ritually pure.\"28Since he knows that she was ritually impure, he cannot assume that she changed her status. Instead, she must explicitly inform him of that change [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 185:1)].", + "When a woman tells her husband: \"I am ritually impure,\" and afterwards she tells him: \"I am ritually pure. Before I was just speaking facetiously with you,\" her word is not accepted.29And he must consider her as if she is actually ritually impure.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 185:3) states that if she corrects her statements immediately, her word is accepted. If she provides a rationale for her original statements, her word is accepted. 30The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 185:4) state that if she performed an act that indicated that she was impure, e.g., she wore the clothes that she wears in the niddah state, providing a valid explanation is not sufficient to clear the suspicions and she is considered impure.
What is implied? Her husband asked her to engage in relations and his sister or his mother was together with her in the courtyard. She originally said she was impure. Afterwards, she said: \"I am pure. I told you that I am impure only because of your sister or your mother; lest they see us.\" [In this instance,] her statement is accepted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.31E.g., \"I originally made a mistake. I thought I was impure according to law and discovered that in fact I was pure,\" \"I did not have strength to engage in relations and avoided them by giving this excuse\" (Hagahot Maimoniot).", + "When a man was in the midst of relations with a woman who had been ritually pure and she said: \"I became impure,\" he should not separate himself immediately while he is erect. For withdrawing is as pleasurable for him as entry. If he withdraws while he is still erect, he is liable for kerait,32The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 185:5) states that if a person withdraws while erect because he is unfamiliar with the transgression involved, he should fast for 40 days to seek atonement. These fasts need not be consecutive. He should also give generously to charity. like one who enters into relations with a niddah. This law also applies with regard to other arayot.33I.e., if a person realized his transgression while involved in relations with other arayot, he should not withdraw while erect.
What should he do? Implant his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection.34The Rama (loc. cit.) adds that he should be overcome with awe concerning the transgression which he faces. Afterwards, he should withdraw.", + "It is forbidden for a person to engage in relations35The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:2) state that it is only necessary to refrain from relations, other expressions of closeness are permitted. Even hugging and kissing are permitted (Siftei Cohen 184:6). This, however, represents the mere letter of the law. There are many authorities who are more stringent and forbid these expressions of closeness (ibid., Turei Zahav 184:3). In some communities, the custom is to observe all stringencies as if the woman was actually a niddah. with his wife near the time she can expect menstruation to begin,36See ch. 8, which elaborates on this subject, speaking about situation when women have a fixed veset or a veset that has not been firmly established. lest she menstruate in the midst of relations. [This is alluded to by Leviticus 15:31]: \"And you shall warn the children of Israel concerning their impurity.\"37The entire concept of vesetot, calculating the expected time when a woman will begin menstruating is a Rabbinic injunction. Hence the citation of a Scriptural verse is merely an asmachta, a support, and not a direct Scriptural command (Maggid Mishneh).
For how long [is it necessary to refrain from relations]? If [the woman] would ordinarily begin menstruating during the day, she is forbidden to enter into relations from the beginning of the day. If she would ordinarily begin menstruating during the night, she is forbidden to enter into relations from the beginning of the night.38The Siftei Cohen 184:7 states that this applies only when a woman is accustomed to begin menstruating at a given time during the day or night. If, however, she does not have a fixed time when she begins menstruating, relations are also forbidden during the preceding day or night. This stringency is not, however, accepted by all authorities.", + "If the time when menstruation could be expected to come passes and she did not begin menstruating, she is permitted to engage in relations after the time when menstruation was expected to begin passes.
What is implied? If she was accustomed to begin menstruating after six hours of the day passed. She is forbidden to engage in relations from the beginning of the day. If six hours pass without her beginning to menstruate, she is forbidden to engage in relations until the evening. 39During the evening, however, she is permitted. Before entering into relations, the woman should carry out an internal examination to verify that she in fact did not begin menstruation [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De'ah 184:9)]. Similarly, if she was accustomed to begin menstruating after six hours of the night and that time passed without her beginning to menstruate, she is forbidden to engage in relations until sunrise.", + "It is the habit of Jewish men and women to carry out a personal inspection after relations.40This ruling is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:1) as a minority perspective. The prevailing view is that when a woman possesses a fixed veset, she and her husband need not carry out such inspections at all. If she does not possess a fixed veset, she and her husband should carry out these inspections before and after the first three times they engage in relations. If no blood is discovered, it is established that sexual relations does not cause the woman to menstruate. Hence, in the future, the couple can engage in relations without making these inspections. What is implied? The man should clean himself with a cloth prepared for [this purpose] and the woman should clean herself with a cloth prepared for [this purpose]. [The purpose of these inspections is] to see whether the woman menstruated in the midst of relations. The man may allow the woman to check with his cloth. Since her word is accepted with regard to her [cloth], it is also accepted with regard to his.", + "The cloths used to clean oneself must be from worn-out,41Since they are worn-out, they are soft and pliable. It is possible for the woman to insert them into all the corners of the vagina. white42In this way, any speck of blood will be noticeable. Needless to say, they must also be clean. Today, in many Jewish communities, special clothes are prepared for this purpose - and other inspections which a woman must undergo - and are available from the local mikveh and at times, even in pharmacies. linen.43Cotton may also be used [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:6)]. They are called eidim, \"witnesses,\" in this context. The cloth with which the man cleans himself is called his ed and the cloth with which the woman cleans himself is called her ed.", + "Modest women do not engage in relations until they carry out an inspection beforehand.44As the Rambam continues to explain, this applies even if she has a fixed veset. A woman who does not have a [fixed] veset is forbidden to engage in relations until she carries out an inspection.45The Ra'avad and Rav Moshe Cohen object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the Rambam's source, Niddah 11b, applies only with regard to the laws of ritual purity and not with regard to relations with one's husband. Indeed, the Rambam himself appears to have equivocated back and forth concerning the issue. In the first draft (which is the standard printed text) of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 1:7), he follows the position advanced by the Ra'avad. It is only in the Mishneh Torah and the final text of the Commentary to the Mishneh (see Rav Kappach's translation) that he changes his mind.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:2) quotes the Rambam's ruling here as a minority view, the prevailing opinion is that such an inspection is unnecessary. Moreover, a woman should not carry out such an inspection in the presence of her husband, lest he think that she became impure. Therefore, she engages in relation with two edim, one for before relations and one for afterwards. When, however, a woman has a [fixed] veset, she need not use an ed before relations except as a measure of modesty.
After relations, however, everyone needs two witnesses: one for him and one for her, even a pregnant woman, one who is nursing, an elderly woman, or a minor46All these four types of women are unlikely to menstruate. Nevertheless, they must take the precaution suggested by the Rambam. A virgin47Who will suffer hymeneal bleeding after the first (or more) occasions of intercourse. See Chapter 5, Halachah 19. or a woman whose blood is pure48I.e., a woman after childbirth, as described in Halachah 5. does not require edim, because blood is flowing from her.49Thus checking to see whether or not she is bleeding will serve no purpose. This bleeding does not, however, render her ritually impure or forbidden to her husband according to Scriptural Law.", + "When a man engages in intercourse several times [in one night], [he and his wife] do not have to check their two edim after each time they engage in intercourse. Instead, he should clean himself with his ed, she should clean herself with her ed after each time they have relations that entire night. In the morning, they should check the edim. If blood is discovered on her ed or on his ed, she is impure.
If a women engaged in relations, cleaned herself, and then the ed was lost, she should not engage in relations again until she makes an internal inspection with another ed first. [We fear that] perhaps there was blood on the ed that was lost.50If, however, the ed is clean, we assume that the ed she used at night had also been clean.", + "[The following rules apply if] she placed the ed51This is speaking about an ed that was known to be clean beforehand (Maggid Mishneh). under a pillow or a bolster and blood was discovered upon it. If [the stain] is extended, she is impure. For we can assume that [the stain] came from the cleaning.52Since the stain is extended, we assume that the woman had touched a source of bleeding. As she moved the ed, the stain became extended. If it is rounded,53The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:34) states that this applies only when the stain is smaller than a gris (see Chapter 9, Halachah 6). If it is larger than that measure, we do not assume that it comes from a louse, because it is unlikely that a louse will produce that much blood. she is pure. [We assume that the stain] came only from the blood of a louse which was killed under the pillow.54This applies even if there is no trace of the body of the louse. We assume that when she put the ed under the pillow, she killed the louse and that produced a rounded stain. If she placed the ed in a box or in any place where a louse is unlikely to be found, she is considered as impure even if the stain is round (Maggid Mishneh).", + "[When a woman] cleaned herself with an ed that has been checked, then touched it to her thigh,55And afterwards, placed it in a safe place. and on the next day discovered blood upon it, she is impure. We do not say: Maybe a louse was killed when she touched it to her thigh.56For the likelihood of her suffering vaginal bleeding is greater than that of her killing a louse when touching the eid to her thigh. The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as applying even if the stain is round. He notes that other authorities differ and apply the principles stated in the previous law. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:35) quotes both opinions without stating which to follow.
[The following rules apply if] she cleaned herself with an ed that was not checked57This refers to an ed which we do not know whether it was dirty or not. If, however, we know that the ed was dirty, she is not considered impure even if a large stain is found [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 190:36)]. and she did not know whether it had blood on it before she cleaned herself with it or not. If there was more than a gris of blood [on it], she is [considered] a niddah.58When a stain is larger than a gris, we assume that it will not have come from a louse. If the stain was less than that, she is pure. [We assume that the stain] came from a louse.", + "When a woman suffers vaginal bleeding in the midst of relations,59The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 187:1) emphasizes that these laws apply only when the bleeding is noticed directly after intercourse. If there is an interval before she discovers the bleeding, these laws do not apply. she is permitted to engage in relations again a second time once she becomes pure.60For an occurrence that takes place once or twice is not usually considered to establish a recurrent pattern. If she suffers vaginal bleeding [in the midst of relations] a second time, she is permitted to engage in relations a third time. If she suffers vaginal bleeding [in the midst of relations] a third time,61I.e., on three consecutive occasions without there being an occasion where relations did not lead to vaginal bleeding in the interim (Siftei Cohen 187:3). she is forbidden to ever enter into relations again with this husband.62Instead, she must be divorced. She may, however, remarry as stated in the following halachah.
The reason she is required to divorce is that the recurrence of a factor three times establishes a chazzakah, a presumption that this factor will continue to recur in the future. Thus if she began bleeding on three successive occasions in the midst of relations with her husband, we assume that she will continue to do so in the future. Since she suffered vaginal bleeding in the midst of intercourse, those relations are considered as involving a severe transgression. On the first three occasions, she and her husband are not held responsible for this is obviously a deviation from the norm. If, however, a pattern is established, this is considered the norm and if she would bleed in the midst of relations in the future, the transgression would be considered as willful. To prevent that from happening, we require divorce.
It must be emphasized that all this applies after the woman has ceased hymeneal bleeding. It is, however, possible for her to engage in relations several times at the beginning of her marriage and continue hymeneal bleeding. See the conclusion of Chapter 5.
When does the above apply? When there was no other factor that [the bleeding] could be attributed to.63And thus, it is assumed that the relations are the cause of the vaginal bleeding. If, however, they entered into relations close to the time when she was expected to menstruate,64Note the Siftei Cohen 187:16 who offers several resolutions how this is possible despite the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 12. we attribute [the bleeding] to her ordinary pattern. If she had a wound [in her vaginal area], we attribute [the bleeding] to the wound. If, however, the blood that comes from the wound is a different shade than the blood which she sees in the midst of relations, she may not attribute [the bleeding] to the wound.65Unless we know that the shades of blood are different, we assume that they are the same and attribute the bleeding to the wound (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 187:19).
We accept the word of a woman when she says: \"I have a wound in the uterus which bleeds.\"66Note the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 187:5) who emphasizes the importance of adding the words \"which bleeds.\" On this basis, she is permitted to her husband even though the uterus bleeds in the midst of relations.", + "When a woman bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions and there was no outside factor to which to attribute [the bleeding], she is required to divorce. She may, however, marry a second husband.67For we accept the possibility that the difficulty was particular to her first husband and would not affect her relations with other men. If she married a second time and bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions, she is required to divorce, but she may marry a third man. If, however, she married a third time and bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions, she is required to divorce and she may not marry again68Since the same condition recurred with three different men, a chazzakah is established and we assume that it will recur with all men. until she is healed from this sickness.", + "How does a woman check herself to see whether she has been healed from this sickness?69She may check herself in this manner at any time in the process, even before being divorced by her first husband [Maggid Mishneh; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 187:3)]. She brings a lead tube with its edge doubled over inside of it.70So that it will be smooth and will not scratch her. She inserts the tube into her vagina until the place it can reach. She then places a shaft within the tube with a cotton swab placed at its top. She pushes [the shaft] until the swab reaches the opening of the uterus and then takes out the swab. If blood is found on the top of swab, it can be assumed that the blood discovered in the midst of relations comes from the uterus.71For the swab was touched to the uterus without contact with any other part of the body. If there was no blood on the swab, it can be assumed that the blood discovered [in the midst of relations] comes from pressure on the sides of the vaginal channel.72And such bleeding does not render her impure.
Without minimizing the effectiveness of this method of checking devised by the Rabbis of the Talmud, today there are more effective medical tools available and it is possible to ascertain the source of a woman's bleeding in that manner. A careful inspection by a doctor or nurse under the guidance of a Rav may - and should - be employed as soon as such problems occur. She is pure and may marry another man, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.73Hilchot Ishut 25:8. The Rambam is implying that she cannot remarry her third husband. In Hilchot Ishut, he explains that when a man divorces a woman for this reason, the husband must know he may never remarry her, for otherwise it would be as if he gave the divorce conditionally. If she becomes healed, it would not be effective." + ], + [ + "A woman becomes impure due to factors beyond her control, whether for niddah or for zivah.1I.e., not only does a woman become impure when she suffers ordinary menstrual bleeding, she becomes impure when that bleeding appears to be brought on by an external cause.
What is implied? For example, she jumped from place to place;2And we assume the unusual exertion brought on the uterine bleeding. she saw animals, beasts, or fowl copulating, was aroused, and began bleeding.3Our Sages appreciated that sexual desire could produce uterine bleeding. In these and in other analogous instances, regardless of the situation, since she experienced bleeding, she becomes impure.
She becomes impure from even the smallest amount of bleeding. Even a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed [makes her impure as if] much blood had drained from her.", + "All women become impure [when blood is discovered in] the outer chamber [of the vagina]. Even though the blood did not emerge outside [her body], but instead, was discharged from the womb without flowing further, since it emerged from the upper portion of the vaginal channel,4We have given a biological term for the metaphoric term used by our Sages which literally means \"between the teeth.\" For a woman to become impure, the blood must emerge from the upper portion of the vaginal channel and reach the lower portion, as explained in Halachah 5. she is impure, even though the blood is still within her flesh. [This is alluded to by Leviticus 15:19:] \"A discharge of blood within her flesh.\"
Until where does the upper portion of the vaginal channel extend? Until the place that the male organ reaches when inserted entirely during relations. The upper portion of the vaginal channel itself is like the uterus.5And blood there does not render a woman ritually impure.", + "Our Sages6Niddah 17b. spoke in metaphoric terms with regard to a woman. The uterus where a fetus is formed is called \"the source.\" It is the place where the blood that renders a woman a niddah or a zavah emanates from. It is called \"the room,\" for it is found deep within her body. The entire uterine channel,7The term used by our Sages literally means \"the neck of the uterus.\" i.e., the lengthy place whose entrance contracts severely at the time of pregnancy so that the fetus will not fall, but opens very wide at birth is called \"the antechamber,\" i.e., it is like a gateway to the uterus.", + "When the male organ is inserted entirely during relations, it enters the \"antechamber\" but does not reach its end. Instead, it is slightly removed according to the size of the organs. Above the \"room\" and the \"antechamber\" - but located between the \"room\" and the \"antechamber\" - is the place where the woman's two ovaries and the ducts in which her ova become mature are located. This place is called \"the loft.\" There is an opening from the \"loft\" to the top of the \"antechamber.\" This opening is called the \"passageway.\" When the male organ is inserted entirely during relations it goes beyond the \"passageway.\"8See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:4) where he describes these terms in greater detail, drawing on his medical knowledge.", + "Blood which comes from the \"room\" is always impure with the exception of \"the blood of purity\"9Blood which flows after childbirth as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 5. which the Torah deemed pure and bleeding which occurs before birth, as will be explained.10Chapter 7, Halachah 2. Blood from the \"loft\" is entirely pure. It is like the blood from a wound in the intestines, the liver, or a kidney and the like.
[The following laws apply when blood] is discovered in the \"antechamber.\" If it is discovered between the \"passageway\" [and the uterus], she is impure, for the assumption is that it came from \"the room.\" She is liable for entering the Temple11For it is forbidden to enter the Temple while ritually impure. and we burn terumah and sacrificial foods because of this.12When terumah or sacrificial food becomes ritually impure, it is no longer fit for consumption and must be burned. If, however, it did not become impure, it is forbidden to burn it. The fact that we burn these objects after such a woman touches them indicates that she has become impure according to Scriptural Law. We do not say that perhaps it descended from the \"loft\" through the opening, for most of the blood found in such a place is from the \"room.\"
When blood is found in the \"antechamber\" between the opening [and the entrance to the vagina], she is impure, because of a doubt. Perhaps [the blood] came from the \"room\" or [perhaps it] flowed from the loft through the passageway. Therefore we do not burn terumah and sacrificial foods because of this, nor is she liable for entering the Temple.13She is, however, forbidden to enter the Temple and forbidden to touch terumah or sacrificial foods. Similarly, she is forbidden to engage in relations with her husband. This is particularly true in the present age. We rule stringently and forbid a woman to her husband no matter where the blood is discovered [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:7)].", + "Not every liquid that comes from the \"room\" renders a woman impure, only blood, as [ibid.] states: \"A discharge of blood.\" Therefore if a white or a green14In halachic terminology, the Hebrew term yarok can also mean yellow or golden. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:1) which discusses this issue. liquid flows from the uterus, even if it is viscous like blood, she is pure since it does not appear as blood.", + "There are five [colors of] blood that [render] a woman impure. They are: red, black, bright saffron, muddy water, and diluted wine.15Implied is that if the stain does not match any of these colors, even if it has a red tint, it does not render the woman impure. This, however, applied in Talmudic times when the Rabbis were able to carefully distinguish between different shades of red. At present, however, if a stain has a red tint, it should be considered impure. We do not attempt to make these fine distinctions (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Niddah 2:7; Siftei Cohen 188:1). All other colors are pure.", + "What is meant by red? The color of blood that comes from the blood which flows initially when people let blood. This blood is placed in a cup, the stain is placed next to it, and [the two] are compared. The black is like dried ink.16In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:6), the Rambam explains that certain factors will turn red blood to black.
What is meant by bright saffron? Fresh saffron should be brought together with the clod of earth from which it is growing. From the better stalks, one should take the middle stalk that is entirely a stem. In each one, there are three stalks and each stalk has three leaves. One should bring the stain next to the middle leaf on the middle stalk and compare it.
What is meant by \"like muddy water\"? We take earth from the valley of Sichnei or the like which is red and pour water over it until the water level is the thickness of a garlic peel above the earth. There is no required amount of water or earth that must be brought. One should stir them in the container and compare [the color to that of the stain] at that time while [the water] is murky. If [the water] becomes clear, one should stir it again and make it murky.", + "If the color of the stain matched the color of any of these four shades or was deeper than them, [the woman] is impure. If it is lighter than they are, she is pure.
What is implied? If a black stain was darker than dried ink, [the woman] is impure. If it was lighter than it, i.e., it was like a black olive, tar, or a raven, she is pure. Similar principles apply with regard to the other three colors.", + "What is meant by like diluted wine? Like one portion of fresh, undiluted wine like the wine of the Sharon in Eretz Yisrael17A region not far from the Mediterranean Coast, slightly northeast of present day Tel Aviv. mixed with two portions of water. If the appearance of the stain was darker or lighter than this, [the woman] is pure. [The stain must be] the exact color of this mixture.
A woman's word is accepted if she says: \"I had a stain of this-and-this color and I lost it.\" The wise man rules whether she is pure or impure [based on her statement].18As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule stringently with regard to all shades of red. Nevertheless, this law applies with regard to secretions of other colors even in the present age. A sage can make a ruling based on a woman's description. If, however, a secretion appears to be blood, but a woman protests that a sage ruled that such a secretion did not render her impure, her word is not accepted [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:2)].", + "How does a person bring the two close and compare? He takes the portion of the cloth that has the stain in his hand and looks at it and at the ink, the saffron leaf, the blood that was let [contained] in a cup, the muddy water, or the diluted wine [contained] in a cup. He compares them according to his perception and rules whether she is impure or pure.
He should not look at the cup from the outside. Instead, he should look at the liquid in the cup. The cup should be wide, weigh a maneh, and contain two luggin,19The commentaries to Niddah 21a interpret this as meaning that if the cup contains two luggin, it should not weigh more than a maneh. In this way, its walls will not be overly thick. so that light will enter it and it will not be shadowy.", + "A stain should be checked only on a white cloth and in sunlight. One makes a shadow with his hand over the stain while standing in the sun so that he will be able to see it as it is.20As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule that any stain that appears red is considered impure. Nevertheless, the technique used by the Rambam is valuable in determining whether a stain is considered as red or not.
It is not necessary for every person checking a stain to do all the above whenever he checks [a stain]. Instead, a sage develops a sensitive eye [to the colors of stains]. When he sees it, he will immediately rule whether it is impure or pure. If he has doubts regarding the appearance of a particular stain, he should bring it close and compare it to ink, to blood that has been let, or to the other [impure] colors.", + "[The following rules apply when] a woman discharges a piece [of flesh from the vagina]. Even if it is red, she is impure [only] when it is accompanied by blood. If not, she is pure.21This is not speaking about a woman who miscarries, but rather about one who has a problem about the degeneration of her internal organs. The Rambam, based on Niddah 21b, is stating that as long as the piece of flesh is not accompanied by blood, the woman's difficulties do not render her ritually impure.
This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and not all Rishonim accept the Rambam's ruling (see the objections of the Ra'avad and others). It is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3) provided the piece of flesh is small. If, however, it is large, the Shulchan Aruch rules that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open and discharge a large piece of flesh without expelling a certain amount of blood as well. The woman would become impure because of the expulsion of that blood.
(The Maggid Mishneh explains that the difference between the positions of the Rambam and the Ra'avad concerning an issue of a larger scope: Is it possible for the uterus to open without bleeding or not? The Rambam rules that this possible and hence, the woman is pure even if the piece is large. The Ra'avad maintains that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open without bleeding.) Even if [when the piece of flesh] is cut open, it is filled with blood, she is ritually pure. For this is not the blood of niddah, but rather blood from the piece [of flesh].", + "When the woman discharges a piece [of flesh] which is torn and there is blood collected within it, she is impure.22The Rambam's opinion here is also contested by other Rishonim. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 188) rules that even if the piece of flesh is accompanied by blood and the blood touches the woman's body, she is not impure, for this is not the ordinary way in which a woman experiences uterine bleeding. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3).
[The following rules apply when a woman] discharges something like a shell, something like a hair, something like earth, or something like mosquitoes. If these entities have a red appearance, they should be placed in lukewarm water. If they dissolve, she is impure. For it was blood that congealed. And whenever [a woman] discovers dried blood, she is impure.23See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:6) which quotes the Ra'avad's view that whenever a woman discovers a particle of dried blood, she is impure, even if it does not dissolve. The Shulchan Aruch, however, also quotes the views of Rav Zerachiah HaLevi and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that even in such an instance, the ruling depends on whether the particle dissolves or not.
If the entities remained in lukewarm water for more than a day and then dissolved, there is a doubt whether the woman is impure. If they did not dissolve after an entire day, they are from a wound and she is pure.", + "[The following rules apply if a woman] discharges something resembling a locust, a fish, a teeming animal, or a crawling animal. If it is accompanied by blood, it is impure. If not, it is pure.24The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3) follows the ruling of other Rishonim who maintain that in such a situation, we assume that these forms are the preliminary stages of a fetus. Hence, the woman is impure - as if she had miscarried - whether or not bleeding accompanies the expulsion of these forms.", + "When a woman places a tube in her \"antechamber\" and expels blood through the tube,25See Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Yoreh De'ah 188:8) which emphasizes that according to the Shulchan Aruch, this is referring to a thin tube which can be inserted into the uterus without causing the uterus to open substantially. If, however, the tube is thick and the uterus must open substantially, that alone is sufficient to render a woman ritually impure. she is pure. For [Leviticus 15:19] speaks of \"A discharge of blood within her flesh.\" [Implied is that] the discharge must be within her flesh as is the ordinary way in which women menstruate. For it is not ordinary for a woman to discharge blood through a tube.26The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) emphasizes that the leniency is not granted because the tube interposes between the blood and the woman's flesh and therefore the literal meaning of the verse is not fulfilled. Instead, the reason is - as the Rambam clarifies - because this is not the ordinary manner in which women expel blood.", + "When a woman urinated and excreted blood together with the urine, she is pure.27As the Rambam explains, we assume that the bleeding comes from the urinary tract and not the uterus. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 191:1). The Tur and the Rama cite more stringent views. In practice, a woman with such a condition should consult a gynecologist for a precise determination of her medical condition and give this information to a Rav who - on this basis - will rule on her halachic status. [This applies] whether she was standing or sitting while urinating. Even if she has physical sensations and her body shudders,28One might think that these physical sensations indicate the onset of menstruation. she need not suspect [that the blood originated in the uterus]. Instead, the sensation is associated with her urination [and] urine does not originate in the uterus. Instead, this blood [stems from] a wound in the colon or in the kidney.", + "Hymeneal bleeding is pure. It is neither the blood of niddah or the blood of zivah, for it is not from the uterus. Instead, it is blood from a wound.
What are the laws applying to virgins [who suffer] hymeneal bleeding?29It must be emphasized that all the laws that follow applied only in the Talmudic era. At present, the Jewish people have accepted upon themselves the stringency of considering even the slightest drop of blood as requiring a wait of seven \"spotless\" days. Accordingly, when a woman suffers hymeneal bleeding - even if she knows that it is not at all connected with her menstrual cycle, she is considered impure and must wait seven \"spotless\" days (Chapter 11, Halachot 4,8).
Note the comments of the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh concerning when this stringency was adopted. Is it of Talmudic origin or was it originated in the post-Talmudic period? If she married when she was a minor, whether she never menstruated or whether she menstruated while in her father's home,30Even if she menstruated, since she has not come of age, we assume that this is an abnormal occurrence which will not repeat itself. she is permitted to her husband until the wound heals. For any bleeding that she discovers stems from the wound. If she discovers other blood after the wound heals, she is considered as a niddah.", + "[The following rules apply when a woman] marries when she is a na'arah.31A girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has already manifested signs of physical maturity. If she never menstruated beforehand, she is permitted to her husband for four days, by day and by night, even though blood is flowing, provided the wound did not heal.32Since she never menstruated before, we assume that she still is suffering hymeneal bleeding and not that she has begun to menstruate.
If she had already menstruated in her father's home and then married, her husband should not [continue] to engage in relations with her.33Since she menstruated before, we recognize the possibility that this is also menstrual blood. Hence, we require the couple to separate. The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, noting that it follows the position of the School of Shammai, not the School of Hillel. The Maggid Mishneh supports the Rambam's decision, noting that Niddah 65b mentions the opinions of two Amoraim which support this view, indicating that in this instance the opinion of the School of Shammai is followed. After the first time, he should separate. The hymeneal bleeding is considered as if it is the beginning of menstruation.
When a girl who has reached majority,34I.e., she has reached the age of twelve and half and manifested signs of physical maturity at age twelve. but has not menstruated, she is given the entire first night.35I.e., that night the couple may engage in relations as many times as they desire. Needless to say, if she has already menstruated, the couple must separate after the first time they engage in relations (Maggid Mishneh).", + "The [first] four nights36More specifically, days and nights as stated in the previous halachah. that are granted to a na'arah who has not menstruated need not be consecutive. [Instead,] the couple may engage in relations the first night and wait even two or three months and engage in relations for a second night, provided the wound has not healed.37And also, of course, that the woman has not begun to menstruate. If during the passage of time, she reaches full majority, she is given only one night from that time onward (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).", + "Similarly, with regard to a minor who is allowed to continue engaging in relations until the wound heals, even if it does not heal for an entire year, they may engage in relations either non-consecutively or day after day.", + "[The following rules apply when a girl] married while she was a minor and became a na'arah while married to her husband. [If] the blood is still flowing because of the wound, all of the times she engaged in relations while a minor are considered as one night and she is given license to complete the four days granted to her38As stated in Halachah 19. Thus she is given three more opportunities to engage in relations. during the period of na'arut.
Even if the three days she is granted during the period of na'arut are all non-consecutive, [e.g.,] they engaged in relations one night every two months, this is permitted, provided the wound has not healed.", + "How do we know whether or not the wound has healed? If [the woman] would discover blood when she stands but not when she sits; if she would discover [blood] when she sits on the earth, but not when she sits on pillows or blankets,39Since she is sitting on a soft surface, the wound will not be aggravated. the wound has not healed.40Even though her bleeding is not consistent. If, however, the bleeding ceases and she does not discover [blood], whether she stands or whether she sits on a pillow, the wound has healed. Similarly, even if her bleeding has not ceased, but she continues to discover blood even when she is sitting on pillows and blankets, we assume that this is not blood from the wound, but rather menstrual bleeding.41Hence she is deemed impure and forbidden to engage in relations with her husband.", + "If she would discover blood in the midst of relations, [we assume] that it comes as a result of the wound.42Hence we do not apply all the stringencies mentioned in the conclusion of ch. 4. If she engaged in relations and did not discover blood and afterwards, discovered blood out of the context of relations, [we assume] that it is menstrual bleeding.", + "When a man engages in relations with a virgin and she does not bleed and then, he engages in relations with her again and she does bleed, [we assume] that this is menstrual bleeding, even if she is a minor. [The rationale is that] if it were hymeneal bleeding, it would have appeared the first time.
When a man has relations with a girl below the age of three and she bleeds, this is hymeneal bleeding." + ], + [ + "The bleeding of niddah, the bleeding of zivah, the bleeding before childbirth,1See Chapter 7, Halachah 1. the pure blood that follows childbirth,2See Chapter 4, Halachah 2,5. are all one type of bleeding. They [all] come from the uterus, from the same source. The laws applying [to this bleeding], however, change according to the time [and circumstance],3Niddah 96b states: \"It [comes from] one source. [Here,] the Torah ruled it impure, and [here,] the Torah ruled it pure.\" causing the woman who discovers the bleeding to be considered as pure, a niddah, or a zavah.", + "What is implied? When a woman menstruates for the first time or when she menstruates at the fixed time at which it has been established that she will menstruate,4I.e., this is speaking about a woman who has a regular day of the month or interval at which she menstruates. she is a niddah for seven full days. [This applies] whether she continues to bleed throughout the seven days or she only discovered one drop of blood. If she discovers blood on the eighth day, this is the blood of zivah, because it comes \"outside the time for niddah\" [Leviticus 15:25].5I.e., in addition to the impurity associated with niddah, ordinary menstrual bleeding, the Torah establishes a category of impurity when a woman suffers uterine bleeding at times other than the days she is a niddah. This category is referred to as zivah. A woman enters this category when she suffers uterine bleeding between the day following the seven days associated with her ordinary menstrual bleeding and the eighteenth day following those days. As will be explained in the commentary to the following halachot, there is a difference of opinion between the Rambam and the other Rishonim with regard to the definition of these seven days.", + "Any blood that is discovered between one fixed time that a woman can be expected to menstruate and the next fixed time that she can be expected to menstruate is the blood of zivah. It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Sinai that there are no more than eleven days between one menstrual bleeding and an another.", + "All of the seven days beginning with the day on which a fixed time that a woman can be expected to menstruate was established are called \"the days of niddah.\" [This applies] whether the woman menstruates or not.6As will be explained, according to the Rambam, the definition of days as \"the days of niddah\" is not dependent on whether a woman actually menstruates or not, but on the day when, according to the schedule established previously, she could be expected to menstruate. Why are they called \"the days of niddah\"? Because they are fit [for a woman to be considered] a niddah? Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of niddah.", + "The eleven days that follow these seven are called \"the days of zivah.\" [This applies] whether the woman discovers bleeding or not. Why are they called \"the days of zivah\"? Because they are fit [for a woman to be considered] a zivah? Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of zivah. Take care with regard to these names: \"the days of niddah\" and \"the days of zivah.\"", + "Throughout her entire life, from the time she establishes a time when she can be expected to menstruate until she dies or until she transfers the time she can be expected to menstruate to another date,7As occurs after birth, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. she should count seven days from the beginning of the day when she could be expected to menstruate and eleven days after them. Afterwards, [she counts] another seven days and another eleven days.8The simple meaning of the Rambam's words is that the same 18 day pattern - 7 days niddah, 11 days zivah - continues throughout a woman's life whether or not she menstruates on those days or not. When she menstruates she must see whether she is in the midst of the days of niddah or the days zivah and follow the appropriate laws.
Rashi and Ramban offer a different interpretation. According to their view, the day's of niddah and zivah depend on a woman's circumstances each month. When she menstruates, she begins the days of niddah. If she continues bleeding beyond seven days or if she discovers uterine bleeding after these seven days (but within the next eleven days), she becomes a zavah. She remains in that category until seven \"spotless\" days pass. After those seven days, when she discovers uterine bleeding again, she becomes a niddah. Similarly, if she does not discover uterine bleeding within the eleven days, the next time she discovers uterine bleeding, she is considered as a niddah.
There are Talmudic passages which appear to support both positions. The position of Rashi and the Ramban appears to be closer to a woman's actual physical pattern and the commentaries question why the Rambam - a doctor - did not take note of this dimension. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 183) follows the view shared by Rashi and the Ramban. In practice, however, this difference of opinion is not relevant at all, for as stated in Chapter 11, at present, Jewish women have accepted the stringency of counting seven \"spotless\" days whenever they discover even the slightest uterine bleeding. Hence, whatever their status actually is, they will certainly not transgress.
Take care of this reckoning so that you will know [a woman's status] if she discovers blood. Was it in the days of niddah or the days of zivah? For throughout a woman's entire life, she [follows the same pattern]: seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah unless the pattern was interrupted by a birth, as will be explained.9Chapter 7, Halachah 2.", + "When a woman discovers uterine bleeding during the days of zivah for only one day or for two consecutive days, she is called a minor zavah,10The distinctions between a minor zavah and a major zavah are discussed in the following halachah. and she is called one who watches a day for a day.11As indicated in the following two halachot, the intent is that for the day(s) she is impure, she must observe one \"spotless\" day. If she discovered [uterine bleeding] for three consecutive days, she is a zavah in the complete sense of the term. She is called a major zavah or merely referred to as a zavah without any further description. [This is derived from Leviticus 15:25]: \"When a woman will have a flow of blood for many days....\" The minimum implied by the plural form, \"days,\" is two. \"Many\" indicates [at least] three.", + "There is no difference between a major zavah and a minor zavah except the counting of seven [\"spotless\" days] and the necessity to bring a sacrifice. For a major zavah must count seven \"spotless\" days [before immersing to regain ritual purity] and a minor zavah need only count one day. And a major zavah must bring a sacrifice when she purifies herself12See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapporah, ch. 1, for a description of this sacrifice. and a minor zavah need not. They are both impure and the prohibition against relations applies to both of them equally.", + "What is implied? If she discovered blood in the days of zivah - whether she discovered it in the beginning of the night or she discovered it at the end of the day - that entire day, she is impure. It is as if the bleeding did not cease from the time she discovered it until the sun sets. She should watch herself throughout the night.13I.e., take note if there is any bleeding. It is sufficient to check and see on the following morning if there are any signs of bleeding. If there are no signs of bleeding at night, she should arise in the morning and immerse herself after sunrise.14She may not, however, touch any articles that are ritually pure or engage in relations with her husband until nightfall, as explained in Halachot 13 and 14. She should watch herself for the entire day. If there are no signs of bleeding,15If, however, there are signs of bleeding, her immersion is disqualified retroactively and it is as if she was impure for the entire day. there is then a pure day to compensate for the impure day and she is permitted to her husband at night.", + "If she discovered [uterine] bleeding also on the second day, whether at night or whether during the day, after she immersed herself, that second day is also impure and she must watch herself for the entire third night. If there are no signs of bleeding at night, she should arise in the morning and immerse herself after sunrise. She should watch herself for the entire day.16Lest she discover uterine bleeding and become impure retroactively. If there are no signs of bleeding, there is then a pure day to compensate for the two impure days17The one day is sufficient. There is no need for two days, one for each of the impure days. and she is permitted to her husband at night.", + "If she discovered [uterine] bleeding on the third day, whether during the day or at night, she is a major zavah and she must count seven pure days when there is no uterine bleeding [at all], as [Leviticus 15:28] states: \"She must count seven days for herself.\" She immerses herself on the seventh day after sunrise and is permitted to her husband at night. On the eighth day, she brings her sacrifice, two turtle doves or two doves.", + "When a minor zavah immerses herself at night18See Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions whether the Rambam would accept the immersion of a woman who immerses herself between dawn (alot hashachar) and sunrise. during the day she is watching or a major zavah immerses herself on the seventh night, it is as if she did not immerse herself.19I.e., the immersion must be made after sunrise. She is like a niddah who immerses herself within the seven days.", + "When a person has relations with a major zavah after she immersed herself on the seventh day of her counting [of \"spotless\" days] or with a minor zavah after she immersed herself on the day on which she must watch herself, he is not liable for kerait, because she immersed herself at the time she was fit to immerse herself when regaining ritual purity.20Even if she later discovers uterine bleeding and is therefore considered impure, they are not considered to have transgressed intentionally, because at the time, the woman was potentially in a state of ritual purity. This woman, however, possessed improper culture, for relations with her and things she touches are tenative.21I.e., as stated in the following halachah, she can retroactively be considered impure.", + "What is meant by their being \"tentative\"? If the day on which she immersed herself is completed without her discovering any uterine bleeding, everything which she touched after she immersed herself is ritually pure and there is no liability for relations with her. If, however, she discovers blood on this day after immersing herself, she is considered as a zavah retroactively. Anything which she touched is retroactively considered as impure and she and the man who engaged in relations with her are obligated to bring a sacrifice.22For inadvertently violating the transgression against relations with a zavah. Therefore she is forbidden to her husband until the evening, lest she bring herself to a situation involving doubt.", + "When a zavah counts six \"spotless\" days and discovers uterine bleeding on the seventh day, even if it is close to sunset,23If, however, the bleeding is not discovered until after nightfall, she is considered to have regained ritual purity and then become impure anew as a minor zavah. all of the days counted previously are invalidated24I.e., it is not only that she loses the one day; all of the days that she had counted previously are also invalidated. The seven \"spotless\" days must be consecutive [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:10)]. and she begins a new reckoning of seven \"spotless\" days after the impure day.", + "If [a woman] discharges semen25I.e., she engaged in relations with a man and then discharged his semen from her vagina. This is speaking about a situation in which the couple engaged in relations when forbidden. Alternatively, she engaged in relations before becoming a zavah and discharged the semen after entering that state of impurity. For the semen to render her impure, it must be less than three full days old. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:11). during the days she is counting, she invalidates one day. She is like a zav who has a seminal emission who invalidates one day [in his counting].26See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 3:2.
If she discovered uterine bleeding on the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days of her \"days of zivah,\" she is not considered a major zavah. Instead, from the state of a minor zavah, she becomes a niddah. For the twelfth day is the beginning of her days of niddah27As stated in Halachot 5 and 6, there are only eleven days of zivah. Afterwards, the days of niddah begin again. and a woman who discovers bleeding in her days of niddah does not become a zavah, as we explained.28See Halachah 4 which states: \"Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of niddah.\" Thus she will have only discovered blood on two days of zivah. That is not sufficient to render her a major zavah.", + "What is the intent of the Torah's wording [Leviticus 15:25]: \"After the time for niddah\"? That if she discovered bleeding on the three days that follow her niddah [bleeding], she is a zavah,29I.e., we do not say that her menstrual bleeding is extended. Instead, this bleeding is considered as a new phase, governed by different laws. i.e., she discovered bleeding on the eighth day after the onset of the days of niddah, the ninth day, and the tenth day, i.e., the first three of the eleven days of zivah.
[The following laws apply if a woman] discovers bleeding on the eleventh day of zivah and she immersed herself in the evening on the night of the twelfth day and engaged in relations.30For she is required to wait for one \"spotless\" day before engaging in relations (Ra'avad). The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is a Rabbinic requirement. Although she is impure and the man who engaged in relations with her becomes impure and the laws regarding the impurity of the places where they both sit and lie apply, the couple are not liable for kerait. [The rationale is that] the twelfth day is not joined with the eleventh day for her to be considered a zavah. Her immersion that night is effective in saving her from [being liable to bring] a sacrifice.31Needless to say, however, she is forbidden to engage in such relations.", + "If she immerses herself on the twelfth day after sunrise, she is forbidden to her husband until the evening as is the law with regard to any minor zavah.32By Rabbinic Law as stated in Halachah 14 and notes. She may, however, touch articles that are ritually pure, as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:8. If [her husband] transgresses and engages in relations with her, neither of them are liable at all.33Since she immersed herself, her previous impurity departs and any new bleeding is not associated with the bleeding of zivah as the Rambam continues to explain. Even if she discovers blood on the twelfth day after they engaged in relations it is of no significance. For this is the blood of niddah and it is not associated with [the bleeding of] the previous day.", + "If she discovers bleeding at the conclusion of her seventh day of niddah during bein hashamashot,34The period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. There is an unresolved doubt among the Rabbis if this time is considered as the conclusion of the previous day, the beginning of the following day, or a separate time of its own. See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4. and then discovers bleeding on the ninth day and the tenth day, there is an unresolved doubt if she is considered a [major]35I.e., she is certainly a minor zavah. zavah.36She must count seven \"spotless\" days before engaging in relations. Also, she brings a sacrifice, but it is not eaten, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6. For perhaps the [blood] discovered at first was on the eighth night and thus it is as if she discovered blood on three consecutive days at the beginning of her days of zivah.
Similarly, if she discovered bleeding on the ninth and tenth days of her days of zivah and discovered bleeding again at the conclusion of the eleventh day during bein hashamashot, there is an unresolved doubt if she is considered a [major] zavah. For perhaps the final discovery [of bleeding] was on the eleventh day and she will have discovered [bleeding] on three consecutive days during her days of zivah.", + "When a niddah inspects herself in the midst of her days of niddah and discovers that her bleeding has ceased, even if it ceased on the second37On the first day, however, such an inspection is of no consequence, for as the Rambam states at the conclusion of the halachah, on the first day, we assume that she will continue to bleed. day of her menstrual period, and either, inadvertently or intentionally, did not inspect herself again until many days after her [days of] niddah and discovers impurity,38I.e., uterine bleeding. we do not say that she was impure for all those days and [hence,] she is a zavah.39I.e., we do not consider her to have bled for the entire time from the time she first inspected herself until the time that she discovered the bleeding. Instead, throughout the entire time that she did not inspect herself, we operate under the presumption that she is pure.40I.e., we say that the uterine bleeding did not begin until it was discovered. This reflects a general principle: Once uterine bleeding is known to have stopped, we do not think that it has begun again until it is discovered. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the woman immersed herself or not.
If she inspected herself and found impurity, even if she checked herself on the seventh of her days of niddah, if she did not inspect herself again [before] bein hashamashot to separate herself from the impurity of niddah, but instead waited [several] days and afterwards inspected herself and found that she was pure, there is an unresolved doubt if she is considered a [major] zavah.41For perhaps she had continued bleeding from the conclusion of her days of niddah until shortly before she made an inspection. We have no way of knowing either way and hence, give her the status of a zavah because of the doubt.
If she discovered impurity, she is definitely a zavah. [The rationale is that since] at the beginning she discovered impurity and at the end, she discovered impurity, we operate under the presumption that she did not stop bleeding.42Although we do not have certain evidence that she continued to bleed for this entire time, we operate under that assumption for the reason the Rambam mentions.
On the first day of menstruation, even though a woman [conducted an inspection and] found that she was pure, it is as if she discovered impurity. For on the first day of menstruation, we operate under the presumption that a woman's flow will continue.43From the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:2) and the notes of the Dagul Mervavah, it would appear that if the woman's flow stops in the late afternoon of the first day, it is considered to have ceased.", + "When a zavah inspects herself on the first day of [the seven days]44After making a hefsek taharah, an inspection that determines that the bleeding has ceased on the previous afternoon, before sunset. she must count and finds herself pure and then did not inspect herself until the seventh day and found that she was pure, she can be assumed to be pure.45Nevertheless, at the outset, a woman should inspect herself twice on each of these seven days [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:4)]. It is as if she inspected herself for all of the seven days and discovered herself to be pure.", + "Similarly, if she inspects herself on the first day of [the seven days] she must count and finds herself pure and [inspects herself] on the eighth day and found that she was pure, she can be assumed to be pure.46I.e., despite the fact that she waited an extra day and did not immerse herself as soon as she was allowed, she is still considered as pure.
If she checked herself on the third day of zivah and discovered that the bleeding had ceased, but did not check herself on the first day of counting and then checked herself on the seventh day, she can be assumed to be pure.47See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:4) which mentions a difference of opinion on this matter, quoting also the opinion of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that one must make an inspection on both the first and the seventh day.
The same laws apply to a zav48Who must also inspect himself and count seven \"spotless\" days. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 3. with regard to all these inspections if he finds himself pure and it is considered as if he counted these days.", + "Whenever there is a doubt whether a woman is niddah or a zavah, she must count seven \"spotless\" days49As is required of a zavah. because of the doubt. She immerses herself on the night preceding the eighth day50Like a niddah who may not immerse herself during the day. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband. She must bring the sacrifice of a zavah, but it is not eaten as will be explained in the appropriate place.51Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6." + ], + [ + "When a pregnant woman begins to feel pain, the labor pains take hold of her, and there is a flow of blood before she gives birth, that bleeding called \"the blood of the throes.\"
What are the laws that govern it? If it comes during her days of niddah, it is considered as niddah bleeding and she is impure as a niddah. If it comes in her days of zivah, she is pure.1This law applied in the Talmudic era. As explained in Chapter 11, in subsequent generations, Jewish women accepted further stringencies upon themselves and such bleeding was considered as impure. [This is derived from Leviticus 15:19]: \"When blood flows within her flesh.\" According to the Oral Tradition , we learn that the bleeding must come from herself, and not because of a child.
[The above applies] provided she gives birth to a living child. If, however, she miscarries, [the laws of \"the blood of] the throes\" do not apply.
Even if the blood is flowing together with contractions and pain for fourteen days2Even though there are only eleven \"days of zivah and thus some of this bleeding must come during her \"days of niddah,\" since the bleeding began during the \"days of zivah,\" she is granted an additional leniency. Niddah 38b derives this concept through Biblical exegesis. before she gives birth, this is considered as \"the blood of the throes\" and she is pure. If, however, the bleeding began fifteen days or more before birth, the bleeding is considered as \"the blood of zivah\" and the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.3As explained in Halachot 5-7.", + "When does the above apply? When the contractions, throes, and pain did not cease, but instead, she continued having difficulty until she gave birth. If, however, she discovered bleeding for three days or more during her \"days of zivah\" amid pain and throes, but the pains cease and the throes ease after three days and she is able to remain comfortable for 24 hours or more, she is a zavah.4I.e., the bleeding is considered as ordinary \"blood of zivah.\" For if the bleeding was coming as a result of the child, the pain and the throes would not cease [for that long]. If she gives birth afterwards, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.5As explained in Halachot 5-7.", + "When she discovers bleeding for one day without pain and then for two days with difficulty and then gives birth, [discovers bleeding] for two days without pain and then for one day with difficulty and gives birth, or [discovers bleeding] for one day with difficulty, then for one day without pain, and then for one day with difficulty and gives birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah do not apply to her.
If, however, she discovers bleeding for one day with difficulty and then for two days without pain and then6From the following halachah, the intent appears to be \"on the next day,\" i.e., on the fourth day of this sequence. gives birth, [discovers bleeding] for two days with difficulty and then for one day without pain and gives birth, or [discovers bleeding] for one day without pain, then for one day with difficulty, and then for one day without pain and gives birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.7As indicated by the general principle the Rambam cites. If the bleeding before birth is not accompanied by pain, it is not coming as a result of the birth.
This is the general principle: When there are throes in proximity to birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah do not apply to her. When there is ease in proximity to birth, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah apply to her.", + "When the third day of her sighting blood is the day on which she gives birth, even if the entire day is characterized by ease, the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah do not apply to her. [The rationale is that] the day she gave birth is close to difficulty.8Since she gave birth on that day, she certainly experienced difficulty on it. For it is impossible to give birth without difficulty. Hence, the bleeding on the third day is attributed to the birth (Kiryat Sefer).
If she discovered bleeding for two days and miscarried on the third day, but did not identify what emerged in the miscarriage,9We are not sure if she discharged a fetus without bleeding or merely an extensive amount of bleeding. See Niddah 21b. This reinforces the position that it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding. her status is doubtful. There is a question if the laws of zivah or the laws of a woman who gave birth apply to her.10In which instance, she is impure because of the birth. She must, however, count one \"spotless\" day before immersing herself, because of the two days on which she experienced bleeding.", + "What are the laws that apply to a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah? She must abide seven spotless days.11I.e., seven days without uterine bleeding. This is extremely rare after birth. Hence it is undesirable for a woman to be given this status. Afterwards, she immerses herself at night and is permitted to her husband. Only then do the laws of \"the blood of purity\" apply to her. She must bring an offering of a zavah and the offering of childbirth. Accordingly, if she gives birth to a male, even if her bleeding ceases on the day she gives birth, she should count seven \"spotless\" days and immerse herself. If she gives birth to a female and counts seven \"spotless\" days which conclude with the fourteen days [she is impure because of] birth or after them, she can immerse herself and she is permitted to her husband. If the days of her counting conclude within the fourteen days, she is forbidden to her husband until the fifteenth night.12She must immerse herself on the fifteenth night. For within the fourteen days, she is considered as a niddah and her immersion is of no consequence (Kessef Mishneh).", + "What is implied? If she discovered bleeding for three days and then counted seven \"spotless\" days, there are [only] ten days and she remains forbidden to her husband until the fifteenth night.13Because of the birth of a female. We do not allow her to immerse herself during the day like a zavah. For the entire fourteen days, she is like a niddah.
Why do we not require a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah to count seven \"spotless\" days after the seven days [of impurity that follow] the birth of a male or the fourteen days [of impurity that follow] the birth of a female?14Seemingly, that would be necessary, for she is impure at the time she is counting. Because the days following birth and the days of niddah in which blood is not sighted are counted as part of the seven \"spotless\" days, as will be explained.15In Halachah 11.", + "When a woman who gives birth while in the state of zivah does not cease bleeding,16For seven \"spotless\" days. [the laws of] \"the blood of purity\" do not apply to her. Instead, any uterine bleeding is considered as the bleeding of zivah. If, however, she counted seven \"spotless\" days, completed the fourteen days [following the birth of] a female, and then immersed herself, [the laws of] \"the blood of purity\" apply to her [should] she sight bleeding during the 40 days following the birth of a male and the 80 days following the birth of a female.17For once she immersed herself after counting seven \"spotless\" days, her bleeding is no longer impure, as reflected in the following halachah.", + "If she counted seven \"spotless\" days, but did not immerse herself immediately and afterwards18I.e., on the day(s) after the seven \"spotless\" days and the fourteen days associated with the birth of a female were completed. discovered bleeding, she may [nevertheless] immerse herself. She is permitted to her husband immediately, for all of the days of purity are not fit neither for niddah, nor for zivah.19Thus the fact that she discovered bleeding does not change her state. Nevertheless, until she immerses herself, the blood itself is impure and renders others impure like the blood of niddah.20See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:2.", + "[The following laws apply when a woman] gives birth to a female and after the fourteen days of impurity, she becomes pregnant again. She then [begins to miscarry and] the blood of childbirth begins to flow with the 80 days [of blood of purity]. This is also considered as \"pure\" blood. Although generally, we do not consider bleeding which precedes miscarriage as bleeding which precedes childbirth,21I.e., bleeding which precedes miscarriage renders a woman impure, while bleeding in the throes of childbirth does not. [an exception is made in this instance]. For any blood that she sights during the days of purity is pure until she [actually] miscarries. When she miscarries, she becomes impure because of the birth. If [the fetus] she miscarries was male, she is impure as if she gave birth to a male. If [the fetus] she miscarries was female, she is impure as if she gave birth to a female. She counts the days of impurity and then the days of purity from the second \"birth.\"
Even if she was pregnant with twins and miscarried one on one day and miscarried the other after several days passed, she counts days of impurity and days of purity from the second [miscarriage].", + "When the flow of a zavah ceases, she begins to count her seven \"spotless\" days, and then the blood of the throes of childbirth comes in the midst of the \"spotless\" days, it does not nullify her counting. [On the contrary,] the days of bleeding are counted as part of the seven days.22The Rambam's ruling is based on the concept that since this blood is not impure, there is no reason why it should interrupt her counting. It is only impure bleeding that nullifies a woman's calculations.
The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam's ruling, explaining (based on Niddah 37a) that although the blood that precedes childbirth does not nullify a woman's counting, since she sights bleeding on these days, they cannot be considered as \"spotless\" days and therefore are not included in her reckoning.
Similarly, if she gave birth in the midst of the seven \"spotless\" days, the birth does not nullify her counting. Indeed, the days of birth can be counted in the seven [\"spotless\"] days23Provided she does not discover bleeding on them. If, however, she discovers bleeding, as stated in the following halachah, her counting is not nullified, but the days cannot be counted as \"spotless,\" because this blood is impure (Maggid Mishneh). even though she is impure. [This is indicated by Leviticus 15:28]: \"If she has become pure from her zivah.\" Implied is that since she has become pure from her zivah - even though she is impure for other reasons, e.g., the impurity of childbirth, the impurity of niddah, or the impurity of tzara'at24An affliction which is popularly - though incorrectly - translated as leprosy. See Leviticus ch. 13 and Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at. - she may count on them. These types of impurity and the like do not nullify her counting.", + "When a woman does not discover bleeding in her niddah days25With this statement, the Rambam is implying two points:
a) as mentioned above, a woman returns to her cycle of niddah at the advent of the appropriate day, regardless of whether she has counted seven \"spotless\" days or not.
b) The seven \"spotless\" days need not be consecutive.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, the Ramban and others differ with the Rambam concerning these points (Maggid Mishneh). To reiterate, none of these points are at all relevant in the present day. For, as will be explained in ch. 11, from the late Talmudic era onward, Jewish women accepted the practice of counting seven \"spotless\" days after any and all uterine bleeding. and the days following childbirth, they may be counted as part of her seven \"spotless\" days. If she does discover bleeding during these days, these days are not counted, nor do they nullify her previous reckoning. Instead, she completes her counting, adding to the days counted previously, when her bleeding ceases. For the only bleeding that nullifies a woman's counting is zivah bleeding. These types of bleeding invalidate only that very day.", + "After you have understood all the fundamental principles which we have explained, you will be able to comprehend our Sages' statement26Niddah 38a. By quoting this and the other instances mentioned until the end of the chapter, the Rambam is also supporting his interpretation of \"the days of niddah\" and \"the days of zivah,\" explaining these passages according to his conception of these principles. that a woman may discover uterine bleeding for 114 consecutive days without becoming a [major] zavah.
What is implied? [The first days are] the last two days before her days of niddah.27I.e., the tenth and eleventh days of the days of zivah. [They are followed by] the seven days of niddah, two days [of zivah] which follow the days of niddah,28From this, we see that the three days of zivah bleeding must be consecutive. If they are interrupted by other days, even by days on which the woman suffers uterine bleeding, she is not considered as a zavah. 14 days of [pre-birth] difficulty, the 80 days associated with the birth of a female, the seven days of niddah, and two days [of zivah] which follow the days of niddah.
From this, one learns that any bleeding that a woman discovers after the completion of the days associated with childbirth marks the beginning of her days of niddah. We do not pay attention to the previously existing times when she would be expected to menstruate.
Accordingly, there is a doubt whether a woman who discovers bleeding bein hashamashot29Between sunset and nightfall, at which time, there is, as explained above, a doubt whether it should be considered part of the previous day or the coming day. is a niddah. For perhaps it is considered as if she discovered the bleeding at night, when her days of niddah could begin.", + "We have already explained30Chapter 4, Halachah 6; Chapter 6, Halachot 9-11. that when a woman continues her niddah bleeding for seven days, she is permitted to engage in relations on the night of the eighth day after she immerses herself.31Provided of course, the bleeding ceases before nightfall. A minor zavah who watches herself for one pure day and immerses herself is permitted to engage in relations in the evening. A major zavah must count seven \"spotless\" days. Then she immerses herself and is permitted to engage in relations on the night of the eighth day. There are only eleven days between [one set of] the \"days of niddah\" and a second set. During these eleven days, [a woman who discovers uterine bleeding will be either a minor zavah or a major zavah.", + "When you will remember all of these fundamental points, you will understand our Sages' statement32Niddah 54a. that a woman who has established a fixed [continuous] pattern in which she discovers bleeding on one day and does not discover it on the following day. At the outset, she may engage in relations on the night and day of the eighth day,33For as stated in the previous halachah, a woman may immerse herself and engage in relations directly after her \"days of niddah\" even if she discovered bleeding on the last day. i.e., the first day after her \"days of niddah.\" [On the whole,] she may engage in relations only four nights34I.e., the nights, but not the days. during eighteen days.35After eighteen days, the entire cycle repeats itself for her \"days of niddah\" begin again. She may not engage in relations during the days which are pure, because the days must be watched because of the [previous] impure day.36I.e., a minor zavah must watch one day for every impure day. Therefore the woman must watch the tenth day, because of the bleeding of the ninth, the twelfth day, because of the bleeding of the eleventh, etc. In addition to the day and the night preceding and following the eighth day, he is allowed to engage in relations only on the nights preceding the eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth, and seventeenth days. For the days which precedes these nights are pure. The other nights were preceded by days in which she discovered uterine bleeding. Accordingly, if on the impure days, she always discovers bleeding at the beginning of the night, she may only engage in relations on the eighth day which is the first day after her \"days of niddah.\"", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for two impure days and then to experience two pure days, she may engage in relations on the eighth, the twelfth, the sixteenth, and the twentieth.37After the eighteenth day, she returns to her \"days of niddah.\" The Rambam, nevertheless, mentions the twentieth day, because she is permitted to engage in relations on that day, because although it is in her \"days of niddah,\" since she does not discover bleeding, she is not rendered impure. Although the cycle does not repeat itself in exactly the same manner צ i.e., her status in the second 18 days is opposite from the first צ she may engage in relations the same number of nights.
She is not permitted to engage in relations on the eleventh, fifteenth, and nineteenth days, for these days must be watched because of the impurity of the preceding two days.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for three impure days and then to experience three pure days, she may engage in relations on two of the three pure days that follow her \"days of niddah.\" For the first of them must be watched because of the two impure days that follow her \"days of niddah.\"38I.e., she will have discovered bleeding on the eight and ninth days, rendering her a minor zavah and requiring that she watch one pure day. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again. For she will be established as a major zavah,39After discovering blood on the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days. but will never count seven \"spotless\" days [to purify herself].40For she only has three \"pure\" days, before she bleeds again.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for four impure days and then to experience four pure days, she may engage in relations on one day after her [\"days of] niddah.\"41For the eighth day, the day immediately following her days of niddah is not impure. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again.42For as explained in the previous halachah, she will never reach seven \"spotless\" days to purify herself from the state of zivah. This principle also applies in the following two halachot.", + "13If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for five impure days and then to experience five pure days, she may engage in relations on three days after her [\"days of] niddah.\"43For the eighth, ninth, and tenth days are pure. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again.", + "13If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for six impure days and then to experience six pure days, she may engage in relations on five days after her [\"days of] niddah.\"44For the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days are pure. Afterwards, she may never engage in relations again.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for seven impure days and then to experience seven pure days, she may engage in relations during the first pure week that follows her [\"days of] niddah.\" That is followed by an impure week which establishes her as a zavah.45For the first four days of this week of impurity fall during her \"days of zivah.\" The week which follows is required to count [seven \"spotless\" days] and it is forbidden to engage in relations during it. Thus in four weeks she is allowed to engage in relations for only one week. Throughout her entire life, she may engage in relations for eighteen days in eighteen weeks.46After eighteen weeks, she returns to her original situation, discovering bleeding for her seven \"days of niddah\" and then begins the entire cycle again.
What is implied? During the fifth week, she is a zavah. The sixth week in which she is pure is required to count [seven \"spotless\" days]. During the seventh week, she is a zavah. During the eighth week, she must count. During the ninth week, when she discovers bleeding, five of these days are [during her] \"days of niddah\" and two are [during] the beginning of her \"days of zivah.\"47Since she discovered bleeding during only two days of zivah, she is not considered as a major zavah and is not required to count seven \"spotless\" days. [Hence,] she must watch one day48As is required of a minor zavah. of the tenth week and may engage in relations for six [days]. During the eleventh week when she discovers bleeding, two are the conclusion of the days of zivah49Since she discovered bleeding during only two days of zivah, she is not considered as a major zavah and is not required to count seven \"spotless\" days. and five are during \"the days of niddah.\" During the twelfth pure week, she may engage in relations for five days.50For the first two days are \"days of niddah\" that where preceded by days on which she discovered bleeding. Hence she is forbidden to engage in relations on them. During the thirteenth week, she is a zavah. During the fourteenth week, she must count. During the fifteenth week, she is a zavah. During the sixteenth week, she must count. During the seventeenth week, she is a zavah. During the eighteenth week, she must count.
She continues to count in this manner forever.51For as stated above, every eighteen weeks, she returns to her original cycle. Thus she will be able to engage in relations on eighteen days in eighteen weeks. If she did not have such a physical difficulty, and she would be a niddah for a week and be pure for eleven days, she would be able to engage in relations for eleven weeks, i.e., 77 days, out of the eighteen weeks.", + "When she discovers bleeding for one impure week and then is pure for a week, and thus can engage in relations for eighteen days, this is approximately52A day and a fraction less. one fourth of the days [on which she would ordinarily be allowed to engage in relations]. This is what our Sages53Niddah 54a. This represents the Rambam's understanding of that passage. As the Maggid Mishneh relates, the Ramban has a different conception of the meaning of \"days of niddah\" and \"days of zivah.\" According to his conception, our Sages' words can be interpreted exactly.\" [implied when] saying: \"She may engage in relations for a fourth of her days.\"", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for eight impure days and then to experience eight pure days, she may engage in relations for fifteen days amid 48 days.54The Maggid Mishneh notes that there is a difficulty, because the cycle does not renew itself after 48 days. Instead, it is not until 144 days that the cycle is renewed. Again, it is because of his interpretation of \"days of niddah\" and \"days of zivah\" that he somewhat contorts the interpretation of Niddah, loc. cit.. The Maggid Mishneh notes that in this instance as well, the interpretation of the Ramban leads to a straightforward explanation of that passage.
What is implied? Of the first eight days, seven are her \"days of niddah\" and one is the first of the \"days of zivah\" that follow the \"days of niddah.\" She must watch one of the eight pure days and can engage in relations on seven of them. Afterwards, come seven impure days. Two of them are the final days of her \"days of zivah\" and six are in her days of niddah. Then come eight pure days. The first of them is the conclusion of her \"days of niddah.\"55Hence she may not engage in relations on it. It nevertheless serves as a \"spotless\" day to release the prohibition from the two days of zivah bleeding. She may engage in relations on the remaining seven.
Then come eight impure days. Four of them are the final days of her \"days of zivah\" and four are in her \"days of niddah.\" Thus she is a major zavah and must count seven \"spotless\" days. Afterwards, come seven pure days. She counts for seven of them and may engage in relations for one day. Thus she may engage in relations for fifteen days in each 48.56In truth in the first 48 out of 144 as stated above.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for nine impure days and then to experience nine pure days, she may engage in relations for eight days in every eighteen days forever.57In this instance, the Rambam's interpretation also produce an effective calculation. For the woman's physical cycle is renewed every eighteen days and precisely that time is duration of the cycle of niddah and zivah.
What is implied? Of the nine impure [days]: Seven of them are her \"days of niddah\" and two are \"days of zivah\" that follow her \"days of niddah.\" She must watch one day58For she does not become a major zavah if she bleeds for two days. of the nine pure days and may engage in relations on the remaining eight. This pattern continues forever.", + "If [a woman's established pattern] is to discover bleeding for ten impure days and then to experience ten pure days - and the same rules prevail for more than ten, indeed even 1000 days, if the same number of days are pure as impure59In this instance, the pattern will always return to the same starting point, for in all instances, the woman will have three days of zivah among her impure days and seven \"spotless\" days among her pure days. She will thus always become a zavah and require seven \"spotless\" days to become pure. Even though in the subsequent cycles, the first day she discovers bleeding may not be one of her \"days of niddah,\" the same laws still apply. - the number of days when she may engage in relations will equal the number of days [from when she began bleeding]60We have made this addition so that the Rambam's statements follow his interpretation of \"days of zivah.\" See the Maggid Mishneh. as a zavah.
What is implied? If there are ten impure days, seven of them are days of niddah and three days of zivah. [Therefore on] her ten pure days, she must count seven and may engage in relations on three. Thus there will be three days when she may engage in relations and three days of zivah. Similarly, when she is impure for 100 days and pure for 100 days. The first seven are days of niddah and the following 93 [start on] her \"days of zivah.\" Hence, of her 100 pure days, seven must be counted and she may engage in relations on 93 of them. Similar principles apply with regard to 1000 days or any other number of days." + ], + [ + "There are women who have vesetot, established times [when they menstruate] and other women who do not have vesetot. Instead, they feel nothing until the blood is actually released1I.e., the onset of menstruation is not associated with a specific physical symptom, as stated in Halachah 2. and they do not have a fixed day on which they menstruate.
[The intent when speaking of] a woman who has a veset is that there is a specific day - [e.g.,] from the twentieth [day of the month] to the twentieth or from the twenty-fourth to the twenty-fourth, or more or less - [on which she begins to menstruate].", + "Before the onset of menstruation, she will demonstrate physical symptoms,2From the Rambam's wording, it appears that for a woman to establish a veset, two factors are necessary: a) that there be a fixed monthly pattern when menstruation begins, and b) the onset of menstruation be preceded by physical symptoms. The other halachic authorities do not rule in this manner. They maintain that either of these two factors is independently powerful enough to establish a veset (Maggid Mishneh). Their view is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, ch. 189). [e.g.,] she yawns, sneezes,3Our translation of these two terms is based on Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:8). There are other commentaries who offer different interpretations. feels anxiety at the opening to her stomach and lower intestinal area, the hairs of her flesh will stand up, her flesh will become warm, or any similar physical symptoms.4For these physical symptoms to be considered as a veset, they must be repeated three times before the onset of menstruation (Niddah 63a). She will experience these - or at least one of these - symptoms at the fixed time when she [will menstruate] on the established day.", + "We have already explained5Chapter 4, Halachah 16. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, most other authorities differ with the Rambam with regard to these requirements. that any woman who does not have a [fixed] veset is forbidden to engage in relations until she makes an internal examination first. If she has a [fixed] veset, she is forbidden to engage in relations through the entire time of the veset. If her veset is during the day, she is forbidden to engage in relations throughout the entire day.6The Tzemach Tzedek notes that Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:6 states that a woman may touch ritually pure articles during the time her veset is expected. It is only when she actually discovers bleeding that she conveys ritual impurity upon these articles. He explains the difference between that law and the laws governing relations based on Shulchan Aruch HaRav 189:97 by saying that we fear that relations will cause menstruation to come earlier. If her veset is during the night, she is forbidden to engage in relations throughout the entire night. She should begin counting her \"days of niddah\" and her \"days of zivah\"7I.e., the seven \"days of niddah\" and the eleven \"days of zivah.\" from the day of the veset at all times.8The commentaries have noted somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam's statements. As he stated in Chapter 6, according to his conception, the cycle of niddah and zivah begin again after eighteen days. Now what if a woman has a 20 day cycle or a 25 day cycle? According to the Rambam's statements here it would seem that \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah\" should be counted from the day of the veset, i.e., each 20 days or 25 days.", + "Therefore women must be careful with regard to vesetot until they know the day and the hour when a veset is established. If her pattern was to begin menstruation on the twentieth day9The Maggid Mishnehinterprets this law as speaking about the intervals between the onset of menstruation (veset haflagah). This interpretation is borne out by the manner in which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:14) quote this law. From the Siftei Cohen 189:40, it appears that the Rambam is speaking about the twentieth and the twenty-third of the month (veset hachodesh in halachic terminology). and the twentieth day came and she did not menstruate and she did menstruate on the twenty-third, she is forbidden [to engage in relations on] the twentieth and twenty-third.10The twentieth is forbidden because as the Rambam continues to explain, once a veset has been established, it is not uprooted until it passes three times without the woman menstruating. The twenty-third is forbidden, because since she began menstruating on that day, we fear that she will begin menstruated upon it in the following month. See also Halachah 8.
Similarly, if a second time she did not menstruate on the twentieth and [instead,] began to menstruate on the twenty-third day, both days remain forbidden.11For the same reasons as stated in the previous note. If for a third time, she did not menstruate on the twentieth and [instead,] began to menstruate on the twenty-third day, the twentieth day is purified12I.e., she is no longer forbidden to engage in relations on that day. and the veset is transferred to the twenty-third day. For a woman does not establish a veset until she establishes it three times, nor does she uproot a veset until she bypasses it three times.", + "When a veset is established because of outside factors, even if recurs several times, it is not a veset, because [menstruation] came as a result of an outside factor.13According to the Maggid Mishneh, the \"jumping\" mentioned in the following clause illustrates this principle. The \"jumping\" is an external factor that is not dependent on a woman's internal physical pattern. Even if on three separate occasions, a woman menstruates as a result of \"jumping,\" she is not considered to have established a fixed veset. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:17) quotes this principle. The Rama quotes the Hagahot Maimoniot which state that although the jumping is not regarded with the severity of a fixed veset, it is considered as an irregular veset. Until a situation passes when the woman does not menstruate after jumping, she is forbidden to engage in relations afterwards. The Tur rules that even an external factor can cause a veset if a pattern recurs on three consecutive occasions.
If a woman jumped14Perhaps \"jumping\" can be interpreted as \"undergoing strenuous exercise\" which could be considered as a cause for hastening the onset of menstruation. and menstruated and [again] jumped and menstruated, she establishes a veset for the specific day without considering whether she jumped. What is implied? She jumped on Sunday and menstruated. After an interval of 20 days,15I.e., the day of menstruation is not counted in the interval. she again jumped on Sunday and menstruated. Then after an interval of 19 days, she jumped on the Sabbath and did not menstruate, but menstruated after the Sabbath without jumping, she establishes [a fixed veset] for Sunday after a twenty day interval.16The Maggid Mishneh deals with question what would happen if the woman jumped and menstruated on Sunday for a third consecutive time. Would her veset be established for the interval only in connection with jumping? Or would the interval itself be considered as a veset. There would be a difference in law if on the fourth occasion after the interval, she did not jump. Is she forbidden to engage in relations or not. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that according to the Rambam, she would be forbidden, because the Rambam does not attach any significance to the external factors. Other authorities - and this view is sustained by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:18) - maintain that unless she jumps, she is not forbidden after the fourth interval. For it is clear that the interval causes her to menstruate and not jumping,17Even though she jumped on the previous day, that jumping is not considered as significant and is not associated with her monthly pattern. Note the Maggid Mishneh's explanation of the approach of the Rashba which differs. and the interval has been established as the onset of menstruation on three occasions. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a woman begins menstruating on the fifteenth of one month, and menstruates on the sixteenth of the following month, the seventeenth of the month which follows that, and the eighteen of the month which follows that, she establishes a veset which advances.18There must be four months in the cycle, so that there are three months during which she advanced a day. In such a situation in the fifth month, she must expect to menstruate on the nineteenth.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:7) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also that of Rabbenu Chananel and the Ra'avad which maintains that a veset is established even after only three months of such a pattern.
If during the fourth month, she begins menstruating on the seventeenth, the veset is not established.19For she did not increase a day in the fourth month. Instead, [in the following month,] she suspects that she will menstruate on the day on which she menstruated during the previous month.20I.e., on the seventeenth of the month. She does not have to be concerned with the fifteenth and the sixteenth. Since she did not begin menstruating on that day in the month which followed it, she need not be concerned with it any longer.
This requirement applies to any woman who does not have a veset kevua, a fixed time when she is known to begin menstruating. According to the halachah at present, a woman in such a situation must refrain from relations on three occasions: the day or the night of the date of the month on which she menstruated in the previous month, the day or the night which matches the interval between her onset of menstruation in the previous and that of the month which preceded it, the day and night of the thirtieth day since the onset of menstruation. If that day arrives and she does not menstruate, that day becomes pure and is no longer suspected. For only a date that has been established by three [consecutive onsets] need be uprooted by three consecutive occasions when menstruation does not occur.", + "If her pattern had been to begin menstruation on the fifteenth and she changed21On one occasion. to the sixteenth, [relations] are forbidden on both.22On the fifteenth because of the existing pattern, and on the sixteenth because of her menstruation in the previous month. The point of this halachah is that when a woman deviates from an established veset, she must show concern both for that established veset and for the date (and interval) resulting from the previous month. If, [in the following month,] she changed to the seventeenth, the sixteenth is released and the seventeenth becomes prohibited. The fifteenth remains prohibited.23Because it must pass three times without her menstruating upon it. If, [in the following month,] she changed to the eighteenth, the eighteenth becomes prohibited24In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, in this instance, since she increased by one day each month, she established a fixed veset according to that pattern. Thus in the following month, she must show concern over the nineteenth.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that in addition to showing concern for the nineteenth, the woman must show concern for the eighteenth, since this was the day on which her menstruation actually began. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:7), however, he does not mention this point. and all the other dates are released.", + "If her pattern had been to begin menstruation on the twentieth day and she changed to the twenty-second, they are both forbidden.25The twentieth as a fixed veset and the twenty-second because of the deviation in the previous month. If, [in the following month,] the twentieth arrives and she does not menstruate, but she does menstruate on the twenty-second, they both remain forbidden. If, [in the following month,] the twentieth arrived and she began menstruating, she is considered to have returned to her fixed pattern.26And it must be bypassed on three new occasions to be uprooted. As long as the veset is not uprooted by being bypassed on three successive months, it becomes reaffirmed when the onset of menstruation recurs on it once. The twenty-second is released, because it was not established through three [onsets of menstruation].", + "A woman does not establish a veset in the midst of her \"days of niddah\" during which she has menstruated.27According to the Rambam's interpretation of \"days of niddah,\" the interpretation of this ruling is straightforward. Once a woman has sighted bleeding in her \"days of niddah,\" she cannot establish a veset on any of her other days of niddah. According to interpretation of the Ramban, the explanation is somewhat more complex. See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. Similarly, with regard to the other instances mentioned in this halachah, the explanation according to the approach of the Ramban - which as stated previously is accepted as halachah by most authorities - the explanation differs from that of the Rambam. Since she menstruates on one of these days, she cannot establish a veset in any of the seven. Similarly, a woman does not establish a veset in her eleven \"days of zivah.\" She may, however, establish a fixed veset in her \"days of niddah\" when she has not menstruated.
If she established a veset in her \"days of zivah,\"28The same laws would apply if she discovered bleeding only once during her \"days of zivah\" (without the phenomenon recurring three times). Perhaps the Rambam's intent is to emphasize that even if the phenomenon recurs three timmes, it can be uprooted when it is bypassed once. she must show concern over that veset.29As described in the following halachah. Whenever a veset is established in [a woman's] \"days of zivah,\" it is uprooted if it is bypassed even once. It does not have to be bypassed three times. [The rationale is that] it is an accepted presumption that a woman's [menstrual] blood is withdrawn on these days.30I.e., since it is unlikely that she will menstruate on these days, we treat any veset that has been established as an extraordinary event. Although she must take it into consideration, it can be uprooted easily.", + "What is meant by \"she must show concern over that veset\"? If she sighted bleeding on this veset for even one day, she must wait as a niddah because of the doubt.31Like a niddah, she is forbidden to engage in relations for seven days. [In the following month,] she is forbidden to engage in relations on that day even if she did not sight bleeding as32Our translation follows an emendation of the text based on authoritative manuscripts. See the Noda B'Yehudah, Vol. II, Responum 93, which explains this version. on the other days of the vesetot. If she discovers bleeding for three successive days, she is a zavah.33And must wait until seven \"spotless\" days pass. I.e., because of the doubt concerning her status, she is given both the stringency applying to a niddah - she is forbidden for seven days after even one sighting of blood - and the stringency associated with a zavah - she must count seven \"spotless\" days if she sights bleeding for three consecutive days (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When a woman frequently inspects herself at all times, her conduct is praiseworthy.34The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:1) interprets the Rambam's ruling as applying not at the time of relations. (For if she inspects herself before relations, her husband might think there is reason to refrain from relations.) At present, however, Rabbis have counseled woman not to inspect themselves unless there is a reason. For at times, the inspection itself can cause bleeding. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16. [This applies] even if she has established a fixed veset. For bleeding may come at times other than her veset.
During the eleven days of zivah, we assume that she is pure.35For it is unlikely for her to menstruate then. [Hence,] she need not inspect herself. After her days of zivah,36When it is likely for her to menstruate. however, she should inspect herself.", + "When a woman remains passive37Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads \"If she forgot and did not....\" and does not inspect herself, either because of forces beyond her control or intentionally, she is assumed to be pure until she inspects herself and discovers [that she is] impure.38For we do not suspect that she became impure unless she actually discovers bleeding. Slightly different principles apply with regard to the veset on which she can be expected to begin menstruation arrives as explained in the following halachah and notes.", + "[The following laws apply when] a woman did not inspect herself at the time of her veset39The initial and preferred course of conduct is that when a veset passes without a woman discovering uterine bleeding, she should inspect herself to ensure that this is so. She is forbidden to engage in relations unless she makes such an inspection. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:4). and inspected herself a few days afterwards and discovered that she was impure. Retroactively, she is considered impure from the time of her veset with regard to matters of ritual purity and impurity, as will be explained.40Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:5. There it is explained that since she discovered bleeding afterwards, we assume that she menstruated at the expected time and became impure. Nevertheless, she does not render a man who engaged in relations with her impure retroactively41A man who engages in relations with a niddah becomes impure. Nevertheless, a man who engaged in relations with a woman between the time of her veset and the time she discovered the bleeding is not placed in this category. For although we suspect that the woman became impure, there is no certainty that indeed this took place. and she may not count [the days of niddah] except from the time she discovered the bleeding.42A woman who is a niddah remains impure for seven days. These seven days do not begin from her veset, but from the time when she actually discovered the bleeding. If [in the inspection], she discovered that she is pure, we operate under the assumption that she is pure.43For although we suspect that menstruation will begin on the veset, if there is no evidence that this indeed happened, we do not assume that it did.", + "Similarly, when a woman discovers bleeding due to a wound that she has in her uterus, she is pure, even if she discovers the bleeding at the time of her veset.44The basic principle upon which this law is based is stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 20. In this halachah, the Rambam is merely clarifying that the fact that a woman has a fixed veset does not change the basic position. The blood is also pure. [The rationale is that the obligation to show concern for] vesetot is Rabbinic in origin, as will be explained in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav.45Chapter 3, Halachah 9. I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a woman is not impure until she actually discovers bleeding. Our Rabbis ordained that she should show concern for her veset, but they also limited the extent of that concern as reflected in the above laws.", + "A blind woman should conduct an internal examination herself and show [the ed] to her friends.46Since she cannot see, she obviously cannot inspect the ed, the cloth used for the examination. The Rambam (based on Niddah 13b) is emphasizing that she is relied upon to carry out a thorough internal examination. A deaf-mute47Who is considered the same as a mentally incapacitated individual. If, however, she is merely deaf or mute, she is considered as a mentally capable individual [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:8)]. and a mentally or emotionally incapacitated woman must be inspected by intellectually capable women48For these women cannot be relied upon to carry out a proper internal examination themselves. so that their vesetot can be established. [Afterwards,] they are permitted to their husbands.49A word of clarification is necessary. Our Rabbis ordained a marriage arrangement for deaf-mutes. They did not, however, ordain such an arrangement for mentally or emotionally incapable individuals.", + "Should a woman err and be unaware of the day when her \"days of niddah\"50Although in this and the following halachah, the Rambam uses the term veset, the intent of the term in this context is reflected by our translation. begins, if she menstruates, she must be concerned that she is a zavah.51I.e., she must observe both the stringencies incumbent on a niddah and those incumbent on a zavah as the Rambam continues to explain. Therefore if she menstruated for one day or two days, she must nevertheless wait a full seven52Before purifying herself as is required of a niddah. lest the blood have come in her \"days of niddah.\" And if she discovers bleeding for three days, she must count seven \"spotless\" days, lest she be in the midst of her \"days of zivah.\"", + "What must she do to redefine when her \"days of niddah\" begin, to know if she is definitely a zavah or that if there is a question concerning that53See the following halachah., and to know when her \"days of zivah\" begin? Everything is dependent on [the number of days] during which she discovers [bleeding].
If she discovered bleeding for one day or for two days, she counts the remainder of the seven54Days of niddah. and begins counting the eleven55Days of zivah. days after these seven.56The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Ramban's understanding of the terms \"days of niddah\" and \"days of zivah,\" this entire discussion is unnecessary. And according to the Rambam's understanding of these terms, it is somewhat difficult. For as stated above, the Rambam maintains that from the first time a woman menstruates her \"days of niddah\" are set. Nevertheless, in this situation, the Rambam maintains that, rather than leave a woman in a situation where she is continuously in doubt, our Sages advised her to begin counting \"her days of niddah\" anew from the time she menstruated.", + "If she discovered bleeding for three days, there is a doubt whether she is a zavah.57I.e., and therefore she must keep both sets of stringencies as mentioned above. The rationale for this ruling is that it is possible that the bleeding took place in her \"days of zivah.\" But, as the Rambam continues to explain, it is possible that this is not the case. For perhaps one of these days preceded her \"days of niddah\" and two were at the beginning of her \"days of niddah.\" Similarly, if she discovered bleeding for four days, [there is a doubt whether she is a zavah]. For perhaps two of these days preceded her \"days of niddah\" and two were at the beginning of her \"days of niddah.\" She must observe the five as the remainder of the seven and [count] the eleven days after these five.", + "Similarly, if she discovered bleeding for nine days,58The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for from five to eight days. It is unnecessary for the Rambam to state this, because it is readily apparent. The Rambam feels it necessary to mention nine days, because this includes a new concept: that we allow for the possibility that she was bleeding for all seven days of niddah. Thus in addition to these seven days, we add two days of zivah. there is a doubt whether she is a zavah. Perhaps two of the days preceded her days of niddah\" and seven are her \"days of niddah.\" She begins counting the eleven days after the ninth day [on which] the bleeding stopped. Similarly, if she discovered bleeding for eleven days,59The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for ten days. It is unnecessary to mention, for the rationale is the same as for eleven days. there is a doubt whether she is a zavah. Perhaps two of the days preceded her days of niddah,\" seven are her \"days of niddah,\" and two days followed her \"days of niddah.\" Thus there remain nine days within her \"days of zivah.\"60And her \"days of niddah\" begin when they are completed.", + "If she discovered bleeding for twelve days, she is definitely a zavah. For even if two of the days preceded her days of niddah\" and seven are her \"days of niddah,\" there are three days61The number of days necessary for her to be considered a major zavah. following her \"days of niddah. Thus there remain eight days within her \"days of zivah.\" The same laws apply if she discovered bleeding for thirteen days. There remain seven days within her \"days of zivah\" and they are the days on which she counts [seven \"spotless\" days].", + "Even if a women's menstruation continues for even 1000 days, as soon as the bleeding stops, she should count seven \"spotless\" days. After these seven days, a woman who erred begins anew her \"days of niddah.\"62I.e., this is sufficient for her to correct her reckoning.", + "Thus we learn: Whenever a woman errs, she never counts less than seven days from the time which her bleeding stops. Nor does she count more than seventeen. Afterwards, come her \"days of niddah.\"
What is implied? If she discovered bleeding for one day and then it stopped, she should count seventeen days. Six to complete her \"days of niddah\" and eleven as her \"days of zivah.\" If she discovers bleeding for thirteen days or more she counts seven \"spotless\" days after the bleeding ceases. Afterwards, her \"days of niddah\" begin as explained [above]." + ], + [ + "According to Scriptural Law,1In contrast to Rabbinic Law as defined by the following halachah.
The Turei Zahav 190:1 interprets the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh as stating that even if we are certain that a woman experienced uterine bleeding, if she did not experience the physical sensations that accompany menstruation, she is not impure according to Scriptural Law. a woman does not become impure as a niddah or a zavah until she experiences a physical sensation,2The physical sensation described here is not the heaviness, nausea, or stomach contractions which sometimes precipitate a woman's menstrual bleeding. [These sensations are also halachicly significant, but are related to another aspect of the niddah laws - the determination of vesetos, the time when her menstruation could be expected to begin (see Chapter 8, Halachah 2).] Instead, here the intent is either: a) an awareness of the opening of the uterus, or b) shivers or shudders as in a state of shock. Certain authorities also speak of a third sensation: that of a flow of moisture in the uterine channel. See the commentaries to Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 183:1). It must be emphasized that today, many authorities rule that a woman is unable to identify these sensations. menstruates, and discovers blood which emerges within her flesh as we explained.3Chapter 5, Halachah 2. She becomes impure from the time she menstruates and onward only.4I.e., according to Scriptural Law, she does not become impure retroactively.
If she does not experience a physical sensation, but conducts an internal examination, and discovers bleeding within the vaginal channel, we operate under the presumption that it was accompanied by a physical sensation,5Carrying out the internal examination, however, prevented her from feeling that sensation. as explained previously.6Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the discovery of bleeding in the vaginal channel renders her impure.", + "According to Rabbinic Law, whenever a woman discovers a bloodstain on her flesh7As clarified in Halachah 8. or on her clothes,8As clarified in Halachot 9-11. she is impure, as if she discovered bleeding within [the vaginal channel] on her flesh. [This applies] even if she did not experience a physical sensation [and] even if she conducted an internal examination and did not discover bleeding.9We do not say that the fact that she did not discover any internal signs of bleeding indicates that the bleeding originated elsewhere. This impurity is [because of our] doubt;10Since we are speaking about a Rabbinic institution and there is doubt involved, there is some room for leniency as will be explained.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why we do not consider this a question of multiple doubt (s'fek s'feika) in which case we rule leniently. In this instance, it is possible that the blood came from her flesh and it is possible that it came from an outside source. And even if it came from her flesh, it is possible it came from the uterus and it is possible it came from the ovaries.
The Kessef Mishneh offers two resolutions: a) because of the serious nature of the prohibition involved, our Sages were stringent despite the multiple doubt;
b) when the woman has no outside factors to which the blood can be attributed, our Sages ruled stringently and maintained that it is considered as if the bleeding is definitely from her flesh. Thus there is only one doubt: whether the bleeding comes from the uterus or the ovaries.
Kin'at Eliyahu offers a third resolution: Essentially, there is one question involved? Did the bleeding originate in the uterus or elsewhere? Where elsewhere - the ovaries or an outside source - does not multiply the doubt involved. perhaps the stain came from uterine bleeding.", + "Similarly, according to Rabbinic Law: Whenever a woman discovers bleeding at a time other than her veset11If she discovers bleeding at the time of her veset, we assume that she began menstruating then, since that is when she ordinarily menstruates, as stated in the following halachah. Otherwise, we assume she began menstruating beforehand. and whenever she discovers a bloodstain, she is impure retroactively for 24 hours.12I.e., any articles that she touched within that time are considered as if they are ritually impure. We assume that she began menstruating before she discovered the bleeding and therefore consider her impure retroactively. If she conducted an internal examination within this time and discovered that she was pure, she is impure retroactively until the time of the inspection.13I.e., we reduce the time of impurity from 24 hours, because she conducted an internal examination in the interim. Nevertheless, we still follow the basic premise that she is considered impure retroactively.
Although she is impure retroactively, she does not cause a man who engages in relations with her to become impure, as we explained.14Chapter 8, Halachah 13. Note Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:8 which states that although the man who engages in relations with her is not governed by the severe rules that apply to one who had relations with a niddah, he is still considered ritually impure for touching the woman. Nor may she begin counting her \"days of niddah\" or counting because of the stain except from the time she discovered the bleeding or the stain.
Whenever a woman discovers a stain, her reckoning [of her veset] is confused. For it is possible that the bleeding came from the uterus and her veset must be recalculated.15As stated in Chapter 8, a woman must calculate the day on which she is expected to begin menstruated. In this instance, she cannot do so, for she does not know whether to begin counting anew from the time she discovered the stain or perhaps her original cycle has not changed.", + "When a woman discovers bleeding at the time of her veset, she does not become impure retroactively. Instead, [the impurity begins] at the time [of discovery]. Similarly, a woman who is pregnant, nursing, a virgin,16These terms are defined in this and the following halachah. The rationale is that these women are not expected to menstruate. Hence, we do not show concern for the possibility that they menstruated at an earlier time. or elderly do not become impure retroactively.
What is meant by a pregnant woman? A woman whose pregnancy has become obvious, i.e., she is three months pregnant.17Even if she discovers her pregnancy earlier, she must take the bleeding into consideration until three months. What is meant by a woman who is nursing? A woman within 24 months of childbirth, even if her child died, she weaned him, or gave him to a nursemaid.18Conversely, although a woman continues nursing beyond this times, she is not granted this leniency (Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 4:1).", + "[The term] \"virgin\" refers to a girl who has never menstruated even through she experienced uterine bleeding because of marriage19I.e., hymeneal bleeding. or because of birth.20As stated in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 4:3, this principle applies the first two times she menstruates.
The term \"elderly woman\" refers to a woman who did not menstruate for 90 days near her old age.21I.e., once three months pass without her menstruating, we assume that she will no longer menstruate according to a set pattern. When is she considered elderly? When she is called an old woman [by others] and she does not protest.
[The laws that apply when] a pregnant, nursing, or elderly woman [discovers] a stain are the same as when she discovers bleeding. She does not become impure retroactively. With regard to a virgin who has never menstruated and who is still a minor, a stain that is discovered is pure until she menstruates on three successive months.", + "What is the difference between a stain which is found on a woman's flesh and one found on her clothing? There is no minimum measure for a stain found on a woman's flesh.22She becomes impure no matter how small it is. A stain on a garment, by contrast, does not render a woman impure unless it is the size of half a Cilikean bean (a gris)23A gris is half a bean. Cilik is a place where beans grow very large [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:112)]. Most contemporary experts consider this to be the size of an American dime. which is equivalent to a square large enough to contain nine lentils, i.e., three rows of three. If it is smaller than this, she is pure.24It is possible that the blood came from a louse that was inadvertently killed (see Halachah 23). Since the question is one of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently and consider the woman pure. When, however, the stain is on her flesh, we rule stringently, because lice are not usually found on one's flesh (Kessef Mishneh).
The distinction between a stain on one's body and on one's clothes is not accepted by all authorities. Ra'avad, Ramban, and Rashba differ and maintain that there is no difference between the two. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:6) quotes both opinions without stating which one is favored.
If [a stain] is composed of small spots, they are not considered as a single entity.25I.e. unless one of the spots is the size of a gris, the woman is considered pure. We are not concerned with the combined area of the spots. If it is extended, it is considered as a single entity.26In this instance, if the combined area of the stain is the size of a gris, the woman is considered as impure.", + "[When] a stain is discovered on an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the woman is pure and she need not be concerned about it.
What is implied? If a woman sat on a utensil made of stone,27All of the following are examples of articles that are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Rambam discusses all of these types of utensils in Hilchot Keilim. Commenting on the citation of this law in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:10), the Rama (and Pitchei Teshuvah 190:19) also give the example of a toilet seat as an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. earth, animal dung, on fish skin, on the outside of an earthenware utensil,28For an earthenware utensil only contracts ritual impurity from its inside. or on a cloth that is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths29A cloth of this size is considered too small to serve any purpose and hence, is not considered as a garment or utensil. and blood was discovered on the above, she is pure. Even if she inspected earth,30And found there were no bloodstains on it. then sat on it, and when she arose, a stain was discovered, she is pure. For our Sages did not decree that a woman would be impure when a stain was discovered on an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.31As mentioned above, the designation of a woman as impure because of a stain that is discovered is a Rabbinic decree. When our Sages instituted the decree, they allowed for leniency in certain instances. Nor did they decree [that a stain discovered on an article susceptible to ritual impurity renders a woman] impure unless that article is white.32Niddah 61b relates that originally our Sages thought to prohibit women from wearing colored garments as part of the mourning customs introduced because of the destruction of the Temple. Afterwards, they reconsidered and recommended that they wear such garments as the Rambam explains. If, however an article is colored, we are not concerned with a stain. For this reason, our Sages ordained that a woman should wear colored garments33On days other than her seven \"spotless\" days. so that she be protected from problems arising due to stains.", + "[A woman] does not become impure because of a bloodstain found on every place on her body, only due to those found opposite her genital area.
What is implied? If a stain is found on her heel, she is impure. For perhaps she touched her genital area when she sat.34In the Talmudic era, people would sit on rugs on cushions on the ground and when sitting in this manner, it is possible that a woman's foot will touch her genital area. Similarly, she is impure if a stain was found on her calves or on the inner side of her ankles, [the portions of her legs] that will touch each other when she stands with her feet and calves together. If it is found on the tip of her toe, she is impure. Perhaps [blood] dripped from the uterus to her foot when she walked.
Similarly, if blood is found in any place where her menstrual blood could have spattered when she walked, she is impure. Similarly, if blood is found on her hands, even on the backs of her fingers, she is impure. For the hands are active.35And it is possible that unknowingly, she touched a place on her body where there was menstrual blood (Maggid Mishneh). If, however, blood is found on the outer or side portions of her calves and, needless to say, if it is found from her thighs upward,36When restating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:11) uses the wording \"if it is found above her genital area.\" It also states that if a woman lifted her legs above her waist, she is impure even if a stain is found on the upper portion of her body. she is pure. For this is certainly blood that was spattered on her from another place.37I.e., we assume that the blood came from an external source. For it is not ordinary that her menstrual blood would spatter to these portions of her body.", + "When a bloodstain that is found on a woman's body is long like a strand or round, or made up of small drops, the length of the stain was across the width of her thigh, it looks like it came from below upward,38I.e., the shape of the stain appeared to indicate that the blood was spattered upward, rather than dripped downward. since it is opposite her genital area, she is impure. We do not say: Had it dripped from her body, it would not be found in such a form.39I.e., even when the shape of the stain appears to indicate that it came from an external source, as long as its position leaves open the possibility that it came from uterine bleeding, we rule stringently. Instead, we are stringent with regard to all blood that is found in these places, even though there is a doubt concerning it.", + "A stain that is found below the belt on a woman's garment40The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:12) rules that this law applies even when the stain is found on only the external part of her garment. renders her impure.41For the possibility exists that it came as a result of uterine bleeding. See Halachot 19-20 which explain that when there is justified reason to suspect that the stain came from an external source, she is pure, even though the stain is found on the lower portion of her garment. If it is above the belt, she is pure. If it is found on her sleeve, if it could reach her genital area,42Even when she bends (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). she is impure. If not, she is pure.", + "If she would remove her garment and cover herself with it at night, she is impure wherever blood is found.43Because it is possible that she and the blanket both shifted position while she was sleeping. Similarly, if blood is found anywhere on her girdle, she is impure.", + "If a woman wears one tunic for three days or more during a time that is not part of her \"days of niddah\" and inspected it and discovered three stains or one stain that contains the measure of three stains,44I.e., it is three times the size of a gris. there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.45She must wait seven \"spotless\" days before engaging in relations. She brings the sacrifice required of a zavah, but because of the doubt concerning her status, it is not eaten. For it is possible that each day, she stained the garment.46Three stains are sufficient to render her a major zavah. She is not, however, definitely given this status, for it is possible that the three stains came on one day.
Similarly, if she wore three garments that had been inspected47I.e., she wore the three garments at the same time, one on top of the other. for three days in her \"days of zivah\" and discovered a stain in each of them, there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.48For it is possible that she experienced bleeding on three successive days. [This applies] even if the stains are one opposite the other.49And thus it is likely that the three stains came from the same bleeding. Nevertheless, since we are not certain of this, she is considered a zavah because of the doubt.", + "[The following rules apply if] she found one stain that did not contain the measure of three stains.50I.e., it is smaller than three times the size of a gris. If she inspected herself throughout bein hashamashot51Bein hashamashot refers to the time between sunset and the appearance of the stars. The intent is not that a woman should continue to inspect herself throughout this entire time. Instead, what is meant is that she should insert a small cloth into her vagina and leave it there for this entire time. of the first day and found that she was pure, but did not inspect her clothes and on the third day, discovered this stain which is not the measure of three stains, she need not worry about being a zavah.52For she will have verified that she had not experienced bleeding on the first day.
If she did not inspect herself throughout bein hashamashot, she must suspect that she is a zavah. [The rationale is that] she did not inspect her garment and continued wearing it for three days during her \"days of zivah.\"53Since she was wearing the garment for three days, the possibility exists that she experienced bleeding for three days, but all the stains were in the same place.", + "If she discovered a stain on her garment on one day and then experienced bleeding for two successive days or experienced bleeding for two [successive] days and discovered a stain on the third day, there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.54Since on one of the days, she became impure because of a stain without feeling the physical sensations associated with menstruation, her impurity is not of Scriptural status. For to be considered as a zavah according to Scriptural Law, she must experience these physical sensations.", + "When a woman discovers a stain and then discovers bleeding, she associates the stain with the bleeding for a 24-hour period.55If the bleeding was discovered within 24 hours of the stain, we assume that the stain came about because of the subsequent bleeding and therefore she is governed by the same laws that would apply had she experienced only the bleeding as stated in Halachah 16. [This applies] whether she inspected herself at the time she discovered the stain and found herself to be pure or whether she did not inspect herself. If, however, she discovers one stain after another stain within 24 hours, she does not associate one stain with the other unless she carried out an inspection in the interim. If, however, she carried out an inspection and found herself to be pure between [the discovery of the first] stain and the second, they should not be associated with regard to the counting of zivut.56The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his understanding of Niddah 53b. The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's interpretation of this passage and harshly dismisses the Rambam's conclusions. The Maggid Mishneh both supports and explains the Rambam's position.", + "What is implied? She discovered a stain on Friday during the first hour of the day and then she discovered menstrual bleeding at any time until the first hour of the day on the Sabbath, she does not count [her impurity] from [the time she discovered] the stain. Instead, she associates the stain with the bleeding. [This applies] even if she did not inspect herself [after discovering the stain] and did not know whether she was impure or not. Thus if she discovers bleeding on Sunday and on Monday, she is a [major] zavah.57But if she does not discover blood on Monday, she is not a major zavah, i.e., we pay no attention to the stain that she discovered on Friday.
(Any time the term zavah is mentioned subsequently in this chapter, she is considered as a zavah.)
If, however, she discovered bleeding during the second hour on the Sabbath, she is considered as if she was impure for two days: Friday because of the stain she discovered and the Sabbath because of the bleeding, because there are more than 24 hours between them. Hence, if she discovers bleeding on Sunday, she must suspect that she is a zavah.58She is not definitely placed in that category, because one of the days is associated with a stain, as stated in Halachah 14.", + "[The following rules apply if] she did not experience bleeding on the Sabbath, but instead discovered a stain during the first hour on the Sabbath. If she inspected herself on Friday and discovered that she was pure, she only counts from [the time of] the later stain [that was discovered] on the Sabbath, because they both were discovered within the same 24 hour period. If she did not inspect herself and did not know whether or not she was in fact pure between the two, she begins counting from Friday. Thus if she discovers bleeding on Sunday, she must suspect that she is a zavah.59Because she experienced either a stain or bleeding on three consecutive days..", + "If she discovered the second stain during the second hour of the Sabbath day, she is considered as impure for two days, for the two are not within the same 24 hour period. [This applies] whether she inspected herself or did not inspect herself. [In such a situation,] if she discovers bleeding on Sunday after 24 hours have passed, she must suspect that she is a zavah.60Because she experienced either a stain or bleeding on three consecutive days..
[The following laws apply if] she discovered a third stain during the first hour on Sunday. If she inspected herself and discovered that she was pure, they are not considered as coming in succession61I.e., instead of being concerned that she discovered stains on three consecutive days, she associates the stain of the Sabbath and that of Sunday and counts them only as one. and she need not suspect that she is a zavah. If she does not carry out such an inspection, she must suspect that she is a zavah.62For each of the stains is considered individually.", + "[The following rules apply] whenever there is a stain that causes a woman to be considered impure and there is a factor to which she could attribute the stain, saying: \"The stain came because of this factor.\"63The principles mentioned in this halachah are illustrated in the halachot that follow. If [the stain] is found on a garment, she is pure. For our Sages did not say that one should rule stringently regarding these matters, only leniently.64Since the impurity associated with a stain is a matter of Rabbinic Law, we follow the principle: Whenever there is a doubt involved a matter of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:18)]. If the stain is found on her flesh, she is impure because of the doubt and she may not attribute the stain to the external factor.65Since the stain is found on her flesh and not on her clothes, we assume that it is more likely to come from the uterus than from an external factor. If she has a greater reason to attribute a stain on her flesh [t an outside factor] than one on her clothes,66E.g., she has a wound on her flesh. she may attribute even a stain on her flesh [to the factor] and she is pure despite the doubt.", + "What is implied? If she slaughtered an animal, a beast, or a fowl, became occupied with stains, sat next to people who were, or passed through a marketplace of butchers and blood was found on her outer garment, she is pure. She may attribute the stain to these factors for it is [likely] to have come from them.", + "[The following rules apply if] the stain was found on her flesh alone. If the stain is at her belt or lower, she is impure.67Provided the stain is found on a portion of her body from which the blood could have dripped from the uterus as stated in Halachah 8. If she turned upside down and flipped,68This phrase was not found in the texts of the Mishneh Torah possessed by the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh. Therefore they raised objections to the Rambam's ruling. even [a stain] from her belt and above renders her impure.69Ordinarily, however, such a stain does not alter her status even though it is found on her flesh alone. For if the blood had come from slaughtering or from the market, it would also have been found on her garments. Since it was found on her flesh and not on her garments, she is impure.", + "If she has a wound, even if it is covered by a scab, if it could be opened and discharge blood70E.g., if it was scratched [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:18)]. and blood was found on her flesh, she may attribute the stain to her wound.71And thus her status does not change. Note, however, Halachah 25. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a stain is found on both her garments and her flesh, she may attribute it with all [the external factors] possible.72For we can assume that it came from the outside first to her garments and then to her flesh. Hence she may attribute the blood to any of the factors mentioned in Halachah 20, as if the blood was found on her garments alone. And she may explain that [the stain was caused by] a louse, for perhaps when she sat down, a louse was killed and this blood came from the louse.73This applies even if she did not see that she killed a louse. If she knows that she killed an insect and it is possible that it produced a stain larger than a gris, she may attribute the stain to that [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 8:2)].
Until when [does the above apply]? [When the stain is no larger than] a gris. If, however, the stain is larger than a gris, she may not attribute it to a louse. [This applies] even if there is a crushed louse on the stain. Since the stain is larger than a gris, she may not attribute it to a louse.74For it is an accepted principle that a louse contains no more than a gris of blood. Hence if the stain is larger, that is an indication that the blood came from another source. Note Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:28) which rules leniently and explains that it is possible that there were two lice here, one which she killed previously and the one which is found crushed on her garment.", + "Similarly, she may attribute the stain to her son or her husband.75As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, even if she did not know that they touched her with soiled hands, if their hands were soiled, she may assume that this is the fact. For it is likely for a husband to touch his wife and a child to touch his mother.If they were occupied with blood, their hands were soiled, or they had a wound, she may attribute the stain to them saying that they touched her without her knowing it and the blood came from them.76If, however, their hands are not soiled, we do not attribute a stain to them unless the blood could have spattered upon her [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:19)].", + "We do not consider the possibility that blood was [transferred] from one place to another to attribute a stain to it. What is implied? If a woman had a wound on her shoulder and a stain was discovered on her calf,77It is highly improbable that blood dripped from her shoulder to her calf. we do not say: Maybe she touched the wound with her hand and then touched this other portion of her body.78There are instances where we postulate that a person's hands are active and the possibility exists that one transferred impurity from one place to another. Nevertheless, this concept is used only to lead to a stringency, not as a source for leniency. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. We attribute neither stains on her body, nor those on her garment [to such wounds].79The Maggid Mishneh states that if it is possible that the garment passed over the wound when it was removed, we can attribute a stain on a garment to such a wound. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:16) quotes this conclusion.", + "[The following laws apply when] two women were occupied with [slaughtering] one fowl and it contained only an amount of blood equal in size to a sela. If a stain the size of a sela is found on both of them, they are both impure.80Since the fowl did not contain enough blood to produce two stains of this size, we assume that one came from another source and attribute it to menstrual bleeding. Since we don't know which of the women was soiled by the fowl and which was not, we rule that they are both impure.
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 190) rules that this law applies only when the two women come to inquire about their status together. If they come one after the other, he rules that they are both considered pure. The Turei Zahav 190:17 differs, maintaining that although the ruling of the Bayit Chadash has parallels in other contexts, the logic should not be applied in this instance. The Nekudot HaKessef, however, accepts the ruling of the Bayit Chadash.
If a woman was occupied with blood that could produce a stain no larger than a gris and a stain the size of two grisim was found on her, she may attribute a gris to the blood with which she was occupied with and a gris to a louse.81As stated in Halachah 23. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 190:26) states that although there are opinions which rule that a woman is impure in such an instance, we follow the more lenient view, for the entire issue is one of Rabbinic Law. If, however, the stain was larger than two grisim, she is impure.", + "If she was occupied with red [blood], she may not attribute a black [stain] to it. If she was occupied with a fowl that had many different colors of blood and one of them was found on her, she may attribute [the stain] to [the fowl].
If she was wearing three outer garments, if there is an external factor to which she could attribute [a stain], she may attribute even [a stain] on the bottom garment to it.82Although there is reason to say that if the stain came from the outside, it would certainly be found on the outer garment as well, we still rule leniently, because there is the possibility that the outer garment was raised up at the time the blood was spattered. If she [knows of] no external factor to attribute it to, she may not attribute it to any factor, even if it is found only on the upper one.83Thus had the stain come from the woman's body, it would be far more likely to be found on the lower garment.
What is implied? If she passed through a butcher's market place, even if the stain is found only on the bottom garment, she may attribute it to the blood of the butcher's. If she did not pass through a butcher's market or the like, even if the stain is only on the upper garment, she is impure. If she is in doubt whether or not she passed through [such a place] or whether or not she was occupied [with an object that could produce a stain], she may not attribute it [to an external factor].84Although we rule leniently in questions involving stains, that is when we know that there is definitely a factor that could cause a stain involved. In this instance, we are not certain that there is indeed such a factor involved.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:22) adds that this ruling applies only in a city where there is a set place for butchering and the like. In places where these activities are carried out in many different places, a woman can attribute a stain to such a factor even if she is not certain that she passed such a place.", + "When a city has pigs [that roam freely] or [such animals] enter it at all times, [a woman] need not be concerned with stains that are found on her outer garment.85For the pigs eat small crawling animals and spatter their blood on passersby. Needless to say in most modern cities, this law does not apply.", + "When a woman lent her garment to a niddah, whether a Jewess or a gentile woman,86According to Scriptural Law, the laws of niddah do not apply to gentile woman, but according to Rabbinic Law, every gentile women is considered as if she is a niddah. The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions which maintain that even if the gentile woman is not known to be a niddah, the stain can still be attributed to her, because her halachic status is that of a niddah. This opinion is also reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:41). Even according to this conception, the gentile woman must be of the age that it is possible that she will experience menstrual bleeding. See Halachah 33 for further clarification regarding the fundamental principle on which this halachah is based. and then put it on before checking it,87The Rambam's wording teaches us another concept: We are not concerned about stains on clothing unless the clothes were checked first (Maggid Mishne). she can attribute a stain she finds upon it to the niddah who wore it.88Since the niddah and the gentile woman are already impure and will not suffer any difficulty if the stain is attributed to them, we indeed consider them as the source of the bleeding.
[Similarly,] if she lent [a garment] to a minor zavah on a day that she is impure,89The day on which she experienced uterine bleeding. one who is experiencing [the post-birth] blood of purity,90This was the law in the era of the Talmud when the laws of \"the blood of purity\" were observed after childbirth. As will be explained in Chapter 11 and notes, at present, this leniency is no longer observed. or to [a woman who was] a virgin and is experiencing [hymeneal] bleeding [which is] pure, she may attribute the stain to them.91In all these instances, attributing the stain to the borrower does not change her halachic status. The minor zavah is impure and the woman after childbirth and the virgin are pure regardless of the stain.
As stated in Chapter 11, the concept of a minor zavah does not apply in the present age and instead, she is considered as equivalent to a major zavah. Hence a stain can certainly be attributed to her. The laws concerning a woman with hymeneal bleeding or a woman after childbirth are different, for in the present age, we do not consider such woman as ritually pure. Instead, uterine bleeding - and even a stain - renders them ritually impure. Accordingly, since the status of these woman will be impaired because of the discovery of the stain, there is reason to assume that it should not be attributed to them alone, but instead, both the borrower and the lender should be considered impure as in the following clause. {See the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 190) which cites such views.} The commentaries explain, however, that according to the Rambam, this law applies even in the present era. Indeed, it is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:42) and the Shulchan Aruch only quotes laws that apply in the present era.
The Siftei Cohen 190:54 explains that even though the halachic status of these women changed in the present era, their physical tendency did not change. They frequently experience uterine bleeding and hence, we attribute the stain to them.
[A different ruling applies,] however, if she lent [a garment] to a minor zavah on the day she is watching or a major zavah during her seven \"spotless\" days, put it on before checking it and then discovered a stain. [In such an instance,] the halachic status of both is impaired., the lender and the borrower. For perhaps this one caused the stain or perhaps the other did.92Both the lender and the borrower are not likely to experience uterine bleeding and for both, it will impair their halachic status. Since we do not know which one is responsible for the stain, both share the resulting halachic liability.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam's ruling and maintain that the owner of the garment is pure. Since the status of the woman who is seeking to attain ritual purity is already impaired when compared to that of the owner, the stain is attributed to her alone despite the fact that her status will become further impaired by this ruling.
If she lent [the garment] to a woman who is watching herself because of the discovery of a stain, she may not attribute the stain to her. [The rationale is that] we do not attribute one stain to another.93Although a woman is considered impure because of a stain, we do not consider it a certain enough sign of uterine bleeding to attribute another stain to it.", + "[The following law applies when a woman] inspected her outer garment and then inspected herself94When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:40) omits mention of the fact that the woman inspected herself as well as her garment. and discovered that she was pure and afterwards, lent that garment to a colleague. If the borrower wore the garment and then a stain was discovered upon it when she returned it, the borrower is impure. She cannot attribute the stain to the owner, because the owner inspected it before she lent it to her.", + "[The following laws apply when] a tall woman wears an outer garment belonging to a short woman and a stain is discovered upon it. If [the place where the stain is located] reaches her genital area, she is impure.95I.e., the owner is definitely impure; in this instance, the borrower is also impure, because it is possible that the stain comes from her. If it does not, she is pure, because [it is probable] that the stain came from the short woman.", + "When three woman wore one garment in succession and afterwards, a stain was found upon it, [they are all impure].96Since there is no reason to attribute the stain to one more than the other and they all share the same halachic status, they are all considered as impure. Similarly, if they slept in one bed together97With their bodies intertwined [see Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:50) based on Niddah 61a]. and a blood [stain] was found under one, they are all impure.98Based on Niddah, loc. cit., the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) interpret this as referring to an instance when the woman all climbed into the bed from the same side. See Halachah 34.
If one of them inspected herself immediately99The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh interpret this as meaning that she inspected herself within the same day or night as the stain was discovered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:51) states that the inspection must be made immediately thereafter. and found herself impure, the [other] two are pure.100For we assume that the woman who found herself impure is the source of the stain.
The commentaries question if this clause applies only with regard to the bed or also with regard to the garment. The Maggid Mishneh asserts that it applies to the garment as well. The Kessef Mishneh, however, argues against his position.", + "[The following principle applies when, in the above situation, the women] all inspected themselves and discovered that they were pure. A woman who is not likely to discover bleeding may attribute the stain to one who is likely to discover bleeding. Thus the one who is unlikely [to discover bleeding] will be pure and the one who is likely will be impure.
What is implied? If one of the woman is pregnant and another is not pregnant, the pregnant101See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. woman is pure102For she is unlikely to experience uterine bleeding. and the one who is not pregnant is impure. If one was nursing103For we assume that the woman who found herself impure is the source of the stain.
The commentaries question if this clause applies only with regard to the bed or also with regard to the garment. The Maggid Mishneh asserts that it applies to the garment as well. The Kessef Mishneh, however, argues against his position. and one was not nursing, the one who is nursing is pure.104See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. If one is an elderly woman,105See Halachah 5 for the definition of this term in the present context. and one is not elderly, the elder woman is pure.106See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. If one has not experienced menstrual bleeding107This is the meaning of the term betulah in this context. See Halachah 5. and one has, the one who has no experience is pure.108See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context. If they are all pregnant, all elderly, all nursing, or all have not experienced menstrual bleeding, they are all impure.109Since there is no reason to favor one over the other, we rule stringently with regard to all of them.", + "[The following laws apply when] three women ascended from the foot of a bed,110And thus each one did not pass over the place where the other slept. See the notes to Halachah 32. and went to sleep. If a blood[stain] was discovered under the middle one, all three are impure.111Because either of the woman on the sides could have shifted position slightly and the blood have come from her. If [a stain] was discovered under112If, however, the stain was discovered on the top sheet, they are all impure, because the top sheet is likely to shift position during their sleep. the innermost one, she and the woman to her side are impure and the outermost one is pure.113For it is unlikely that one twisted and turned to that degree. If [the stain] was under the outermost, she and the woman to her side are impure and the innermost is pure. If, however, they did not ascend from the foot of the bed, and thus they have no order, if a blood[stain] is discovered under any one of them, they are all impure.", + "When does the above apply? When the woman all inspected themselves and found themselves to be pure. Thus none of them could attribute [the stain] to the other as we explained. If, however, one of them inspected herself and discovered that she was pure, the woman who is pure can attribute the stain to the one who did not check, and that woman is impure.", + "Whenever a stain is found on a garment and there is no external source to attribute it to, it, [nevertheless,] does not cause a woman to be considered impure until it is proven to be blood.114The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as follows: If a stain that appears to be blood is discovered, a woman must consider herself impure. If, however, there is a question in the minds of the experts whether or not she is truly impure, they could verify the woman's status through the test the Rambam mentions. It is not, as the Ra'avad appeared to understand that the Rambam maintained, that a woman should not consider herself impure unless she verified that the stain was blood through the process described. This interpretation is quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:31). See also Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 4. If a doubt arises for [the experts]115I.e., the sages to whom women would turn to determine whether a stain was blood or not. whether [a stain] was blood or [simply] red dye, they [wash the stain] with [the following] seven cleaning agents in order. If it is washed away or its color becomes weaker,116See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6). it is a bloodstain and [the woman] is considered impure. If the stain remains the same color, it is a dye and [she] is pure.117The Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam concerning this point, maintaining that the seven cleansing agents are used to help purify a garment, not to determine whether a woman is pure. As explained in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, loc. cit., the Rambam also appreciates the role of these cleansing agents in restoring the ritual impurity of a garment. If, however, the cleansing agents are not effective, it becomes obvious that the stain is not blood. Hence, not only the garment, but also the woman is considered as pure.", + "These are the seven cleaning agents in the order [in which they should be used]: the saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, lye,118We have given the popular translation. In his edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6), Rav Kappach identifies the Arabic term used by the Rambam as a cleaning agent made from the plant \"althaea officinalis.\" natron,119Again, we have used the common translation. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam defines the term is referring to a blue stone that becomes dissolved in water easily and which is used to clean hair and garments. cumin powder,120Again, we have used the common term. Rav Kappach (loc. cit.) defines the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a plant known as anabis setifera. and bleach.121Rav Kappach (loc. cit.) defines the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a plant known as saponaria officinalis. [The garment] must be rubbed three times with each cleansing agent and it must be passed back and forth while being rubbed.
If a person did not use these cleansing agents in the above order or used them all at once, his deeds are of no consequence.122I.e., the fact that the stain remains is not considered evidence that it is not blood.
Note Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:31) which states that because we are unsure of the identity of some of these seven cleansing agents, we do not employ this examination process in the present age. If he used the last substances before the first ones, the fact that he used the last ones - i.e., the first ones in the proper order - is significant. He may then use [merely] the last ones - which he used first - so that he will have used all seven in order.", + "What is meant by \"the saliva of a person who has not eaten\"? [Saliva taken from a person who did not eat from the beginning of the night and slept the second half of the night and gave this saliva before he ate the next morning. [Moreover,] he must not have spoken excessively for the first three hours of the day. If, however, a person arose and repeated his studies before three hours of the day passed, his saliva is not placed in this category. For speaking nullifies the power of the saliva and causes it to be like water.
What is meant by beans that have been chewed? Beans that have been chewed thoroughly until a large quantity of saliva has been mixed with them. What is meant by urine that has soured? Urine that is three days old or more.", + "[The following laws apply to] any woman who becomes impure because of a stain. If she discovers the stain during her \"days of niddah,\" she must consider herself a niddah because of the doubt. She must remain [impure] for seven days and immerses herself on the eighth night. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.
If she discovered [the stain] during her \"days of zivah,\" because of the doubt, she must consider herself as a minor zavah or a major zavah as clarified in this chapter.123Halachot 12-18. She must remain [impure] for one day if she is a minor zavah or count seven \"spotless\" days if there is a doubt whether she is a major zavah.
All this stems from Rabbinic decree as we explained.124Halachah 2. Therefore if a man engages in relations with such a woman in conscious violation, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct125The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment. and he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice.126If he engaged in relations with her inadvertantly." + ], + [ + "Every woman who gives birth is impure like a niddah, even if she did not suffer uterine bleeding.1The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 5, Halachah 13, the Rambam rules that when a woman discharges a piece of flesh from the vagina, it must be accompanied by bleeding. For discharging that piece of flesh is not considered as giving birth. With regard to giving birth (or miscarrying), however, the Torah deems a woman is impure, whether or not the birth is accompanied by bleeding. [This applies whether] a woman gives birth to a living child or one which is still born, and even is she miscarries [and discharges a fetus]. If [the fetus is] male, she remains impure [for seven days as is required after giving birth to] a male.2See Chapter 4, Halachah 2. If it is female, she remains impure [for fourteen days as is required after giving birth to] a female.
[The above applies,] provided the form [of the fetus] is complete. And the form of a fetus will never become complete in less than forty days. [This applies] to both a male and a female.", + "If a woman miscarries within forty days, she is not impure because of birth.3A miscarriage is usually accompanied by uterine bleeding. Thus the woman will become impure (as a niddah or as a zavah). However, the unique laws that apply to childbirth do not apply to her.
Even if she had conceived previously, until she reaches the fortieth day, the embryo is not given the halachic status of a fetus and none of the laws applying to childbirth apply. [This applies] even on the fortieth day.
If a woman miscarried on the forty-first day after relations,4I.e., the forty-first day after she immersed herself in the mikveh and engaged in relations that night. there is a doubt whether she is considered as having miscarried.5I.e., it is possible that she conceived after engaging in relations that night, but we are not certain. Hence, her status is doubtful. [Hence,] she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah.6Since it is possible that the fetus was male, it is possible that it was female, and it is possible that it was not considered a fetus in the halachic sense at all, the woman must take all these possibilities into consideration. See Halachah 21 which defines the laws incumbent on a woman in this situation. If the human form could be barely detected in the fetus without it being clear and obvious, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.7In this instance, it is clear that the embryo had developed into a fetus. Hence the laws that apply to ordinary uterine bleeding need not be considered. Nevertheless, since we are uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must take both of these factors into consideration. See Halachah 20 which describes the laws that a woman must follow in such a situation. This is called a developed8Rekem, the root of the term merukam, means \"embroidered.\" Implied is that the form of the embryo is beginning to take shape. embryo.", + "What is meant by a developed embryo? At the beginning of the formation of the human body, it is the size of a lentil. His two eyes are like the two eyes9Alternatively, as two drops of a fly's discharge. of a fly, [slightly] separate from each other. His two nostrils are like two eyes of a fly that are close to each other. Its mouth is a hairsbreadth open and its hands and feet are not distinct.
If its form becomes more defined than this, but it still cannot be distinguished as either male or female, we do not check it in water, but in oil. For the oil will burnish it. One should bring a wood chip with a smooth edge and use it to probe the genital area [of the fetus] from above downward. If there is an obstruction, it can be determined as male.10For ultimately, the male organ will grow there. If the genital area appears like a split barley corn, it is a female and need not be checked. A woman is not granted the leniency of \"the blood of purity\" for such underdeveloped embryos; the fetus must have hair on its head.", + "When a woman discharges a white mass and when cut open a bone is found within, she is impure, because of birth.11For we assume that the mass was a dead fetus. The fact that it contains a bone indicates that it had developed sufficiently to acquire the features mentioned in the previous halachah. Obviously, certain factors had caused the fetus to be crushed and the features obliterated. If she discharges an embryo filled with water, blood, worms,12Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:3) which interprets the Hebrew as referring to \"flesh that appears to be cut in the form of worms.\" or flesh, since it is not developed,13I.e., developed to the point it possesses the features mentioned in the previous halachah. the woman need not suspect [that she is impure] because of birth.14Moreover, if there is no apparent blood on the discharge, she is not impure as a niddah (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.; see also Chapter 5, Halachah 13).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3) states that in the present age, we follow the approach of the Rashba who rules that we are not knowledgeable enough to make the fine distinctions necessary to define when an embryo is developed or not. Hence, a woman should always consider herself impure because of birth.", + "When a child is born through Cesarean section, the mother is not impure because of birth. She [need] not [observe] the days of impurity, [nor is she granted] days of purity. [This is derived from Leviticus 12:2]: \"When a woman will conceive and give birth to a male....\" [The laws of that passage apply] only when she gives birth from the place she conceives.
When a woman has difficulties in giving birth and [ultimately,] gives birth through Cesarean section, the blood from the birth throes which emerges from the womb is considered as the blood of zivah or the blood of niddah.15Depending on the day of her cycle on which the blood emerged.
Although the Torah considered the blood that emerges during birth pure (Chapter 6, Halachah 1), that apples when the woman gives birth in an ordinary manner, and not when she gives birth by Cesarean section (Rashi, Niddah 41a). The blood that emerges from the operation is itself impure.16The blood itself is impure, because the uterus itself is impure and it conveys impurity on the blood. Therefore anyone who touches the blood is impure until the evening. The blood does not, however, convey impurity on the woman unless it comes into contact with her after it emerges from her body. If no blood emerged from the womb, the woman is pure. Although the blood that emerges from the operation is impure, the woman does not become impure unless she suffers bleeding from her vagina.17Niddah, loc. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 20:18.", + "When a fetus is cut up inside a woman's womb,18I.e., the woman was unable to birth the baby and the doctors saw that to save the woman's life, the fetus would have to be killed and taken out limb by limb. whether it emerged according to the order of the limbs, e.g., first a foot emerged, then a calf, and then a thigh, or it emerged in an abnormal order, the woman is not considered impure until the majority of the body emerges.19I.e., the point brought out by this halachah is not whether the woman becomes impure, but when the impurity takes effect. The Siftei Cohen 194:9 states that the law stated by the Rambam applies according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic decree, she is impure as soon as one limb emerges. If its entire head comes out intact, it is as if the majority [of the body] emerged.20Although the Mishnah (Niddah 3:5) uses the phrase \"the majority of the head,\" the Rambam maintains that the entire head must emerge for this law to apply. See the Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh. If it was not cut up and it emerged in the ordinary manner, it is considered as having been born when its forehead emerges, even though it was cut up afterwards.21I.e., complications arose and it was necessary to cut up the fetus to remove it from the womb entirely.", + "If a fetus sticks out its hand22The Maggid Mishneh questions whether the same laws apply with regard to a foot. The Tur states that they do, while the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:11) quotes the Rambam's ruling verbatim. [from the womb] and then returns it, its mother is impure due to birth as a result of Rabbinic decree.23Although Genesis 38:28 states: \"And when she was giving birth, he stuck out a hand,\" Niddah 28a rules that this should not be interpreted as an implication that sticking out a hand is considered as giving birth. Instead, according to Scriptural Law, the woman does not become impure until the majority of the body of the fetus emerges. The woman does not receive \"days of purity\" until the entire fetus - or [at least] the majority - emerges as we stated.24I.e., as implied by the previous halachah.", + "[The following laws apply when] a woman miscarries and discharges something resembling an animal, beast, or fowl.25In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:2), the Rambam explains that although it is abnormal for a woman to discharge a fetus with such an appearance, there are exceptional situations from time to time. These and the forms mentioned in the following halachot are definite possibilities. If its face resembles that of a human,26As defined in the following halachah. it is considered as a birth even though the remainder of the body resembles an animal, beast, or fowl. If it is male, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male. If it is female, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female. If it cannot be determined whether it is male or female, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.
If its face does not resemble that of a human, it is not considered as a fetus and its mother is not impure due to birth.27The Maggid Mishneh states that this law also applies in the present era, as indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 12. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro differs, citing the Ra'avad and the Ramban and explaining that the Rabbis of the present era did not feel that they were expert enough to determine if the face of a fetus resembled that of a man or not. Hence they ruled that woman is impure. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3), he follows this approach.
Note also Halachah 17 which states that if the discharge of such a fetus is accompanied by bleeding, the woman is impure even if the fetus does not resemble a human. [This applies] even though the remainder of the body resembles that of a human, its hands and feet resemble those of a human, and it is male or female.", + "What is meant by the human form of a face? That the forehead, eyebrows, eyes, cheeks, and the contour of the jaw share the human form. Even if the mouth, the ears, and the nose resemble that of an animal or a beast, [the fetus] is considered as a birth.", + "When a woman miscarries and discharges something resembling a snake, the mother is impure due to birth.28The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that in the previous two halachot, he stated that for a fetus to be considered as having a human form, it must have the majority of a human facial form intact, not merely the eyes. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the eye of a snake resembles that of a human much more closely than that of other animals. Hence, there is room for the Rambam's ruling. [The rationale is that] the form of its eye is round like that of a human. When a woman miscarries and discharges a human form that has wings of flesh, the mother is impure due to birth.
[The following rules apply when a fetus] is created with one eye and one thigh. If they are on the side, it is considered as half a human and the mother is impure due to birth. If they are in the center, the mother is pure, because this is another creature.", + "[The following laws apply when a fetus] is created with its windpipe closed, its body lacking [form] from the navel downward, but instead is a mass of flesh, its skull being merely a mass of flesh, its face was amorphous and its features could not be distinguished, it has two backs and two backbones, the contours of the head of the fetus she discharged could not be distinguished, or the contours of its hand could not be distinguished, the mother is not impure due to birth.29This ruling is based on Niddah 23b which states that any fetus that is created in a manner that is not fit for its soul to be created (i.e., it is not viable) does not cause the mother to be impure due to birth. Since a fetus with these defects would not live, the mother is not impure. See the Kessef Mishneh which questions the details of certain of the examples cited by the Rambam.
If, however, she miscarried and discharged a hand or a foot that was cut off, we operate under the assumption that it came from a complete fetus and it is included in the sum of the majority of its limbs.30As stated in Halachah 6, when the majority of the limbs of a fetus emerge, the mother is considered as impure due to birth. The present halachah is stating that if previously many of the limbs of a fetus emerged and then the mother discharged this cut off hand or foot, it is not considered as part of a separate fetus, but instead, part of the fetus that already emerged. Hence, if together with the limbs that previously emerged, it equals the majority of the fetus, the woman is impure (Maggid Mishneh).
From Rabbi Akiva Eiger's interpretation of Niddah 28a, the source for this halachah, the following explanation can be given. When a woman discharges a cut off hand or foot, even if we have not seen the remainder of the fetus, we assume that she discharged them already. Hence, she is considered impure. We do not suspect that maybe the fetus she discharged was not viable.", + "There are times when from the remainder of the blood from which a fetus is formed will coagulate and form a mass that resembles the tongue of an ox. It is wound around a portion of the fetus and is called a sandal. A sandal will never be formed without a fetus. If a similar mass is formed without a fetus, it is not called a sandal. Most fetuses will not have a sandal with them.
There are times when a pregnant woman will receive a blow on her stomach and the fetus will be damaged and will become like this sandal. There are time when the [resulting sandal] will retain its facial features and there are times when the fetus will dry up and change its appearance and blood from elsewhere will coagulate upon it to the extent that its facial features cannot be recognized.
Accordingly, when a woman miscarries and discharges a male fetus together with a sandal, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female. For perhaps this sandal was a female fetus. [The Sages] ruled stringency and considered her impure due to a [female] fetus even though it did not possess any facial features. [The rationale is that] she is impure due to birth regardless because of the fetus [discharged] with it.", + "The thick membrane that is like a goatskin in which the fetus is formed and which surrounds the fetus and the sandal - if there is a sandal with it - is called the placenta. When the time comes for the fetus to emerge, it tears it and emerges. At the beginning of its creation, it resembles a thread of the woof that is hollow like a trumpet and thick like the craw of a chicken. A placenta must be at least a handbreadth in size.31Implied is a leniency. If a woman discharges something resembling a placenta, but which is smaller than a handbreadth, she is not impure due to birth. The Maggid Mishneh quotes Ramban and Rashba who rule that in the present age, we are stringent and rule her impure even if it is smaller than a handbreadth lest an error be made.", + "When [a woman] miscarries and discharges a placenta, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female. [The intent is] not that a placenta is a fetus, but there will not be a placenta without a fetus.
If she discharged a fetus and then discharged a placenta, we show concern about the placenta and it is considered as a fetus. We do not say: \"This is the placenta of the fetus that miscarried.\" For we associate the discharge of the placenta only with a viable birth.
Accordingly, if the woman gave birth to a viable child and then discharged a placenta - even after 23 days32Based on Niddah 27a, it appears that this is the maximum number of days granted between a birth and the emergence of the placenta.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro notes that there are authorities who maintain that the 23 days include the day of the birth, while the Rambam maintains that the day of the birth is not included. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3), he quotes the Rambam's ruling. - we assume that [the placenta] came as a result of the child. We do not suspect that there was a second fetus. [Instead, we assume] that the child tore through the placenta and emerged.", + "[When a woman] discharges a placenta and afterwards bears a viable child, we suspect that the placenta came as the result of another fetus.33I.e., the woman had been carrying two fetuses. The emergence of the fetus indicates that she had miscarried and discharged one previously. We do not associate it with the child that was born afterwards, for it is not usual for the placenta to emerge before the fetus.34Since the fetus is carried within the placenta, in a viable birth, the placenta will never emerge before the fetus carried within it.
If a portion of the placenta emerges on Sunday and a portion emerges on Monday, we count [her days of impurity] from the first day and we count her days of purity only from the second day as a stringency.35I.e., as soon as the first portion of the placenta emerges, the woman becomes impure. Nevertheless, her days of purity do not begin until the appropriate time (7 or 14 days) passes after the second day. And they end after 40 or 80 days from the first day, not from the second day.", + "If [a woman] miscarries and discharges something resembling an animal, beast, or fowl and a placenta is connected to it, we do not suspect that there is [another] fetus.36As stated in Halachah 8, the discharge of these type of creatures does not render the woman impure. When she discharges a placenta that is connected to them, we assume that they were carried within the placenta. Hence, just as they do not render the woman impure, the placenta also does not.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:7) cites this law without qualification, the Siftei Cohen 194:7 states that just as we are stringent in the present era with regard to the law stated in Halachah 8, we are stringent with regard to this law and rule that the woman is impure. If they are not connected to [the placenta], we treat it with severity as if there were two fetuses. For we say that maybe the fetus that was carried in this placenta became effaced, and maybe the placenta of this fetus that appears like an animal or beast became effaced.37I.e., we are concerned with the possibility that the woman was carrying two fetuses. Although only one fetus - the animal-formed one - and one placenta emerged, we suppose that originally there was another fetus and another placenta and they were effaced. We assume that the fetus that was effaced was ordinary and hence, the woman is considered as impure.", + "In all instances when we are concerned that [the emergence of] a placenta [indicates that a fetus emerged previously], a woman is not given days of purity.38I.e., the forty or eighty day period when uterine bleeding does not render a woman impure is not granted in this situation, for we suspect that perhaps the woman never in fact gave birth.
[The following laws apply to] every [woman] who miscarries and discharges something that does not resemble a human fetus39As mentioned in Halachah 8. or a fetus that is within 40 days of conception whose form has thus not been completed.40As mentioned in Halachah 2. If [the emergence of] the fetus was accompanied by bleeding, the woman is either a niddah or a zavah.41The ruling depends on the day of her personal cycle on which the woman miscarries: Is it one of the days of niddah or one of the days of zivah? If it emerged dry, without any bleeding, she is pure.42This ruling depends on our Sages' statement (Niddah 21a) that it is possible for the uterus to open without the woman experiencing any bleeding.
This statement is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and there are some Rishonim who follow the other position and therefore rule that the woman is impure. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:2) follows this view and rules that even if the woman does not notice any bleeding, she must assume that bleeding did in fact take place.", + "When a woman gives birth to twins - a boy and a girl - she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female.43I.e., she must observe 14 days of impurity and then is given 66 days of purity. We do not restrict her to 26 days because of the birth of the boy. If she gives birth to a tumtum44A person whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus it is impossible to determine his or her gender. or an androgynus,45A person who has both male and female sexual organs. There is an unresolved halachic question with regard to the classification of such a person's gender. she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.46Since there is a doubt concerning the issue, the woman must observe the stringencies resulting from either option. If she gives birth to twins, one that is male and one that is a tumtum or an androgynus, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.47Since it is possible that the tumtum or the androgynus is - or is considered as - a female, the woman must also take the laws governing the birth of a female into consideration. If one [of the twins] is female and one is a tumtum or an androgynus, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female.48For even if the tumtum or androgynus was considered as a male, there would be no need for any further severity as stated at the beginning of the halachah. For the gender of a tumtum and an androgynus is a matter of doubt: Maybe they are male or maybe female.49In particular, there is a difference between the two. With regard to a tumtum, the child has a specific gender, we simply are not able to identify it. With regard to an androgynus, by contrast, the doubt involves the child's halachic status.", + "When a woman is known to be pregnant miscarries and it is not known what she miscarried, e.g., she passed a river and miscarried there, miscarried into a pit, or miscarried and a beast dragged away the fetus, we assume that she discharged a human fetus.50And not one of the forms mentioned in Halachah 8. Hence, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.51Because we do not know the gender of the fetus, she must take both possibilities into consideration. If, however, she was not known to be pregnant, miscarried, and did not know what she miscarried, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah.52For it is possible that she was less than 40 days pregnant, in which instance the fetus is not considered as being born, and she is governed by the laws applying to a niddah, as stated in Halachah 2.", + "What are the laws that apply wherever we said: \"She is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female\"? She is forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like a woman who gives birth to a female. The status of the first seven is definite;53For even if the fetus was male, she would be impure for this time. that of the latter seven is doubtful.54For we do not know that the fetus was female.
We do not grant her any \"days of purity\" beyond the fortieth day [from the birth] as is the law with regard to one who gives birth to a male.55In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:3), the Rambam explains the rationale for this ruling. There is a question of Scriptural Law involved. Whenever doubt arises in such a situation, we follow the more stringent approach. If she discovers menstrual bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth days from birth, it is not \"pure blood.\"56As would be the ruling was she to have given birth to a female. As explained in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, today Instead, because of the doubt, we consider it as niddah bleeding, or zivah bleeding if it comes in the \"days of zivah,\" as we explained.57In Chapter 7, Halachah 12, the Rambam writes that \"that any bleeding that a woman discovers after the completion of the days associated with childbirth marks the beginning of her days of niddah.\" Accordingly, the first time a woman in such a situation discovers uterine bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth day after birth, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah. If she discovers bleeding a second time, the question of whether the doubt involves the niddah or zivah state depends on the day when the bleeding is discovered.
Similarly, if she discovers [uterine bleeding] on the eighty-first day alone, she is considered as a niddah because of the doubt.58I.e., she is not merely a minor zavah.
Apparently, the Rambam's intent is speaking about a woman who discovered uterine bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth day after birth and then a second time on the eighty-first day and according to the niddah-zivah cycle, the eighty-first day is a day of zivah. (For example, she discovered uterine bleeding previously on the seventieth day.). In that instance, there is a doubt whether she is considered a niddah, for if the fetus was female, this would be considered the beginning of the niddah cycle, or a zavah, for if the fetus was male, her cycle would have begun earlier. See the following halachah and notes.
According to this interpretation, however, the word \"alone\" which the Rambam adds appears to be in error. She must observe the seven days of niddah. [The rationale is that] perhaps she gave birth to a female and her \"days of niddah\" do not begin until after the conclusion [of the days of purity], as we explained.59Chapter 7, Halachah 12.", + "What are the laws that apply wherever we said: \"She is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah\"? She is forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like a woman who gives birth to a female. If she discovers blood on the eighty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah.60The Rambam is speaking about a situation when a woman discovers uterine bleeding for the first time after a miscarriage. Ordinarily, her niddah cycle would start at that time. Nevertheless, since the possibility exists that her miscarriage did not involve a fetus, she must continue her previous reckoning of the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah.\"
Similarly, if she discovered uterine bleeding on the seventy-fourth day and the eighty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah.61If the fetus was male, the bleeding on the seventy-fourth day would have been considered the beginning of her \"days of niddah\" and the eighty-first day, the beginning of her \"days of zivah.\" Thus she would be only a minor zavah. Nevertheless, there is also a possibility that the fetus was female. In such an instance, any bleeding before the eighty-first day is insignificant and the eighty-first day begins the niddah cycle. Hence we rule more stringently and consider her a niddah, because of the doubt. Similarly, if she discovered [uterine bleeding] on the forty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah even though she discovered bleeding on the thirty-fourth day. She is forbidden to her husband until the forty-eighth day, as is the law for a woman who gives birth to a male.62This would be the law were we certain that she had miscarried a male fetus. Her status is doubtful, for it is possible that her miscarriage is not considered a birth at all. In that instance, the bleeding would be either niddah or zivah bleeding, depending on her cycle.
We do not grant her any \"pure days\" at all, like a niddah. [The following rules apply with regard to] any bleeding that she discovers from the day on which she miscarried until the eightieth day beginning from seven days after she miscarried. If it is discovered in her \"days of niddah, she is a niddah, because of the doubt. And if it is discovered in her \"days of zivah,\" she is a zavah, because of the doubt. For throughout the days after birth, [the previous patterns concerning] the expected times of menstruation do not apply.63I.e., were we to know for certain that she had given birth, there would be no concept of days of niddah and days of zivah. Hence, in the present situation, although the woman must observe the stringencies of niddah and zivah, it is only because of the doubt.
Similarly, if she discovers uterine bleeding on the eighty-first day, her situation is still problematic and she must consider herself a niddah because of the doubt as explained [above]. [This applies] even if she discovers bleeding for only one day. When she establishes a pattern of menstruation after eighty days, her difficulties will cease and she will be either definitely a niddah or definitely a zavah.64Depending on the day of her cycle on which the bleeding is discovered. Similarly, from the time she miscarried for seven days, she will be definitely impure [like] a niddah65Either because of the miscarriage or because the bleeding is considered as blood of niddah. Either way, she is definitely impure for seven days. if she miscarried in the midst of her days of niddah, as we explained.66In Halachah 20." + ], + [ + "All of what was said with regard to [the laws of] niddah, zivah, and childbirth applies with regard to Scriptural Law. [The Jews] would follow these laws when the Supreme Sanhedrin held sessions and it included great sages who were familiar with [the types of] blood. If a doubt arose [for the lesser judges] with regard to the discovery of blood or the days of niddah and zivah, they could ascend to the Supreme Sanhedrin and ask them. As the Torah promised concerning them [Deuteronomy 17:8]: \"If a matter of judgment is unknown to you concerning one type of blood or another, or one judgment and anotherו [you shall ascend to the place that God shall choose].\"1I.e., to the Temple in Jerusalem. See Hilchot Mamrim, chs. 1 and 4, which discuss the authority of the Supreme Sanhedrin and how it served as the final governing body for Jewish Law.
[\"Concerning one type of blood or another\"] means \"between the blood of niddah and the blood of zivah. In that era, Jewish women would be careful concerning this matter and would pay attention to their monthly patterns and would always count the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah.\"", + "It is very difficult to keep track of the counting of the dates. Many times doubts will arise. For even if a woman discovered bleeding on the day she was born, she must begin counting the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah,\" as we explained.2Chapter 4, Halachah 4. Therefore a girl cannot become impure as a zavah until she is ten days old. For if she discovered bleeding on the day that she was born, she would be a niddah for seven days. [Then to be a zavah, she would have to discover bleeding] on the three days directly following the \"days of niddah.\" Thus [she would be] ten days [old].
Thus we learned that she begins counting the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah\" from the first time she discovers uterine bleeding throughout her entire life. [This applies] even if [the first time] she discovers bleeding is when she is a minor.", + "During the era of the Sages of the Gemara, many doubts arose with regard to the appearance of blood3As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7-12, in the Talmudic era, our Sages felt capable of distinguishing between different shades of red and were able to identify some shades as pure and others as impure. In the Rambam's era and certainly in later ages, the Rabbis felt incapable of making such distinctions. and the reckoning of the pattern of menstruation. For it was not within the potential of all women to calculate the \"days of niddah\" and the \"days of zivah.\" Therefore our Sages ruled stringently concerning this matter and decreed that a woman should consider all her days as \"days of zivah\" and consider any bleeding that she discovers as zivah bleeding because of the doubt.4The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rambam did not clarify his statements concerning this Rabbinic ordinance because it was only a temporary measure. It does not reflect Scriptural Law, nor does it reflect Rabbinic Law as practice, because it was later supplanted by the stringency Jewish women accepted upon themselves as stated in the following halachah.
To explain: Niddah 66a relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi ordained that any woman who discovers uterine bleeding should wait six \"spotless\" days before immersing herself . If, however, she discovers bleeding for three consecutive days, she must wait seven \"spotless\" days. Thus if the bleeding had come in her days of niddah, she would have waited the seven days required by Scriptural Law (the day she discovered the bleeding and the six \"spotless\" days). And if the bleeding had come in her days of zivah, all that is required by Scriptural Law is for her to wait one spotless day. This is the ordinance to which the Rambam referred.", + "In addition, Jewish women accepted a further stringency upon themselves. They accepted the custom that wherever Jews live, whenever a Jewish woman discovers [uterine] bleeding, even if she does not discover more than a drop the size of a mustard seed and the bleeding ceases immediately, she must count seven \"spotless\" days.5The stringency implied by this practice is that even if bleeding is sighted for only one day, the woman counts seven \"spotless\" days. [This stringency applies] even if she discovered the bleeding during her \"days of niddah.\"6According to Scriptural Law, there is no need for her to count seven \"spotless\" days in such a situation. Instead, she may immerse after the seventh day regardless. Nevertheless, women accepted this stringency upon themselves.
Whether the bleeding continued for one day, two days, an entire seven days, or longer, when the bleeding ceases, she counts seven \"spotless\" days as is required of a major zavah and immerses on the night of the eighth day despite the fact that there is a doubt whether she is a zavah.7I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse herself during the day on the seventh day. She need not wait until evening. Nevertheless, since a niddah is required to wait until the evening to immerse herself, women standardized their conduct and ordained that all immersion be performed at night unless there are extenuating circumstances. Note, however, Halachah 17. Or she may immerse during the day on the eighth day in a pressing situation, as explained.8Chapter 4, Halachah 8. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.", + "Similarly, every women who gives birth in the present age is considered as one who gives birth while a zavah and she must count seven \"spotless\" days, as we explained.9Chapter 7, Halachah 5.
According to Scriptural Law, if a women is not a zavah when she gives birth, she may immerse herself after seven or fourteen days, even if she was bleeding the entire time. In the Talmudic era, however, it became customary to observe the stringency described by the Rambam. The rationale is that since every discovery of bleeding renders her a zavah, she is always considered as having given birth in that state (Maggid Mishneh).
When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) emphasizes that this practice does not supplant Scriptural Law. Thus if a woman counts seven \"spotless\" days directly after giving birth to a girl, she must still wait the fourteen days required by the Torah before immersing.
It is the commonly accepted custom in Babylon, in \"the cherished land,\"10Eretz Yisrael. Spain, and the West,11Morocco and North Africa. that if a woman discovers bleeding in the days after childbirth,12The Hebrew term used by the Rambam has a specific meaning, the days between the seventh and fortieth days after a woman gives birth to a male or the days between the fourteenth and eightieth days after she gives birth to a female. she must count seven \"spotless\" days after the bleeding stopped. [This applies] even if she first counted seven \"spotless\" days and immersed [after giving birth].
We do not grant her any pure days at all. Instead, whenever a woman discovers bleeding whether it is bleeding associated with childbirth or \"pure blood,\" it is all impure. She must count seven \"spotless\" days after the bleeding ceases.", + "This law was instituted in the era of the Geonim. They decreed that there be no concept of \"pure\" blood. For the stringency that women accepted upon themselves in the era of the Sages of the Talmud applies only to a woman who discovers bleeding that would render them impure. [In this instance, they accepted the custom of] waiting seven days. Blood which she discovers during her \"days of purity\" after counting [seven \"spotless\" days], by contrast, is not a matter of concern [according to Scriptural Law]. For the days of purity are not subject [to concern] with regard to niddah or zivah as we explained.13Chapter 7, Halachah 7.", + "We have heard that in France,14Whose halachic tradition differed from that of the Sephardic community in many particulars. even today, relations are allowed [despite] \"pure\" bleeding as was the law in the Talmudic era after [the woman] counts [seven \"spotless\" days] and immerses herself because of the impurity resulting from giving birth in the zivah state. This matter is dependent on local custom.15The Rambam is referring to one of the principles mentioned in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah: Laws ordained by the Sages of the Talmud must be accepted universally throughout the Jewish community. Laws ordained by later authorities are subject to the halachic review of the local authorities.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) writes that it has already become universal Jewish practice to forbid relations when a woman discovers bleeding during her days of purity.", + "Similarly, [stringencies were adopted] with regard to the laws of hymeneal bleeding in the present age. Even if a minor is below the age when she could be expected to menstruate and never discovered uterine bleeding, [her husband] must separate after engaging in the relations which are a mitzvah.16I.e., the first time the couple engage in relations. As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 18-25, according to Scriptural Law, hymeneal bleeding does not represent any difficulty for it is not at all related to niddah or zivah. Hence, according to Talmudic Law, when the wife is a minor, the couple may engage in relations until the hymeneal bleeding ceases. Even a girl who gets married at the age of twelve is granted certain leniency. The later Rabbis, however, required all couples to separate because of hymeneal bleeding.
The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that the groom may complete relations and withdraw while erect even if he knows that bleeding has commenced. Although our Rabbis ordained this stringency, they did not apply it to the first time the couple engaged in relations.
He also states that even if no bleeding is discovered, if the bride was a virgin, we assume that there was a slight amount of blood that was not noticed and rule that she is impure. These laws are quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 193:1).
Whenever she discovers hymeneal bleeding,17I.e., if all the hymeneal blood was not released during the first time the couple engaged in relations and bleeding was discovered after subsequent relations. she is impure. When the bleeding ceases, she must count seven \"spotless\" days [before immersing herself].", + "Moreover, whenever a girl is asked to marry and consents, she must count seven \"spotless\" days after she consents to marry.18The day after she consents is the first of these seven days. If she becomes engaged and there is a considerable time between the engagement and the marriage, the days are counted from the time wedding preparations are made in earnest (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 192:1-2). Afterwards, [she immerses and] becomes permitted to her husband.19This stringency applies to a young girl who never menstruated or an older girl who already experienced seven \"spotless\" days after her last menstruation. [The rationale is that] she might have desired a man and released a drop [of blood] without being aware of it. Whether she is a mature woman or a minor, she must wait seven \"spotless\" days after she consents to marry. Afterwards, she immerses and may engage in relations.", + "All of these matters are additional stringencies that have been practiced by Jewish women from the era of the Sages of the Talmud [onward]. One should never deviate from it. Therefore every women who consents when asked to marry should not marry until she counts [these days] and immerses herself. If she marries a Torah scholar, she may marry immediately and then count after marriage and immerse. [The rationale is that] a Torah scholar will know that she is forbidden and observe [the restriction]. He will not approach her until she immerses.20The Kessef Mishneh and the Maggid Mishneh maintain that the Rambam would agree that not only relations, but also remaining alone with one's wife is forbidden in this situation. The Ra'avad and the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 192) infer that the Rambam is not paying heed to this prohibition. Hence, they differ with his ruling.", + "The laws applying to [the discovery of] stains in the present era [follow the principles] we explained.21In Chapter 9. There is no innovation in this regard, nor are there any [new] customs. Instead, any stain which we ruled was pure, is considered pure. And when [a woman discovers] any of the stains which we ruled were impure - [even] if the stain was not of the size that would generate concern for zivut - she must count seven [\"spotless\"] days, after the day of the discovery of the stain. For the discovery of a stain is not identical with the discovery of bleeding.22The Rambam is saying that for a stain a woman is not required to make a hefsek taharah or count seven days. Instead, it is sufficient for her to count six \"spotless\" days as described in Halachah 3 and notes. For as he explains, the discovery of a stain is not the same as the discovery of bleeding.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the laws applying to the discovery of bleeding also apply with regard to the discovery of a stain. The Maggid Mishneh offers theoretical support for the Rambam's approach, but states that since other Rishonim follow the Ra'avad's view, we should be stringent and accept it. This opinion is followed by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3, 190:1).", + "All the statements we made concerning a woman who miscarried [and discharged a creature that does not resemble a human fetus]23See Chapter 5, Halachah 15; Chapter 10, Halachah 8. and [hence] is pure also apply in the present age.24The Rambam maintains that the Rabbis did not issue a decree concerning such a situation, nor was this included in the stringency which Jewish women accepted upon themselves. The Ra'avad differs, explaining that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable concerning the distinctions between the forms which our Sages made. Hence, because of the doubt, we rule that a woman is impure after any miscarriage.
In this instance as well, the Ra'avad's view is accepted by the Ramban and the Rashba and is cited as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3).
Similarly, when a woman discovers a white or green blood-like secretion25See Chapter 5, Halachah 6. This ruling is accepted by all authorities. or if she discharges a red mass of flesh that is not accompanied by bleeding,26See Chapter 5, Halachah 13. This ruling is also disputed by the Ra'avad and other Rishonim. For they maintain that it is impossible for the uterus to open without there being any bleeding. This view is accepted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:2). she is pure even in the present age. For the stringency involves only one who discovers impure bleeding and the above are not considered as impure bleeding.", + "Similarly, if she had a wound from which blood was flowing27See Chapter 4, Halachah 20. or blood was released with her urine,28See Chapter 5, Halachah 17. Other Rabbis also do not require stringency with regard to these matters in the present age. she is pure. Innovations [in practice] were made only with regard to all women who discover impure bleeding as explained [above] and also that all different shades of blood are considered impure.29As stated in Halachah 3, the later Rabbis felt incapable of distinguishing between different shades of red as the Sages of the Talmud were capable of doing.", + "In certain places, the practice is that a woman must consider herself a niddah for seven days even though her bleeding lasted only one day. [Then] after these seven, she must count seven \"spotless\" days. This is not a [proper] custom.30The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 196:11) also mentions the practice cited by the Rambam. He also negates it saying: \"There is no reason for the practice. A person who is lenient earns a reward and hastens his [involvement in] the mitzvah.\" Instead, it is an error on the part of the one who ruled in this manner and is not worthy of being given any consideration.31Although the halachic authorities are unanimous in their support of the Rambam's ruling. The custom he quotes has a Rabbinic source in Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Metzora, sec. 7. Instead, [the law is that if a woman experiences] one day of menstrual bleeding, she should count seven \"spotless\" days afterwards and immerse on the night [following] the eighth day,32The Rama (loc. cit.) mentions that the Ashkenazic custom is not to begin counting seven until the fifth day after the woman discovered menstrual bleeding. which is the second day after her [\"days of] niddah.\" She is [then] permitted to her husband.", + "Similarly, in certain places, the practice is - and support for this is found in the responsa of some of the Geonim - for a woman who gives birth to a male not to engage in relations until the conclusion of forty days and for one who gives birth to a female [to refrain] until after eighty days33By this practice, they distort the meaning of Leviticus, ch. 12, as interpreted in Chapter 4, Halachah 5. even though they discovered bleeding only during the [first] seven days. This is not a [proper] custom. Instead, these responsa are in error and indeed [the observance of this practice] in these places is of a heretical nature.34For as indicated by the association with the Sadducees, they undermine the authority of the Oral Law. They learned this interpretation from the Sadducees.35A deviant sect which tried to sway our people from Jewish practice by denying the authority of the Oral Law. It is a mitzvah to compel [these people] to remove [this improper custom] from their hearts and to return them to [the observance of] the words of the Sages who require only the counting of seven \"spotless\" days as explained.", + "A woman does not ascend from her state of ritual impurity and cease being considered as an ervah until she immerses herself in a mikveh that is halachicly acceptable while there are no substances intervening between her flesh and the water.36For an immersion can be disqualified when there are substances intervening between one's flesh and the waters of a mikveh. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:7 and the laws that follow. In Hilchot Mikveot, we will explain what defines a mikveh as acceptable and what disqualifies it, the manner in which one should immerse, and the laws concerning intervening substances.
If, by contrast, she washes in a bath - even if all the water in the world passes over her - her state is the same after washing as before washing [and a man who engages in relations with her is liable] for kereit. For there is no way of ascending from a state of ritual impurity to one of purity except through immersing in the waters of a mikveh, a spring, or a sea which is like a spring, as will be explained in Hilchot Mikveot.", + "In the present age, although the seven \"spotless\" days [are observed only because of] doubt,37As explained in Halachot 3 and 4 and notes. if a woman immerses herself during them, it is as if she did not immerse herself.38Since a niddah or a zavah does not change her state if she immerses herself before the required time, we apply this same ruling to a woman in the present age. If she immerses herself on the seventh day,39I.e., after sunrise. the immersion is valid even though it is forbidden to do so at the outset, lest one engage in relations on the seventh day after the immersion.40We fear that she may discover uterine bleeding after engaging in relations, but before nightfall, and thus nullify the entire seven \"spotless\" days. In that instance, her immersion is of no consequence. [The rationale is that] she immersed in the appropriate time even were she to have definitely been a zavah.41For according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse at this time, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 11. And if the woman is a niddah, she may certainly immerse according to Scriptural Law, for the time of her impurity has passed.", + "It is forbidden to a person to embrace his wife during these seven \"spotless\" days. [This applies] even if she is clothed and he is clothed.42This and the following restrictions were imposed lest they lead to relations, as the Rambam states in the following halachah. He should not draw close to her, nor touch her, not even with his pinky. He may not eat together with her from the same plate.43The Ra'avad states: \"Our custom is that [they may not eat] even on the same table.\" The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 195:3) quotes the Ra'avad's ruling, but offers the following leniency. One may place an object between the two to make a distinction. The general principle is he must conduct himself with her during the days she is counting as he does in her \"days of niddah.\" For [relations with her] are still punishable by kereit until she immerses herself, as we explained.44In Halachah 16.", + "A niddah may perform any task which a wife would perform for her husband except washing his face, hands, and feet, pouring him a drink, and spreading out his bed in his presence.45Implied is that if he is not present, she may make his bed. Outside his presence, making his bed is a household task. In his presence, it could suggest an invitation for intimacy. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, ch. 195) and commentaries for a further delineation of stringencies that must be observed until a woman purifies herself. [These were forbidden as] decrees, lest they come to sin.46I.e., relations.
For this reason, she should not eat with him from the same plate, nor should he touch her flesh, lest this lead to sin. Similarly, she should not perform these three tasks for him during her seven \"spotless\" days. It is permitted for a woman to adorn herself during her \"days of niddah,\" so that she does not become unattractive to her husband." + ], + [ + "When a Jew engages in relations with a woman from other nations, [taking her] as his spouse or a Jewess engages in relations with a non-Jew as his spouse, they are punished by lashes, according to Scriptural Law.1Licentious relations with a gentile man or woman are not included in the scope of this Scriptural prohibition, as stated in the following halachah. As [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: \"You shall not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son.\"
This prohibition applies equally to [individuals from] the seven [Canaanite] nations and all other gentiles.2Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam, explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam's opinion has a source in the Sheiltot D'Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the verse cited by the Rambam: \"For he shall sway your son away.\" Kiddushin 68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the verse and thus including all those who might sway a person's heart. Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this perspective. This was explicitly stated in Ezra3Although the verse is contained in the Book of Nechemiah, the Rambam considers Ezra and Nechemiah as one book. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. Similarly, Sanhedrin 93b states that none of the books of the Tanach are named after Nechemiah.
The verse cited by the Rambam is part of the oath taken by the people to remain true to their faith upon their return to Zion. At that time, the gentiles living in the land were not Canaanites. [Nechemiah 10:31]: \"That we will not give our daughters to the gentiles in the land and that we will not take their daughters for our sons.\"", + "The Scriptural prohibition applies only to marital relations.4The Tur, loc. cit., differs with the Rambam concerning this point as well, stating that there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and non-Jew. When, by contrast, one engages in relations with a gentile woman with a licentious intent, he is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" according to Rabbinic Law. [This is a] decree, lest this lead to marriage.
If [a Jew] designates [a gentile woman] for licentious relations, he is liable for relations with a niddah, a maid-servant, a gentile woman, and a licentious woman.5This was a decree passed by the court of the Hasmoneans when they saw that the Jews were sharing intimacy with Greek women (Avodah Zarah 36b). The transgressor is given stripes several times, once for each of the Rabbinic prohibitions he ignored. If he did not designate her for himself, but instead, [engage in relations with her] spontaneously, he is only liable for relations with a gentile woman. All of these liabilities are Rabbinic in origin.6According to Scriptural Law, if a Jew engages in relations with a gentile woman in public \"the zealot may strike him,\" as stated in Halachah 4. The Hasmoneon's decree, however, applies even when relations were carried out in private.", + "When does the above apply? When the man who engaged in relations was an Israelite. If, however, a priest engages in relations with a gentile woman, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, because of the prohibition against relations with a zonah.7The term zonah is generally translated as \"prostitute.\" It has, however, a precise halachic definition, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1. [This prohibition applies] both to a non-Jewish zonah and a Jewish one. He receives lashes for relations alone, for he cannot consecrate her.8Note the contrast to the laws applying to a Jewish zonah, as mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 2.", + "Whenever a man has relations with a gentile woman in public, i.e., the relations are carried out in the presence of ten or more Jews, if a zealous person strikes him and kills him, he is considered praiseworthy and ardent.9The Ra'avad rules that the zealous person must warn the transgressor before striking him. The Maggid Mishneh states that the concept of a warning is relevant only with regard to execution by the court and not to the independent actions taken by a zealous person. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 425:4) quotes the Ra'avad's view. [This applies whether the relations were] in the context of marriage or licentious in nature. This matter is a halachah conveyed to Moshe at Sinai.10I.e., a law which is not commanded by the Written Torah, yet communicated by the Oral Tradition. Support for this can be derived from Pinchas' slaying of Zimri.11As Numbers, ch. 25 relates, the Jews began worshiping idols, because they were lured to by Midianite women. Enraged Moses commanded that the worshipers be executed. Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, took a Midianite woman and confronted Moses, engaging in relations before him. When Pinchas saw this, he slew Zimri, giving expression to the law mentioned by the Rambam.", + "The zealous person can strike [the fornicators] only at the time of relations, as was the case with regard to Zimri, as [Numbers 25:8] states: \"[He pierced] the woman into her stomach.\"12Our Sages relate that Pinchas' javelin went through Zimri's back and into her gut, killing them both in the midst of relations. If, however, [the transgressor] withdraws,13Even if he transgressed already. he should not be slain. Indeed, if [the zealous person] slays him, he may be executed [as a murderer].14Needless to say, a warning must be given and two acceptable witnesses must observe the slaying.
If the zealous person comes to ask permission from the court to slay him, they do not instruct him [to],15The initiative to slay the transgressor must be totally that of the zealous person. For the court has no obligation - and there no license - to exact such punishment. even if this takes place at the time [of relations]. Not only that, if the zealous person comes to kill the transgressor and he withdraws and kills the zealous person in order to save himself, the transgressor is not executed for killing him.16For the zealous person is considered as a rodef, pursuer, whom the intended victim has the right to slay, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 1.
When a Jew has relations with the daughter of a resident alien,17As explained in Chapter 14, Halachah 7, this refers to a non-Jew who accepted the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 9:6), the Rambam states that the woman herself - not only her father - must not be an idolater. the zealot may not strike him. [The transgressor] should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "If the zealot did not strike him, nor did he receive stripes from the court,18The Maggid Mishneh writes that if he was given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" by the court, he is no longer liable for kereit. Our Sages (Makkot 23b) state a similar concept with regard to a person who receives lashes for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition. The Rambam extends the idea to include a person who is punished on the basis of Rabbinic decree. his punishment is explicitly stated in the words of the prophetic tradition. He is liable for karet,19This applies even if relations are conducted in private. as [Malachi 2:11-12] states: \"Judah desecrated that which is sacred to God, [by] loving and engaging in relations with the daughter of a foreign god. May God cut off from a man who does this any progeny and descendant.\" [Implied is]20As interpreted by Yevamot 22b, 23a. that if he is an Israelite, he will not have progeny among the wise who will raise issues, nor a descendant among the scholars who will respond. If he is a priest, he will not have [a descendant] who \"presents an offering to the Lord of Hosts.\" Thus you have learned that a person who shares intimacy with a gentile woman is considered as if he married a false deity, as the verse states: \"engaging in relations with the daughter of a foreign god.\" And he is called one who \"desecrated that which is sacred to God.\"", + "Although this transgression is not punishable by execution by the court, it should not be regarded lightly, for it leads to a detriment that has no parallel among all the other forbidden sexual relations. For a child conceived from any other forbidden sexual union, is [the father's] son with regard to all matters and is considered a member of the Jewish people, even if he is a mamzer.21Indeed, Horiot 13a states that a mamzer who is a scholar receives precedence over a High Priest who is unlearned. A son conceived by a gentile woman, by contrast, is not considered his son. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 7:4:] \"For he shall sway your son away from following Me.\" She turns him away from being one of those who follow God.", + "This matter causes one to cling to the gentile nations from whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has separated us, and to turn away from following God and to betray Him.", + "When a gentile engages in relations with a Jewish woman, if she is married, he should be executed.22For the gentiles are prohibited against adultery. If she is single, he is not executed.", + "If, by contrast, a Jewish male enters into relations with a gentile woman, when he does so intentionally, she should be executed.23Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who questions the source for the Rambam's ruling, arguing that the passage from Numbers cannot be interpreted as definitive proof. She is executed because she caused a Jew to be involved in an unseemly transgression, as [is the law with regard to] an animal.24See Chapter 1, Halachot 16-18. [This applies regardless of] whether the gentile women was a minor of three years of age,25If, however, she is younger than three, the relations are not considered significant. or an adult, whether she was single or married. And it applies even if [the Jew] was a minor of nine years old, [she is executed].26From that age onward, sexual relations in which he engages are significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
This [punishment] is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, as [Numbers 31:16-17] states: \"Behold they were [involved] with the children of Israel according to the advice of Balaamו.27Who advised the Midianites and the Moabites to have their women seduce Jewish men to provoke God's wrath. Execute any woman fit to know a man through lying with a male.\"", + "Servants that have been immersed for the sake of servitude and accepted the mitzvot in which servants are obligated,28See Chapter 14, Halachah 9. have departed from the category of gentiles, but have yet to enter the category of Jews. For this reason, a maidservant is forbidden29I.e., the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, as indicated by the conclusion of this halachah and the following halachot. to a free Jew. [This applies to] both one's own maid-servant and a maid-servant belonging to a colleague.
When a person enters into relations with a maid-servant, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by the Rabbis.30And not lashes, as is the punishment for the violation of a Scriptural commandment. [It is obvious that a Scriptural prohibition is not involved,] for it is explicitly stated in the Torah that a master may give a Hebrew servant a Canaanite maid-servant31Were there to be a Scriptural prohibition involved, it would not be relaxed in the case of a servant. [for the sake of relations]32So that the offspring will be the master's. and that she is permitted to him, as [Exodus 21:4] states: \"If his master will give him a wife.\"", + "The Sages did not issue a decree with regard to this matter,33Forbidding such relations to a Hebrew servant (Ma'aseh Rokeach). nor did the Torah require that lashes be given for [relations with] a maid-servant unless she was designated for a [Jewish] man, as we explained.34Chapter 3, Halachah 13.", + "This transgression should not be light in one's eyes, because it does not involve lashes according to Scriptural Law. For this [act] also causes the son to be turned away from following God. For a son born of a maid-servant is a servant and is not a [full] member of Israel. Thus he causes [Israel's] holy seed to be profaned and produce servants. Behold Onkelos the translator35Who composed the standard Aramaic translation of the Torah. included relations with a servant and a maid-servant in [the prohibitions, Deuteronomy 23:18]: \"There shall not be a promiscuous man and there shall not be a promiscuous woman.\"36The Rambam does not fully accept the view of Onkelos. For Onkelos defines the scope of the Biblical prohibition as including these relations and the Rambam does not, as evident from the fact that the Rambam does not consider these relations as punishable by lashes. (The Rambam also has a different conception of the prohibition of relations with \"a promiscuous woman\"; see Hilchot Ishut 1:4.) Nevertheless, the Rambam uses the view of Onkelos as support for his condemnation of this act (Mayim Chayim; see also Beit Shmuel 16:6).", + "When a person engages in relations with a maid-servant, even in public, a zealous person may not strike him, not even at the time of the transgression.37In contrast to relations with a gentile woman (Halachah 4). Similarly, if one marries a maid-servant,38In contrast to marriage to a gentile woman (Halachah 1). he does not receive lashes according to Scriptural Law. For from the time she immersed and accepted the mitzvot, she departed from the category of gentiles.", + "If [the identity of] a Jewish child becomes confused with that of the child of a maid-servant, the status of both [children] is doubtful.39When explaining this possibility the Talmud gives the example of women who gave birth together in a cave. Today, unfortunately, such confusion has happened in hospitals. Each of them is considered as possibly a servant. [Hence] we compel the owner of the maid-servant to free them both.40Otherwise, because of the doubt, neither of the children would be able to marry. They could not marry a Jewess, for perhaps they were servants, nor a maid-servant, for perhaps they were Jews (compare to Hilchot Avadim 7:7). If [the owner died and] the son [whose identity was confused] is the [only] son of the servant's master, when they come of age, they should free each other.41Since we do not know which is the servant and which is the master, they must both free each other. And thus the servant will certainly have been freed by the master.
Before they reach adulthood, however, it is impossible for one to free the other, because a minor may not free a servant. Then they will be permitted to marry within the Jewish people.", + "If the children whose identities were confused were female, they are both considered as possibly a maid-servant. If a person enters into relations with either of them, the offspring is considered as a servant because of the doubt.42In this instance, the Rambam does not say that the owner must free the offspring, because there is no obligation for a woman to marry and bear children. Compare to Hilchot Avadim, loc. cit.; see Maggid Mishneh, Beit Shmuel 16:7. The master may not, however, compel either of them to work. For they both can require him to prove his claims.
Similarly, if the identity of a gentile child becomes confused with that of a Jewish child, we immerse both of them as converts and they are both considered as possibly a convert.43Thus they are forbidden to marry a priest, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 3 (Maggid Mishneh).", + "Whenever any of the gentiles convert and accept all of the mitzvot in the Torah44As described in Chapter 13. or a servant is freed,45At which time his conversion process is completed. they are considered as Jews with regard to all matters,46I.e., there is no difference between a convert and a native Israelite with regard to any matter of Jewish observance. as [Numbers 15:15] states: \"For the community: there will be one law [for you and the convert].\" A convert may marry within the Jewish community immediately, i.e., a male convert or freed servant may marry a native-born Jewess and an Israelite47But not a priest (Maaseh Rokeach). may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant.
There are four nations from which [converts] are exceptions: Ammon, Moab, Egypt, and Edom. When a person from one of these nations converts, he is like an Israelite with regard to all matters with the exception of marriage within the Jewish community.", + "What are the laws that apply to them [in that context]? It is forbidden to marry an Ammonite and a Moabite forever. This applies to the males and not the females,48The rationale for this leniency is explained as follows. The Torah explains the reason for this prohibition: \"Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the way.\" Now it is not appropriate for women to greet travelers with food. Hence, since the sin does not apply with regard to women - the consequence of it - the prohibition against marrying into the Jewish people also does not apply with regard to them. as [Deuteronomy 23:4] states: \"An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of God.\" It is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai that it is a male Ammonite and a male Moabite who are forbidden to marry a native-born Israelite forever,49They may, however, marry women who converted to Judaism or freed maid-servants. Shaar HaMelech also states that these individuals may even marry maid-servants who were not yet freed. [including] even their son's grandson forever. An Ammonite woman and a Moabite woman are, by contrast, permitted immediately50Indeed, Ruth the maternal ancestor of King David - and ultimately of Mashiach - was a female Moabite convert. Initially, and indeed for several generations, there were questions whether she and her descendants were allowed to marry within the Jewish. Ultimately, however, the ruling stated by the Rambam was accepted throughout the Jewish community. See Yevamot 76b. as are [converts] from other nations.", + "An Egyptian and an Edomite convert - both a male and a female - are forbidden to marry among the Jewish people for the first and second generations. The third generation, however, is permitted, as [ibid.:9] states: \"Children who are born to them [may enter the congregation of God in the third generation].\"", + "When a female Egyptian converts while she is pregnant, her son is considered a second [generation Egyptian convert]. When a second [generation] Egyptian male [convert] marries a first [generation] Egyptian female [convert] or a first [generation] Egyptian male [convert] marries a second [generation] Egyptian female [convert], the child is considered a second generation [convert].51Rashi differs and maintains that the child's status depends on that of its mother. Thus if the mother is a second generation Egyptian convert, the child is a third generation convert and is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:4) quotes both views. [This is derived from the phrase]: \"Children who are born to them.\"52The Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is that everyone knows that birth involves both a man and a woman. Hence the child must be the third generation from both of the male and the female. The verse made the matter dependent on birth.", + "When a male Ammonite convert marries a female Egyptian,53Who has converted. the offspring are considered as Ammonites.54The Maggid Mishneh refers to Yevamot 78b and maintains that this ruling applies only when the offspring are male. If they are female, they are not considered as Ammonites (and hence, permitted). Instead, they are considered as Egyptian and forbidden for three generations, i.e., we follow the greater blemish. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:7). When a male Egyptian convert marries a female Ammonite, the offspring are considered as Egyptians.55This also can be considered as applying only when the offspring are male. If they are female, some opinions considered them as permitted (as a female Ammonite) and others as Egyptian [Rama (Even HaEzer, loc. cit.)]. This is the general principle: Among gentiles, the identity [of the offspring] is determined by the male. Once they convert, [the offspring] is given the identity that is of the lowest status.", + "A person from the seven [Canaanite] nations who converts is not forbidden to marry among the Jewish people according to Scriptural Law.56This ruling depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the prohibition: \"You shall not intermarry with them\" mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. As explained, according to the Rambam, the verse applies to all gentiles, not only Canaanites, and only before they convert. Once they convert, all gentiles - except the four nations mentioned in the previous halachot - may marry freely among the Jewish people.
The other authorities, by contrast, maintain that the prohibition applies to the Canaanite nations alone and after conversion. Otherwise, they maintain, it is unnecessary, for there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. It is known that of them, only the Gibeonites converted.57Note Joshua, ch. 9, which relates how the Gibeonites deceived the Jewish people and established a covenant with them. Joshua decreed that they be forbidden to marry among the Jewish people,58Because of the deception they perpetrated. both males and females.
He instituted this prohibition only during the time a Sanctuary is standing, as [Joshua 9:23] states: \"[You shall be] wood-choppers and water-drawers for the house of my God.\" He made their ban dependent on the Sanctuary.", + "They are called Netinim, \"the designated ones,\" for they were designated for the service in the Sanctuary. David came and decreed that they should never be allowed to marry among the Jewish people, even at a time when the Sanctuary is no longer standing. This is explicitly stated in Ezra [8:20]: \"From the Netinim whom David and the officers designated for the service of the Levites.\" From this, we see that he did not make the matter dependent on the Sanctuary.59For the narrative in Ezra speaks of a time when the Temple had already been destroyed.", + "Why did David and his court pass this decree against them? Because he saw that they were characterized by brazenness and cruelty. For they asked to kill and hang the seven sons of Saul, God's chosen one,60As related in II Samuel, ch. 21, there was a famine for three years in Eretz Yisrael. Through prophetic vision, David learned that the reason for the famine was Saul's oppression of the Gibeonites (exactly what Saul did to oppress them is a matter of discussion among the Rabbis). David asked the Gibeonites what they desired to be appeased for this oppression. They answered that they wanted to slay seven of his descendants. David handed over seven of Saul's descendants to them and they hung them and left their corpses on the gallows. For this act of cruelty, David decreed that they should never marry among the Jewish people. For Israel should be characterized by kindness and mercy. See Chapter 19, Halachah 17, which further develops this theme. and they did not have mercy upon them.", + "When Sannecherib, King of Assyria, arose, he confused the identity of all the nations, mixing them together, and exiling them from their place.61I.e., in order to thwart the possibility of local peoples organizing rebellions against him, Sannecherib destroyed the national identity of people by exiling them from their native lands and forcing them to intermingle with other peoples. The Egyptians that live in the land of Egypt at present are of other nationalities. This also applies with regard to the Edomites in the field of Edom.
Since these four forbidden nations became intermingled with all the nations of the world [with] whom it is permitted [to marry once they convert], all [converts] are permitted. For when anyone of them separates himself [from them by] converting, we operate under the presumption that he became separate from the majority.62This principle applies in many instances when forbidden and permitted substances or individuals become mixed together. See for example, Yoma 84b, Zevachim 73a,b. Therefore in the present age, in all places, whenever a convert converts, whether he be an Edomite, an Egyptian, an Ammonite, a Moabite, a Kushite, or from any of the other nations, whether male or female, he or she is permitted to marry among the Jewish people immediately.63The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:10) quotes this ruling, but states that according to the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, Sannecherib did not succeed in erasing the identity of the Egyptians and the prohibition against marrying their converts still applies." + ], + [ + "Israel entered the covenant [with God]1Tosafot, Keritot 9a, refer to this as the covenant which separated the Jews from the other nations. The Rambam is emphasizing that all of these acts where performed in preparation for the Giving of the Torah when the covenant took effect. with three acts: circumcision, immersion, and offering a sacrifice.", + "Circumcision took place in Egypt, [before the Paschal sacrifice, of which Exodus 12:48] says: \"No uncircumcised person shall partake of it.\" Moses our teacher circumcised [the people]. For with the exception of the tribe of Levi, the entire [people] neglected the covenant of circumcision in Egypt.2See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3 which describes the extent of the Jews' assimilation in Egypt. Regarding this, [Deuteronomy 33:9 praises the Levites,] saying: \"They upheld Your covenant.\"", + "Immersion was performed in the desert before the Giving of the Torah, as [Exodus 19:10] states: \"Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and have them wash their garments.\" Sacrifices [were also offered then], as [ibid. 24:5] states: \"And he sent out the youth of the children of Israel and they brought burnt offerings.\" They offered them as agents of the entire Jewish people.", + "Similarly, for [all] future generations, when a gentile desires to enter into the covenant, take shelter under the wings of the Divine presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah,3Implied is that together with these ritual acts, the gentile must also accept the yoke of Jewish observance. As Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:3) emphasizes this is a fundamental element of the conversion process. he must undergo circumcision,4If he had been circumcised as a gentile, a small amount of blood must be drawn from him for the sake of conversion [Chapter 14, Halachah 5; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:1)]. immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice. A woman [who converts] must undergo immersion and bring a sacrifice, as [Numbers 15:15] states: \"As it is for you, so shall it be for the convert.\" Just as you [entered the covenant] with circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice; so, too, for future generations, a convert must undergo circumcision, immersion, and must bring a sacrifice.", + "What is the sacrifice that a convert [is required to bring]? A burnt offering of an animal or two turtle-doves or two fledging doves. Both of [the doves] must be brought as burnt offerings.5In contrast to other situations when a pair of such doves are offered and one is brought as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. In the present age, when there are no sacrifices,6For the Temple is destroyed. [a convert] must undergo circumcision and immersion.7The Rambam mentions the two acts in the desired order: circumcision and then, immersion. Nevertheless, if a convert immerses before circumcision, there is a difference of opinion among the later Rabbis if the immersion is acceptable or not [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 268:1)]. Hence he should immerse again because of the doubt (Siftei Cohen 268:2). When the Temple is rebuilt, he must bring a sacrifice.8Yevamot 46a quotes an opinion which requires the convert to actually set aside the money. The Talmud's conclusion, however, is that it would be undesirable to do so, lest the funds be used for other purposes which is a transgression.
It must be emphasized that even before the convert brings a sacrifice, he is considered as a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.", + "When a convert is circumcised, but does not immerse himself, or immerses himself, but was not circumcised, he is not considered a convert until he perform both of these activities. He must immerse himself in the presence of three men.9Numbers 15:16 states: \"There will be one judgment for you and the convert.\" Since the verse uses the term judgment, Yevamot 46b states that like in a judgment, three judges are necessary.
There are opinions that emphasize that this is merely an asmachta, a Rabbinic ruling that uses a Biblical verse as a support. Kin'at Eliyahu explains the rationale for this view. Were the concept to have its source in Scriptural Law, judges possessing semichah, the unique ordination that ceased in the Talmudic era, would be required and thus it would be impossible to accept converts in the present age. Since a court is required, he may not immerse on the Sabbath or on festivals, or during the night.10For a court does not hold sessions at these times. Another reason why the immersion should not be performed at this time is that it amends the person's state, and that is not permitted on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the Rambam considers the first rationale of primary importance (Kessef Mishneh). If, however, they had him immerse [at night], he is a convert.11The Rashba explains that a legal case that is begun during the day may be completed at night. Hence, the convert's immersion may also be accepted at night.", + "We immerse a minor who seeks to convert based upon the guidance of the court.12Conversion, a change in status, must be brought about through a conscious decision by the convert. A minor is not considered as able to make mature decisions and is not held responsible for his conduct. Therefore he cannot make the decision to convert. Nevertheless, the Jewish court makes this decision on his behalf.
The converted child, however, has the option of refuting the conversion when he comes of age. If he protests his conversion at that time, he is considered a gentile and need not observe the mitzvot. If, however, he accepts his conversion when he comes of age, but regrets afterwards, he is bound by his original decision. For it is an advantage for a person [to convert].13A person cannot act on another person's behalf unless it is considered to his benefit, but our Sages consider becoming part of the Jewish people a benefit sufficient enough to justify their actions. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although the Torah and its mitzvot compel a person to restrain his conduct, as long as he is young and has not become habituated to forbidden conduct, he will be able to accommodate himself to the Torah's guidelines. When a pregnant woman converts and immerses herself, her child does not require immersion.14For the fetus is considered as part of her body and her immersion is sufficient for the fetus as well.
When [a convert] immerses himself alone and converts alone - or even if he does this in the presence of two persons15For two people do not constitute a court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:10). - his conversion is not valid.16For as mentioned in the previous halachah, three judges must be present.
The Rambam's perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Rabbenu Asher maintains that the requirement applies only at the outset. After the fact, even if a gentile circumcised himself and immersed on his own, the immersion is acceptable, provided he accepted the mitzvot in the presence of three Jews. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:3) mentions both opinions, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher. If he comes and says: \"I converted in the court of so-and-so and they had me immerse,\" his word is not accepted with regard to license to marry among the Jewish people17As indicated by Halachah 10, this refers to a situation where previously, we know that the person was a gentile. If not, different laws apply. In all instances, the person must observe the mitzvot because of his statements. We, however, do not rely on his word alone with regard to marriage. unless he brings witnesses [who testify to the truth of his statements].", + "[The following rules apply if] he was married to a native-born Jewess or a convert and he already fathered children. If he says: \"I converted alone,\" his word is accepted with regard to the disqualification of his self,18And he is not allowed to continue living with his wife until he performs the conversion rites again.
The Siftei Cohen 268:22 quotes Rabbenu Asher who rules that his statements are of no consequence whatsoever. For example, if he enters into relations with a married Jewish women. If he was a gentile, the woman would be able to continue living with her husband, but if he was Jewish (i.e., his conversion was acceptable), the relations are considered as adulterous and she is forbidden. According to Rabbenu Asher, his word is not accepted and she is not forbidden. but not with regard to the disqualification of his children.19The Maggid Mishneh questions how is it possible to disqualify his children. Even if he was indeed a gentile, the children would be Jewish. He explains that there is a halachic difference in a situation where both the parents converted privately. In that instance, were we to disqualify the children because of their statements, there would be a change in status. He must immerse himself again in the presence of a court.20Rabbi Akiva Eiger adds that according to the Rambam, he must also have blood drawn from his male organ as is the case of a convert who was circumcised while a gentile.", + "[The following laws apply with regard to] a female convert who we see conduct herself according to the ways of Israel at all times, for example, she immerses herself after being a niddah,21According to the authorities that, after the fact. do not require a convert's immersion to be performed in the presence of a court, this immersion also could serve as the immersion for the sake of conversion. she separates terumah from dough, or the like, and to a male convert who follows the paths of Israel, for example, he immerses himself after a seminal emission, and performs all the mitzvot. These are considered as righteous converts even though there are no witnesses to testify before whom they converted. Nevertheless, if they come to marry among the Jewish people, we do not allow them unless they bring witnesses or they immerse themselves in our presence. The rationale is that their identity was originally established as gentiles.", + "If, however, a person comes and says that he was a gentile, but that he was converted by a court, his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] the mouth that forbade him was the same that permitted him.22I.e., we knew nothing of the person's identity before he came before us. He was the one who raised the doubt whether he was Jewish - by saying that he was a convert - and he resolved it - by saying that he converted in a proper court. This follows the principle of miggo, if he desired to lie, he could have told a more effective lie, saying that he was a native-born Israelite.
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael in the Talmudic era. For [at that time,] all the people there could be assumed to be Jewish. In the Diaspora, however, he must bring proof of his conversion.23The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining that there are two Talmudic opinions: one that accepts the convert's word both in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora and one that requires him to bring proof in both places. Similarly, the Ramban and the Rashba differ and maintain that the convert's word is accepted in all places. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:10) mentions the Rambam's view, but appears to follow that of the Ramban and the Rashba. Today the custom is for a court to be careful and investigate a convert's conversion before allowing him to marry among the Jewish people. [Only] afterwards may he marry a Jewess. I say that this is an additional stringency adopted to protect the purity of our lineage.", + "Just as we circumcise and immerse converts; so, too, we circumcise and immerse servants which are acquired from the gentiles for the sake of servitude.24For becoming a servant is also a change of status, causing the servant to depart from the status of a gentile, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 11.
When a person acquires a servant from the gentiles and the gentile takes the initiative and immerses with the intent of becoming a free man, he acquires his own person,25Yevamot 45b-46a explains the rationale for this law: The gentile owner who sold the servant does not own his physical person in the same manner as a Jew does. That ownership is a new factor established through immersion. Hence, if the servant takes the initiative, he can avoid being acquired. provided he says while immersing: \"Behold I am immersing before you for the sake of conversion.\" If he immerses himself in the presence of his master, he does not have to make an explicit statement.26For taking this independent act in the presence of his master is considered as if he made an explicit statement. Instead, since he immersed himself, he attains his freedom.27He must, however, reimburse the master for his value [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 267:9)].
For this reason, [when having the servant immerse,] the master must push him into the water28By manifesting his control over him in this manner, he emphasizes that he is acquiring him as a servant. until he arises at which time he is in his servitude. He must tell him that he is having him immerse for the sake of servitude in the presence of the judges. A servant must also immerse only in the presence of three judges and during the day as a convert, for it is a partial conversion.", + "When a servant is freed, he must immerse himself a second time29The Maggid Mishneh cites views that maintain that this immersion is Rabbinic in origin. Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Tosafot who emphasize that it is a Scriptural requirement. in the presence of three men during the day,30As required of a convert (Halachah 6). for through this act, his conversion is completed and [his status] becomes that of a Jew. It is not necessary for him to accept the mitzvot and [for the judges] to inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, for they already informed him when he immersed himself for the sake of servitude.31See the initial halachot of the following chapter which describe the manner in which a gentile and a servant are informed about the mitzvot.", + "Converts, servants, and freed servants must be immersed in a mikveh that is acceptable for a niddah to immerse in. All of the substances that [disqualify her immersion because] they intervene [between the water and her flesh] disqualify the immersions, of converts, servants, and freed servants.32See Hilchot Mikveot which elaborates at length concerning both concepts mentioned in this halachah: what makes a mikveh acceptable and which substances disqualify an immersion when they intervene between a person's flesh and the water. For this reason, a servant or a convert should trim his nails and hair [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 268:2); see also Siftei Cohen 268:7].", + "One should not think that Samson who saved the Jewish people, and Solomon King of Israel, who is called \"the friend of God,\"33See II Shmuel 12:25, as interpreted by Menachot 53a, et al. married gentile woman who did not convert. Instead, the matter can be explained as follows: The proper way of performing the mitzvah is when a male or a female prospective convert comes, we inspect his motives for conversion. Perhaps he is coming for the sake of financial gain, in order to receive a position of authority,34Tosafot cites the narrative (Shabbat 31a) which relates that a gentile came to Hillel and asked him to convert him on the condition that he become the High Priest. Hillel agreed. Later the convert discovered the error of his ways and accepted Jewish practice genuinely. Tosafot explains that from the outset, Hillel recognized his potential sincerity and therefore accepted him even though originally, his motives were self-oriented. The Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen 268:23 state that Hillel's example may be emulated and the Jewish courts have the prerogative of making a decision to accept a convert even though at the outset, he seeks to convert for ulterior motives. or he desires to enter our faith because of fear. For a man, we check whether he focused his attention on a Jewish woman. For a woman, we check whether she focused her attention on a Jewish youth.
If we find no ulterior motive, we inform them of the heaviness of the yoke of the Torah and the difficulty the common people have in observing it so that they will abandon [their desire].35For as the Rambam continues to explain, a convert's lack of observance could have a negative effect on the entire people. There is no obligation to convert. A gentile who observes the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants is on a very high rung. Hence unless a gentile is motivated by a very sincere commitment, it is preferable for him not to change his status and serve God in his present state. If they accept [this introduction] and do not abandon their resolve and thus we see that they are motivated by love, we accept them, as [indicated by Ruth 1:18]: \"And she saw that she was exerting herself to continue with her and she ceased speaking with her.\"36At first, Naomi tried to dissuade Ruth from converting. When, however, she saw her sincerity, she allowed her to join her. See Chapter 14, Halachah 1, which describes how this concept is applied.", + "For this reason,37I.e., because their motives were not genuine, as the Rambam continues to explain. the court did not accept converts throughout the reign of David and Solomon. In David's time, [they feared] that they sought to convert because of fear and in Solomon's time, [they feared] that they were motivated by the sovereignty, prosperity, and eminence which Israel enjoyed. [They refrained from accepting such converts, because] a gentile who seeks to convert because of the vanities of this [material] world is not a righteous convert.
Nevertheless, there were many people who converted in the presence of ordinary people38I.e., these individuals did not know that the converts should not be accepted. during the era of David and Solomon. The Supreme Sanhedrin would view them with skepticism. Since they immersed themselves, they would not reject them, but they would not draw them close until they saw what the outcome would be.39I.e., would they accept Jewish practice genuinely.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:12) interprets this to mean that the conversion was effective. They are Jews and have all the privileges and responsibilities of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, as an initial and preferred option, our Sages would not allow them to marry within the Jewish people and the like until they had established their sincere commitment to the Torah and its mitzvot.
It must be emphasized that, according to the Shulchan Aruch, we are speaking about people who convert for ulterior motives, but still accept the yoke of the Torah and its mitzvot. When a person \"converts\" without accepting the Torah and its mitzvot at all, the conversion is invalid, even if he becomes circumcised and immerses in a mikveh. For that reason, non-halachic \"conversions\" are unacceptable. See the notes to Halachah 18.", + "Solomon converted women and married them and similarly, Samson converted [women] and married [them]. It is well known that they converted only because of an ulterior motive and that their conversion was not under the guidance of the court. Hence the Tanach40See Judges 14:3, I Kings 11:4. considered it as if they were gentiles and remained forbidden. Moreover, their conduct ultimately revealed their initial intent. For they would worship their false deities and build platforms for them. Therefore the Scriptures considered it as if [Solomon] built them, as [I Kings 11:7] states: \"And then, Solomon built a platform.\"", + "When a court did not check a [potential] converts background and did not inform him of the mitzvot41The Maggid Mishneh states that even if the court does not notify the potential convert of the mitzvot, the conversion is effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:12) when quoting this law, changes the text to \"the reward for the mitzvot,\" implying that the gentile must accept the mitzvot before immersion. As the commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch explain, according to the Shulchan Aruch, if a convert does not accept the observance of mitzvot, the conversion is not acceptable even if he becomes circumcised and immerses. This concept is particularly relevant in the presence age when there are many non-halachic \"conversions.\" and the punishment for [the failure to observe] the mitzvot and he circumcised himself and immersed in the presence of three ordinary people, he is a convert. Even if it is discovered that he converted for an ulterior motive, since he circumcised himself and converted, he has departed from the category of gentiles and we view him with skepticism until his righteousness is revealed.
Even if afterwards, [the convert] worships false deities, he is like an apostate Jew. [If he] consecrates [a woman,] the consecration is valid,42Hence a get (formal bill of divorce) is required before the woman can marry another Jew. and it is a mitzvah to return his lost object.43The basic concept is that a convert who sins is considered as a Jew who sins. Even if he or she commits serious transgressions, the conversion is not revoked. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that if the convert intentionally worships false deities, a lost object that belonged to him is not returned, as indicated by Hilchot Gezeilah ViAvedah 11:2. For since he immersed himself he became a Jew. For this reason,44I.e., because despite their sins, they remained Jewesses. Samson and Solomon maintained their wives even though their inner feelings45I.e., their connection to idolatry. were revealed.", + "For this reason, our Sages said:46Yevamot 47a. It must be emphasized that sincere converts are given the highest praise. In a renowned letter to a convert named Ovadiah, the Rambam states: \"We [i.e., native-born Jews] share a connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Your connection is with the One who spoke and created the world.\" \"Converts are as difficult for the Jewish people to bear as a leprous blemish.\" For most converts convert for an ulterior motive and [later] cause Jews to stray. It is difficult to separate from them once they have converted. Look at what happened in the desert at the worship of the Golden Calf and Kivrot HaTa'avah.47Our Sages explain that in both instances, it was the erev rav, the mixed multitude of converts who accompanied the Jews out of Egypt, who enticed the people to perform these sins. Kivrot HaTa'avah refers to the incident, Numbers, ch. 11, where the people complained because they desired other food in addition to the manna. Similarly, most of [the complaints in the instances when] our people tried God were instigated by the mixed multitude." + ], + [ + "What is the procedure when accepting a righteous convert? When one of the gentiles comes to convert, we inspect his background.1See Chapter 13, Halachah 14. If an ulterior motive for conversion is not found,2See Chapter 13, Halachah 14. we ask him:3The halachah is quoted from Yevamot 47a. As early as the Talmudic era, potential converts were dissuaded in this manner. \"Why did you choose to convert? Don't you know that in the present era, the Jews are afflicted, crushed, subjugated, strained, and suffering comes upon them?\" If he answers: \"I know. Would it be that I be able to be part of them,\"4Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Yevamot, loc. cit. we accept him immediately.", + "We inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, i.e., the unity of God and the prohibition against the worship of false deities. We elaborate on this matter.5Because they are the fundamentals of our faith (Maggid Mishneh). We inform him about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones. We do not elaborate on this matter.6This law, quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 268:2) indicates that even the opinions which require a convert to accept the observance of the mitzvot do not require him to accept all of the mitzvot individually. Instead, he must make a general commitment to confirm to Jewish practice. We inform him of the transgression of [not leaving] leket, shichachah, pe'ah,7These refer to different obligations from the crops that must be left for the poor. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, ch. 1. and the second tithe.8Although this is the version in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah, many manuscripts and early printings state \"the tithe for the poor.\" This fits both the context and the Rambam's source, Yevamot 47a.
These mitzvot are mentioned because the giver has no control over them. When a prospective convert sees that Judaism places such financial obligations upon him, he may regret his choice (Rashi, Yevamot, loc. cit.). And we inform him of the punishment given for [violating] the mitzvot.
What is implied? We tell him: \"Before you came to our faith, if you partook of fat, you were not liable for your soul to be cut off. If you desecrated the Sabbath, you were not liable to be stoned to death. Now, after you convert, if you partake of fat, you are liable for your soul to be cut off. If you desecrate the Sabbath, you are liable to be stoned to death.\"
We do not teach him all the particulars lest this cause him concern and turn him away from a good path to a bad path. For at the outset, we draw a person forth with soft and appealing words, as [Hoshea 11:4] states: \"With cords of man, I drew them forth,\"9This can be interpreted as referring to the warnings concerning the transgressions. and then continues: \"with bonds of love.\"10And this to the encouragement based on the knowledge of the reward for mitzvot.", + "Just as he is informed of the punishment [for disobeying] the commandments; so, too, he is informed about the reward for [their observance]. We tell him that by observing these mitzvot, he will merit the life of the World to Come. For there is no completely righteous man other than a master of wisdom who observes these mitzvot and knows them.", + "We tell him: \"Know that the World to Come is hidden away only for the righteous; they are the Jews.11The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements here noting that in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:5 and other sources, he states that the pious among the gentiles have a share in the World to Come. Among the resolutions offered is that \"All of Israel have a share in the World to Come\" (Sanhedrin 10:1). By virtue of the essential Godliness of the Jewish soul, they are granted a portion in this eternal good. A gentile must, however, earn his portion through his deeds. It is not \"hidden away\" for him. The fact that you see Israel suffering difficulty in this world [reflects] the good that is hidden away for them. For they cannot receive an abundance of good in this world as the gentiles do. For they hearts may become uplifted and they will err and lose the reward of the World to Come, as [Deuteronomy 32:15] states: \"Jeshuron became fat and rebelled.\"12I.e., the outcome of prosperity was not increased observance, but the opposite: rebellion against God's will.", + "The Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring upon them an abundance of retribution solely so that they will not perish. For all the other nations will perish and they will prevail. We elaborate on this concept to make them feel cherished. If [the prospective convert] retracts and does not want to accept [the mitzvot], he goes on his way. If he accepts [their observance], we do not have him wait, but instead circumcise him immediately.13For we do not postpone the performance of a mitzvah. If he was circumcised, we draw the blood of circumcision from him.14I.e., a small wound is made on his male organ to draw blood for the sake of the covenant. The expression \"the blood of the covenant\" is derived from Exodus 24:8. See also Zechariah 9:11. We wait until he heals entirely15For we fear that, otherwise, the immersion might cause the wound to become infected (Rashi, Yevamot 47b).
The commentaries ask: Why don't we have him immerse first and then circumcise himself? In this way, he will not have to delay his conversion any longer. The Ramban (cited by Turei Zahav 268:4) states that we fear that he might refuse to become circumcised. This will be problematic for the immersion will have completed the conversion process. Hence, we have him become circumcised before the conversion is irreversible. and then immerse him.", + "Three [judges] stand over him and inform him about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones a second time while he stands in the water.16Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that since the immersion completes his conversion, the convert must accept the yoke of mitzvot at that time. If the convert was female,17And thus it would be immodest for her to enter the mikveh in the presence of the judges. women position her in the water until her neck while the judges are outside. They inform her about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones while she is sitting in the water. Then she immerses herself in their presence. Afterwards, they turn their faces away and depart so that they will not see her when she ascends from the water.", + "What is meant by a resident alien? A gentile who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other [six] universal laws commanded to Noah's descendants. He does not circumcise himself or immerse. We accept this commitment and he is considered one of the pious gentiles.
Why is he called a resident? Because we are permitted to allow him to dwell among us in Eretz Yisrael, as explained in Hilchot Avodah Zarah.18See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6 which states that in an era when the Jews have undisputed authority over Eretz Yisrael, they may not allow an idolater to dwell in the holy land. Only when a gentile accepts these seven universal laws is he granted this privilege. The rationale for the Rambam's ruling is derived from the prooftext he cites (Exodus 23:33 : \"They shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me.\" Since gentiles may turn into a negative spiritual influence, they should be prevented from dwelling in the land. If, however, a gentile has made a commitment to the observance of these seven laws, he will not lower the moral climate of the land.
As explained by the commentaries to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, the Rambam's opinion is not universally accepted. The Ra'avad interprets the prooftext as referring to the seven Canaanite nations alone. Never, he claims, were other gentiles prohibited from living among us.", + "We accept resident aliens only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed.19The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore when the tribes of Reuven and Gad, and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (this took place approximately 150 years before the destruction of the First Temple), the laws of the Jubilee ceased to be observed according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:8). In the present era, even if a gentile makes a commitment to observe the entire Torah with the exception of one minor point,20The Rambam's source ( Bechorot 30b) states: \"one minor point of Rabbinic Law.\" The commentaries question why the Rambam omits this point. he is not accepted.21As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, loc. cit., in the present era, we accept only full converts. Implied is that in the present era, were we to have the authority, we should prevent gentiles from living in Eretz Yisrael.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, explaining that with regard to certain matters the status of a gentile who accepts the observance of the seven mitzvot in the present age is more severe than that before the revocation of the Jubilee laws and in other matters, it is more lenient. According to his opinion, however, there is no reason why a gentile should be prohibited against living in Eretz Yisrael. In his gloss to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, the Kessef Mishneh states that even the Rambam would agree. For since the gentile is living a moral lifestyle, there is no reason to fear that he will lead a Jew to sin. The Rambam's directive here is directed at the courts. They cannot formalize a resident alien's status in the present age.
In that vein, it must be emphasized that although the concept of a resident alien does not apply in the present age, we are obligated to teach the gentiles the seven universal laws commanded to Noah's descendants, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Melachim 8:10.", + "When a servant is purchased from the gentiles, we do not say: \"Why did you choose to convert?\"22As we tell a prospective convert. We do not make this statement to a servant, for he is not coming to convert on his own volition. Instead, we say to him: \"Do you desire to enter the category of Jewish servants and become one of the observant of them?\" If he agrees, he is informed about the fundamentals of the faith, about some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more severe ones, and the punishments and rewards [associated with them] as we notify a convert. [Then] we immerse him23A male servant is also circumcised before conversion. It is questionable why the Rambam does not mention this point. as we immerse a convert and inform him [of the mitzvot] while he is in the water.
If he does not desire to accept [the status of a servant], we are patient with him for twelve months. Afterwards, we sell him to a gentile. It is forbidden to maintain him for a longer period.24He must be sold to the Diaspora or to a gentile (Hilchot Avadim 8:12). If at the outset, he established a condition that he would not be circumcised or immersed, but instead would be a resident alien, it is permissible to maintain him in that status.25The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 267:4) writes that in the lands where he lived (Central Europe), it was forbidden to convert a gentile to Judaism. Therefore it is taken for granted that the servant was purchased on the condition that his status not be altered. Hence, he may be maintained indefinitely as a gentile. A servant may be maintained in this status only during the era when the Jubilee is observed.", + "The only sexual relations forbidden to a gentile are: his mother, his father's wife, his maternal sister, a married woman, a male, and an animal, as will be explained in Hilchot Melachim UMilchomoteihem.26Hilchot Melachim 9:5. Other relations forbidden the Jews are permitted to them.", + "When a gentile converts or a servant is freed,27See Halachah 17 which emphasizes that even while a servant, a servant need not show concern for these prohibitions. he is like a newborn baby. Any relatives whom he had as a gentile or a servant are no longer considered his relatives. If both he and they convert, he is not obligated for relations with any of them.", + "According to Scriptural Law, a convert may marry his mother or his maternal sister after they convert. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade this so that [the converts] will not say: \"We came from a more severe level of holiness to a less severe one. Yesterday, this [relationship] was forbidden and today, it is permitted.\"28I.e., it would appear that he was bound by more severe prohibitions before conversion.
Similarly, when a convert engages in relations with his mother or his sister when they have not converted, it is considered as if he had relations with a woman with whom he was not related.", + "What is the law that applies to converts with regard to relations with their relatives. As we explained, if one was married while a gentile to his mother or his sister and they converted, we separate them as explained [above]. If he was married to any one of the other forbidden relations and he and his wife converted, they are not forced to separate.29This applies even to maternal relatives. Since they were married before, we do not force them to separate (Siftei Cohen 269:2). We do not fear that these converts will say that they entered a lower level of holiness, because there are relations - a mother and a sister - which they are forbidden. This makes it obvious that the distinction in the laws results from their change in status (Kessef Mishneh).
A convert is forbidden to marry his maternal relatives after they convert according to Rabbinic Law. He may, however, marry his paternal relatives. [This applies] even when he certainly knows that these persons are his paternal relatives,30I.e, one might say that the reason for the prohibition is that one is certain that he is related to his maternal relatives. Those reputed to be his paternal relatives, however, might in fact not be related to him at all, because the man reputed to be his father may not be his parent. For the gentiles are known to be promiscuous. This is not the reason for the leniency. Instead, the Torah does not have any conceptual of paternal lineage with regard to a gentile (Maggid Mishneh). for example, twins, in which instance it is clear that the father of one is the father of the other. Nevertheless, our Sages did not enforce a decree with regard to one's paternal relatives.
Accordingly, a convert may marry the wife of his paternal brother, the wife of his father's brother, his father's wife,31There are opinions which forbid the wife of the convert's father [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De'ah 269:3)]. The Siftei Cohen 269:4 adds that the convert should also refrain from relations with the sister of his father. and his son's wife. [This applies] even if they married his brother, his father, his father's brother, or his son after they converted.32For their conversion is of no consequence in this context. They are considered as having no family ties. Similarly, his mother's paternal sister, his paternal sister, and his daughter who converted are permitted to him. He may not, however, marry his maternal sister, his mother's maternal sister, nor a woman who married his maternal brother after he converted. If, however, a woman married his brother while he was a gentile,33But was never married to the brother according to Jewish Law. she is permitted to him.", + "When two twin brothers were not conceived in a state of holiness, but they were born in a state of holiness,34I.e., they were conceived before their mother converted and born after she converted. each are liable [for relations with the other's wife] because of the prohibition against relations with a brother's wife.35For it is considered as if the two brothers are ordinary Jews and bound by the laws that apply to members of our people. Nevertheless, they may not fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum, for they are not brothers in the complete sense [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 269:4)].", + "When a man marries a female convert and her daughter who converted or two maternal sisters [who converted], he should remain married to one of them and divorce the other.36This is a Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the marriages are valid. Nevertheless, our Rabbis were stringent and forbade this union, for were the women to be native-born Jewesses, this would be forbidden. Hence, formal divorce proceedings are necessary. If he married a female convert and she died, he is permitted to marry her mother or her daughter.37In this instance, as well, were the women to be native-born Jewesses, this would be forbidden. See Siftei Cohen 269:10 which cites opinions that maintain that the Rabbinic prohibition applies after the woman's death as well. For our Sages ordained their decree only during [the woman's] lifetime.
It is permissible for a man to marry two paternal sisters who converted, for our Sages did not ordain any decrees with regard to paternal relations, as explained.38In Halachah 13. Note the contrast to the previous clause which speaks about relations with maternal sisters.", + "[Our Sages] did not ordain any decrees with regard to shniot39This term refers to relatives more distantly removed than those forbidden by Scriptural Law. Relations with them are forbidden by Rabbinic decree, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 8; Hilchot Ishut 1:6. Since the prohibition is a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sage's did not add a further safeguard with regard to a convert. For we do not ordain a safeguard for a safeguard. who convert. Therefore a convert may marry his maternal grandmother. Similarly, a person may marry a convert and the mother of her maternal grandmother40Our translation follows the text of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The Siftei Cohen 269:12 justifies this reading, explaining that relations with a woman's maternal grandmother (the version in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah) is a Scriptural prohibition, not a Rabbinic safeguard. or her and the daughter of her daughter's daughter. Similar laws apply with regard to the remainder of the shniot.", + "A servant is permitted to marry his mother while he is a servant.41I.e., before he is freed. Needless to say, this applies with regard to his daughter, his sister, or the like. [Since] he has already departed from the category of gentiles,42See Chapter 12, Halachah 11. the intimate relations forbidden to the gentiles are not forbidden to him. And [since] he has not entered the category of the Jewish people, the intimate relations that are forbidden to the converts are not yet forbidden to him.", + "It appears to me43This phrase points to a conclusion deduced by the Rambam for which he has no explicit source in previous Rabbinic literature. The Ra'avad, however, considers the concept as blatantly obvious.
The Maggid Mishneh adds that he is also executed for relations with a married Jewish woman and questions why the Rambam does not mention this transgression. that if a servant engages in homosexual or Sodomite relations, they should be executed.44The word \"executed\" is plural. Both men or the man and the animal are executed (Or Sameach). For these two prohibitions are universally applicable.", + "Servants who are freed are like converts. All of the relationships forbidden to converts are forbidden to them and all those permitted to converts are permitted to them.
A person may give his maid-servant to his own servant or to a servant belonging to his colleague. At the outset, he may give one maid-servant to two servants.45I.e., we do not enforce monogamy. Nor must they follow any restrictions. Instead, they are like animals. There is no difference whether a maid-servant is set aside for a servant or not, for there is no concept of marriage except within the Jewish people or among gentiles themselves,46See Hilchot Melachim 9:5. but not among servants themselves or between servants and the Jewish people." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the Torah's prohibition against relations with a mamzer? [The term refers to a person conceived from] a forbidden sexual relationship.1These refer to a variety of incestuous and adulterous relationships as listed in the beginning of this text. A niddah is an exception. A son conceived from such relationships is blemished,2I.e., he has a spiritual taint to his character. but is not a mamzer. When, however, a man enters into any other forbidden sexual relationships, whether through rape, or willingly, whether conscious of the prohibition or not,3The difference between whether relations were willful, forced, or inadvertent is relevant only with regard to the punishment received by the man and woman. The child born of the offspring is considered as a mamzer regardless. This law teaches us an important lesson with regard to sexual morality. The effects of our deeds on our offspring is binding, regardless of whether we repent and/or seek to refine ourselves afterwards. the offspring produced is a mamzer. Both male and female [mamzerim] are forbidden forever, as [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: \"[A mamzer shall not enter God's congregation.] Also the tenth generation...,\" i.e., [the prohibition is] everlasting.", + "When a mamzer marries a Jewish women or a Jewish man marries a female mamzer, once they enter into relations after consecration, they are punished by lashes.4As is the punishment for the violation of any Scriptural commandment. If the man consecrates the woman, but does not enter into relations, he does not receive lashes.5For the consecration alone does not involve the violation of a Scriptural commandment. If they enter into relations without consecration, they6Here the Rambam mentions both the man and the woman, for both are forbidden to engage in relations. In the former clause, he refers to the man, because the consecration is his responsibility. do not receive lashes because of relations with a mamzer.7The Rambam's wording implies that the couple do receive lashes for their relations, for they have violated the prohibition: \"There shall not be a promiscuous woman\" (Deuteronomy 23:18 which forbids relations that are not carried out for the sake of marriage (Maggid Mishneh, based on Hilchot Ishut 1:4).
The Rambam's opinion is that the prohibition against relations with a mamzer applies only within the context of marriage - depends on the prooftext cited above: \"A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of God,\" i.e., shall not marry among the Jewish people. According to the Rambam, the implication is that the prohibition must involve marriage (Rav Avraham, the son of the Rambam, as quoted in the Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad, the Ramban, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others do not agree with the Rambam's ruling and maintain that this prohibition applies even if there was no consecration. Relations alone are sufficient to establish liability. See the discussion of the issue in the Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh. For the only instance where relations that involve a negative prohibition incur the punishment of lashes without the woman being consecrated is relations between a High Priest and a widow, as will be explained.8Chapter 17, Halachah 3.
When a man remarries his divorcee after she married another person, 9I.e., and her second husband died or divorced her. The Rambam describes the prohibition against a man remarrying his divorcee after she was consecrated by another man in Hilchot Gerushin 11:12. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam feels it necessary to emphasize that the offspring of such relations are not mamzerim even though the prohibition is not punishable by kereit, because Deuteronomy 24:4, the source for the prohibition describes such relations as \"an abomination.\" That term is often used with regard to the ariot, the more severe sexual prohibitions. the offspring are acceptable. For she is not considered an ervah.", + "When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a Jewish woman, the child is acceptable. [This applies] whether the woman is unmarried or married, whether she was raped or engaged in relations willingly.10Thus although the woman committed adultery and is forbidden to her husband, the child is not considered as a mamzer. The rationale is that we pay no attention to the seed of the gentile or the servant, as stated in Halachah 4. Halachicly, it is as if the woman conceived the child independently. When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a female mamzer, the offspring is a mamzer.11This law is based on the same rationale. Since we pay no attention to the seed of the servant or the gentile, the child takes on the same quality as the mother. Just as she is disqualified, so, too, is he. When a mamzer enters into relations with a female gentile, the offspring is a gentile. If [the child] converts, he is fit to marry within the Jewish people like other converts.12For there is no difference between him and other gentiles. See the following halachah. If [a mamzer] enters into relations with a maid-servant, the offspring is a servant. If he is freed, the offspring is acceptable like other freed servants. He may marry a Jewish woman.", + "This is the general principle: When a child is born from a servant, a gentile, a maid-servant, or a female gentile, he is like his mother.13Whether Jewish, gentile, or a servant.
The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:17) quote views which state that if the offspring is female, she may not marry into the priesthood. We are not concerned with the father. For this reason, [the Sages] permitted a mamzer to marry a maid-servant to purify the lineage of his descendants. For he can free them and they will be free men.14The mamzer will purchase the servant and treat her as his wife. The children she bears him will be his property and they will not be mamzerim. If he desires, he may free them, at which point, their status is the same as other converts. If, by contrast, a mamzer would marry a convert, although there is no prohibition involved, the offspring would be mamzerim (Halachah 7). [Our Sages] did not ordain a decree forbidding a maid-servant to a mamzer,15As she is forbidden to an ordinary Jewish male by Rabbinic decree (Chapter 12, Halachah 11). so that he can legitimize his sons.16There are Rabbis today who advise that this practice should be followed by mamzerim. They should meet gentile woman, have them convert as servants, and live with them.", + "When a person who is half a servant and half a freed man17E.g., a slave was owned by two partners, one of whom freed him and one did not. See Hilchot Avadim 5:4. engages in relations with a married woman, a son born of that relationship has no way of legitimizing [his marriage relationships], because the dimension of him which is a mamzer18The dimension of the father which was free causes him to have a dimension of mamzerut. For a free man who engages in relations with a married woman conceives a mamzer. and the dimension of him which is an acceptable Jew19For when a servant engages in relations with a married woman, the offspring are acceptable. are intermingled. Therefore he is forbidden to engage in relations with a maid-servant.20This is forbidden to him as to other acceptable Jews, because of the dimension of his being that shares that status.
Rashi differs with this approach and maintains that he should be permitted to engage in relations with a maid-servant. See Chelkat Mechokek 4:19, Beit Shmuel 4:28. and his offspring share his status forever.21He may marry a convert or a freed servant, but their offspring share his status as stated in the Halachah 7.", + "When a gentile engages in relations with a maid-servant who immersed herself, the offspring are servants. When a servant who immersed himself engages in relations with a female gentile, the offspring are gentile. He is given his mother's status. When, however, a gentile engages relations with a gentile maid-servant or a gentile servant engages relations with a gentile woman, the status of the offspring follows that of the father.", + "A mamzer may marry a female convert and a female mamzer may marry a male convert, the offspring of both relationships are mamzerim.22The Beit Shmuel 4:35 emphasizes that although such marriages are permitted, there is a certain unadvisable dimension to it, for it is undesirable to increase the number of mamzerim among the Jewish people. For the status of the offspring follows that of the blemished one. [The license for such a marriage is derived from] the verse: \"[A mamzer shall not enter] God's congregation.\" The congregation of converts is not considered as \"God's congregation.\"", + "When a female convert marries a male convert and gives birth to a son, he is permitted to marry a female mamzer even though he was both conceived and born in holiness.23I.e., although he and his parents are considered as full Jews with regard to all matters, the prohibition against marrying a mamzer does not apply to him. This also applies to the son of his grandson [- or any other descendant -] until his connection with conversion is forgotten and it is not known that he [descends from] converts.24The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:22) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of Rabbenu Asher which states that after ten generations a convert is forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Afterwards, he will be forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Converts and freed servants are bound by the same laws.25See Chapter 13, Halachah 11.", + "When a convert marries a native-born Jewess26Although there are some Rishonim who differ with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view. or a native-born Jew marries a convert, the son is a Jew in all contexts and is forbidden to marry a female mamzer.", + "There are three categories of mamzerim: one that is definitely a mamzer, a mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt, and a mamzer by Rabbinic decree. What is meant by one who is definitely a mamzer? The offspring of a relationship that is definitely incestuous or adulterous, as we explained.27In Halachah 1 of this chapter.
A mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt is the offspring of a relationship that we are unsure whether it is adulterous or incestuous. For example, a man engaged in relations with a woman who was consecrated, but we are unsure if the consecration was effective,28See Hilchot Ishut 4:21-22 for examples of such questionable consecrations. or who was divorced, but we are unsure whether the divorce was effective,29See Hilchot Gerushin 5:13 for examples of such questionable divorces. or a similar situation.
A mamzer by Rabbinic decree: for example, a woman who heard that her husband died and remarried and then discovered that her husband was alive. Afterwards, her [first] husband engaged in relations with her while she was still married with her second husband, the offspring is a mamzer by Rabbinic decree.30See Hilchot Gerushin 10:7 which explains this situation. Although the marriage of the second husband is not valid, for a married woman cannot be married to another man, our Sages decreed that the second marriage be considered binding with regard to this point: That a child fathered by her first husband be considered a mamzer.", + "When an unmarried woman becomes pregnant through a promiscuous relationship, we ask her: \"What is [the status of] this fetus\" or \"...this child\"? If she replies: \"It is the child of a man of acceptable lineage; I entered into relations with an Israelite,\" her word is accepted and the son is acceptable.31The Maggid Mishneh quotes an opinion that maintains that this ruling applies only after the fact. As an initial and preferred option, a native-born Jewess should not marry such a person. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:26) quotes the Rambam's ruling. See also Chapter 18, Halachot 13-15.
Despite the fact that we have no existing presumption regarding the child's lineage, we rule that he or she is acceptable. The rationale is that the child has no alternative; its status depends on this ruling (Maggid Mishneh). [This applies] even if most of the inhabitants of the city in which she engaged in relations are of unacceptable lineage.32E.g., they are mamzerim.", + "If the child's mother was not questioned until she died, or she was a deaf-mute, mute, or intellectually or emotionally unstable, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable.33For we have no way of determining the status of the father and it is possible that the father was a mamzer. [This ruling applies even] if she said: \"I engaged in relations with so-and-so, the mamzer\" or \"...with so-and-so, the netin.\"34I.e., her word is not effective in conclusively determining the child's status as a mamzer for the reason the Rambam proceeds to state. Her word is accepted in having the child deemed as legitimate, but not in having him deemed as a mamzer. See also Halachah 14 and Chapter 18, Halachah 14. Even if that person agrees with her statement, [the child's status is only doubtful. The rationale is:] Just as she engaged in relations with the person who admitted to her statement; so, too, she engaged in relations with others.35We assume that she was promiscuous with more than one person and thus we have no way of determining the identity of the child's father. Thus the presumed father has no way of knowing whether or not the child was actually his (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam maintains that this rule applies even when the woman does not have a reputation for promiscuity. See Chelkat Mechokek 4:25 and Beit Shmuel 4:40 which discuss this issue.
This [child] is called a shituki.36Shituki means \"one who is silenced.\" Rashi, Yevamot 37a, explains that this name is given because the child will call out for his father and his mother will silence him. He knows the identity of his mother, but does not definitely know the identity of his father.", + "Similarly, a child that is found in the marketplace - he is called an asufi37The term asufi means \"one who was gathered in,\" i.e., the child was taken in from the street. - is considered as a mamzer whose status is questionable.38Halachah 31 qualifies this ruling, stating that it applies only when it appears that the parents abandoned the child to die. If it is evident that the parents desired the child to live, e.g., they circumcised it, they gave it medical treatment, and/or placed it in a location where it was likely to be found, we assume that it was of acceptable lineage and was abandoned only because its parents were unable to provide for it. for we do not know his [lineage].", + "[The following rules apply when] an unmarried woman engages in promiscuous relations says: \"This child is the son of so-and-so.\" If that person is of acceptable lineage, the son is considered acceptable. Nevertheless, her word is not accepted for the child to be considered as the man's son.39I.e., he does not inherit the named person's property, nor is his wife freed from the obligation of chalitzah if he dies childless (Maggid Mishneh). See Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 3:4 where the latter law is discussed. It appears to me, however, that we give consideration to her words and because of the doubt, that child is forbidden to marry the relatives of the [named] person.
If the [named] person is a mamzer, we do not accept her word to definitely deem the offspring as a mamzer on this basis, as we explained.40See Halachah 12. Instead, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable.", + "[Different laws apply with regard to] a father who [makes statements with regard to] a child who is presumed to be his son. If he says: \"This son of mine is a mamzer,\"41I.e., he is not my son, but born from an adulterous relationship. his word is accepted.42Note Hilchot Nachalot 4:3 which states that once a father acknowledges a child as his son, he cannot declare him as illegitimate afterwards. If the son himself has children, his word is not accepted.43For by invalidating the legitimacy of the son, he would automatically be invalidating the lineage of his offspring and the Torah did not give him that power as the Rambam continues to explain. See also Hilchot Nachalot 4:2. For the Torah accepted his word with regard to his son alone. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:17:] \"He will recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated.\" [Implied is that] he makes his identity known to others.44The verse speaks of a father recognizing his heirs in connection with the division of his estate. If the father states that he did not father a son that was presumed to be his, that son is thus identified as a mamzer, for he will have been conceived through adultery.", + "Just as a father's word is accepted when he says: \"This son of mine is my firstborn,\" so, too, his word is accepted if he says: \"This son of mine is a mamzer,\" or \"...the son of a divorced woman\" or \"...the son of a woman who performed chalitzah.\"45The latter two concepts are relevant with regard to the sons of priests as will be explained in Chapter 19. Similarly, if his wife was pregnant, his word is accepted if he says: \"This fetus is not my child. It is a mamzer.\" The child is definitely deemed as a mamzer.
If a person says that he himself is a mamzer, his word is accepted with regard to the prohibition against him marrying a native-born Jewess.46His statement is not accepted as testimony, for a person may not testify against himself. Nevertheless, the restrictions he placed against himself are binding. It is as if he took a vow, forbidding himself to marry a native-born Jewess (Beit Shmuel 4:53) He is, however, forbidden to marry a female mamzer47For we fear that he made these statements in order to be granted this leniency. until it is definitely known that he is a mamzer. The same laws apply to his son. If he has grandchildren, his word is not accepted with regard to the disqualification of his grandchildren. He can disqualify only himself.", + "[The following laws apply when] a woman who was consecrated48According to Jewish Law, marriage is a two-staged process involving: a) consecration, kiddushin or erusin, and b) marriage, nissuin, when the couple begin living together as man and wife. From the time of consecration onward, however, the woman is forbidden to engage in relations with other men. becomes pregnant in her father's home. The offspring is assumed to be a mamzer.49These laws differ from those applying to a married woman, as stated in Halachot 19-20. The rationale is that we do not assume that a couple that is merely consecrated share intimacy with the same degree of consistency as a married couple. Nor is a consecrated woman likely to the same degree of fidelity as a married woman. He is forbidden to marry both a native-born Jewess and a female mamzer.50He is forbidden to marry a native-born Jewess for it is possible that he is a mamzer. He is forbidden to marry a female mamzer, because it is possible that he is an acceptable Jewish male.
If his mother was questioned and said: \"I became pregnant from the man who consecrated me,\" her word is accepted and the child is considered acceptable.51As in Halachah 11. In this instance, since a bond has already been established between the couple, it is even more reasonable to accept her statements. This is speaking about a situation where the husband is not present to be questioned (Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:27). The Rama states that the child is also considered as the presumed father's son with regard to receiving a share in the inheritance. If, however, that man contravenes her and says: \"I never engaged in relations with her,\" the child is considered a mamzer. For even if the child was assumed to be his son, his word is accepted if he says: \"My son is a mamzer.\"52As stated in Halachah 15. In contrast to a situation where the presumed father could not be asked, this child is definitely a mamzer and is forbidden to marry a native-born Jew or Jewess (ibid.).
[Even in the latter situation,] the woman is not assumed to be a zonah.53The term literally means \"promiscuous woman,\" but has a specific halachic meaning, as the Rambam states in Chapter 18, Halachah 1: \"A woman who entered into relations with a man who she is forbidden to marry.\" After consecration, every man would be prohibited to this woman.
The Torah gave the husband the right to determine his son's status. He does not, however, have the right to determine that of the woman (Ketubot 13a). Instead, her word is accepted if she says: \"I engaged in relations with the man who consecrated me.\" [Since] she is not a zonah, if she married a priest,54After her first husband died. she need not be divorced55Nevertheless, since the man who consecrated her contradicts her statements, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry a priest (Beit Shmuel 4:47). Similarly, if the person who consecrated her is a priest, he is forbidden to marry her. and offspring which she bears him are acceptable [as priests].56If the woman had been forbidden to the priesthood, her offspring would not be considered priests, as stated in Chapter 19.", + "If people at large gossip about her while she is consecrated, [saying that] she was promiscuous with the man to whom she was consecrated and with others, the child is a mamzer whose status is questionable.57This is speaking about an instance when we cannot clarify the child's status by asking the mother. [This applies] even if the man to whom she was consecrated was intimate with her in her father's home. For just as she acted loosely with the man to whom she was consecrated, she could have acted loosely with others. If she was questioned and said: \"This fetus was conceived by the man to whom I am consecrated,\" the child is acceptable as explained [above].", + "When a married woman58We have translated the term according to the prevalent understanding of the Rambam's ruling. Note, however, the Rama (Even HaEzer 4:29) who questions whether these laws also apply with regard to a woman who was only consecrated. is pregnant and says: \"This fetus is not my husband's,\" her word is not accepted to render the child illegitimate. [Instead,] we assume that the child is acceptable. For the Torah accepted only the word of the father. If the father says that it is not his son or he is overseas,59And thus could not have fathered the child. we assume that the son is a mamzer.60The Beit Shmuel 4:52 interprets the Rambam's words as meaning \"the child is a mamzer of questionable status,\" for the possibility exists that he was conceived by a gentile.
If the woman said: \"I was impregnated by a gentile,\" or \"...by a servant,\" the child is acceptable.61As indicated by Halachah 11, the woman's word is accepted with regard to defining the legitimacy of her child's lineage. For the husband cannot deny her words.62He does not know with how many people and with whom she was promiscuous. A fetus will not remain in its mother's womb for more than twelve months.63Although a full-term pregnancy is nine months, our Sages spoke of the possibility of a woman carrying a baby for twelve months. Although this is abnormal, when a man left his home between nine and twelve months before a child was born, they desired to consider that possibility rather than deem the child as a mamzer. See Yevamot 80b.
Rama (Even HaEzer 4:14) states that the above leniency is granted only when we do not see moral lapses in the woman's conduct. If, however, she conducts herself in an unbecoming manner, we suspect the child's lineage.", + "Although there is a rumor circulating to the fact that a woman has committed adultery and everyone is gossiping about her, we do not suspect that her children are mamzerim. [The rationale is that] the person who most frequently has relations with her is her husband. It is permitted to marry her daughter, even as an initial and preferred option.64Rashi (Yevamot 27b) states that one should marry the offspring only when there is no other alternative. With regard to her own status, we suspect that she is a zonah.65And hence may not marry a priest. Even an Israelite should refrain from marrying such a woman (Maggid Mishneh). After the fact, if she marries a priest, we do not require a divorce (Beit Shmuel 4:24). If her conduct was very lewd, we also suspect the lineage of her children.66Sotah 27b raises this question, but leaves the matter unresolved. Accordingly, it is appropriate to be stringent (Maggid Mishneh).", + "According to Scriptural Law, a person suspected of being a mamzer is permitted to marry among the Jewish people.67According to the Rambam, the general principle is that according to Scriptural Law, whenever there is a doubt whether an act is forbidden, there is no prohibition. Our Rabbis, however, decreed that when there is a doubt with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, we are stringent. Others differ and maintain that according to Scriptural Law, if there is a doubt concerning a prohibition, it must be observed. There is a special leniency, stemming from a verse from the Torah, when a doubt arises whether a person is a mamzer or not. See Chapter 18, Halachah 17. [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: \"A mamzer shall not enter God's congregation.\" [Implied is that] one who is definitively a mamzer may not marry among the Jewish people, not one whose status is questionable. Nevertheless, our Sages raised the level [of purity required] with regard to lineage and forbade those of questionable status from marrying among the Jewish people.
Accordingly, a male and a female who are definitely mamzerim may marry. A mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt,68See Halachah 10. a shituki,69See Halachah 12. or an asufi70See Halachah 13. are forbidden to marry native-born Jewesses.", + "[A man of the latter status] is forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Even a female mamzer whose status is questionable is forbidden to him. For perhaps one of them is not a mamzer, but the other is definitely a mamzer. A mamzer by Rabbinic decree may marry a female mamzer by Rabbinic decree.71For there is no Scriptural prohibition involved. Similarly, in any other instances [where a person is forbidden to marry] because of a doubt, one person of this status may not marry another.72As the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah.", + "What is implied? Shitukim, asufim, and those whose status as mamzerim is indefinite are forbidden to marry each other. If they married, the union may not be maintained. Instead, they must divorce with a formal bill of divorce.73For the marriage, though forbidden, is binding according to Jewish Law. The offspring of such relationships are [mamzerim of] indefinite status like their parents.
Individuals of indefinite status like this have no option except to marry converts.74As stated in Halachah 7. The status of their offspring follows their blemish.", + "What is implied? When a shituki or an asufi marries a female convert or a freed maid-servant, a convert, or a freed servant marries a female shituki or asufi, the offspring are shitukim or asufim.", + "When an asufi is found in a city inhabited by gentiles, whether the majority are gentiles or the majority are Jews, the child is considered as a gentile of indefinite status with regard to his lineage.75We treat him as neither a Jew nor a gentile as the Rambam continues to illustrate. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the ruling follows the principle: Whenever a doubt arises and the permitted and the forbidden entities are fixed, we do not follow the majority, but instead, consider the situation as equally balanced. If he consecrates a woman, she needs a bill of divorce because of the doubt.76I.e., the couple are not allowed to remain married for perhaps he is a gentile, but a formal divorce is necessary, for perhaps he is a Jew and the consecration is binding. If someone kills him, he is not executed for doing so.77For perhaps he is a gentile.", + "If the court had him immersed for the sake of conversion78As is the law which applies with regard to any child convert (Chapter 13, Halachah 7). or he immersed on his own initiative after he attained majority, his status is the same as any asufi that is found in Jewish cities.79He is bound by the restrictions applying to a mamzer whose status is doubtful despite the possibility that they might not apply because he is a convert.
The Ra'avad rules that in such a situation, he is considered as any other convert and allowed to marry a native-born Jewesses The Maggid Mishneh explains the rationale for the Ra'avad's position, stating that there is a multiple doubt involved: Maybe he is not of Jewish origin, and if he is of Jewish origin, maybe he is not a mamzer. Moreover, the entire prohibition against an asufi is Rabbinic in origin. (For according to Scriptural Law, only a mamzer whose status is definite is forbidden). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:33) quotes the Rambam's view. The Chelkat Mechokek 4:31 questions why the Ra'avad's view is not cited, but the Beit Shmuel 4:54 explains that according to the Rambam, with regard to questions of lineage, we are stringent even in such situations.
If the majority of the inhabitants of the city are gentile, it is permitted to feed him meat from animals that were not ritually slaughtered.80This and the following laws apply when the person did not convert (Maggid Mishneh). For the principle that we consider the populations as equally balanced applies only with regard to questions of lineage. If the majority were Jewish, we return his lost articles as is the law with regard to Jews. If the populations are equally balanced,81The Kessef Mishneh notes that Ketubot 15b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, could be interpreted as making such a statement only in a situation where the majority of the inhabitants are Jewish. He, however, offers an interpretation of the passage which conforms to the Rambam's ruling. it is a mitzvah to maintain his life82I.e., we must support him in situations of need. and we remove an avalanche from him on the Sabbath.83To save his life even though doing so involves violation of the Sabbath laws.
The Maggid Mishneh cites opinions which maintain that this ruling applies even if the majority of the inhabitants are gentiles. For when a question of life and death is involved, we do not require a majority. See Hilchot Shabbat 2:20-21 and notes for an explanation of the matter. With regard to damages, we follow the same principle that applies in all cases of doubt in financial law: When a person who seeks to expropriate [money] from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.84There are certain situations where the laws applying to gentiles are more severe than those applying to a Jew. For example, if an ox belonging to a gentile that is not known to gore does in fact gore an ox belonging to a Jew, the gentile is required to pay full damages. A Jew, by contrast, would be required to pay only partial damages. If such a situation would arise with regard to a person whose identity is in doubt, he could tell the plaintiff: \"If you prove I am not a Jew, I will pay full damages.\"", + "It appears to me that whenever there is a gentile woman or a maid-servant who is fit to give birth in a city, since an asufi that is discovered there is considered to possibly have the status of a gentile or a servant, if he marries a female convert as we stated,85Halachah 23. I.e., if he marries without undergoing conversion (Chelkat Mechokek 4:36). there is a doubt whether his wife is a married woman.86For perhaps he is a gentile or a servant. Just as he could have been born by a Jewish mother, he could have been born by one of these. We do not consider the degree of probability involved. One who enters into relations with her is not liable, because we do not execute individuals when there is a doubt involved.87Needless to say, such relations are forbidden. The Rambam is emphasizing that punishment is not meted out. Because punishment is not given unless we are certain there is a prohibition involved.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's view and maintains that even with regard to capital punishment, we follow the probability. Hence if the majority of the inhabitants of the city are Jewish, we assume that the asufi is Jewish and his consecration of the woman is binding. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that in all instances, the asufi is not considered as definitely Jewish.
Similarly, it appears to me that when a shituki marries a woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah,88A woman who could be a close relative with whom relations are forbidden. See the following halachah. there is a doubt whether she is a married woman, for consecration is not effective with regard to the ariot.", + "What is meant by \"a woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah\"? Any woman whose father or brother was alive when his mother became pregnant89For perhaps the woman he marries is his sister (since he does not know the identity of his father, it is possible that her father was also his father) or the sister of his father. or any woman who was divorced or widowed. For it is possible that she is his father's wife or the wife of his father's brother.90I.e., before she was divorced or widowed her husband (or her husband's brother) fathered the shituki.", + "What is the source on which I rely to say that a shituki or an asufi are not forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah?91The license the Rambam speaks about applies according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, a shituki is forbidden to marry a native-born Jew or Jewess (Halachot 21-23). For an acceptable child whose mother was questioned92See Halachah 11. is not forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah. And it is written in the Torah [Leviticus 19:29]: \"Do not desecrate your daughter to have her act promiscuously.\" [Commenting on this verse,] our Sages state:93Yevamot 37b. The verse refers to a situation where a father allows his daughter to act promiscuously and thus it will not be known who is the father of her child. If this would happen in numerous instances, there would be many children who did not know the identity of their fathers and it would be possible for a brother to marry his sister. If this would happen, a father will marry his daughter and a brother will marry his sister.
If the law was that anyone who does not definitely know the identity of his father would be forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah, this situation could not arise and the earth would never become filled with incestuous relations.94For if a man who did not know the identity of his father were restricted in the above manner, there would be no room for our Sages' concern, for he would be prohibited against marrying any woman whose ties could in any way be incestuous. From this,95I.e., from the fact that our Sages did not enforce such a restriction. we learn that we do not forbid ariot and consider them as relatives because of the doubt unless we definitely know that she is forbidden to him as an ervah. For were we to say this, all of the orphans in the world who did not know their fathers would be forbidden to marry in all situations lest they encounter a forbidden relationship.", + "When a child was abandoned on the road and afterwards,96Before the child was brought home. one came and said: \"He is my son and I abandoned him,\" his word is accepted. Similarly, the mother's word is accepted. If the child was taken in from the marketplace and afterwards, his father and mother came and said: \"This is our son,\" their word is not accepted. [The rationale is that] he has already been categorized as an asufi.
In the years of famine, their word is accepted. It is because of the famine that they abandoned him, for they desire that others sustain them. Therefore they remained silent until the child was gathered in.", + "If the child was found circumcised, bundled, salted,97It was customary in the Talmudic era to apply salt to newborn babies to strengthen their limbs. blue eye-paint98This substance was used in the Talmudic era for both medicinal and cosmetic purposes. was applied to his eyes, an amulet was placed around his neck,99I.e., the mystical writing in the amulet was intended to protect the child. it was placed under a interwoven tree that a wild beast could not enter and was close to the city, or it was found in a synagogue near the public domain or at the side of the public domain, the laws pertaining to an asufi do not apply. Since [the parents] are protecting the child so that it does not die, we can assume that it is acceptable.100We assume that a mother may want to abandon a child who is a mamzer so that it will die and there will be no sign of her sin. If, however, she and/or the father performed acts which indicate that they desired the child to live - even though they did not desire to care for it themselves - we assume that the child was of legitimate origin.
If, however, it is abandoned in the midst of the road or far away from a city, even under a tree, or in a synagogue, or it is found hanging in a place accessible by a wild beast,101I.e., in a place where it would most likely die or be killed. it is considered as an asufi.", + "A mid-wife's word is accepted if she states: \"This child is a priest,\" \"...a Levite,\" \"...a netin,\"102See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23. or \"...a mamzer,\" because the child's lineage has not been established and is not known.
When does the above apply? When her faithfulness has been established and an objection is not raised against her. If, however, an objection was raised against her and one person said: \"She is testifying falsely,\" her word is not accepted.103The Beit Shmuel 4:60 explains that generally, the protest of one witness is not accepted against testimony which was previously accepted. In this instance, however, the child's identity is not known at all and there is no existing presumption regarding his status. Hence the protest cancels out the original testimony. The child is considered as acceptable,104Even though the midwidfe said that he was a mamzer. but is not considered as [a priest or Levite].105If the midwife said he was of this lineage.", + "It is a clear matter that a shituki is forbidden to marry a shituki and an asufi is forbidden to marry an asufi, because their status is doubtful.106I.e., it is possible that one of them will be acceptable and one illegitimate. Nevertheless, even mamzerim of a definite status and netinim may intermarry. The offspring is a mamzer.107For the child takes on the blemished identity, as stated in Halachah 7. A shituki or an asufi are permitted to marry netinim and other converts. The offspring is considered as [a mamzer] of doubtful status." + ], + [ + "A man with maimed testicles or a severed member who married a native-born Jewess and engaged in sexual relations1As explained in Chapter 15, Halachah 2, all of the prohibitions against sexual relations that involve the violation of a negative commandment alone involve a situation where the woman has been consecrated. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there are other authorities who differ with the Rambam on this matter. is punished by lashes, as [Deuteronomy 23:2] states: \"A person with maimed testicles or a severed member may not enter the congregation of God.\"
Such a man may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant. Even a priest with maimed testicles may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant, because the holiness [of the priesthood] does not rest upon him. He is permitted to marry even a female netin2See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23. or a woman whose status is in doubt.", + "Since a man with a maimed organ is forbidden to marry among the Jewish people, [our Sages] did not decree against his marrying a female netin or a woman whose status is in doubt.3To anyone other than a halachic authority, the Rambam's ruling appears problematic: A woman whose status is in doubt is either a female mamzer or an acceptable native-born Jewess. In either case, this man would be forbidden to marry her. Why then is he permitted when her status is not clarified?
Halachically, however, Kiddushin 73a interprets the phrase \"He shall not enter God's congregation,\" as forbidding one from marrying only a person whose lineage is definite. The Rambam maintains that even the Sages did not enforce a decree in this instance. (See Beit Shmuel 5:2.) A man with maimed testicles or a severed member is, however, forbidden to [marry] a female mamzer4The Rambam's position is that although having a maimed organ disqualifies a priest from the holiness of the priesthood, it does not disqualify an Israelite from the holiness with which he is endowed. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and states that a man with a maimed organ may marry a female mamzer. The Maggid Mishneh mentions other authorities who follow both of these views. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:1) follows the position of the Rambam, while the Rama mentions the other view. whose status is definite, because this prohibition is of Scriptural origin.", + "What is meant by maimed testicles? Anyone whose testicles have been wounded. What is meant by a severed member? Anyone whose shaft has been cut off.
There are three organs to which wounds can disqualify a male: the shaft, the testicles, and the tract in which the semen develops. If one of these three was wounded or crushed, the man is disqualifed.5In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2), the Rambam states that any difficulty which renders a man sterile according to medical knowledge disqualifies him from marriage.", + "What is implied? If the shaft is wounded, crushed, or cut off from the corona or above the corona,6I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person. he is disqualified. If a portion at the top of the corona is cut off, but even a hairsbreadth [of the corona] remains which surrounds the entire shaft, he is acceptable. If the shaft was cut like a pen is sharpened or like a funnel above the corona,7I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person. he is acceptable.8Rashi (Yevamot 75b) differs and disqualifies such a person. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:3) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.", + "If the shaft is perforated below the corona, he is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] the corona itself is perforated. If when the person ejaculates, semen emerges from the hole, he is unacceptable. If the hole becomes closed, he returns to acceptable status. If the shaft is perforated below the corona when the portion above is in the midst of corona, he is disqualified. For the entire corona must be intact [for the person to be acceptable].", + "If the seminal tract becomes obstructed and the semen emerges from the urinary tract, he is unacceptable.", + "If both or one of the testicles9The Rama (Even HaEzer 5:7) states that there are authorities who do not disqualify a person if one testicle is intact. He states, however, that since a Scriptural prohibition is involved, it is preferable to follow the more stringent view. were severed, wounded, or crushed or one was lacking or pierced by a hole, he is unacceptable. If both or one of the seminal tracts are severed, crushed, or wounded, he is unacceptable.", + "If one of the seminal tracts was perforated into the urinary tract and the person urinates from two sources - the seminal tract and the urinary tract - he is acceptable.10For this difficulty will not prevent him from conceiving a child.", + "Whenever we have used the term \"unacceptable\" in this context, the implication is that [the malady] was not caused by the hand of heaven, e.g., [his testicles] were severed by a man or a dog, he was struck by a sharp end, or the like. If, however, he was born with maimed testicles or a severed member, or without testicles, he became ill because of a bodily ailment and these organs ceased to function, or an ulcer arose in them that caused them to waste away or be severed,11Rabbenu Asher differs with regard to the latter two instances and does not consider illness and the like as \"by the hand of heaven.\" Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:10) quotes both views without stating which one should be followed. [See also Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2) which discuss whether or not this ruling involved a change of mind for the Rambam.] he is permitted to marry among the Jewish people. For all of these blemishes are caused by the hand of heaven.", + "It is forbidden to destroy a male's reproductive organs. This applies to humans and also to animals, beasts, and fowl, both from a kosher species and from a non-kosher species, in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. Although [Leviticus 22:24] states: \"And you shall not do this in your land,\"12Which could be understood as implying that the prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisrael. According to the Oral Tradition,13Sifra to the above verse. we learned that this [prohibition] is applicable in every place. The verse teaches that one should not act in this manner among the Jewish people, not with their own bodies, nor with the bodies of others.
Whoever castrates [a person or an animal] should be lashed14The punishment given for the violation of a Scriptural commandment. according to Scriptural Law everywhere. Even a person who castrates a person who has been castrated should be lashed.", + "What is implied? One came and severed a person's member, another cut off or pulled away his testicles and a third cut his seminal tract; all receive lashes. Similarly, if one crushed a person's member, another pulled it away, and a third cut it off, all receive lashes. [This applies] although the last person castrated a person - or an animal, beast, or fowl - who had already been castrated.
A person who castrates a female - whether a human or other species - is not liable.15The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:11 interpret the Rambam's statements as meaning that although there is a prohibition against doing so, lashes are not given.", + "It is forbidden to have a man or a male of another species drink a potion that causes him to lose his sexual potency. Lashes are not given, however. A woman is permitted to drink a potion to cause her to lose her sexual potency so that she will not conceive.16This ruling serves as the basis for contemporary Rabbis to permit women to take oral contraceptives.
If a person bound a man and set a dog or other animal upon him until his sexual organs were maimed or he made him sit in water or snow until his sexual organs lost their potency, he is not given lashes unless he castrates him by hand. It is, however, fitting to subject him to stripes for rebellious conduct.17The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment.", + "It is forbidden to tell a gentile to castrate one of our animals. If the gentile took the animal and castrated it on his own initiative, it is permitted.18As long as the gentile acted on his own initiative, the Jew is not obligated to suffer a loss. If a Jew acts deceitfully in this context,19I.e., encouraging a gentile to castrate the animal without actually telling him to do so. he should be punished and required to sell the animal to another Jew. He may [sell it] to his son who is past majority, but not to his son who is below majority, nor may he give it to him.20For a son below majority is not considered as having an independent financial domain. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 5:14) who mentions more particulars concerning this issue." + ], + [ + "There are three women who are forbidden to all priests [by Scriptural Law]: a divorcee, a zonah,1This term is defined in depth in the following chapter. and a challalah.2This term is defined in Chapter 19. There are four [forbidden to] a High Priest. These three and a widow.
Bound by [the prohibitions applying to a High Priest] are one anointed with the oil of anointment3As was the practice until the later years of the First Temple. or one who assumed his position by wearing the additional garments,4I.e., in the later years of the First Temple, the oil of anointment was entombed together with the Holy Ark. From that time onward, the High Priests assumed their position by wearing the eight garments of the High Priest. [See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Megilah 1:9).] one serving in that capacity, a High Priest who was appointed and then removed from the office, and a priest anointed to lead a war.5See Hilchot Melachim 7:1 which states:
In both a milchemet mitzvah (a war that it is a mitzvah to wage) and a milchemet hareshut (a war that we have license to wage), a priest is appointed to address the nation before the battle. He is anointed with the oil of anointment and is called, the meshuach milchamah.
Although this individual is not a High Priest with regard to the Temple service, since he was anointed, certain of the dimensions of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him. All of these are commanded [to marry] a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow.6I.e., a High Priest - and the others mentioned - are bound by a positive commandment to marry a virgin and a negative commandment to marry a widow.", + "Any priest who marries7The Rambam's wording is somewhat inexact. For the prohibition applies even if the priest merely consecrated the woman and entered into relations with her. Marriage (nissuin) is not required (Kiddushin 78a). one of these three women - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - and engages in relations is punished by lashes. If he enters into promiscuous relations with her, he does not receive lashes for [violating the prohibitions against] a zonah, a divorcee, and a challalah.8He does, however, receive lashes for violating the prohibition against promiscuous relations, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 1:4). [This is derived from the fact that Leviticus 21:7 states the prohibition using the term:] \"They shall not take.\" [Implied is that the prohibition does not apply] unless he takes - marries - [the woman] and enters into relations with her.9According to the Rambam's understanding of Kiddushin 78a,b for the prohibition to apply both marriage and intimate relations are necessary. If the priest performs one of these acts without the other, the Scriptural prohibition does not apply. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that the prohibition applies even when consecration is not involved.", + "When, by contrast, a High Priest enters into relations with a widow, he receives lashes even though he did not consecrate her. [This is derived from ibid.:15 which states]: \"And he shall not desecrate....\" As soon as he engages in relations with her, he desecrates her and disqualifies her from the priesthood.10According to the literal meaning of the verse, the object of the verb \"desecrate\" is \"his offspring.\" If a priest enters into a relationship with one of these women, his offspring are challalim, \"desecrated,\" and are not considered as members of the priestly family. Nevertheless, Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets the phrase non-literally, explaining that the verb refers to the woman. By entering into relations with the priest, she becomes \"desecrated\" from the priesthood, i.e., forbidden to marry a priest. Moreover, the fact that the prohibition against a High Priest entering into relations with a widow mentions that term implies that causing the woman to be placed in such a status is prohibited. Since she is given that status even if the relations are held outside of marriage, marriage is not a fundamental element of the prohibition. A zonah, challalah, and divorcee, by contrast, are disqualified from the priesthood before one enters into relations with them.11As stated in Halachah 1. Therefore a High Priest alone receives lashes for merely entering into relations with a widow even though she was not consecrated. For he desecrates her and he is warned against desecrating people of acceptable lineage, [other] women and his offspring.", + "When a High Priest consecrates a widow and enters into relations with her, he receives two sets of lashes: one because of the prohibition: \"He shall not take a widow,\" and one because of the prohibition: \"He shall not desecrate.\" Whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest marries one of these four, but does not engage in relations, he does not receive lashes.", + "Whenever [the priest] receives lashes, the woman [with whom he engages in relations] is given lashes.12For the prohibition against these relations involve the woman as well as the man. See Keritot 10b, Yevamot 84b. Whenever he does not receive lashes, she does not receive lashes. For there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to punishments with the exception of a designated maidservant as explained.13Chapter 3, Halachah 14.", + "Any priest - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - who enters into relations with a gentile woman receives lashes for relations with a zonah.14See Chapter 18, Halachah 1. [There is a difference between her and a Jewish woman,]15In which instance, the prohibition applies only if she was consecrated (Halachah 2). because she cannot be consecrated. He is forbidden to enter into relations with any zonah, whether a Jewess or a gentile.", + "A woman who has undergone the rite of chalitzah (a chalutzah)16When a man dies childless, his widow is required to marry her deceased husband's brother in the rite called yibbum. She is forbidden to marry anyone else. If he does not desire to marry her, he must release her through the ritual called chalitzah. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25, Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah. is forbidden to a priest according to the Rabbinic tradition, for she resembles a divorcee.17Just as a divorcee is released from her connection to her husband through a get, a childless widow is released from her obligation to her brother-in-law through chalitzah. [If he engages in relations with such a woman,] he is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"18The punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic commandment.
When a priest marries a woman whose status as a chalutzah is doubtful,19E.g., her brother-in-law performed the chalitzah rite, it was, however, questionable if he was obligated to do so or not, or if he was in fact her brother-in-law or not. he is not compelled to divorce her.20If, however, she was definitely a chalutzah, we would compel him to divorce. For a person should be compelled to observe a Rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, before he marries her, he should be prevented from doing so. Since there is a possibility that a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, we should prevent him from risking its violation. If, however, the couple are already married, we follow the principle \"When there is a question of a Rabbinic prohibition involved, we rule leniently.\" She is acceptable21I.e., she is not considered as a challalah, a woman who entered into forbidden relations with a priest. and her child is acceptable.22I.e., he or she is not considered as a challah. For our Sages did not decree against a woman whose status as a chalutzah is doubtful, only against one who is definitely in that category. When it is questionable if a woman is a divorcee,23A woman was divorced in a manner whether it was questionable whether the divorce was effective or not and afterwards, here husband died. a widow,24As related in Halachah 12, this applies to a situation in which there is a question whether a man consecrated a woman in an effective manner or not and then dies. Hence, there is a question whether she is a widow. a zonah,25See Chapter 18, Halachah 12. or a challalah,26The offspring of a priest who had relations with a woman concerning whom a doubt existed whether she was forbidden to him or not (Chapter 19, Halachah 9). [a priest who marries her] is given \"stripes for rebellious conduct\" and required to divorce her with a get.27He is required to divorce her, based on the principle \"When a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we take the more stringent view\" (Maggid Mishneh). In this instance, since there is a possibility that a Scriptural prohibition is involved in the marriage to each of these women, we rule stringently and require a divorce. A get is required, for even if there is a prohibition involved - and certainly if there is no prohibition involved - the consecration is binding. For the woman to be able to remarry, she must be divorced.", + "There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless:
a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time;28Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:5 gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become trefe, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time.
b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited;29This concept is exemplified in the following two halachot. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 7:2.
c) when the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.30This principle is exemplified by Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 which relates that a person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.", + "Accordingly,31I.e., on the basis of the principle that a prohibition that includes additional factors takes effect. When a woman was a widow and then she became a divorcee,32I.e., her second husband divorced her. and then she became a challalah,33By having relations with a priest. and then she became a zonah,34By engaging in relations with a person whom she is forbidden to marry. should a High Priest engage in relations with her afterwards, he receives four sets of lashes for engaging in relations once. For a widow is forbidden to a High Priest, but permitted to an ordinary priest.", + "When she becomes a divorcee, she becomes forbidden by an additional prohibition [for] she is also forbidden to an ordinary priest. Therefore, [even for the High Priest,] another prohibition aside from that against relations with a widow is added to her. She is, nevertheless, still permitted to partake of terumah.35I.e., if her father was a priest, after her marriages, she returns to his home and may partake of terumah. Alternatively, if her second husband was an ordinary priest and she gave birth to a child, she may partake of terumah because of her child. If she becomes a challalah, another prohibition is added to her, for she is forbidden to partake of terumah. She is, nevertheless, still permitted to marry an Israelite.
If she becomes a zonah, another prohibition is added to her, since there is a type of promiscuous relations that would cause her to be forbidden to an Israelite, e.g., a married woman engaged in adultery voluntarily.
The same principle applies36I.e., the priest is liable for additional sets of lashes. to an ordinary priest who engaged in relations with a divorcee who became a challalah and then a zonah. He receives three sets of lashes for engaging in relations once. If this order is altered,37I.e., she becomes a zonah first. If other prohibitions precede her becoming a zonah, she receives the appropriate number of lashes (Maggid Mishneh). she only receives one set of lashes.38For the other prohibitions would not add anything once she becomes forbidden in this manner.", + "When a woman is widowed from several men or divorced from several men, [a High Priest or a priest] receive only one set of lashes for each time they engage in relations.39The fact the she was widowed or divorced several times does not increase the number of prohibitions involved. A woman is forbidden as a widow whether she was widowed after [only] consecration or after marriage.", + "When the brother of a High Priest dies, even if the deceased had [merely] consecrated his wife,40And thus she is still a virgin and fit to marry a High Priest. [the High Priest] should not perform the rite of yibbum. Instead, he should perform chalitzah.41In Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 6:10, the Rambam states that the woman must perform chalitzah, because were her yevam to perform yibbum, he would acquire her as his wife. Moreover, according to law, he should perform yibbum, because whenever the observance of a positive commandment conflicts with the observance of a negative commandment, the positive commandment takes precedence. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade yibbum lest he engage in relations with her a second time. In such an instance, relations with her are forbidden and there is no mitzvah. For the positive commandment of yibbum applies only the first time the couple engage in relations.
If a woman became his yevamah while he was an ordinary priest and he was then appointed as the High Priest, he should not perform yibbum once he has been appointed.42For the reason mentioned in the previous note. [This applies] even if he already gave his word43The Hebrew term the Rambam uses maamar has a specific halachic meaning. As explained in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1, although according to Scriptural Law, the yibbum relationship is established through intimate relations, our Sages ordained that before engaging in relations, a yevam declare his intent to his yevamah. They equated this declaration with consecration. [that he would marry] her while he was an ordinary priest.44For a maamar does not establish a relationship. If, however, he consecrated a widow and was then appointed as a High Priest, he should marry her.45Because she is already his wife.
If she was consecrated, but the status of the consecration was questionable and then the person who consecrated her died, she is considered a widow of questionable status.46And because of the doubt, she is forbidden to a High Priest.", + "It is a positive commandment for a High Priest to marry a virgin maiden.47The term \"maiden\" refers to a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1). When she reaches the age of maturity,48Twelve and a half. This is the meaning of the term throughout this chapter. she becomes forbidden to him,49Since he must marry a virgin, he is forbidden to marry anyone other than a virgin. Even if he consecrated the woman beforehand, if he has not married her and she attains maturity after he is appointed as a High Priest, he may not marry her as stated in Halachah 17. as [Leviticus 21:13] states: \"He shall marry a virgin woman.\" \"Woman\" implies that she is not a minor. \"Virgin\" implies that she has not reached maturity. What is implied? She has departed from the category of a minor, but has not fully reached maturity, i.e., a maiden. He may never be married to two women at the same time.50As stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:10, a High Priest may not have two wives while he is performing the Yom Kippur services. Here the Rambam is stating that the prohibition applies not only on Yom Kippur, but throughout the year.
The Ra'avad notes that II Chronicles 24:3 speaks of Yehoyeda the High Priest and the marriage of two women, seemingly contradicting the Rambam's ruling. The Ra'avad interprets the verse as stating that Yehoyeda married the women himself. (Similarly, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling.) Rambam LeAm, however, advances the interpretation that the verse is stating that Yehoyeda had Yoash marry the women. [This is derived from the singular form of the term] \"woman,\" i.e., one, but not two.", + "A High Priest may not marry a woman who has lost her virginity even if she never engaged in relations.51I.e., she lost her virginity through an accident of some sorts. If she engaged in anal intercourse, it is as if she engaged in vaginal intercourse.52And she is forbidden to a High Priest. If she engaged in [anal]53This addition is necessary, for if she lost her virginity through relations with an animal, she is disqualified (Meiri). intercourse with an animal, she is permitted.", + "A High Priest who married a woman who had engaged in relations previously is not punished by lashes.54For he is guilty of transgressing merely a positive commandment and lashes are not given for such a transgression. He must, however, divorce her with a get.55Since a transgression is involved in engaging in relations with her, he is compelled to divorce her. Nevertheless, a bill of divorce is necessary for the consecration is binding. If he married a woman past the age of maturity or one who lost her virginity for reasons other than relations, he may remain married to her.
If he consecrated a woman who had previously engaged in relations and then he was appointed as the High Priest, he may marry her after his appointment.56As stated in Halachah 12 with regard to a widow.", + "If he raped or seduced a virgin maiden, he may not marry her.57For he is commanded to marry a virgin and she is not. Even though it is he himself who caused her to lose her virginity, she is not acceptable. Since she is not a virgin, a transgression is involved every time he enters into relations with her. Hence, he is obligated to divorce her.
In the instance mentioned in the previous halachah, he had already consecrated the woman, but in this instance, he did not consecrate her first (Maggid Mishneh). [This applies] even if he raped or seduced her while he was an ordinary priest and was appointed as the High Priest before he married her. If he married her, he must divorce her.", + "If he consecrates a girl while she was a minor and she reaches full maturity while [consecrated] to him before he marries her, he should not marry her.58Because, as stated in Halachah 13, he must marry a maiden, a girl between twelve and twelve and a half. [The rationale is that] her body underwent a change.59And thus she is considered as a different person and, in an abstract sense, not the same woman whom he consecrated. In this manner, the Rambam (based on Yevamot 59a) makes a distinction between this instance and one in which a priest consecrated a widow and then was appointed as High Priest, as mentioned in Halachah 12. If he married her, he need not divorce her.60For even if at the outset, she was passed the age of maturity when he married her, he is allowed to remain married to her, as stated in Halachah 15.", + "[The prohibition against marrying a divorcee applies] whether she was divorced after consecration or after marriage. If, however, a girl is released from marriage through the rite of mi'un, she is permitted to a priest, as we explained in Hilchot Gerushin.61As explained in Hilchot Gerushin, ch. 11, according to Scriptural Law, when a girl's father dies before she reaches the age of twelve, there is no way that she can marry until she reaches that age. Nevertheless, our Sages gave her mother and/or brothers the right to marry her off if they believe that it is to her advantage. Because this marriage does not have a basis in Scriptural Law, a get is not required to absolve it. Instead, the girl may simply leave her husband's house. To formalize the absolution of the relationship all that is necessary is for her to declare that she desires to leave the marriage in the presence of two witnesses. Since the relationship was never binding according to Scriptural Law, she is not disqualified from marrying into the priesthood. [This applies even if] her husband first divorced her with a get, then remarried her, and then she was released through mi'un.62As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, even if at one point she was divorced with a get, since she was released through mi'un, the fact the she was divorced previously is not of consequence. For it is obvious that the divorce is unnecessary.
Any woman who is not fit to perform the rite of chalitzah,63E.g., a man who performed chalitzah with his deceased brother's widow without realizing that she was pregnant and hence, not required to perform this rite before remarrying. but nevertheless performs it is not disqualified from [marrying] a priest.", + "[The following rules apply if] a rumor begins to circulate: \"So-and-so, the priest wrote...\" or \"...gave a get for his wife,\" and she lives with him and serves him.64In the case of an Israelite, there would be no difficulty, for it is possible that he remarried his divorcee. In the case of a priest, however, this would be forbidden, for a priest is forbidden to marry any divorcee even his own. She is not forced to be divorced from her husband.65For a rumor that follows a marriage is not sufficient grounds to require a divorce. If she married another priest,66After being widowed from her first husband. she should be forced to be divorced.67Since the rumor preceded the second marriage, the second priest should not have married her, because of the doubt regarding the validity of the marriage that the rumor caused. And since he married her in possible violation of the law, he is forced to divorce her.", + "If a rumor circulated in a city68As stated in Hilchot Ishut 9:22, we are speaking about a rumor that has been substantiated by a court. It is not conclusive evidence that a woman has been consecrated, but it is far from mere hearsay. If a rumor has not been substantiated in a court, it is of no substance. that a woman was consecrated and then divorced after consecration, her [status] becomes suspect, as explained in Hilchot Gerushin.69Chapter 10, Halachah 20. If, however, a rumor is circulated that she is a chalutzah, her [status] does not become suspect.70Since a chalutzah is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic ordinance, when we are not certain the woman performed this rite, there is no prohibition, as stated in Halachah 7. The Ra'avad, however, rules stringently and maintains that since we are speaking about a rumor with substance, even a rumor that she is a chalutzah can cause her to be forbidden.", + "If a rumor is circulated that a virgin has engaged in relation, her [status] does not become suspect and she may marry a High Priest. If a rumor is circulated that she is a maid-servant, her [status] does not become suspect and she may marry a priest.71We do not disqualify a woman when there is a question about her lineage unless there is explicit testimony that she is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh).
If a rumor72This refers even to a rumor substantiated in court (Beit Shmuel 6:30). circulates in a city that she is acting promiscuously,73And committed adultery or engaged in relations that would cause her to be forbidden to the priesthood as explained in the following chapter. her [status] does not become suspect. Even if her husband separated from her because she violated [the practices of modesty required by] the Jewish faith74E.g., going out to the marketplace with her hair uncovered, spinning flax in the marketplace in a manner that shows her arms to men, playing frivolously with youths, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 24:12. or because [of the testimony] of witnesses [concerning] unseemly conduct,75I.e., testimony regarding conduct that leads to the conclusion that she committed adultery although the adulterous relations themselves were not observed, as mentioned in ibid.:15. but he died before giving her a get, she is permitted [to marry] a priest. For a woman like the above should not be forbidden [to a priest] unless there is definite testimony [that she acted promiscuously] or she admits [doing so] herself.76For in such instance, she accepts the prohibition upon herself, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 9." + ], + [ + "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah1The term literally means \"a promiscuous woman.\" Halachically, however, it has a specific meaning as the Rambam continues to explain. This concept is relevant because a priest is forbidden to marry a zonah as mentioned at the beginning of the previous chapter. used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess,2Even if she is a virgin, and even if she converts (Halachah 3). a Jewish woman who engaged in relations3Even against her will. It is the fact of the relations, not her intent, that causes her to be placed in this category. See Halachot 5-6. with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable,4Even a prohibition that stems from a positive commandment, as mentioned in Halachah 3. or a woman who engaged in relations with a challal5A child born from a relationship forbidden to a priest, as mentioned in Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6. As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's view. even though she is permitted to marry him.6There is no prohibition against a challal marrying any Jewish woman, even the daughter of a priest (see Chapter 19, Halachah 11).
Accordingly, a woman who engages in relations with an animal, even though she is liable for execution by stoning is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood,7She may even marry a High Priest (if she engaged in anal intercourse with an animal), as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 14. for she did not engage in relations with a man. [Similarly, when] a man engages in relations with a woman in the niddah state even though she is liable for kerait, she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, for she is not forbidden to marry him.", + "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone, although she is liable for lashes,8As stated in Hilchot Ishut 1:4. she is not deemed as a zonah, nor is she disqualified from [marrying] into the priesthood. For she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations].
[When, by contrast, a woman] engages in relations with a man with whom relations are forbidden by a negative commandment that is universally applicable - the transgression is not specific to priests - or with whom they are forbidden by a positive commandment, she is forbidden to marry him, she is a zonah.9The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, offering a more lenient view, explaining that although a woman who enters into relations with any of the above individuals is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, these relations do not cause her to be considered as a zonah and she and a priest are not punished by lashes if they engage in relations. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:8) quotes the Rambam's view. Needless to say, [this applies if she engages in relations with a man] who is forbidden to her as an ervah, a gentile, or a servant.", + "Similarly, a female convert or a freed [maid-servant] - even if she was converted or freed when she was less than three years old10At that age, even if she had engaged in relations, her hymen would regenerate and she would be considered as a virgin (Ketubot 11b). Nevertheless, she is not considered as a native-born Jewess.
The Ra'avad rules that such a woman is not considered as a zonah. Nevertheless, she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, based on the interpretation of Ezekiel 44:22 advanced by Kiddushin 78a which states that a priest must marry only from \"the seed of the House of Israel.\" Note the discussion of this difference of opinion by the Maggid Mishneh. See also Chapter 19, Halachah 12, which states that as long as converts marry among each other, their descendants are forbidden to marry into the priesthood. - since she is not a native-born Jewess, she is deemed a zonah and is forbidden to [marry] a priest.
On this basis, [our Sages said: A woman who has relations with] a gentile, a netin,11See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which defines this term and the prohibition against such a man marrying a native-born Jewess. a mamzer,12See Chapter 15 which describes the prohibition of such a man marrying a native-born Jewess. an Ammonite or Moabite convert, a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert,13See Chapter 12, Halachot 18-21, which describes the prohibition of such converts marrying a native-born Jewess. a man with maimed testicles or a severed member,14See Chapter 16 which describes the prohibition of such a man marrying a native-born Jewess. or a challal who has relations with a [nativeborn] Jewess causes her to be considered as a zonah and to be forbidden to [marry into] the priesthood. If she was a priest's daughter, she is disqualified from [partaking of] terumah.15Leviticus 22:12 states \"When the daughter of a priest is [possessed] by a foreigner, she may not partake of the terumah of holiness.\" Yevamot 68a states: \"Since she engaged in relations with someone who is forbidden to her, she is disqualified.\" Similarly, a yevamah who engaged relations with a man other than her yevam becomes a zonah.16Since she is forbidden to marry anyone other than her yevam relations with any other man cause her to be considered as a zonah.
An aylonit17The term aylonit refers to a woman who does not have female physical characteristics. Her breasts do not protrude, she stiffens during sexual relations, and her lower abdomen does not resemble that of a woman. She is considered incapable of giving birth (Hilchot Ishut 2:4-6). is permitted to [marry] a priest. She is not a zonah.", + "When a man engages in relations with one of the shniot18These refer to distant relatives whom the Rabbis forbade as safeguards to Scriptural prohibitions. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6 for a list of these prohibitions. or the like, e.g., a man who engages in relations with a relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitzah or with the woman with whom he performed chalitzah, he does not cause her to be deemed a zonah. For she is not forbidden to him according to Scriptural Law, as we explained in Hilchot Yibbum.19See Hilchot Yibbum 1:12-13 which explains that once a woman is obligated to undergo chalitzah, there is no Scriptural prohibition against engaging in relations with her or her relatives. Nevertheless, our Sages instituted these prohibitions as safeguards.", + "We thus learned that a woman's being deemed as a zonah is not dependent on her engaging in forbidden relations, for when a man engages in relations with a niddah or a harlot or when a woman engages in relations with an animal, the woman has engaged in forbidden relations and yet she is not deemed a zonah. When, by contrast, [a woman] marries a challal, she engages in relations that are permitted, as will be explained,20Chapter 19, Halachah 16. and yet she is deemed a zonah. Thus the matter is dependent on the spiritual blemish alone. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the spiritual blemish comes only from a man who is forbidden to her or a challal, as we explained.", + "Whenever a woman engages in relations that cause her to be deemed a zonah, she becomes disqualified as soon as the man's organ enters her21We are translating the term heara; see Chapter 1, Halachah 10. whether she engages in relations against her will or willingly, whether in conscious violation or inadvertently, whether through vaginal or anal intercourse. [This applies] provided she is at least three years old and the man with whom she engages in relations is nine years old or more.22For below these ages, any sexual contact in which these individuals engage is not significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 13-14. Therefore when a married woman engages in adultery, whether against her will or willingly, she is disqualified from [marrying into] the priesthood.23I.e., if the woman's husband dies after the adulterous relations without divorcing her, she may not marry a priest. Alternatively, as the Rambam continues to explain in the subsequent halachot, if she is the wife of the priest, she may not remain married to him.", + "When the wife of a priest is raped, [if her husband engages in relations with her afterwards,] he is punished by lashes because of her defilement. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 24:4]: \"Her first husband who sent her away cannot return and take her as a wife after she has been defiled.\"24As the Rambam implies, the prohibition indicated by this verse is not explicitly referring to a woman married to a priest. Instead, halachically (see Hilchot Gerushin 11:14), it is interpreted as referring to all married women who are defiled by adultery. The wife of an Israelite who was raped is an exception, but not the wife of a priest.
The commentaries question the exactness of the Rambam's statements here, because in this instance two separate prohibitions - the prohibition against relations with one's defiled wife and the prohibition against a priest engaging in relations with a zonah - are involved. See the Maggid Mishneh for a discussion of the issue. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 22. All [women] were governed by the general principle: If they engaged in [adulterous] relations, they are forbidden to their husbands. The Torah singles out an exception: the wife of an Israelite who was raped.25See Hilchot Ishut 24:19. She is permitted to her husband, as [implied by Numbers 5:13]: \"And she was not seized.\" The wife of a priest remains forbidden, because she is a zonah.26I.e., despite the fact that she is not held responsible for the adulterous relations, they create a spiritual blemish that prevents her from marrying a priest.", + "When the wife of an Israelite is raped, although she is permitted to her husband,27For the adulterous relations were carried out against her will. she is forbidden to [marry into] the prietshood.28After her husband dies.
When the wife of a priest tells her husband: \"I was raped or inadvertently, I engaged in relations with another man,\" or one witness testifies against her that she committed adultery whether willingly or unwillingly, she is not forbidden to him.29Testimony is not considered binding unless it is made by two witnesses. Thus the testimony of one witnesses is not of consequence. Similarly, a person's testimony cannot be used against himself. Hence, the woman's own testimony is not of consequence.
There is one instance where the testimony of one witness is significant. When the husband issued a sotah warning to his wife. See Hilchot Ishut 24:18). [The rationale is that we suspect] that perhaps she set her eyes on another [man].30And seeks to be released from her husband so that she may engage in relations with him. If he considers her as trustworthy, or he considers the witness as trustworthy and he accepts his word,31And thus he believes that his wife committed adultery. he should divorce her so that there is no doubt regarding the matter.32For since he believes either his wife or the witness, he will be consenting to a transgression each time he enters into relations with her. Accordingly, he has a moral and spiritual obligation to divorce her (Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.)", + "Although the wife of a priest who tells her husband: \"I was raped,\" is permitted to her husband as explained, she is forbidden to any other priest33The Beit Shmuel 6:25 states that the Rambam's ruling applies only as an initial and preferred option. After the fact, if she marries a priest, they may remain husband and wife unless he believes her statements. after her husband dies.34The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining that since the woman's statements were rejected, they are considered of no consequence afterwards. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling and it is accepted as law by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:13).
The Ra'avad's rationale is that if the woman is able to provide a satisfactory explanation why she originally stated that she was forbidden, her word is accepted, as is the case with regard to other similar situations. The Maggid Mishneh does not accept this logic. See Chelkat Mechokek 6:12 and Beit Shmuel 6:26 which discuss this issue. For she has acknowledged that she is a zonah and caused herself to be forbidden, making herself a prohibited entity.", + "When a priest35In contrast to an Israelite, as the Rambam continues to explain. consecrates a woman, whether a minor or past majority, and afterwards engages in relations with her and claims that she had engaged in relations previously,36The husband's word is accepted as stated in Hilchot Ishut 11:8-15. The rationale is that we operate on the presumption that a man will not take on the expense and trouble of making a wedding and then forfeit it because of a spurious claim. she is forbidden to him because of the doubt involved:37Since the doubt involves a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently. perhaps she engaged in relations before she was consecrated or perhaps it was afterwards.38For if the relations took place afterwards, even if she was raped, she is forbidden to her husband as a zonah. When, by contrast, an Israelite makes such a claim, there are two doubts involved:39And when there are two doubts involved, even when a Scriptural prohibition is concerned, we rule leniently. Maybe [the forbidden relations] preceded the consecration or maybe they came afterwards. Even if we say that they came afterwards, maybe she was raped or maybe she participated willingly. For a raped woman is permitted to an Israelite, as we explained.40See Halachah 7.", + "Therefore if a girl's father consecrated her to an Israelite when she was less than three years old and [when they married, the Israelite] claimed that he discovered that she had engaged in relations previously, she is forbidden to him because of the doubt. For there is only one doubt involved: Maybe the relations were against her will41Although a minor who willfully commits adultery is not punished, she is forbidden to her husband (Chapter 3, Halachah 2). or maybe she engaged willingly.42Since she was consecrated before the age of three, even if she had engaged in relations beforehand, her hymen would have regenerated. Thus there is only one doubt involved. When there is a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition involved, [we rule] stringently.", + "Any woman who was given [a sotah] warning43A formal warning delivered in the presence of witnesses not to enter into privacy with a specific man (Hilchot Sotah 1:1). by her husband, entered into privacy [with the man she was warned against], but did not drink the sotah waters is forbidden to [marry] a priest,44I.e., if her first husband dies without divorcing her. because there is an unresolved question whether or not she is a zonah.45Drinking the waters would have tested her virtue. Since she did not undergo this test, the matter is unresolved and hence she is forbidden to a priest. [This applies] whether she did not wish to drink [the waters],46See Hilchot Sotah 2:1, 3:2 which imply that the refusal to drink the waters is tantamount to an admission of guilt. her husband did not wish to compel her to drink the waters,47In such an instance, the woman is forbidden to her original husband, but he must pay her the money due her by virtue of her ketubah (Hilchot Sotah 2:1). there was testimony that prevented her from drinking,48Hilchot Sotah 1:14 states that if even one witness testifies that he saw the woman commit adultery after receiving the sotah warning, she becomes forbidden to her husband. the warning was delivered by the court,49Hilchot Sotah 1:10 states that, when a husband is unable to supervise his wife's moral behavior, the court may issue such a warning on his behalf. In such an instance, however, the woman is not compelled to drink the sotah waters. or she was one of the woman who is not fit to drink.50Hilchot Sotah 2:2 lists fifteen women who are not given the option of drinking the sotah waters. Whatever the reason that she did not drink, she is forbidden to [marry into] the priesthood because of the doubt [that has been created].", + "[The following rules apply if we] saw that an unmarried woman engaged in relations with a man who then departed. She is asked: \"Who is the man with whom you engaged in relations?\" If she says, \"He is an acceptable man,\"51I.e., neither a mamzer, nor a gentile, nor another individual who would disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. her word is accepted. Moreover, even if we see that she is pregnant and we ask her: \"From whom did you conceive?\" and she says, \"From an acceptable man,\" her word is accepted and she is permitted [to marry] a priest.52This represents the legal abstract. Our Sages, however, applied stringencies as indicated by the following halachah.", + "When does the above apply? When the place where she engaged in relations was on a thoroughfare or in a carriage in the fields where everyone passes by,53This factor is necessary to allow for us to apply the principle: \"Whenever an entity is separated, it is considered as having been separated from the majority.\" When, as stated in Halachah 15, the relations occur in a place where an entity is kevua, in its fixed place, we do not follow the majority. and most of the passersby are acceptable and most of the inhabitants of the city from which these passersby departed are acceptable. [The rationale for this stringency is that] our Sages elevated the standards required with regard to lineage54Compare to Chapter 15, Halachah 11, which states that when the lineage of the child is involved, the woman's word is accepted even when the majority of the men are not acceptable. The rationale for the difference is that with regard to the child, there is no alternative. If the child is not deemed acceptable, he or she will not be able to marry within the Jewish people. If, however, the woman's word is not accepted, she will still be able to marry anyone other than a priest (Maggid Mishneh). and required two majorities.55I.e., instead of requiring a simple majority as is the usual standard.
If, by contrast, most of the people passing by would disqualify her, e.g., they were gentiles, mamzerim, or the like, even if most of the inhabitants of the city from which they came were acceptable, we are suspect regarding her [status]. Perhaps she engaged in relations with a person who would disqualify her. Hence, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry a priest.56This ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:17). That source, however, also cites the view of the Tur and other Rishonim which maintains that if she states that the person with whom she engaged in relations are acceptable and the majority of the people are acceptable, she may marry into the priesthood at the outset. The Beit Shmuel 6:31 also cites a third, more lenient view. If she marries one, she need not divorce.57After the fact, we rely on the halachic abstract stated in the previous halachah. This applies even if most of the people are unacceptable (Beit Shmuel 6:32). [This ruling also applies] if most of the inhabitants of the locale were unacceptable even though most of the passersby were acceptable.", + "If we saw that she engaged in relations in a city or she became pregnant in a city, [more stringent rules apply]. Even if there was only one gentile, challal, servant, or the like58I.e., persons who would disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. dwelling in the city, the initial and preferred option is that she not marry a priest. [The rationale is that] whenever entities are in their permanent locale, [probability is not taken into consideration. Instead, all doubts] are considered as equally balanced.59The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: When the woman goes to the unacceptable man for relations, he is considered as in his established place and hence, the doubt is considered equally balanced. Even when the unacceptable man comes to the woman for relations - in which instance, he has been separated from his natural place, and hence the principles of probability should apply - we rule stringently. This is a safeguard, lest one rule leniently when the woman goes to the man.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 6) rules more leniently, maintaining that if the man comes to the woman, we follow the principles of probability. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 6:18) mentions both views without stating which one should be followed. If she already married [a priest], she need not be divorced because she says: \"I engaged in relations with an acceptable man.\"60And after the fact, we rely on her word.", + "When a woman is dumb, deaf,61In these two instances, we assume that she lacks the intellectual sophistication to know the status of the man with whom she engaged in relations. she says: \"I don't know the identity of the man with whom I engaged in relations,\" or she was a minor that cannot differentiate between a man who is acceptable and one who is not, she is considered as a zonah of questionable status.62In all instances, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry into the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh). A child born from these relations is considered a mamzer of questionable status, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 12. [After the fact,] if she married a priest, she must be divorced63Since a question of Scriptural Law which cannot be clarified is involved, we rule stringently. unless there is a twofold majority of men with whom she could have engaged in relations that are acceptable.64In such an instance, we are not concerned with the doubt because of the high probability that the man was acceptable.", + "When a woman taken captive is redeemed and she is three years old or more,65The minimum age from which time onward sexual relations are significant. she is forbidden to [marry] a priest, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. Perhaps a gentile engaged in relations with her.
If there is a witness that a gentile did not enter into seclusion with her, she is acceptable to the priesthood.66As the Rambam proceeds to explain, since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, we do not follow the Scriptural requirements applying to witnesses. Therefore although ordinarily the testimony of two acceptable witnesses is required, in this instance, we accept the testimony of only one witness and moreover, accept testimony from witnesses - women, servants, and relatives - who would ordinarily be disqualified. Even a servant, a maid-servant, or a relative67There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries whether the testimony of a woman's son or daughter is acceptable. If they mention the matter in the course of conversation, their word is accepted as evident from the following halachah, If, however, a son or a daughter deliver testimony on their mother's behalf, most authorities maintain that the testimony is not accepted (see Chelkat Mechokek 7:1; Beit Shmuel 7:3). is acceptable with regard to this testimony. [Moreover,] when two women who were taken captive give testimony on behalf of each other, their word is accepted.68Even though one could argue that each one is lying on the other's behalf. [The rationale is] that all the prohibitions involving questionable situations are of Rabbinic origin.69Whenever there is a question whether or not a Scriptural prohibition applies, we rule stringently. This principle, however, is a point of Rabbinic Law. According to Scriptural Law, since the prohibition is not definitely established, one need not observe it. Therefore they ruled leniently with regard to a woman taken captive.", + "Similarly, a minor who states [that a woman was not touched by her captors] in the course of conversation.70A minor is not acceptable as a witness. Nevertheless, if he makes statements in the course of his conversation which indicate that a woman - his mother or any other woman - was not molested by her captors, those statements can serve as evidence to grant the woman license to marry a priest.
The rationale is that these statements are considered to reflect the truth. We suspect that the child is telling us a representative account of what happened. Hence, since the prohibition was instituted only because of doubt, such statements are sufficient to allay our suspicions. With regard to the principle of accepting statements made in the course of conversation, see Hilchot Gerushin, Chapter 13, and commentaries.
There are authorities (Rabbenu Nissim) who maintain that a child's word is also accepted when he gives testimony directly. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:1) also quotes that view although he appears to favor the above perspective. An incident occurred with regard to a child who was captured together with his mother. In the course of conversation, he said: \"My mother and I were captured by the gentiles. When I went out to draw water from the well, I was thinking about my mother. [When I went] to gather wood, I was thinking about my mother.\" Our Sages [permitted] her to marry a priest because of his words.71Because the implication is that his mother was not molested.", + "A husband's word is not accepted if he testifies72Or if he makes the statements in the course of conversation (Maggid Mishneh; Beit Shmuel 7:4). The Rama (Even HaEzer 7:2), however, mentions opinions that grant leniency when he makes such statements in the course of conversation. that his wife who was taken captive was not defiled.73The rationale is based on the principle: \"A person may not give testimony on his own behalf\" [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:2)]. Similarly, her maid-servant may not testify on her behalf.74For we fear that she may lie to cover up for her. A maid-servant belonging to her husband, however, may testify on her behalf. And statements made by her maid-servant in the midst of conversation are accepted.75For we do not assume that she will know that these statements may be used to advance the cause of her mistress.", + "When a priest testifies that a woman who had been taken captive is pure, he may not marry her. [We suspect that] he focused his attention on her.76We suspect that he desired to marry her and therefore testified that she was not defiled even though he did not have definite information to that effect. Although we enforce this stringency with regard to the priest himself, we accept his testimony with regard to others and allow her to marry another priest (Chelkat Mechokek 7:6, Beit Shmuel 7:7). If he redeemed her and testified on her behalf, he may marry her, for if he did not know that she was pure, he would not have paid money on her behalf.77For other persons might come and testify that she was defiled in which instance, he would be forced to divorce her. Hence were he not sure that the matter was true, he would not risk forfeiting his money (Ketubot 36b).", + "When a woman says: \"I was taken captive, but I am pure,\" her word is accepted. [The rationale is] that the mouth that forbid her granted her license.78We would forbid her from marrying a priest only because of her own statements and in those very statements, she maintains that she is pure. [This applies] even if there is one witness who testifies that she was taken captive.79For the testimony of one witness is not halachicly significant. Based on Rashi (Ketubot 23b), the Beit Shmuel 7:8 states that this applies even if the witness testifies that the woman was defiled. If, however, there are two witnesses who testify that she was taken captive, her word is not accepted unless one person testifies that she is pure.
If there were two witnesses who testified that she was taken captive, one witness who testifies that she was defiled and another who contradicts his statements and testifies that she is pure and that a gentile did not enter into seclusion with her until she was redeemed, she is permitted.80The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies even if the witness who testified that she was defiled testified first. Although one might think that once the first witness testifies, her status would be established as forbidden, our Sages ruled leniently with regard to a woman taken captive. [This applies] even if the one who testifies that she is pure is a woman or a maid-servant.", + "When a woman stated: \"I was taken captive, but I am pure,\" and a court granted her license to marry [a priest], she may marry [one] as an initial and preferred option. Her license is not revoked [even if] afterwards two witnesses come and testify that she was taken captive.81Had the witnesses made their statements first, the woman would not have been granted this license. Nevertheless, once she is given permission to marry into the priesthood, that permission is not rescinded unless there are witnesses that she was defiled. Even if her captor enters afterwards and we see that she is a captive under his dominion, her license [to marry a priest] is not revoked. We provide her with protection until she is redeemed.82I.e., watchmen who will observe her and prevent her from being raped by her captors. Although she did not enjoy this protection beforehand, we grant it to her at present.
All of the particulars in this halachah are taken from an actual incident that took place. As Ketubot 23a relates, the daughters of the Sage Shmuel were taken captive. They were transported to Eretz Yisrael. They told their captors to wait for them outside and entered the court of Rabbi Chaninah and said: \"We were taken captive, but we are pure.\" The Sages permitted them to marry into the priesthood.", + "If two witnesses came and stated that [a woman] was defiled, even if she had married and even if she bore children [to her husband, the priest], she must be divorced.83For testimony delivered by two witnesses establishes a halachic reality which must be reckoned with. If one witness came and testified [that she was defiled], his testimony is of no consequence.84The Chelkat Mechokek 7:9 and the Beit Shmuel 7:12 states that even if the witness came after she was given license to marry into the priesthood, but before she actually married, his testimony is of no consequence and the license is not rescinded. This applies even if witnesses had also come and testified that she had been held captive.
If the woman says, \"I was taken captive, but I am pure, and I have witnesses that I am pure,\" we do not say: \"Let us wait until the witnesses come.\" Instead, we grant her license [to marry into the priesthood] immediately. Moreover, even if a rumor is circulated that there are witnesses that she was defiled,85The Chelkat Mechokek 7:11 quotes the Ritbah who maintains that this ruling applies even if the rumor was substantiated in court. As long as there is not actually testimony, her status remains unchanged. we grant her license [to marry into the priesthood] until the witnesses come. [The rationale is that] we are lenient with regard to a woman taken captive.", + "When a father states: \"I consecrated my daughter and I had her divorced,\"86As is his right until she reaches maturity [Hilchot Ishut 3:11 (see also 9:10). [as long as] she is a minor,\" his word is accepted.87And she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood. \"I consecrated my daughter and I had her divorced while she was a minor,\" when she is past majority, his word is not accepted with regard to her being considered as a divorcee.88For his word is accepted only as long as the matter is in his hands (see Kiddushin 64a).
[When he says,] \"She was held captive and I redeemed her,\" his word is not accepted whether she is a minor or past majority. For the Torah deems him trustworthy only with regard to having her forbidden because of marriage, for it is written [Deuteronomy 22:16]: \"I gave my daughter to this man,\"89Since he has the right to consecrate her and effect her divorce, his word is accepted with regard to her status. but not to have her disqualified as a zonah.90The Beit Shmuel 7:15 explains that we do not accept his word based on the principle of miggo. To explain: one might think that since the father's word would be accepted were he to claim that he consecrated her and had her divorced, we accept his word if he claims that she was taken captive, for had he desired to lie, he could have claimed that she was divorced. We do not follow that argument, because the statement that she was taken captive involves a more encompassing prohibition, causing her to be forbidden to partake of terumah as well as being forbidden to marry a priest.", + "When the wife of a priest is forbidden to him because she was taken captive, [we grant a leniency]. Since [the prohibition was instituted because] of a doubt,91I.e., the prohibition was instituted because we suspect that she was defiled. The Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 7) states that, based on the Rambam's statements, if there are witnesses that the woman was defiled, this leniency is not granted. she is permitted to dwell together with him in the same courtyard, provided his children and the members of his household will always be there to watch him.92And see that the couple do not engage in intimacy.", + "[The following laws apply when] a city was held under siege and conquered. If the gentiles surrounded the city from all sides so that it was impossible for [even] one woman to escape93This ruling (as continued in the following three halachot) reflects the Rambam's interpretation of Ketubot 27b. There are several other interpretations of that passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:10) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of dissenting authorities. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 12:24 which states a ruling dependent on the same passage. without being seen and placed under their dominion, all of the women in [the city] are forbidden [to marry into] the priesthood. They are considered as if they were held captive for perhaps they were raped by gentiles. [The only exception] are those less than three years old as explained.94See Halachah 17.", + "If it was possible for one of the woman to escape without being detected or there was one hiding place in the city - even if it could hold only one woman - it saves all [the women from being deemed forbidden].95Even if the woman admits that she did not escape or hide, her word is accepted, based on the principle of miggo. As stated in the following halachah, had she desired to lie, instead of saying merely that she was not molested, she could have claimed to have escaped or have hidden.", + "How does it save [the women from being deemed forbidden]? The word of every woman who claims \"I am pure\" is accepted. Since she could have said: \"I escaped when the city was conquered,\" or \"I was in a hiding place and I was saved,\" her word is accepted if she says: \"I did not escape, nor did I hide, but I was not defiled.\"96See the Chelkat Mechokek 7:15 which state that the Rambam's words imply that the woman must come to court and make these statements to be granted license to marry into the priesthood. They also mention Rabbenu Nissim's view that does not require this measure, but instead permits all women in these situations to marry into the priesthood automatically.", + "When does the above apply? With regard to a battalion from that country who settle in the city and are not afraid. Therefore we fear that they raped the women. With regard to a battalion from another country, which swept through the city, pillaged and passed on, the women are not forbidden.97As mentioned above, there are opinions that differ and maintain that even when the battalion is from another country, the women are forbidden. [The rationale is that] they do not have time to rape, because they are busy gathering spoil and fleeing.98The Kessef Mishneh maintains that even when the conquering army is from another country, if they remain in the city for a longer period, the women are forbidden from marrying into the priesthood. We suspect that since there was no immediate pressure to flee, the soldiers may have raped the local women. If, however, they took the women captive and they were under their dominion, they are forbidden [to the priesthood]99As are any women taken captive by gentiles as stated above. even though Jews pursue [the battalion] and rescued [the women] from them.100Since our Sages forbade women taken captive, that prohibition is universally enforced, regardless of the length of time the women were in captivity (Kessef Mishneh).", + "When a woman was imprisoned because of financial matters, she is permitted [to marry into the priesthood].101I.e., we do not suspect that she was raped, because the gentiles will fear to rape her lest they be forced to forfeit the money owed them [Ramah (Even HaEzer 7:11)]. These laws apply not only to jails, but instances when women are held captive by men for other reasons. When she is imprisoned with regard to matters involving capital punishment, she is forbidden to the priesthood.102I.e., we fear that she was raped by her jailers. Therefore if her husband is a priest, she is forbidden to him.103If, however, the husband is an Israelite, there is no prohibition. We do not fear that the women would try to save her life by seducing her jailers or accepting their advances. Were that to be the case, the relations would be considered voluntary and thus she would be prohibited to her husband.
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:11). The Ramah quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and other Ashkenazic authorities who maintain that a woman would be forbidden to even an Israelite husband for the reasons stated above. He does, however, mention more lenient views.
When does the above apply? When the Jews have power over the gentiles and they are afraid of them. When, by contrast, the gentiles are in power, even when a woman is imprisoned because of financial matters, she is forbidden since she was taken under the dominion of the gentiles104The commentaries question if these laws apply with regard to contemporary prison conditions when it is less likely for the prison staff to ravage women held under their jurisdiction. unless there is a witness who testifies on her behalf as is the law regarding a woman taken captive, as explained above.105Halachah 17." + ], + [ + "What is meant by a challalah? [A woman] born from [relations] forbidden to the priesthood.1I.e., the women mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 1. Similarly, any woman who is forbidden to the priesthood who engaged in relations with a priest becomes a challalah. A priest who commits a transgression himself, however, is not deemed a challal.2The fact that he engaged in forbidden relations does not detract from the essential holiness endowed to him by his priestly lineage.", + "[The above applies] whether she engaged in relations by coercion or inadvertently3For the spiritual blemish brought about by the forbidden relations has an effect regardless of her intent or lack of it. or whether it was vaginal or anal intercourse, as soon as the male organ enters her, she becomes a challalah. [This applies] provided the priest is nine years of age or older and the woman forbidden him is three years of age or older.4For only when the male and the female are these respective ages are their relations considered significant.", + "What is implied? When a priest who is nine years old engages in relations with a divorcee or with a zonah or a High Priest enters into relations with such women or with a widow, or marries a non-virgin and enters into relations with her,5Note the contrast to the following halachah. Although a non-virgin is forbidden only on the basis of a positive commandment (Chapter 17, Halachah 13), offspring from such a relationship are challalim. these women become challalot for all time. If they conceive a child from such relations, whether from relations with the priest who caused them to be deemed a challalah or whether with another priest, the offspring are challalim.
When, however, a priest consecrates a woman who is forbidden to the priesthood and she is widowed or divorced from the consecration, she does not become a challalah.6Needless to say, a divorcee may not marry a priest. The Rambam is emphasizing that if she is divorced, in addition to the prohibition of a divorcee, she is also prohibited as a challalah. If she marries, even if she does not engage in relations, she becomes a challalah even if it is discovered that she is a virgin.7For as Ketubot 11a states, a woman who is divorced after marriage is considered as if she has engaged in relations. The Chelkat Mechokek 7:23 and the Beit Shmuel 7:36 discuss this ruling, mentioning views that differ slightly.", + "When a High Priest marries a woman past majority or one who lost her signs of virginity through means other than intercourse, she does not become a challalah.8For after the fact, he is allowed to remain married to such a woman, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 15. Similarly, if he enters into relations with a non-virgin outside the context of marriage, she does not become a challalah.9For the prohibition forbidding her to him applies only within the context of marriage (Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Although he performs a transgression for entering into intimacy without the intent of marriage (see Hilchot Ishut 1:4), that prohibition is not restricted to the priesthood and offspring are deemed challalim, only when the prohibition against the relations is exclusive to the priesthood.", + "When a priest engages in relations with one of the women forbidden as an ervah with the exception of a woman in the niddah state or with one of the woman who is forbidden because of a negative commandment that is universally applicable, he causes her to be deemed a zonah, as explained.10Chapter 18, Halachah 1. If he - or another priest - engage in relations with her a second time, she becomes a challalah11Since she became a zonah, the prohibition against relations with her is exclusive to the priesthood. and her offspring from [a priest] are challalim.
Accordingly, if a priest engages in relations with a woman who is obligated to undergo yibbum and she conceived from their first relations, the offspring is acceptable to marry into the priesthood. [The rationale is that] the prohibition [against relations with such a woman] is not restricted to the priesthood. She becomes a zonah as we explained.12Chapter 18, Halachah 2. For the relations do involve a transgression. If he engaged in relations with her a second time and she conceived and gave birth, she becomes a challalah and her offspring are challalim, for [these relations]13I.e., relations with a zonah. are forbidden exclusively to the priesthood.", + "Similarly, when a priest engages in relations with a convert or a freed maid-servant, he causes her to become a challalah14For they are forbidden exclusively to the priesthood, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 3. and his offspring from her are challalim.15Even if they are conceived during the first time the couple engage in relations [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:14)]. The rationale is that even before the priest engages in relations with such women, they are deemed as zonot. When a priest engages in relations with a woman in the niddah state, the offspring are acceptable and are not challalim. For the prohibition [against relations with] a woman in the niddah state is universally applicable and is not exclusive to the priesthood.", + "When a priest marries a divorcee who is pregnant - whether with his child or that of another man - and she gives birth after she became a challalah, the child is acceptable, for it was not conceived from forbidden seed.16As Kiddushin 77a states, the determination of whether a child is deemed as a challal or not depends on whether it was conceived through a transgression or not. The mother's status at the time of birth is not significant.", + "We have already explained,17In Chapter 17, Halachah 7. that a woman who has undergone chalitzah is forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree. Therefore, when a priest engages in relations with such a woman, she becomes a challalah and her offspring, challalim. All of this is based on Rabbinic decree. When, by contrast, a priest engages in relations with one of the shniot,18Relatives forbidden by Rabbinic decree as listed in Hilchot Ishut 1:6. she is acceptable19See Chapter 18, Halachah 4. and his descendants from her are acceptable, for these prohibitions are universally applicable and are not exclusive to the priesthood.", + "When a priest engages in relations with a woman whose status as a zonah is questionable, e.g., a woman concerning whose status as a convert or as a freed maid-servant is questionable, when he engages in relations with a woman whose status as a divorcee is questionable,20The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:20) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Tur and the Rama state that the same laws apply to a woman who underwent a chalitzah ceremony of questionable validity. Based on the distinction between such a woman and a woman whose status is a divorcee is questionable which the Rambam makes in Chapter 17, Halachah 7, the Beit Shmuel 7:40 maintains that the Rambam would not accept such an addition. or a High Priest engages in relations with a woman whose status as a widow is questionable,21See Chapter 17, Halachah 12. the woman is deemed as a challalah of questionable status and her offspring are considered challalim of questionable status.", + "Thus there are three categories of challalim: a challal according to Scriptural Law, a challal according to Rabbinic decree, a person whose status as a challal is a matter of question.
Anyone whose status as a challal is a matter of question must observe the severities incumbent on the priesthood and those incumbent on ordinary Israelites.22Otherwise, there is a possibility that he will be violating prohibitions of Scriptural origin. He may not partake of terumah.23Lest he is an Israelite to whom this is forbidden. See Hilchot Terumah 6:7. He may not become impure due to contact with the dead24Lest he is a priest to whom this is forbidden. and he must marry a woman fit to marry a priest. If he partakes of terumah, becomes impure, or marries a divorcee, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. The same laws apply to a challal by Rabbinic decree.
When, however, a person is definitely a challal according to Scriptural Law, he is like [any other] non-priest. He may marry a divorcee and become impure due to contact with a corpse. [This is derived from Leviticus 21:1 which] states: \"Speak to the priests, the descendants of Aaron.\" [Implied is that the prohibition that follows25The prohibition against contact with a corpse. does not apply] even to the descendants of Aaron unless they are priests.", + "A male priest who is forbidden to marry a zonah and a challalah is forbidden to marry a female convert and freed maid-servant for they are equivalent to zonot as we explained.26Chapter 18, Halachah 3. A woman of the priestly family, however, is permitted to marry a challal, a convert, or a freed servant. For women of acceptable lineage were not forbidden against marrying men of unacceptable lineage.27I.e., those forbidden to the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh). See, however, Halachah 21 and notes. [This is derived from the phrase \"the descendants\" [- literally, the sons -] of Aaron,\" i.e., sons and not daughters. Thus a convert is permitted to marry a female mamzer28See Chapter 15, Halachah 7. and also, the daughter of a priest.", + "When converts and/or freed servants marry among themselves and give birth to a daughter - even after several generations - this daughter is forbidden to marry a priest,29Kiddushin 78b states that after the destruction of the Temple, the priests accepted this stringency upon themselves. for the seed of a native-born Jew has not intermingled with them. If one married such a woman, she need not be divorced since she was both conceived and born in holiness.30Note the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 7), the Chelkat Mechokek 7:29 and the Beit Shmuel 7:42 who note that the Rambam requires the girl to be both conceived and born within the Jewish people. When, however, a convert or a freed servant marries a native-born Jewess or a native-born Jew marries a female convert or a freed slave, their daughter is acceptable to marry into the priesthood at the outset.", + "When an Ammonite convert31Who is forbidden to marry a native-born Jewess (Chapter 12, Halachah 18). or a second generation Egyptian convert32Who is likewise forbidden (ibid.:19). marry a native-born Jewess, the intimate relations they share involve a transgression and the women become zonot as we explained.33Chapter 18, Halachah 3. As Yevamot 36a states, the women themselves may not marry a priest, but their daughters may. Nevertheless, their daughters may marry into the priesthood as an initial and preferred option.34For a female Ammonite is permitted and a third generation Egyptian is permitted.", + "When a challal marries an acceptable woman, his descendants from her are challalim. This also applies to the son of his son's son35We have not used the term grandson or great grandson, because if a female descendant is involved, the next generation are not challalim. and indeed, even for 1000 generations. For the male son of a challal is a challal for all time. If the offspring is female, she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood, because she is a challalah.
When, however, an Israelite marries a challalah, the offspring are acceptable.36Neither the son, nor the daughter are considered challalim. Therefore if one of the offspring is female, she may marry into the priesthood at the outset.", + "Priests, Levites, and Israelites are permitted to marry among each other.37E.g., there is no restriction against a priest marrying the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite. The status of the child is determined by that of the father.38Thus in the instance mentioned in the previous note, the offspring would be considered as priests. [Similarly,] Levites, Israelites, and challalim are permitted to marry among each other and the status of the child is determined by that of the father. [This is derived from Numbers 1:18]: \"And they established the lineage of their families, according to their father's household.\" [Implied is that] the household of one's father is one's family and not the household of one's mother.", + "Levites, Israelites, challalim, converts, and freed servants are permitted to marry among each other. When a convert or a freed servant marries the daughter of a Levite, the daughter of an Israelite, or a challalah, the offspring is an Israelite.39I.e., neither a Levite or a challal. When an Israelite, a Levite, or a challal marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant, the status of the child is determined by that of the father.40Thus the offspring of a Levite are Levites and the offspring of challalim are challalim.", + "We operate under the presumption that all families are of acceptable lineage and it is permitted to marry their descendants as an initial and preferred option.41The Rambam is stating that it is not necessary to investigate thoroughly the lineage of a family before marrying into them. If it is a common presumption that a family is of acceptable lineage, one may marry a family member at the outset. When we know nothing of the lineage of the family, there are some authorities [Remo as quoted by the Tur (Even HaEzer 2)] who maintain that we do question his lineage and require proof that he is acceptable. Others (Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Nissim) differ and maintain that even if we do not know anything about a family's lineage, we assume that they are acceptable. See the discussion of the issue by Beit Shmuel 2:3.
The debate concerns the practice in the Talmudic age and in subsequent eras when Jewish observance was strong. At present, particularly in contemporary communities when there are many non-observant Jews and non-halachic divorce and similar problems are rampart, it is customary for Rabbinic courts to be careful and investigate the lineage of people before performing a marriage. Nevertheless, if you see two families continuously quarreling with each other, you see one family that is always involved with strife and controversy, or you see a person who frequently quarrels with people at large and is very insolent, we suspect [their lineage]. It is fitting to distance oneself from such people for these are disqualifying characteristics.
Similarly, a person who always slurs the lineage of others, casting aspersions on the ancestry of families or individuals, claiming that they are mamzerim, we are suspicious that he himself is a mamzer. Similarly, if he calls others servants, we suspect that he is a servant. For whoever denigrates others, denigrates them with a blemish that he himself possesses.
Similarly, whenever a person is characterized by insolence and cruelty, hating people and not showing kindness to them, we seriously suspect that he is a Gibeonite. For the distinguishing signs of the holy nation of Israel is that they are meek, merciful, and kind. With regard to the Gibeonites, [II Samuel 21:2] states: \"The Gibeonites are not of the Jewish people.\" For they acted extremely brazenly and would not be appeased. They did not show mercy to the sons of [King] Saul, nor did they show kindness to the Jews to forgive the descendants of their king,42As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 12, Halachah 23, as related in II Samuel, ch. 21, there was a famine for three years in Eretz Yisrael. Through prophetic vision, David learned that the reason for the famine was Saul's oppression of the Gibeonites (exactly what Saul did to oppress them is a matter of discussion among the Rabbis). David asked the Gibeonites what they desired to be appeased for this oppression. They answered that they wanted to slay seven of his descendants. David handed over seven of Saul's descendants to them and they hung them and left their corpses on the gallows. For this act of cruelty, David decreed that they should never marry among the Jewish people. while [the Jews] had shown them kindness and allowed them to live.43Joshua, Chapter 9, relates that after the Jews' conquest of Jericho and Ai, the inhabitants of Gibeon:
Acted cunningly... They took old sacks upon their donkeys, old and rent wine bottles... old, worn and patched shoes... and came to Joshua at Gilgal. They told him:... \"We have come from a distant country. Therefore, make a covenant with us.\" Joshua made a covenant with them... and the princes of the congregation swore to them.
After the ruse was discovered, Joshua and the people honored the covenant and allowed the Gibeonites to live. Moreover, they even came to their defense when they were attacked by other Canaanite nations.", + "When [the purity of] a family's [lineage] has been disputed, i.e., two individuals testify44The Beit Shmuel 2:6 cites the opinion of Rashi (Kiddushin 76a) which maintains that even if the two people cast aspersions on the family's lineage without delivering formal testimony, such investigations must be made. that a mamzer or a challal has intermingled with that family or there are servants among them,45We are not concerned that a servant intermingled among them, for even if a servant did conceive a child with a woman from a priestly family, the child is acceptable. Our suspicion is that one of the priests had relations with a maid-servant and she bore him a son or daughter who was raised as a member of the priest's family (Chelkat Mechokek 2:2). the matter is questionable. If the family are priests, one should not marry a woman from them until he46See Halachah 21and notes which discuss whether a woman is required to make such an investigation or not. investigates the lineage of four - actually eight47I.e., the obligation is to check the lineage of four women: her mother, the mother of her maternal grandfather, her paternal grandmother, and the paternal grandmother of her paternal grandfather. Nevertheless, to verify the acceptability of the lineage of these women, it is necessary to verify that their mothers are also of acceptable lineage, thus reaching a total of eight (Rabbenu Nissim).- of her maternal ancestors: her mother, her maternal grandmother, the mother of her maternal grandfather, the maternal grandmother of her maternal grandfather. Similarly, he must investigate the lineage of her paternal grandmother, the mother of her paternal grandmother, the mother of her paternal grandfather, and the mother of the mother of her paternal grandfather.", + "If the family whose lineage was disputed were Levites or Israelites, it is necessary to check [the lineage of] another pair of women. Thus one must check ten maternal ancestors.48I.e., one must add the mother of her maternal grandmother and the maternal grandmother of her paternal grandmother (Merkevet HaMishneh).
The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, noting that from Kiddushin 76a, it would appear that one would have to check the lineage of twelve or sixteen women. [The rationale is that unacceptable people] intermarry among Levites and Israelites more frequently than among priests.", + "Why is it necessary to check the lineage only of the woman's maternal [ancestors]? Because whenever men argue with each other, one will malign the other with a blemish that exists in his lineage. Thus if he was unacceptable, the matter would have been made known.49I.e., after the blemish was mentioned in quarrels, it would become a matter of public knowledge and investigated accordingly. Women, by contrast, do not malign [each other] with regard to blemishes in their lineage.50Hence, their blemished lineage would not be public knowledge.", + "Why must a man make an investigation when he desires to marry a woman from a family concerning whom the presumption of acceptable lineage has been impaired and yet a woman who desires to marry into this family is not required to make an investigation? Because woman of acceptable lineage were not warned against marrying [men of] unacceptable lineage.51The Rambam's statements (based on his interpretation of Kiddushin 76b) have attracted the attention of the commentaries who raise a basic question: The prohibition against marrying an unacceptable partner (e.g., a mamzer) applies equally to men and women (see Chapter 1, Halachah 1). Why then is a woman not warned with regard to this matter?
The Maggid Mishneh (quoting Rashi's commentary to Kiddushin 76a) states that here, the Rambam intent is that since the Torah did not forbid a woman of the priestly family from marrying a challal, our Sages did not require a woman to make an investigation even when there is a question whether her future husband is entirely unacceptable.
According to Rashi who interprets \"disputing a family's lineage\" (Halachah 18) as merely casting aspersions, this interpretation is tenable. After all, we have no hard and fast evidence that the man's lineage is unacceptable. But according to the Rambam, who defines that term as referring to testimony delivered in court, the original question remains. Since there is a firm possibility that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, why shouldn't a woman be required to make an investigation? Among the resolutions offered is that of the Chelkat Mechokek 2:5 is that the Rambam would require an investigation even when a woman desires to marry. Nevertheless, the investigation need not include all of the eight (or ten) women mentioned by the Rambam. Such thoroughness is required only when a man seeks to marry.
See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Halachah 18 and the Chelkat Mechokek 2:3 which cite differing opinions which also require a woman to make a full-fledged investigation of the lineage of a man she desires to marry if there are questions concerning his lineage.", + "Whenever a person is called a mamzer, a netin a challal, or a servant and he remains silent, we suspect [the lineage of] him and his family52We assume that he would not remain silent when his lineage is slurred unless there was some truth to the assertions.
The Ra'avad states that the Rambam's statement (taken from Ketubot 14b) held true only in the Talmudic era when a person who insulted a colleague's lineage was placed under a ban of ostracism. Hence when a person remained silent instead of appealing to the court, we could assume that he was admitting to the accuser's assertion. In the present era, by contrast, there is no punishment given for making such slurs. Hence, the insulted person would have no benefit in bringing the matter to the court's attention. Accordingly, it is preferable to remain silent.
The Ramban and the Rashba explain that the Rambam's words apply with regard to a family concerning which there already exist doubts with regard to their lineage. When, by contrast, their lineage is considered unblemished, it is preferable for them to remain silent. Rabbenu Nissim states that the insulted person's silence is considered significant only when it is common for him to protest other matters. If, however, he usually remains silent, the fact that he does so in this situation as well is of no consequence. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 2:4) quotes the Rambam's words and the Rama quotes the latter views. and do not marry women from this [family] unless an investigation was made as we explained.53As explained in Halachot 18-19. The investigation is sufficient to clarify any difficulties, for the suspicion created by his silence is not a more serious factor than the testimony of the witnesses mentioned in Halachah 18 (Maggid Mishneh).", + "When there is a suspicion that a person concerning whom there is a question whether he is a challal married into a family,54I.e., there is a report that a man of questionable status married into a family, but the identity of that man and that of his wife are not known. every widow from that family is forbidden to a priest at the outset.55One might think that because of the multiple doubt involved the woman would be permitted at the outset. Nevertheless, because of the stringency of the laws of proper lineage, this leniency is not taken. [After the fact,] if she married [a priest], she need not be divorced because there are two questions involved: Maybe this is the widow of that challal56And as is stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1, a woman who engaged in relations with a challal is forbidden to the priesthood. or maybe it is not? Even if you say that she was his widow, maybe he was a challal or maybe he was not?57Since there is a multiple doubt (sefek sefeikah), the woman is permitted.
If, however, a person who was definitely a challal married into a family, every woman58I.e., both widows and daughters (Kessef Mishneh). from that family is forbidden to a priest until he conducts an investigation. If he marries [such a woman without an investigation], she must be divorced. The same laws59I.e., the first clause applies to a person's whose status as a mamzer is a matter of question and the second clause to whose unacceptable status is definite (Kessef Mishneh).
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions opinions that rule more stringently and forbid marriage even when there is a report that a person about whom a question was raised whether or not he is a mamzer married into a family. In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 2:5), however, he quotes the Rambam's view. apply if a person regarding whom there is a question whether he is a mamzer or a person who is definitely mamzer became intermingled in the family. For the same prohibition applies to the priesthood with regard to the wife of a challal and the wife of a mamzer, as we explained.60Chapter 18, Halachah 1." + ], + [ + "[The status of] all of the priests of the present era1When the priests do not serve in the Temple and there is no Sanhedrin to verify their lineage. is accepted on the basis of a prevailing assumption.2I.e., they are regarded as priests by people at large even though there is no definite proof of their lineage. They may only eat sacred food that is eaten [within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael],3I.e., in contrast to sacrificial meat which may be eaten only in the Temple courtyard or within the city of Jerusalem depending on the type of sacrifice involved. provided it is terumah mandated by virtue of Rabbinic decree [alone].4As explained in Halachah 3, in the present age, the mitzvah of terumah has the status of a Rabbinic commandment. As reflected by the commentaries to Hilchot Terumah 2:1, according to the Rambam, Scriptural Law requires us to separate terumah from all types of produce usually eaten by humans. The mitzvah does not apply only to the grain, grapes, and olives singled out by Deuteronomy 18:4. [Even] terumah mandated by Scriptural Law and challah mandated by Scriptural Law, by contrast, may be eaten only by a priest whose lineage is established.", + "What is meant by a priest whose lineage is established? Anyone concerning whom two witnesses5Note the Maggid Mishneh who elaborates, explaining that although generally, the testimony of one witness is sufficient with regard to issues involving Scriptural prohibitions, an exception is made with regard to terumah. testify that he is a priest, the son of so-and-so the priest, and the descendant of so-and-so the priest, extending back until we reach a person whose lineage need not be checked, i.e., a priest who served at the altar. [Such a person's lineage need not be verified, because] were the High Court not to have made investigations about him, they would not have allowed him to perform service [in the Temple].6See the conclusion of the tractate of Middot and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:11, which describes the manner in which the lineage of the priests was checked.
Accordingly, we do not investigate the lineage of anyone who served at the altar or who served on the Sanhedrin. For only priests, Levites, and Israelites of acceptable lineage are appointed to the Sanhedrin.7See Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:1.", + "In the present era, even in Eretz Yisrael,8As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Bikkurim 5:5,7, in the Biblical era, there was a distinction between the mitzvah of challah as observed in Eretz Yisrael and as observed in the Diaspora. For according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. challah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment. [This is derived from Numbers 15:18:] \"When you come into the land....\"9The continuation of the verse describes the mitzvah to separate challah. [Implied is when] all of you enter and not when only a portion enter.10As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Terumah 1:26 and Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:16, after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael by Assyrians and the Babylonians the sanctity of the land was nullified and there was no obligation to keep the agricultural laws of Eretz Yisrael. When Ezra led the people back to Eretz Yisrael after the 70 years of the Babylonian exile, the majority of the people did not accompany him. (Moreover, he did not conquer the land.) Hence, his sanctification of Eretz Yisrael was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, he and his court ruled that those mitzvot should be observed as a Rabbinic ordinance.
This reflects the Rambam's view. Although other Rishonim (Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen) differ and maintain that Ezra's settlement of the land was sufficient to sanctify it according to Scriptural Law, the Rambam's approach is accepted by most authorities. When Ezra ascended [to Eretz Yisrael], the entire people did not ascend.
Similarly, in the present era, terumah is a Rabbinic commandment.11The Rambam maintains that the laws regarding terumah and the tithes are derived from those applying to challah (Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Terumah 1:26). Therefore it is eaten by the priests of our era [whose lineage is established merely] by presumption.", + "When two witnesses testify that they saw a person partaking of terumah mandated by Scriptural Law, his lineage is established. We do not elevate a person [to the level that his priestly] lineage is [considered as] established based on the fact that he delivers the Priestly Blessing [to the people], reads the Torah first,12In the Talmudic era - as is still the practice in certain communities - when a person was given an aliyah, he would read the Torah himself, rather than have it read for him by others. or is given terumah in the granaries,13Although all of these practices are signs of the priesthood, we do not consider them as conclusive evidence of a priest's lineage. or because of the testimony of one witness.", + "When a priest whose lineage was established says: \"This son of mine is a priest,\" we do not consider [the son as a priest whose] lineage is established14The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's words could be interpreted to mean that the child is considered a priest with regard to marriage. Nevertheless, he does not possess the advantage of being considered of established lineage unless testimony is given. on the basis of his statement unless he brings witnesses who testify that the child is his son.15The father's statement is, however, sufficient to have considered as a priest with regards to matters applicable in the present age, as stated in Halachah 10.", + "[The following laws apply when] a priest whose lineage has been established departs to another country together with his wife whom we know to be of acceptable lineage. If he comes together with her and children who relate to them as parents and says: \"This is the woman who departed together with me and these are her children,\" he does not have to bring witnesses to testify about the woman or the children.
[If he says:] \"She died and these are her children,\" he must bring witnesses who testify that these are his children.16More precisely, that they are the sons borne him by his deceased wife. He need not bring witnesses that his wife was of acceptable lineage, for her status as being acceptable was already established when she departed from us.", + "When a priest whose lineage was established goes out to another country and comes together with his wife and his sons, saying: \"I married this woman and these are her sons,\" he must bring proof that the woman is acceptable. He does not have to bring witnesses that these are her sons, provided the children relate to her as a mother.
If he comes together with two wives and brings proof regarding one, he is required to bring proof about the sons, even though the children are young and relate to her as a mother. For perhaps they are the sons of the other women, but relate to the woman whose lineage is established as a mother.", + "If he comes together with sons and says: \"I married a woman and she died. These are her sons,\" he must bring witnesses that the woman was acceptable and that these are her sons.\" These laws also apply with regard to an Israelite of established lineage and a Levite of established lineage. Afterwards, we can testify with regard to this son so that he will be fit for the Sanhedrin.17And his daughters fit to marry priests.", + "We do not elevate a person's lineage [based on mention in] a document to the priesthood. What is implied? If it is stated in a document: \"So-and-so, the priest, borrowed from so-and-so this-and-this amount,\" and witnesses sign below, we do not operate under the assumption that this priest is of acceptable lineage. For perhaps, they signed only with regard to the loan.18And did not pay attention to the fact the person was described as a priest.
With regard to what does the above apply? With regard to considering the person as a priest of acceptable lineage. [Different principles apply] with regard to the presumption that he is a priest like the other priests of the present age and license to partake of terumah and challah mandated by Rabbinic decree and to be given other sacred articles [granted priests within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael].19E.g., the sheep exchanged in place of a donkey, the first shearing of a sheep, and the like. [These privileges are granted on the basis of] mention in a legal document, the testimony of one witness, or the fact that a person recites the priestly blessing or reads the Torah first.", + "Similarly, whenever a priest says: \"My son is a priest,\" his word is accepted with regard to feeding him terumah20This refers even to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. Ketubot 25b explains that this ruling is based on the principle of miggo. If the priest desired to transgress, he could feed his son terumah without having him declared a priest. See also Halachah 3. and having him accepted as a priest.21To be given an aliyah first and to bless the people. He need not bring proof regarding his sons or his wife.", + "When two people come to a particular city, one says: \"I and my colleague are priests,\" and the other says, \"I and my colleague are priests,\" their word is accepted and they are both considered as priests22For the testimony of one witness is effective. even though it appears that they are in collusion.23And there is room to suspect that each is lying on the others behalf.
Similarly, if one witness says: \"I saw this person recite the Priestly Blessing,\" \"...eat terumah, \"...received terumah in the granary,\" or \"...read first from the Torah and a Levi read after him,\"24If a Levi did not read after him, the fact that he read first is not significant. For perhaps there were no priests present and an Israelite was called instead or he was given the honor because of his stature as a Torah scholar. he is considered a priest on the basis of this statement. Similarly, if one testified that a person read second from the Torah after a priest, he is considered as a Levite.", + "If one delivers testimony in court saying that he saw a person and his brothers divide terumah left to them by their father the priest, we do not consider him a priest because of this testimony. Perhaps he is a challal and took his portion of the inheritance of terumah in order to sell it.", + "In the present era, when a person comes and says: \"I am a priest,\" his word is not accepted and we do not consider him a priest on the basis of his own statements. He should not read from the Torah first, recite the Priestly Blessing,25The Maggid Mishneh explains that the above are forbidden him, because - as stated in Halachah 9 - when an observer sees a person performing such acts, he may consider that person a priest.
Rav Moshe Cohen and the Rama (Even HaEzer 3:1) maintain that, in the present era, it is customary to accept a person's word if he claims to be a priest. For the only serious problem with regard to observance is partaking of terumah and we do not separate terumah in the present age. Note the Chelkat Mechokek 3:1 who raises questions regarding the license for this person to recite the Priestly Blessing. See also the Maggid Mishneh who mentions that this custom was also practiced in his era. He strongly protests against it, calling it \"an erroneous custom.\" or partake of sacred food that is eaten [within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] unless there is one witness who corroborates his statements.
He does, however, cause himself to be forbidden [to marry] a divorcee, a zonah, and a challalah; nor may he become impure because of contact with a corpse.26Since he considers himself a priest, it is as if he has taken a vow not to perform these activities. If he marries such a woman or becomes impure, he receives lashes.27The commentaries have questioned this statement, for it has not been formally established that the person is a priest. Nevertheless, since he considers himself a priest, as far as he is concerned, the warning given him will be have been of substance and the punishment deserved. Hence he is given the lashes. The woman is not given lashes, for as far as she is concerned, the matter is not definitely established (Maggid Mishneh). A woman [who may not marry into the priesthood] who engages in relations with him is deemed a challalah of questionable status.28Hence if another priest engages in relations with her, he is not given lashes. Her offspring are also challalim of questionable status and her daughter may not marry into the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh; Chelkat Mechokek 3:3).", + "If the person makes these statements in the course of conversation, his word is accepted.29He is allowed to partake of terumah mandated by Rabbinic decree, for his statements are given the weight of the testimony of one witness.
What is implied? An incident once took place with regard to a person who was speaking in the midst of conversation, saying: \"I remember that when I was an infant and was being carried on my shoulders by father, they took me out of school,30This is proof that he was not a servant, for servants are not taught the Torah (Tosafot, Ketubot 26a). removed my outer garment, and had me immerse in the mikveh to partake of terumah in the evening. My colleagues separated themselves from me and called me: 'Yochanan, who eats challot.' Our holy teacher31Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. had him considered a priest on the basis of these statements.", + "An adult's word is accepted if he says: \"I remember when I was a child32Generally, for testimony to be valid, the person observing the matter must be acceptable as a witness. In this instance, however, formal testimony is not required. Hence leniency is shown. (See Hilchot Edut 14:3). and I saw so-and-so immerse himself in a mikveh and partake of terumah in the evening.\" He is considered a priest on the basis of this statement.
In the present era, when a person comes and says: \"I am a priest,\" and a witness testifies on his behalf, saying: \"I know that his father is a priest,\" we do not consider him as a priest on the basis of this testimony. [We fear that] perhaps he is a challal.33This applies even if there are no rumors that the person's mother is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh). The Chelkat Mechokek 3:9 quotes other authorities who are more lenient. Instead, [the witness] must testify that the person himself is a priest. If, however, the father's identity as a priest is an established fact or two witnesses come and testify that the person's father is a priest, because of his father, we assume [that he is a priest].", + "When the identity of a person's father as a priest has been established, but there is a rumor34We are not speaking about mere hearsay, but a rumor that is substantiated by the court. that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who performed chalitzah, we entertain suspicions and do not treat him as a priest. If one witness comes and testifies that he is acceptable, we treat him as a priest because of his statements.35For the testimony of one witness is powerful enough to negate the rumor. If two witnesses come afterwards and testify that he is a challal, we remove him from the priesthood.36Because the testimony of one witness is of no consequence in the face of the testimony of two witnesses.
If another witness comes and testifies that he is acceptable, we treat him as a priest, because the last witness is joined together with the first.37The fact that the two witnesses do not testify at the same time is not significant (Hilchot Edut 4:4). Thus there are two witnesses testifying that he is acceptable and two testifying that he is unacceptable. Both pairs of witness and the rumor are voided, for two witnesses have the same legal power as 100.38I.e., the intent is that once two witnesses give testimony in court, their statement is given the weight of established fact and needs no further corroboration. Since the statements of the two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, they are both nullified. Nevertheless, the statements of the witnesses who testify that he is acceptable also have the power to nullify the rumor. And the person remains a priest based on the status of his father.39The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if he is considered acceptable only with regard to terumah mandated by Rabbinic Law or also with regard to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. The Beit Shmuel 3:14 states that the Rambam is also referring to terumah mandated by Rabbinic Law.", + "[The following law applies] when a woman [remarried] without waiting three months after [the death of] her [first] husband40A woman is required to wait for such an interim so that the lineage of her children will be established definitively. and gave birth. If it is not known whether the child was conceived by the first - and born after nine months - or conceived by the second - and born after seven - and one of them was a priest and the other, an Israelite, the child is a priest of questionable status.
Similarly, if a son of a priest became intermingled with a child of an Israelite41I.e., as infants, the identity of the children became confused and the doubt was never clarified. and they grow to maturity, they are both considered priests of questionable status. They must observe the stringencies incumbent on Israelites and the stringencies incumbent on priests: They may only marry women fit to marry into the priesthood. They may not become impure through contact with the dead, nor may they partake of terumah. If they marry a divorcee, they are forced to divorce and they do not receive lashes.42They are not given lashes, because it is not certain that they violated a Scriptural commandment. They should, however, be given \"stripes for rebellious conduct,\" because of their disregard of the restrictions the Rabbis placed upon them [Perisha (Even HaEzer 3)].", + "[The following rules apply] if the sons of two priests become intermingled or the wife of a priest married a second priest without waiting three months after the death of her first husband and it is not known whether the child was conceived by the first - and born after nine months - or conceived by the second - and born after seven. The stringencies that would apply as if he was the son of both men must be observed: He must observe the rites of aninut43This term refers to the state of acute morning that applies immediately after the death of one's close relative. See Hilchot Evel 4:6. It is particularly relevant to priests, for one is forbidden to serve in the Temple or partake of sacrificial foods in a state of aninut (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-10 ). because of [both44Yevamot 100b notes a difficulty in the use of the plural in both this and the following clause. Since the ordinary way the mother of this priest could have married a second priest is when her first husband died, how is it possible to speak about the son mourning for that first husband or that first husband mourning for him?
The Talmud answers that this is speaking about a situation where the mother thought she was consecrated to the first husband, but in fact was not. This is not considered a licentious relationship warranting the stringencies mentioned in the following halachah. A formal divorce, however, is not required and hence the woman may marry another priest.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam, one can also interpret the passage as referring to a woman whose father died in her childhood and who was married by Rabbinic decree. Until she attains majority, she may dissolve that marriage through the rite of mi'un. In such an instance, a formal divorce is not required. If she conceives a child, dissolves her marriage, and then marries another priest, the situation mentioned in this halachah may apply. of] them45For perhaps that person is his father. Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this statement as referring to the restrictions placed upon priests for aninut. Since it is possible that the person who died is his father, he should not risk the violation of a Scriptural commandment. With regard to the customs concerning aninut mentioned in Hilchot Evel (one of them being that one does not perform any of the Torah's mitzvot), by contrast, Kinat Eliyahu raises a question: Should one refrain from performing a mitzvah because perhaps the person who died was his father? and they [both] observe the rights of aninut because of him.46For perhaps he is their son. He may not become impure because of them, nor may they become impure because of him.47There is a Scriptural prohibition against a priest becoming impure. That prohibition does not apply when one is certain that the person who died is one's relative. In this instance, however, neither the father or son is certain. He may serve in the priestly watch48The priests were divided into 24 watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week in a cycle of rotation (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3). This priest has the right to serve during the week allotted to both of the individuals suspected of being his father. of both of them, but does not receive a portion.49In this instance, we are speaking of expropriating property (a share in the sacrifices) from the other priests. Hence we follow the principle: When a person seeks to expropriate property, the burden of proof is upon him. If they are both from the same priestly watch and the same beit av,50Each priestly watch was divided into seven batei av, family groupings, who would serve in the Temple one day of the seven (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11). he receives one portion.51For he is certainly entitled to one portion.", + "When does the above apply? When the relationships with both [priests] involve marriage. If, however, one is a licentious relationship, our Sages decreed that [the son's] priestly privileges are suppressed entirely, because he does not have definitive knowledge of the identity of his father. [This is supported by Numbers 25:13]:52Yevamot, loc. cit., explains that this interpretation is not of Scriptural origin. Instead, the law is a Rabbinic decree. Our Sages, however, found a Biblical verse that supported their ruling. \"He and his descendants who follow him will possess [the covenant of priesthood].\" [Implied is that] his descendants will be able to trace their identity to him.", + "What is implied? There were ten priests. One of them departed and engaged in relations [with a woman without revealing his identity]. The son is definitely a priest.53Because all the individuals suspected of being his father were priests. Nevertheless, since he does not know his father's identity and cannot trace his lineage to him, his priestly privileges are suppressed entirely. He may not serve [in the Temple], partake [of sacrificial foods], or receive an allotment [from the sacrifices]. If, however, he becomes impure because of contact with a corpse or he marries a divorcee, he receives lashes, for there is no question of leniency.54For he is definitely a priest and must observe the prohibitions incumbent upon them." + ], + [ + "Whoever shares physical intimacy with one of the ariyot without actually becoming involved in sexual relations or embraces and kisses [one of them] out of desire1Compare to Halachah 6. and derives pleasure from the physical contact should be lashed2As evident from Halachah 3, although such acts are forbidden whenever sexual relations are prohibited, lashes are given only when the woman is one of the ariyot (Maggid Mishneh). according to Scriptural Law. [This is derived from Leviticus 18:30 which] states: \"To refrain from performing any of these abominable practices,\" and [ibid.:6 which] states: \"Do not draw close to reveal nakedness.\" Implied is that we are forbidden to draw close to acts that lead to revealing nakedness.3The verse teaches that not only is undesirable sexual conduct itself forbidden, but also preliminary acts that lead to such conduct.
This teaching is significant from a theoretical perspective. Our Sages teach (Avot 1:1): \"Make a fence around the Torah,\" i.e., enact prohibitions to safeguard Scriptural prohibitions and prevent them from being violated. Our Rabbis, however, question if there is a concept of \"making a fence\" in Scriptural Law, i.e., are there prohibitions that exist solely to prevent one from violating more severe prohibitions?
It would appear that this prohibition would fall into that category (see Halachah 4). Why are these acts of closeness forbidden? Because most likely they will lead to intimacy. One may, however, explain that these acts of closeness are, in and of themselves, \"abominable practices,\" and hence, forbidden.
The above discussion is relevant according to the Rambam's approach. The Ramban [Hasgot to Sefer HaMitzvot (mitzvah 353) differs and does not consider the prohibition mentioned here of Scriptural origin. Instead, he views it as a Rabbinic safeguard, \"a fence\" instituted by the Rabbis to protect Scriptural Law.", + "A person who engages in any of the abovementioned practices is considered likely to engage in forbidden sexual relations.
It is forbidden4The Maggid Mishneh considers the following as Rabbinic safeguards. The Beit Shmuel 21:2 mentions opinions which consider some as having a Scriptural source. for a person to make motions with his hands or feet or wink with his eyes to one of the ariyot, to share mirth with her or to act frivolously with her.5As Avot 1:5 teaches: \"Mirth and frivolity habituate a person to immorality.\" It is even forbidden to smell her perfume6In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4), the Rambam quotes the Pesikta Rabati, ch. 25, which interprets the commandment lo tinaf, as \"Do not take forbidden pleasure with your nose.\" or gaze at her beauty. A person who performs any of these actions intentionally should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.
A person who looks at even a small finger of a woman with the intent of deriving pleasure is considered as if he looked at her genitalia. It is even forbidden to hear the voice of a woman forbidden as an ervah or to look at her hair.", + "These matters are [also] forbidden with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden on the basis of [merely] a negative commandment.
It is permitted to look at the face of an unmarried woman and examine [her features] whether she is a virgin or has engaged in relations previously to see whether she is attractive in his eyes so that he may marry her. There is no prohibition in doing this. On the contrary, it is proper to do this.7For if a person does not look at a woman before he marries her, he may have an unpleasant surprise afterwards (Kiddushin 41a). The Ra'avad suggests that a pious person should rely on the opinion of others rather than looking at his intended himself, but the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:3) quotes the Rambam's view. One should not, however, look in a licentious manner. Behold [Job 31:1] states: \"I established a covenant with my eyes; I would not gaze at a maiden.\"", + "It is permitted for a person to gaze at his wife8Indeed, a woman may adorn herself during this time so that she will not appear unattractive to her husband (Chapter 11, Halachah 19). when she is in the niddah state9This applies only to portions of her body which are usually revealed. He should not look at those portions that are usually covered (Ra'avad). although she is an ervah [at that time]. Although his heart derives satisfaction from seeing her, since she will be permitted to him afterwards, he will not suffer a lapse. He should not, however, share mirth with her or act frivolously with her lest this lead to sin.", + "It is forbidden for a man to have any woman - whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman - perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts.
Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet,10This applies even if the woman does not actually touch him [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:5)]. spreading his bed in his presence,11Implied is that outside one's presence, this is permitted. and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife.12For they all suggest a certain measure of intimacy. Compare to Chapter 11, Halachah 19.
When commenting on the quotation of these laws by the Shulchan Aruch, the Rama mentions certain leniencies, e.g., if the tasks are performed in a public place, if there is no indication of closeness involved.
[A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.13Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who explains that it is permitted to inquire concerning a woman's welfare.", + "When a man embraces or kisses any of the women forbidden to him as ariyot despite the fact that his heart does not disturb him concerning the matter,14I.e., he has no fear that this closeness will lead to intimacy. e.g., his adult sister, his mother's sister, or the like, it is very shameful. It is forbidden15Nevertheless, if one has no pleasure or desire, the act is not punished by lashes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3)]. and it is foolish conduct. [This applies] even if he has no desire or pleasure at all. For one should not show closeness to a woman forbidden as an ervah at all, whether an adult or a minor, except a woman to her son and a father to his daughter.16The Chelkat Mechokek 21:10 adds that one may show physical closeness to one's granddaughter and to one's infant sister.", + "What is implied? A father is permitted to embrace his daughter, kiss her, and sleep with her with their bodies touching17I.e., even unclothed. and a mother may do the same with her son as long as they are young. When they grow and become mature18In Hilchot Keriat Shema 3:19, the Rambam mentions that the children must also reached the age of majority, thirteen for boys and twelve for girls. In our translation, however, we have focused on the physical characteristics, because the Chelkat Mechokek 21:12 emphasizes that this is what is of primary importance. with the girl's body becoming developed,19The Rambam borrows the wording of Ezekiel 16:7 which literally means \"her breasts are developed and her hair has grown.\" they should each sleep in clothing.
If the daughter is embarrassed to stand before her father naked or she married,20The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies even if she is merely consecrated. and similarly, if the mother was embarrassed to stand before her son naked, even if [the children] are minors, when one reaches the point when one is ashamed [of being naked] in their presence, they should sleep together only when clothed.21Even when children reach the stage when they and their parents are required to sleep together while clothed, their parents are still allowed to embrace them and kiss them (Beit Shmuel 7:15).", + "Lesbian relations are forbidden. This is \"the conduct of Egypt\" which we were warned against, as [Leviticus 18:3] states: \"Do not follow the conduct of Egypt.\" Our Sages said:22Sifra, commenting on the above verse. What would they do? A man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, and a woman would marry two men.
Although this conduct is forbidden,23By Scriptural Law. The verse is not merely cited as support for a Rabbinic injunction. lashes are not given for it, for it is not a specific prohibition24As stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 353), this is a general prohibition, including all types of forbidden sexual behavior. As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3, lashes are not given for the violation of prohibitions that are of a general nature. and there is no intercourse at all. Therefore such women are not forbidden to marry into the priesthood as zonot, nor does a woman become prohibited to her husband because of this,25As would apply were this to be considered as adultery. for this is not considered harlotry. It is, however, appropriate to give them stripes for rebellious conduct26This represents a change of opinion from his statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3) where he writes that even according to Rabbinic Law, no punishment should be given. because they performed a transgression. A man should take precautions with his wife with regard to this matter and should prevent women who are known to engage in such practices from visiting her and her from visiting them.", + "A man's wife is permitted to him. Therefore a man may do whatever he desires with his wife. He may engage in relations whenever he desires, kiss any organ he desires,27The Beit Shmuel 25:1 quotes many authorities who forbid a man from kissing his wife's genitalia. engage in vaginal or anal intercourse or engage in physical intimacy without relations, provided he does not release seed in vain.28See Halachah 18.
Nevertheless, it is pious conduct for a person not to act frivolously concerning such matters and to sanctify himself at the time of relations, as explained in Hilchot Deot.29In Hilchot Deot, ch. 3, the Rambam elaborates on the concept that all of a person's actions, even his sexual conduct, must be for the sake of heaven. In Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, the Rambam elaborates on refined habits of sexual conduct. He should not depart from the ordinary pattern of the world. For this act was [given to us] solely for the sake of procreation.30In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3), the Rambam writes:
The intent of sexual relations is the preservation of the species and not only pleasure. The aspect of pleasure was introduced only to motivate the created beings toward that ultimate goal....
The proof of this is that desire and pleasure cease after ejaculation; this was the entire goal for which our instincts were aroused. If the goal were pleasure, satisfaction would continue as long as man desired.
", + "A man is forbidden to engage in relations by candlelight.31The point of the laws mentioned in this halachah is that one should not look at one's wife while engaging in relations. If, on the Sabbath,32When it is a mitzvah to engage in relations. he did not have another room and there is a light burning, he should not engage in relations at all.33If one can cover the light or create a partition in front of it in a manner permitted on the Sabbath, there is no prohibition [Chelkat Mechokek 25:4; Rama (Orach Chayim 240:11)].
Similarly, it is forbidden for a Jew to engage in relations during the day, for this is brazen conduct. If he is a Torah scholar, who will not be drawn after this, he may create darkness with his garment and engage in relations. One should not, however, adopt this measure unless there is a great need.34I.e., one feels very aroused (Magen Avraham 240:25). It is the course of holy conduct to engage in relations in the middle of the night35In Hilchot Deot 5:4, the Rambam gives a rationale that at this time a person's food will have been digested and yet, he will not be overly hungry. The commentaries to Nedarim 20b explain that in this manner, the man and his wife will have forgotten all their daytime concerns and will be able to focus their attention on each other and the holiness of the experience.", + "Our Sages do not derive satisfaction from a person who engages in sexual relations excessively and frequents his wife like a rooster. This reflects a very blemished [character]; it is the way underdeveloped people conduct themselves. Instead, everyone who minimizes his sexual conduct is praiseworthy, provided he does not neglect his conjugal duties36See Hilchot Ishut, ch. 14, which explains the frequency of the conjugal duties a husband has to his wife. This factor is dependent on the nature of the husband's work and the manner in which it taxes him. without the consent of his wife. The sole reason while originally it was ordained that a person who had a seminal emission should not read from the Torah until they immerse themselves37See Hilchot Kriat Shema 4:8 which explains that originally, Ezra enacted such a decree for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. Afterwards, our Sages checked and saw that this decree had never fully spread throughout the Jewish community. Hence they nullified it. was to minimize sexual conduct.", + "Similarly, our Sages38Nedarim 20b. forbade a person from engaging in relations with his wife while his heart is focused on another woman. He should not engage in relations while intoxicated, nor while quarreling, nor out of hatred. He should not engage in relations with her against her will when she is afraid of him.39See Hilchot Deot 5:4-5 which states:
[Relations should be conducted] amidst their mutual consent and joy. He should converse and dally with her somewhat, so that she will be relaxed. He should have intercourse [with her] modestly and not boldly.... Whoever conducts himself in this manner [may be assured that] not only does he sanctify his soul, purify himself, and refine his character, but furthermore, if he has children, they will be handsome and modest, worthy of wisdom and piety.
 Nor when one of them is placed under a ban of ostracism. He should not engage in relations [with his wife] after he made the decision to divorce her. If he does so,40I.e., exhibits any of the undesirable behaviors described above. The rationale is, as explained in Avodat HaKodesh and other sources, a person's intent at the time of sexual relations has a major effect in determining the character of his children. the children will not be of proper character. There will be those who are brazen and others who are rebellious and sinful.", + "Similarly, our Sages said41Nedarim, loc. cit.. that whenever an audacious woman demands relations verbally, a man seduces a woman for the sake of marriage, he had the intent of having relations with his wife Rachel and instead, engages in relations with his wife Leah, or a woman does not wait three months after the death of her husband and gives birth to a son whose identity is questionable,42As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, whenever a woman is divorced or widowed, she should wait 90 days before remarrying, so that the identity of her child's father will be clearly established. all of the children born in these situations will be rebellious and sinful who will be purified by the sufferings of exile.", + "It is forbidden for a man to engage in relations with his wife in the marketplaces, streets, gardens, or orchards. Instead, [a couple should be physically intimate] only in a home, so that they will not appear as licentious relations and will not habituate themselves to licentious relations.43For surrendering oneself to one's desires without control within the context of marriage may lead one to surrender oneself to one's desires outside the context of marriage. When a man engages in relations with his wife in such places, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, when a man consecrates a woman via sexual relations,44According to Scriptural Law, a person may consecrate his wife by engaging in relations with her. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade such a practice because of its immodest nature (Hilchot Ishut 3:21). consecrates her in the market place or consecrates her without there being an engagement beforehand, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.45As Hilchot Ishut, ibid.::22 continues, the latter two practices were forbidden as a safeguard to lewd conduct. Our Sages feared that if women would be consecrated in this manner, the people would look at marriage and intimacy in a much baser manner.", + "A visitor is forbidden to engage in relations until he returns home. Our Sages46Kiddushin 12b. forbade a man from dwelling in his father-in-law's home,47For an extended period of time. Needless, to say, there is no difficulty with making a short visit.
With regard to both this and the previous law, the Ra'avad writes that if the couple are given a separate room and they use their own bedspreads, there is no prohibition. The Maggid Mishneh writes that in practice, many people follow this approach, although he does not see a source for this leniency in the Talmud. The Chelkat Mechokek 25:6 and the Beit Shmuel 25:7 quotes the Ra'avad's view. for this is brazen conduct. Nor should he enter a bathhouse with him.", + "A person should not enter a bathhouse with his father, his sister's husband, nor with his student.48Lest this arouse undesirable thoughts [Rashi, Pesachim 51a; see Rama (Even HaEzer 23:6)]. If he needs his student [to assist him], it is permitted. There are places where people followed the custom that two brothers would not enter a bathhouse at the same time.", + "Jewish women should not walk in the marketplace with uncovered hair. [This applies to] both unmarried49I.e., a widow or a divorcee. A woman who never married may wear her hair uncovered (Chelkat Mechokek 21:2). and married women. Similarly, a woman should not walk in the street with her son following her. [This is] a decree, [enacted so that] her son not be abducted and she follow after him to bring him back and she be molested by wicked people who took hold of him as a caprice.", + "It is forbidden to release sperm wastefully.50When stating this prohibition, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:1) adds: \"This transgression is more severe than any of the sins in the Torah.\" Therefore a person should not enter his wife and ejaculate outside of her.51See the commentaries to Genesis, ch. 38, which relate that this was the sin of Judah's two sons: Er and Onan. They married Tamar, but did not desire that she become pregnant. Hence they did not release their sperm within her. Their sin angered God and He caused them to die. A man should not marry a minor who is not fit to give birth.52For in essence, whenever the couple engage in intercourse, he will be releasing sperm without purpose, because she is not old enough to become pregnant. Niddah 13b states that those who marry minors hold back Mashiach's coming.
It must be emphasized that if a man does marry a minor, he is permitted to engage in relations with her [Rama (Even HaEzer 23:5)]. Similarly, relations are permitted in other instances where they will not lead to pregnancy: e.g., when the woman is already pregnant, directly after birth, or she is past menopause. Since a man has conjugal duties to his wife, he is not allowed to ignore them even though she will not become pregnant.
Those who, however, release sperm with their hands, beyond the fact that they commit a great transgression, a person who does this will abide under a ban of ostracism. Concerning them, it is said: \"Your hands are filled with blood.\" It is as if they killed a person.", + "It is forbidden for a person to intentionally cause himself to have an erection or to bring himself to [sexual] thoughts. If a [sexual] thought comes to his mind, he should divert his heart from profligate and destructive matters to the words of Torah53See Chapter 22, Halachah 21. See also Avot D'Rabbi Nattan 20:1 which implies that this is not merely a matter of will power and mind control. Instead, directing one's attention to the Torah awakens spiritual influences which prevent a person's attention from focusing on sexual thoughts. which are \"a beloved hind, arousing favor.\"54This analogy for the Torah is taken from Proverbs 5:19. For this reason, it is forbidden for a person to sleep on his back with his face upward,55Needless to say, it is forbidden for one to sleep on his belly. Instead, he should turn to the side slightly so that he will not develop an erection.", + "One should not look at animals, beasts, and fowls at the time the males and females are coupling. It is, however, permitted for a breeder of livestock to insert a male animal's organ in a female's. Since he is working in his profession, he will not be motivated to [sexual] thoughts.", + "Similarly, it is forbidden for a man to look at woman while they do laundry. It is even forbidden to look at the colored56Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. This also follows the text of Avodah Zarah 20b, the Rambam's apparent source. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah employs a slightly different version. garments of a woman one knows,57When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:1) clarifies that it applies even when the woman is not wearing the garments. The clothes themselves may prompt the man's imagination. lest one be motivated to [sexual] thoughts.", + "When a person encounters a woman in the street, it is forbidden for him to walk behind her.58For watching her body might arouse him. Instead, he should hurry and [position himself so that] she is at his side or behind him. Whoever walks behind a woman in the marketplace is one of the frivolous of the common people.
It is forbidden to pass the entrance of a harlot without distancing oneself four cubits, as [Proverbs 5:8] states: \"Do not come close to the entrance of her home.\"", + "It is forbidden for an unmarried man to extend his hand to his testicles, lest he be stimulated to [sexual] thoughts. Indeed, he should not extend his hand below his navel, lest he be stimulated to [sexual] thoughts. If he urinates, he should not hold the shaft of his organ while urinating. If he is married,59Even if his wife is not together with him (Beit Shmuel 23:4). this is permitted. Whether he is married or not, he should not extend his hand to his organ at all, except when he has to urinate.60See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 3:14) which grants a man permission to hold himself below the corona of his organ, for this does not stimulate him sexually.", + "One of the pious men of the early eras and the wise men of stature prided himself in that he never looked at his male organ. Another said with pride that he had never contemplated his wife's physical form.61See Shabbos 118b, 53b. For their hearts would be diverted from profligate matters to the words of truth which take hold of the hearts of the holy.", + "Among our Sages' commands is that a person should marry off his sons and daughters close to the time they reach physical maturity.62I.e., directly after a youth becomes thirteen (Chelkat Mechokek 1:3). For were he to leave them [unmarried], they may be motivated to promiscuity or sexual thoughts. Concerning this was applied the verse [Job 5:24]: \"Scrutinize your dwelling and you shall not sin.\"63I.e., having foresight with regard to one's children's sexual behavior will prevent sin. See the conclusion of Hilchot Sotah where the Rambam cites the same verse in a different - although somewhat related - context.
It is forbidden to marry a woman to a minor, for this is comparable to promiscuity.64According to Scriptural Law, a man cannot consecrate a woman until he reaches the age of thirteen and demonstrates signs of physical maturity. Hence, if a couple are married beforehand, all relations are comparable to promiscuity. See Chelkat Mechokek, loc. cit. and Beit Shmuel 1:4 who discuss certain views that maintain that it is permitted to marry beforehand.", + "A man is not permitted to abide without a wife.65Lest he be prompted to sexual thoughts. He should not marry a barren woman or an elderly woman who is not fit to bear children.66This certainly applies before the man has fulfilled the obligation to be fruitful and multiply (i.e., he fathered a boy and a girl). Even after he has fulfilled that mitzvah, he should marry a woman capable of bearing children [Hilchot Ishut 15:7, 16; Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 1:8)]. In the latter situation, however, there is room for certain leniencies.
A woman is permitted not to marry at all or to marry a eunuch. 67For she is not bound by the commandment of procreation. A young man should not marry an elderly woman, nor an elderly man, a young woman, for such conduct leads to promiscuity.68We assume that the difference in age will lead to a lack of sexual harmony and cause the man and/or woman to seek fulfillment outside of marriage.", + "Similarly, a person who divorced his wife after they were married69If, however, the woman was merely consecrated, the couple will not have shared familiarity and there is less grounds for suspicion, as mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah. should not live in the same courtyard as she, lest this lead to promiscuity.70In the Talmudic era, the custom was to build blocks of homes that opened up to a communal courtyard. Several of these courtyards would open up to a single lane. If a man and his divorcee would dwell in a single courtyard - and even in a single lane - they would meet each other on a frequent basis. In such a situation, we fear that the familiarity that they shared in the past might lead them to be intimate.
Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that as long as the woman has not remarried, there is no prohibition against relations between the couple. They cite the standard text of Ketubot 27b which reads \"A woman should not marry in his neighborhood.\" They maintain that the prohibition applies only when the woman remarries. She and her new husband should not dwell near her previous husband lest this lead to adultery.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 119:7) quotes the Rambam's wording. The Rama, however, mentions that if a woman remarries, she should not dwell in the same lane as her ex-husband even if he is not a priest. If he was a priest, he should not dwell in the same lane as she.71Since he is also bound by the prohibition against relations with a divorcee, there are more severe restrictions. A small village is considered as a lane.
If he owes her a debt, she should appoint an agent to demand payment from him.72Rather than demand payment herself. In this way, they will share less contact. When a divorcee and her ex-husband come [to court] for a judgment, we place them under a ban of ostracism or subject them to stripes for rebellious conduct.73For one of them should have appointed an agent so that they would avoid meeting each other.
If, however, a woman was divorced [merely] after consecration, she may summon him to court and dwell near him.74Since they never lived together, we do not fear that meeting each other will lead to intimacy. If they shared extensive familiarity, this is forbidden even if [they were divorced merely] after consecration.
Who is forced to move? She is forced to move because of him.75This applies if the home belongs to the husband and even if the woman also owns a home in that courtyard or the couple's home was rented (Chelkat Mechokek 119:27). Ketubot 28a explains that it is more difficult for a man to leave his home than it is for a woman. If the courtyard belongs to her, he is forced to move because of her.", + "A person should not marry a woman with the intent to divorce her, [as alluded to by Proverbs 3:29]: \"Do not devise evil against your loved one, one who dwells securely with you.\" If he notifies her at the outset that he is marrying her only for a limited time, it is permitted.76In this instance, she is not \"dwelling securely,\" because she was informed of the temporary nature of the relationship from the outset. See Yevamot 37b which gives the example of several Sages who would marry women for brief periods of times after informing them beforehand.
See also the Chelkat Mechokek 119:1 and the Beit Shmuel 119:1 which debate whether it is proper for a man to engage in relations with his wife in such a situation. For as stated in Halachah 12, a man should not engage in relations with his wife if he intends to divorce her.", + "A person should not marry one woman in one country and another woman in another country, lest this situation continue for a long time and [ultimately,] a brother may marry his sister, the sister of his mother, or the sister of his father and the like without knowing.77Since they live apart from each other, it is possible that they will not know of the other's existence. If they visit that other locale, they may marry a relative without knowing of the family connection. If [the man with two wives] is a person of stature whose name is known and whose descendants are well known and celebrated, it is permitted.78For then, it will be unlikely that his descendants will intermarry unknowingly.", + "A man should not marry a woman from a family of lepers, nor from a family of epileptics, i.e., that it has been established on three occasions that the descendants of this family have this malady.", + "When a woman was married to two husbands and they both died, she should not marry a third [man].79For we fear that he will die as they did. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 9:1) who mentions certain leniencies concerning this situation. If she did marry, she need not be divorced.80The commentaries cite the Biblical narrative concerning the marriage of Judah's sons to Tamar (Genesis, ch. 38) as proof of these laws. At the outset, Judah did not want her to marry his third son. After he had relations with her, however, he married her and continued living with her as man and wife. Indeed, even if he merely consecrated her, he may consummate the marriage.
An unlearned81The term am haaretz which we translated as \"unlearned\" has broader implications. As indicated by the following halachah, it also has the connotation of one who is not careful in the observance of the mitzvot and whose character is unrefined and underdeveloped. Israelite should not marry the daughter of a priest. For this is comparable to the desecration of Aaron's seed. If they marry, our Sages said82Pesachim 49b. that their marriage will not be propitious. Instead, they will die without children, either he or she will die in the near future, or there will be strife between them.83The commentaries note that Pesachim, op. cit., states \"it will lead to poverty.\" Some resolve the differences by explaining that poverty will lead a family to strife. When, by contrast, a Torah scholar marries the daughter of a priest, this is attractive and praiseworthy, [joining] the Torah and the priesthood as one.", + "A person should not marry the daughter of an unlearned person. For if he dies or is exiled, his children will grow up unlearned, since their mother is not knowledgeable regarding the crown of Torah.84I.e., we can assume that his wife will return to her family and that the children will be raised according to the prevailing atmosphere in that home. From the statements of Rama (Even HaEzer 2:6), we can conclude that if an unlearned person is precise in his observance of the mitzvot, these words of caution do not apply. Nor should he give his daughter to an unlearned person in marriage. For anyone who gives his daughter to an unlearned person is like one who bound her and placed her before a lion. He will strike her and engage in relations and has no shame.
A person should sell everything that he has [so that] he can marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. For if he dies or is exiled, his children will grow up as Torah scholars. And he should marry his daughter to a Torah scholar for there is no shameful conduct or strife in the home of a Torah scholar." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to enter into privacy with any of the woman forbidden as ariot,1This prohibition also includes woman with whom relations are forbidden merely by a negative commandment (Beit Shmuel 22:1). even if she is elderly or a young girl,2And thus there is no apparent motivation toward sexual relations. for this leads to forbidden relations. [The only] exceptions are a woman and her son, a father and his daughter, and a husband with his wife who is in the niddah state.3See the Chelkat Mechokek 22:1 and the Beit Shmuel, loc. cit. which cite opinions that maintain that a man is permitted to enter into privacy with his sister in a temporary situation.
When a bridegroom's wife menstruates before he engages in relations with her, it is forbidden for him to enter into privacy with her.4Since the couple have never engaged in relations, we fear that they will not be able to control their desire. Hence we require them to take this added safeguard. Instead, she should sleep among [other] women and he should sleep among [other] men.5See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 192:4) who discusses this issue in depth, mentioning several stringencies and leniencies. He states the prevailing custom is for a young boy to accompany the groom and a young girl to accompany the bride. Every person should check with a competent Rabbinic authority with regard to the custom followed in their community. If they engaged in relations once and afterwards, she became impure, he is permitted to enter into privacy with her.", + "Jewish men were not suspected of engaging in relations with men or with animals. Hence, there is no prohibition against entering into privacy with them.6The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 24:1) writes that homosexuality had become prevalent in his community and hence, it was deemed appropriate not to enter into privacy with other men. The Bayit Chadash states that in places where this transgression is not widespread, there is no need for taking such precautions. If, however, a person distances himself from entering into privacy even with a male or an animal, it is praiseworthy. Sages of great stature would distance themselves from animals so that they would not be alone with them.7See Kiddushin 81b.
The prohibition against entering into privacy with woman forbidden as ariot has been transmitted by the Oral Tradition.8Kiddushin 80b states that \"there is an allusion to the prohibition against entering into privacy in the Torah.\" The Rambam understands that to mean that the prohibition was conveyed by the Oral Tradition and our Sages found an allusion for it in the Torah. The Tur (Even HaEzer 22), however, follows the opinion of Tosafot who maintains that the prohibition is of Scriptural origin.", + "When the incident concerning Amnon and Tamar occurred,9As II Samuel, ch. 13, relates: Amonon, David's oldest son, lusted for Tamar, his half-sister. He feigned illness and asked that Tamar serve him a meal. While she was serving him, he raped her. David and his court decreed a prohibition against entering into privacy with an unmarried woman. Although an unmarried woman is not an ervah, such an act is considered as entering into privacy with an ervah. Shammai and Hillel decreed a prohibition against entering into privacy with gentiles.10In that era, there already were more substantial social conduct between Jews and gentiles and our Sages felt that there was a need for further safeguards.
Thus when anyone enters into privacy with a woman, whether Jew or gentile, with whom such an act is forbidden, both the man and the woman are given stripes for rebellious conduct and an announcement is made concerning them.11Publicizing their misconduct so that the shame will further inhibit a future recurrence. An exception is made with regard to a married woman. Although it is forbidden to enter into privacy with her, if one does enter into privacy with her, corporal punishment is not administered12The simple meaning of the Rambam's words is that lashes are not administered at all, neither to the man or the woman. The Bayit Chadash (Even HaEzer 22), however, states that punishment should be administered to the man, for it is not necessary to mention the woman with whom he transgressed. lest a rumor be initiated that she committed adultery. Thus a rumor might spread that her children are mamzerim.", + "Whenever a man is forbidden to enter into privacy with a woman, this act is permitted if he is accompanied by his wife, for his wife will guard him [against transgression]. A Jewish woman should not enter into privacy with a gentile man even if his wife is with him. For a gentile's wife will not guard him [against transgression] and they have no shame.13And there is the possibility that he will engage in relations with her in the presence of his wife.", + "Similarly, a Jewish child should not be entrusted to a gentile with the intent that he teach him to read or teach him a craft, for all gentiles are suspect to engage in homosexual relations. Similarly, we do not house an animal in an inn belonging to gentiles, not even a male in an inn with males and a female in an inn with females.14For we fear that the gentiles will engage in sexual misconduct. See Halachah 7.", + "We do not entrust an animal, beast, or fowl to a gentile shepherd, not even a male animal to a male shepherd and a female animal to a female shepherd, because they are all suspect to sodomize animals. We have already explained15Chapter 14, Halachah 10. that [gentiles] are forbidden to engage in homosexuality or sodomy. And [Leviticus 19:14] states: \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.\"16As interpreted by Avodah Zarah 6b, et al, this verse is a command not to place a person in a situation where he is likely to sin. By placing an animal belonging to him in the gentile's possession, the Jew is making it possible for him to sin.", + "Why do we not entrust a female animal to a female gentile? For [all gentiles] are assumed to be promiscuous and when a gentile man will come to sleep with this gentile woman, it is possible that he will not find her and instead, sodomize the animal. Or even if he does find her, he may sodomize the animal.", + "One woman should not enter into privacy even with many men17For we fear that she will enter into relations with one or more of the men in the presence of the others.
The Rama (Even HaEzer 22:5) states that a woman may enter into privacy with two upright men in a city, but not in a field, and only during the day, but not at night). unless the wife of one of them is present.18For in that instance, she will guard him, as stated in Halachah 4. Nor will the other woman engage in relations in her presence, for it is likely that she will publicize the matter (Kessef Mishneh). Similarly, one man should not enter into privacy even with many women,19For in this instance as well, there is the possibility that they will engage in relations. The Rama (loc. cit.) gives permission for many [three (Chelkat Mechokek 22:11) women to enter into privacy with one man, provided his profession does not involve contact with women. But when there are many women together with many men, we do not show concern for the prohibition against entering into privacy.20In such a situation, it is highly unlikely that the people will engage in relations.
If the men were outside and the women were inside or if the men were inside and the women were outside, and one woman - or one man - separated themselves and joined the group of the other sex, the prohibition against entering into privacy applies.
Even a man whose business and profession [brings him into contact] with women21E.g., one who sells clothes or perfumes to women. is forbidden to enter into privacy with them. What should he do? He should involve himself with them while accompanied by his wife or turn to another profession.", + "It is permitted to enter into privacy with two yevamot, two wives of the same man, a woman and her mother-in-law, or a woman and her husband's daughter, a woman and her husband's daughter, or a woman and her mother-in-law's daughter. [The rationale is that] these women hate each other and will not conceal the other's [misdeeds].22Hence the women will be frightened to engage in sexual relations, for they know the matter will become public knowledge. Similarly, it is permitted to enter into privacy with a woman who is accompanied by a young child old enough to understand what sexual relations are, but who would not engage in relations herself. [The rationale is that the woman] would not act promiscuously in the presence of this child, for she will reveal her secret.", + "It is permitted to enter into privacy with a female child less than three years old and a male child less than nine years old. For [our Sages] only issued decrees concerning entering into privacy with a woman fit to engage in relations and a male fit to engage in relations.23And this does not apply below the ages mentioned in the halachah.", + "An androgynus24A person with both male and female sexual organs. may not enter into privacy with women.25For he has a sexual drive for relations with women (Beit Shmuel 22:16). If he does, he is not given physical punishment, because his status is doubtful. A man may enter into privacy with an androgynus or a tumtum.26A tumtum refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by a block of flesh and it cannot be determined whether he is a male or female. A male is permitted to enter into privacy with these individuals, because he does not have a sexual drive for anyone other than an actual woman (ibid.).", + "When a married woman's husband is in the [same] city, she need not be concerned about [the prohibition against] entering into privacy with another man, because she will be impressed by the fear of her husband.27She will fear that at any particular time, her husband will come. Hence she will never commit adultery. If a man is overly familiar with her, e.g., they grew up together or she is his relative, she should not enter into privacy with him even if her husband is in the same city.28Because this familiarity may cause her to overstep the bounds of modesty even when her husband is in the city.
Whenever a man enters into a room with a woman, but there is a door29The later commentaries explain that open windows are also sufficient. open to the public thoroughfare, we are not concerned about [the prohibition against] entering into privacy.30Since it is possible for the two to be seen by passersby, they will not transgress.", + "An unmarried man should not teach young children, because the mothers come to the school because of their sons and thus he will be tempted by women.31This applies even in a situation where there is no question of the teacher entering into privacy with the mothers (Beit Shmuel 22:21). Similarly, a woman32This refers to an unmarried woman or one whose husband is out of town. Otherwise, there is no prohibition against entering into privacy (Chelkat Mechokek 22:21). should not teach young boys, because their fathers come because of their sons and thus they will enter into privacy with her. A teacher does not have to have his wife together with him in school,33To avoid the prohibition that stems from his being tempted by women. It is sufficient that she be at home, while he teaches in his place.34According to the Maggid Mishneh, this leniency applies even if the teacher's wife is in another city. As long as he is married, there is no prohibition. The Chelkat Mechokek 22:21 and the Beit Shmuel 22:22 differ and conclude that this leniency applies only when the man's wife lives in the same city where he teaches. If she lives in another city, it is forbidden.", + "Our Sages ordained that women speak to each other while in a lavatory,35The Rama (Even HaEzer 22:13) states that this refers to outhouses in the fields (which was the custom in the Talmudic era), but not to outhouses in the city (which had become the custom in his time). Needless to say, it does not apply in the present age when the lavatories are in the privacy of buildings. so that a man will not enter there and thus be alone with them.", + "We do not appoint even a faithful and observant person to be a guard of a courtyard where women live. [This applies] even if he stands outside, for there is no guardian against promiscuity.36I.e., No matter how upright the person's character, there is the possibility that frequent exposure to women will lead him to undesirable relations.
It is forbidden for a person to appoint a supervisor over his home so that he does not lead his wife to sin.37We fear that if another man was placed in charge of a person's home, he would have frequent contact with the owner's wife and there is the possibility that ultimately the two will commit adultery. As Berachot 63a states: \"Had Potiphar not appointed Joseph as the supervisor of his home, that incident (Potiphar's wife attempted seduction of Joseph) would never have occurred.\"", + "It is forbidden for a Torah scholar to dwell in a courtyard where a widow lives even though he does not enter into privacy with her lest suspicions arise38I.e., people at large will suspect that they are sharing a relationship.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what was forbidden was to dwell with her in the same home. There are no restrictions against dwelling in the same courtyard. According to the Rambam, dwelling in the same home temporarily is permitted as long as one does not enter into privacy with her. The Maggid Mishneh supports the Rambam's interpretation. unless his wife is with him. Similarly, a widow should not raise a dog because of the suspicions that might arise. Nor should a woman purchase male servants - even minors - because of the suspicions that may arise.39I.e., people will gossip that she is intimate with the dog or the servants. In Hilchot Avadim 9:6, the Rambam mentions this restriction only with regard to servants nine years old or above. See the notes to that halachah.", + "We do not relate the hidden matters40Rashi (Chagigah 11b) interprets this as referring to those matters which are not explicit in the Torah. concerning forbidden sexual conduct to three students. [The rationale is that] one will be absorbed in questioning the teacher, the other two will be debating the matter back and forth and will not be free to listen. Since a person's mind is aroused by sexual matters,41The Rambam, based on Chagigah, loc. cit., is explaining why there is a difference between the laws concerning forbidden sexual conduct and those involving other matters. if a doubt arises concerning something he heard, he may [in error] rule leniently. Therefore, we teach only to two. In this manner, the one listening will focus his attention and recall what he will hear from the teacher.", + "There is nothing in the entire Torah that is more difficult for the majority of people to separate themselves from than sexual misconduct and forbidden relationships. Our Sages said:42Sifri, Parshat Bahaaloscha; Shabbat 130b. When the Jews were commanded regarding forbidden sexual relations, they wept and accepted this mitzvah with complaints and moaning, as implied by the phrase: \"Crying among their families,\" [which is interpreted as meaning]: \"Crying about family matters.\"", + "Our Sages said:43Makkot 23b. A person's soul desires and craves theft and forbidden sexual relations. You will never find a community that does not have some people who are promiscuous regarding forbidden relationships and prohibited sexual conduct. Moreover, our Sages said:44Bava Batra 165a. Most people trespass with regard to theft; a minority with regard to forbidden sexual conduct, and all with regard to the shade of undesirable gossip.45This term refers to remarks concerning a colleague that are not actually lashon hara, unfavorable gossip, but which border on that type of speech. See Hilchot De'ot, ch. 7, for a more precise discussion of this issue.", + "Therefore it is proper for a person to subjugate his natural inclination with regard to this matter and train himself in extra holiness, pure thought, and proper character traits so that he will be guarded against them.
He should be very careful with regard to entering into privacy with a woman, for this is a great cause [of transgression]. Our great Sages would tell their students:46See Kiddushin 82b who quotes Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Meir as making such statements. It continues, relating that one of his students mocked Rabbi Meir for making such statements. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that this student committed adultery with his mother-in-law. \"Watch me because of my daughter,\" \"Watch me because of my daughter-in-law,\" so that they would teach their students not to be embarrassed about such matters and distance themselves from entering into privacy with women.", + "Similarly, a person should distance himself from levity, intoxication, and flirtation,47Our translation is based on the words of Rama (Even HaEzer 25:1) and Chelkat Mechokek 25:1. for they are great precipitators and steps [leading] to forbidden relations.
A man should not live without a wife, for this practice leads to great purity.48While married, he will have the opportunity for ordinary male-female relationships and will not develop pent up feelings that seek expression in forbidden relations. And [our Sages gave] even greater [advice], saying:49Kiddushin 30b. \"A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for the thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart which is empty of wisdom.\" And in [Solomon's words of] wisdom [Proverbs 5:19], it is written: \"It50The Torah. See Eruvin 54b which explains the analogy in detail. is a beloved hind, arousing favor. Her breasts will satisfy you at all times. You shall be obsessed with her love.\"" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce9f61088c9bca8c496414d121d274d4476f1730 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,576 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "הַבָא עַל אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כט) \"כִּי כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת\" וְגוֹ' שְׁנֵיהֶם הַבּוֹעֵל וְהַנִּבְעֶלֶת. וְאִם הָיוּ שׁוֹגְגִין חַיָּבִין חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְיֵשׁ מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתַת בֵּית דִּין יֶתֶר עַל הַכָּרֵת הַשָּׁוֶה בְּכֻלָּן: ", + "אוֹתָן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה וְלֹא פָּרְשׁוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם מְמִיתִין אוֹתָן מִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בָּהֶן: ", + "וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָעוֹבֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֵין מְמִיתִין וְלֹא מַלְקִין עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שָׁם הַתְרָאָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנָה הַתְרָאָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא לְהַבְחִין בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד: ", + "הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין מֵהֶן שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּסְקִילָה. וּמֵהֶן שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵפָה. וּמֵהֶן שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בְּחֶנֶק. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּסְקִילָה. הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ. וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. וְעַל אֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת כַּלָּתוֹ. וְהַשּׁוֹכֵב עִם זָכָר. וְהַשּׁוֹכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה. וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְּבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ: ", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵפָה. הַבָּא עַל בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְעַל בַּת בִּתָּהּ. וְעַל בַּת בְּנָהּ. וְעַל אֵם אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְעַל אֵם אִמָּהּ. וְעַל אֵם אָבִיהָ. וְהַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ. וְעַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ. וְעַל בַּת בְּנוֹ: ", + "אֵין לְךָ עֶרְוָה בְּחֶנֶק אֶלָּא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ י) \"מוֹת יוּמַת הַנֹּאֵף וְהַנֹּאָפֶת\" וּמִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם הִיא חֶנֶק. וְאִם הָיְתָה בַּת כֹּהֵן הִיא בִּשְׂרֵפָה וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בְּחֶנֶק שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ט) \"וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת\" (ויקרא כא ט) \"בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף\". וְאִם הָיְתָה נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּסְקִילָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב כד) \"כִּי תִּהְיֶה נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה\" וְגוֹ' (דברים כב כד) \"וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים\". וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה(ויקרא כ יג) (ויקרא כ טז) \"מוֹת יוּמְתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם\" הֲרֵי הֵן בִּסְקִילָה: ", + "שְׁאָר הָעֲרָיוֹת כֻּלָּן בְּכָרֵת בִּלְבַד וְאֵין בָּהֶם מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה בֵּית דִּין מַלְקִין אוֹתָן. שֶׁכָּל חַיָּבֵי כְּרֵתוֹת לוֹקִין: ", + "הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין בְּמֵזִיד. הוּא לוֹקֶה וְהִיא. וְאִם בְּשׁוֹגֵג פְּטוּרִין מִכְּלוּם. וְהַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת בְּמֵזִיד מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי עֲשֵׂה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְאִם הִכּוּ אוֹתָם בֵּית דִּין מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק מִן הָעֲבֵרָה הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָם: ", + "אָנוּס פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם מִן הַמַּלְקוֹת וּמִן הַקָּרְבָּן וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִן הַמִּיתָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב כו) \"וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר\". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁנֶּאֱנַס הַנִּבְעָל. אֲבָל הַבּוֹעֵל אֵין לוֹ אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵין קִשּׁוּי אֶלָּא לְדַעַת. וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁתְּחִלַּת בִּיאָתָהּ בְּאֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן פְּטוּרָה מִכְּלוּם שֶׁמִּשֶּׁהִתְחִיל לִבְעל בְּאֹנֶס אֵין בְּיָדָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּרְצֶה שֶׁיֵּצֶר הָאָדָם וְטִבְעוֹ כּוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ לִרְצוֹת: ", + "הַמַּכְנִיס רֹאשׁ הָעֲטָרָה בִּלְבַד הוּא הַנִּקְרָא מְעָרֶה מִלְּשׁוֹן (ויקרא כ יח) \"אֶת מְקֹרָהּ הֶעֱרָה\". וְהַמַּכְנִיס כָּל הָאֵיבָר הוּא הַנִּקְרָא גּוֹמֵר. וּבְכָל הַבִּיאוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת אֶחָד הַמְעָרֶה וְאֶחָד הַגּוֹמֵר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ וְלֹא גָּמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכְנִיס רֹאשׁ הָעֲטָרָה נִתְחַיְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. (וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ) מִשֶּׁיְּעָרֶה בָּהּ יִתְחַיְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מִיתָה אוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹכְבִין בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹמְדִים עַל הַכְנָסַת הָעֲטָרָה הוּא הַחִיּוּב: ", + "כָּל הַבָּא בִּיאָה אֲסוּרָה בְּלֹא קִשּׁוּי. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה הָאֵיבָר שֶׁלּוֹ מְדֻלְדָּל כְּמוֹ אֵיבָר הַמֵּתִים כְּגוֹן הַחוֹלִים. אוֹ מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד כָּךְ כְּגוֹן סְרִיס חַמָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִכְנִיס אֶת הָאֵיבָר בְּיָדוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לֹא כָּרֵת וְלֹא מַלִקוֹת וִאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִיתָה. שֵׁאֵין זוֹ בִּיאָה. אֲבָל פּוֹסֵל הוּא מִן הַתִּרוּמָה. וּבֵית דִּין מַכִּין אֵת שִׁנֵיהֵם מַכַּת מַרִדּוּת: ", + "הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת כְּמִתְעַסֵּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ לְכָךְ חַיָּב. וְכֵן בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין וּבִשְׁנִיּוֹת. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת וְהִיא מֵתָה פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. וְהַבָּא עַל הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁכַב עִם בְּהֵמָה טְרֵפָה חַיָּב. חַי הוּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לָמוּת מֵחלִי זֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיז רֹאשָׁהּ: ", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה אֲסוּרָה מֵאֵלּוּ אִם הָיְתָה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה גָּדוֹל הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ חַיָּב מִיתָה אוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִכְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה פְּחוּתָה מִזֶּה הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ בִּיאָה. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ קָטָן אִם הָיָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה הִיא חַיֶּבֶת כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתָה אוֹ מַלְקוֹת וְהוּא פָּטוּר. וְאִם הָיָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין: ", + "הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכָר אוֹ הֵבִיא זָכָר עָלָיו כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֱרָה אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים נִסְקָלִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כב) \"וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכָּב\" בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹעֵל אוֹ נִבְעָל. וְאִם הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלָיו אוֹ הֱבִיאוֹ עַל עַצְמוֹ נִסְקָל וְהַקָּטָן פָּטוּר. וְאִם הָיָה הַזָּכָר בֶּן תֵּשַׁע אוֹ פָּחוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין וְרָאוּי לְבֵית דִּין לְהַכּוֹת הַגָּדוֹל מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁכַב עִם זָכָר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע: ", + "[אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכָר אוֹ] הַבָּא עַל אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס דֶּרֶךְ זִכְרוּתוֹ חַיָּב. [וְאִם בָּא עָלָיו דֶּרֶךְ נְקֵבוּתוֹ פָּטוּר] וְהַטֻּמְטוּם סָפֵק הוּא לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל הַטֻּמְטוּם אוֹ עַל אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס [דֶּרֶךְ נְקֵבוּתוֹ] מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה: ", + "הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא בְּהֵמָה עָלָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן נִסְקָלִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כג) \"וּבְכָל בְּהֵמָה לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ\" בֵּין שֶׁרִבְּעָהּ אוֹ הֱבִיאָהּ עָלָיו. וְאֶחָד בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד חַיָּה וָעוֹף הַכּל בִּסְקִילָה. וְלֹא חִלַּק הַכָּתוּב בִּבְהֵמָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה לִקְטַנָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבְכָל בְּהֵמָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם לֵדָתָהּ (הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ) כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֶרְתָה בּוֹ חַיָּב: ", + "קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הֱבִיאָהּ עָלָיו הִיא נִסְקֶלֶת עַל יָדוֹ וְהוּא פָּטוּר. הָיָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע אוֹ פָּחוֹת אֵין סוֹקְלִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. וְכֵן קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיאָה בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה עָלֶיהָ בֵּין בְּהֵמָה גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין בְּהֵמָה קְטַנָּה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֶרְתָה בָּהּ הַבְּהֵמָה (בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ) הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה שְׁנֵיהֶן נִסְקָלִין. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה אֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת: ", + "וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִם הַבְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְהָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ בִּשְׁגָגָה אֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת עַל יָדָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן גְּדוֹלִים. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כֻּלָּן שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן הַקָּטָן פָּטוּר וְהַגָּדוֹל חַיָּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֶחָד עֵר וְאֶחָד יָשֵׁן הַיָּשֵׁן פָּטוּר. אֶחָד מֵזִיד וְאֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג הַמֵּזִיד חַיָּב וְהַשּׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אֶחָד אָנוּס וְאֶחָד בְּרָצוֹן הָאָנוּס פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "אֵין הָעֵדִים נִזְקָקִין לִרְאוֹת הַמְנָאֲפִים שֶׁהֶעֱרוּ זֶה בָּזֶה וְהִכְנִיס כְּמִכְחוֹל בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת. אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁיִּרְאוּ אוֹתָן דְּבוּקִין זֶה עִם זֶה כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַבּוֹעֲלִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶהֱרָגִין בִּרְאִיָּה זוֹ. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא לֹא הֶעֱרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקַת צוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱרָה: ", + "מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק בִּשְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר דָּנִין בּוֹ עַל פִּי הַחֲזָקָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁזֶּה קָרוֹב. וּמַלְקִין וְשׂוֹרְפִין וְסוֹקְלִין וְחוֹנְקִין עַל חֲזָקָה זוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁזּוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ בִּתּוֹ אוֹ אִמּוֹ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אוֹ נִשְׂרָף אוֹ נִסְקָל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ אִמּוֹ אוֹ בִּתּוֹ אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה בִּלְבַד. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְתִינוֹק מֻרְכָּב לָהּ עַל כְּתֵפָהּ וְהִגְדִּילַתּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא בְּנָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ וֶהֱבִיאוּהָ לְבֵית דִּין וּסְקָלוּהָ. רְאָיָה לְדִין זֶה מַה שֶּׁדָּנָה תּוֹרָה בִּמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וּמַכֶּה אָבִיו שֶׁיּוּמַת. וּמִנַּיִן לָנוּ רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁזֶּה אָבִיו, אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה, כָּךְ שְׁאָר קְרוֹבִים בַּחֲזָקָה: ", + "אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם הוּא אוֹמֵר זֹאת אִשְׁתִּי וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת זֶה בַּעְלִי. אִם הֻחְזְקָה בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ הוֹרְגִין עָלֶיהָ. אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵין הוֹרְגִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֻחְזְקָה נִדָּה בִּשְׁכוּנוֹתֶיהָ בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה. הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִסְתְּרָה וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה וְהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן וּבָא עָלֶיהָ אַחַר כָּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעִקַּר הָעֵדוּת בְּעֵד אֶחָד כְּבָר הֻחְזְקָה בְּזוֹנָה: ", + "הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר בִּתִּי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת הִיא לָזֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן וְתִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ אִם זִנְּתָה אֵינָהּ נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פִּיו עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת אֲנִי אֵינָהּ נֶהֱרֶגֶת עַל פִּיהָ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים אוֹ תֻּחְזַק: " + ], + [ + "אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו אַרְבַּעְתָּן עֶרְוָה עָלָיו לְעוֹלָם. בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשׁוּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ. בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלֵיהֶן בֵּין אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלֵיהֶן. חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ בֵּן. וְאִם בָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. אֶחָד אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין מִנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת. אִשְׁתּוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו מִן הָאֵם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁנִיָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאֶחָד אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו אוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת. כְּגוֹן שֶׁזָּנְתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ אָבִיו עִם אֲחֵרִים וְהָיְתָה לוֹ אָחוֹת מִזְּנוּת. הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ט) \"מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ\": \n", + "בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו הֲרֵי הִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח יא) \"עֶרְוַת בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ מוֹלֶדֶת אָבִיךָ\". אֲבָל אִם נָשָׂא אָבִיו אִשָּׁה וְיֵשׁ לָהּ בַּת מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר אוֹתָהּ הַבַּת מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ שֶׁאֵין זוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת אָבִיו. וַהֲלֹא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹתוֹ חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח יא) \"בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ\" לְחַיֵּב עָלֶיהָ אַף מִשּׁוּם זֶה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא בַּת נְשׂוּאַת אָבִיו חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יח ט) \"עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ\" וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יח יא) \"עֶרְוַת בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ\". אֲבָל אִם אָנַס אָבִיו אִשָּׁה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בַּת וּבָא עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹתוֹ בִּלְבַד. שֶׁאֵין בַּת הָאֲנוּסָה בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו: \n", + "אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אֵם. וְכֵן אֲחוֹת הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אָב: \n", + "הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בַּת אוֹתָהּ הַבַּת עֶרְוָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה עֶרְוַת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְּגַלֶּה מֵאַחַר שֶׁאָסַר בַּת הַבַּת שָׁתַק מִן הַבַּת וְאִסּוּרָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאֵינוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ מִנְּשׂוּאָתוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ: \n", + "כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אָדָם אִשָּׁה נֶאֶסְרוּ עָלָיו מִקְּרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ נָשִׁים. וְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן עֶרְוָה עָלָיו לְעוֹלָם בֵּין כָּנַס בֵּין גֵּרֵשׁ בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מוֹתָהּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אִמָּהּ וְאֵם אִמָּהּ וְאֵם אָבִיהָ וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ. וְאִם בָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׂרָפִין: \n", + "בָּא עֲלֵיהֶן לְאַחַר מִיתַת אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּכָרֵת וְאֵין בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ יד) \"בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן\". בִּזְמַן שֶּׁשְּׁתֵּיהֶן קַיָּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן אִשְׁתּוֹ וְזוֹ שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי הוּא וְהָעֶרְוָה נִשְׂרָפִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שְׁתֵּיהֶן קַיָּמוֹת אֵין שָׁם שְׂרֵפָה: \n", + "וְכֵן אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו: \n", + "עָבַר וְנָאַף עִם אַחַת מִשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים אֵלּוּ בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא וְהַנּוֹאֶפֶת בְּמִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אוֹ בְּכָרֵת לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עָלָיו חוּץ מֵאֲחוֹת אֲרוּסָתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אוֹסֶרֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עָלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין: \n", + "הַבּוֹעֵל אִשָּׁה דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת לֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ עָלָיו קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהֵן הַשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָסְרוּ עַל מִי שֶׁנָּאַף עִם אִשָּׁה לִשָּׂא אַחַת מִן הַשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַזּוֹנָה קַיֶּמֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַזּוֹנָה בָּאָה לִקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ לְבַקֵּר אוֹתָן וְהוּא מִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְלִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיִּבְעל הָעֶרְוָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ נִטְעַן עַל אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂא אַחַת מִקְּרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת זוֹ שֶׁנִּטְעַן עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם כָּנַס הַקְּרוֹבָה שֶׁזָּנָה עִם קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ לֹא יוֹצִיא: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּטְעַן עַל עֶרְוָה אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ שֵׁם רַע עִמָּהּ לֹא יָדוּר עִמָּהּ בְּמָבוֹי אֶחָד וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה בְּאוֹתָהּ שְׁכוּנָה. וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ מְרַנְּנִין אַחֲרָיו עִם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְהִכּוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ: \n", + "הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אוֹ עַל אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁבָּא עַל שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת שֶׁאֵין נַעֲשׂוֹת עֶרְוָה זוֹ עִם זוֹ אֶלָּא בְּנִשּׂוּאִין לֹא בִּזְנוּת. וְכֵן אִם אָנַס אָבִיו אוֹ בְּנוֹ אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֲחִי אָבִיו אִשָּׁה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ וְיִשָּׂאֶנָּה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֵשֶׁת וְאֵין כָּאן אִישׁוּת: \n", + "אָבִיו אוֹ בְּנוֹ שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אִמָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִשָּׂא אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו. וְנוֹשֵׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה וּבַת אֲחוֹתָהּ אוֹ בַּת אָחִיהָ כְּאַחַת. וּמִצְוַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׂא אָדָם בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַת אָחִיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה נח ז) \"וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם\": \n" + ], + [ + "הַבָא עַל אֵשֶׁת קָטָן אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה יְבָמָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה וְאֵשֶׁת טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְעַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְעַל הַשּׁוֹטָה אֵשֶׁת הַפִּקֵּחַ וְעַל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת בְּסָפֵק אוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת בְּסָפֵק כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: ", + "הַבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנָּה אֵשֶׁת הַגָּדוֹל אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶנֶק וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִכְּלוּם וְנֶאֶסְרָה עַל בַּעְלָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת סוֹטָה. וְאִם הִיא בַּת מֵאוּן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן: ", + "בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ שְׁאָר מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין הֲרֵי זוֹ בִּשְׂרֵפָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ט) \"וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת\". וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בְּחֶנֶק. וְכֵן בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן בְּחֶנֶק כְּדִין כָּל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ: ", + "הַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּסְקִילָה. וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין סְקִילָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. הָיְתָה בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְחֻפָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה אֲפִלּוּ מְסָרָהּ הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל וְזִנְּתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק: ", + "וְהַבָּא עַל קְטַנָּה מְאֹרָשָׂה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הוּא בִּסְקִילָה וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה. וְנַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בִּסְקִילָה: ", + "בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשָׂרָה וְהִיא בְּתוּלָה בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ זֶה אַחַר זֶה הֲרֵי הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה וְכֻלָּן בְּחֶנֶק (בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ כְּדַרְכָּהּ אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ עֲדַיִן הִיא בְּתוּלָה וְכֻלָּן בִּסְקִילָה): ", + "נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אוֹ גִּיֹּרֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרָה וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה וְהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק כְּכָל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ: ", + "דִּין חָדָשׁ יֵשׁ בְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. וּמַה הוּא הַחִדּוּשׁ. שֶׁאִם נִמְצָא הַדָּבָר אֱמֶת וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּנְּתָה כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזִּנְּתָה אַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאָה מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֻפָּה קֹדֶם בְּעִילַת הַבַּעַל סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר נְעָרוֹת מְאֹרָסוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶן דִּין הוֹצָאַת שֵׁם רַע שֶׁזָּנוּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִבֵּית הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶנֶק כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁבְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שָׁלֹשׁ מִיתוֹת. יֵשׁ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהִיא בְּחֶנֶק. וְיֵשׁ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׂרֵפָה. וְיֵשׁ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהִיא בִּסְקִילָה: ", + "וְהֵיכָן סוֹקְלִין נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. אִם זִנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵעִידוּ עָלֶיהָ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁבָּאָה לְבֵית חָמִיהָ (וְנִיסֵת) הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. זִנִּתָה בִּבֵית חָמִיהָ קֹדֵם שֵׁיִּמִסֹר אוֹתָהּ הָאָב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁחָזְרָה לְבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִיא: ", + "בָּאוּ עֵדִים אַחַר שֶׁבָּגְרָה אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁבְּעָלָהּ בַּעְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה נַעֲרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת בְּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה: ", + "הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר. כָּל מִי שֶׁמִּצְוָתָהּ לִסְקל אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר אִם הָיְתָה עִיר שֶׁרֻבָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁמִּצְוָתָהּ לִסְקל אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ אִם לֹא הָיָה לָהּ אָב אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ אָב וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ בַּיִת הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת בְּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב כא) \"פֶּתַח בֵּית אָב\" אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה: ", + "הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְהָמִית אֶלָּא מִיתָה אַחַת הֲרֵי הַבִּיאוֹת נֶחְשָׁבוֹת לוֹ כַּעֲבֵרוֹת הַרְבֵּה. וְכֵן אִם בָּא בִּיאָה אַחַת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁמוֹת הַרְבֵּה אִם הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל כָּל שֵׁם וְשֵׁם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּיאָה אַחַת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת. וְאִם הָיָה מֵזִיד הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶחְשֶׁבֶת לוֹ כַּעֲבֵרוֹת הַרְבֵּה. וְכֵן יֵשׁ בָּא בִּיאָה אַחַת וְלוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מַלְקִיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: ", + "שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּמְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה\". הָא אִם נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה כֻּלָּהּ חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשֵׂית אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ גְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: ", + "בִּיאַת שִׁפְחָה זוֹ מְשֻׁנָּה מִכָּל בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא לוֹקָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה\" וְהוּא חַיָּב קָרְבַּן אָשָׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כא) \"וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ\". אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג אֶחָד מֵזִיד בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם. וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם אֶחָד. אֲבָל הִיא חַיֶּבֶת מַלְקוֹת עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה אִם הָיְתָה מְזִידָה כִּשְׁאָר חַיָּבֵי לָאוִין: ", + "הַמְעָרֶה בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה וְלֹא גָּמַר בִּיאָתוֹ פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיִּגְמֹר בִּיאָתוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה הַבְּעוּלָה הַמְּזִידָה וּבִרְצוֹנָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה בְּעוּלָה אוֹ הָיְתָה שׁוֹגֶגֶת אוֹ אֲנוּסָה אוֹ יְשֵׁנָה פָּטוּר [וְכֵן אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁבְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה לֹא הִשְׁוָה בִּיאָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ לְבִיאָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע\". אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר בִּיאוֹת לֹא חָלַק בֵּין בִּיאָה לְבִיאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כב) (ויקרא כ יג) \"מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה\" מַגִּיד [לְךָ] הַכָּתוּב שֶׁשְּׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת בְּאִשָּׁה]: ", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּשִׁפְחָה שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר הוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּלְקוֹת. אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מְזִידִין וּגְדוֹלִים: ", + "בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה הִיא לוֹקָה וְהוּא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה גְּדוֹלָה וּבְעוּלָה וּבִרְצוֹנָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. שֶׁאֵין הָאִישׁ חַיָּב קָרְבָּן עַד שֶׁתִּתְחַיֵּב הִיא מַלְקוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה\" (ויקרא יט כא) \"וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ\": " + ], + [ + "הַנִּדָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. הַמְעָרֶה בָּהּ [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] חַיָּב כָּרֵת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כִּשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁהַבַּת מִתְטַמְּאָה בְּנִדָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם לֵדָתָהּ. וּבַת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים מְטַמְּאָה בְּזִיבָה וְדָבָר זֶה מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה לִקְטַנָּה לְטֻמְאַת נִדּוֹת וְזָבוֹת: ", + "וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן. וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עַל יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר כָּל שִׁבְעָה אוֹ עַל יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה כָּל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אוֹ עַל הַזָּבָה כָּל יְמֵי זוֹבָהּ וּסְפִירָתָהּ. בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת הַכֹּל בְּכָרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּנִדָּה (ויקרא טו יט) \"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְּנִדָּתָהּ\". וּבְזָבָה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כה) \"כָּל יְמֵי זוֹב טֻמְאָתָהּ כִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ תִּהְיֶה\". וּבְיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יב ב) \"כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא\". וּבְיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה (ויקרא יב ה) \"וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ\": ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהַטֻּמְאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּיָמִים בְּשֶׁטָּבְלָה בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה אַחַר הַיָּמִים הַסְּפוּרִים. אֲבָל נִדָּה וְזָבָה וְיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלוּ בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים חַיָּב כָּרֵת. שֶׁבְּיָמִים וּטְבִילָה תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יח) \"וְרַחֲצוּ בַמַּיִם\" זֶה בִּנְיַן אָב לְכָל טָמֵא שֶׁהוּא בְּטֻמְאָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּטְבֹּל: ", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם זָבָה וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם יוֹלֶדֶת. וַחֲכָמִים גָּזְרוּ עַל כָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַזְּכָרִים וְהַנְּקֵבוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ כְּזָבִים תָּמִיד בֵּין רָאוּ בֵּין לֹא רָאוּ לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה: ", + "כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ ל\"ג שֶׁל זָכָר וְס\"ו שֶׁל נְקֵבָה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא דַּם טֹהַר. וְאֵין מוֹנֵעַ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה מִבַּעְלָהּ אֶלָּא טוֹבֶלֶת אַחַר שִׁבְעָה לְזָכָר וְאַחַר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִנִקֵבָה וּמִשַׁמֵּשֵׁת מִטָּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד: ", + "כָּל חַיָּבֵי טְבִילוֹת טְבִילָתָן בַּיּוֹם חוּץ מִנִּדָּה וְיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּנִדָּה (ויקרא טו יט) \"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְּנִדָּתָהּ\". הַשִּׁבְעָה כֻּלָּן בְּנִדָּתָהּ וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי. וְכֵן יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וְיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה בְּלֵיל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. שֶׁהַיּוֹלֶדֶת כְּנִדָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "נִתְאַחֲרָה יָמִים רַבִּים וְלֹא טָבְלָה כְּשֶׁתִּטְבֹּל לֹא תִּטְבֹּל אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁאִם תִּטְבֹּל בַּיּוֹם יִטְעוּ וְתָבוֹא נִדָּה אַחֶרֶת לִטְבֹּל בִּשְׁבִיעִי: ", + "הָיְתָה חוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְקוֹם הַטְּבִילָה רָחוֹק וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים יְכוֹלוֹת לְהַגִּיעַ לוֹ וְלַחֲזֹר בַּלַּיְלָה מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַצִּנָּה אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֲלִין שַׁעֲרֵי הַמְּדִינָה בַּלַּיְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טוֹבֶלֶת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי אוֹ בַּיָּמִים שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו בַּיּוֹם: ", + "כָּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן וֶסֶת בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה לְבַעְלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ טְמֵאָה אֲנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁתֻּחְזַק נִדָּה בִּשְׁכֵנוֹתֶיהָ. הָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וֶהֱנִיחָהּ טְהוֹרָה כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאֹל לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ מְצָאָהּ יְשֵׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעוֹנַת וִסְתָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נִדָּה הִיא. וְאִם הֱנִיחָהּ נִדָּה אֲסוּרָה לוֹ עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ טְמֵאָה אֲנִי וְחָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְדֶרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ תְּחִלָּה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם נָתְנָה אֲמַתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. כֵּיצַד. תְּבָעָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ אִמּוֹ עִמָּהּ בֶּחָצֵר וְאָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אֲנִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ טְמֵאָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי אֲחוֹתְךָ וְאִמְּךָ שֶׁמָּא יִרְאוּ אוֹתָנוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִטְמֵאתִי לֹא יִפְרשׁ מִיָּד וְהוּא בְּקִשּׁוּיוֹ שֶׁהֲנָאָה לוֹ בִּיצִיאָתוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ. וְאִם פֵּרֵשׁ וְהוּא בְּקִשּׁוּיוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבָּעַל נִדָּה. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. נוֹעֵץ צִפָּרְנֵי רַגְלָיו בַּקַּרְקַע וְשׁוֹהֶה וְאֵינוֹ מִזְדַּעֲזֵעַ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאֵיבָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמָט מִמֶּנָּה: ", + "וְאָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לָבֹא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ שֶׁמָּא תִּרְאֶה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו לא) \"וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטֻּמְאָתָם\". וְכַמָּה. אִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בַּיּוֹם אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הַיּוֹם. וְאִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה: ", + "עָבַר וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא רָאֲתָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ אַחַר שֶׁתַּעֲבֹר עוֹנַת הַוֶּסֶת. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בְּשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הַיּוֹם. עָבְרוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא רָאֲתָה אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד לָעֶרֶב. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בְּשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה וְעָבְרוּ וְלֹא רָאֲתָה אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּזְרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ: ", + "דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעוֹלָם לִבְדֹּק עַצְמָם אַחַר הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. כֵּיצַד. מְקַנֵּחַ הָאִישׁ עַצְמוֹ בְּמַטְלִית נְכוֹנָה לוֹ וּמְקַנַּחַת הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ בְּמַטְלִית נְכוֹנָה לָהּ וְרוֹאִין בָּהֶן שֶׁמָּא רָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ. וְיֵשׁ לָאִישׁ לְהָנִיחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק בְּמַטְלִית שֶׁלּוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמֶנֶת עַל שֶׁלָּהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל שֶׁלּוֹ: ", + "בְּגָדִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁמְּקַנְּחִין בָּהֶן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן שַׁחֲקִים וּלְבָנִים וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים עֵדִים בְּעִנְיָן זֶה. וְהַבֶּגֶד שֶׁמְּקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ הוּא נִקְרָא עֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַבֶּגֶד שֶׁמְּקַנַּחַת הִיא בּוֹ נִקְרָא עֵד שֶׁלָּהּ: ", + "הַצְּנוּעוֹת אֵין מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּבְדְּקוּ עַצְמָן תְּחִלָּה קֹדֶם תַּשְׁמִישׁ. וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק. לְפִיכָךְ הִיא מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֶחָד לִפְנֵי הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ וְאֶחָד לְאַחַר הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. אֲבָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה עֵד לִפְנֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם צְנִיעוּת בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל אַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמֵינִיקָה וּזְקֵנָה. וּקְטַנָּה לֹא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ. אֲבָל בְּתוּלָה וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טֹהַר אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה עֵדִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת מִמֶּנָּה: ", + "הַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לִבְדֹּק שְׁנֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁלָּהֶן עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה. אֶלָּא מְקַנֵּחַ הוּא בְּעֵד שֶׁלּוֹ וְהִיא בְּעֵד שֶׁלָּהּ אַחַר כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה שֶׁל כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וּלְמָחָר יִבְדְּקוּ הָעֵדִים. נִמְצָא הַדָּם עַל עֵד שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ עַל עֵד שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. שִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ וְקִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ וְאָבַד הָעֵד הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק בְּעֵד אַחֵר תְּחִלָּה. שֶׁמָּא דָּם הָיָה עַל הָעֵד שֶׁאָבַד: ", + "הִנִּיחָה הָעֵד תַּחַת הַכַּר אוֹ תַּחַת הַכֶּסֶת וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם. אִם מָשׁוּךְ טְמֵאָה שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ מִן הַקִּנּוּחַ. וְאִם הָיָה עָגֹל טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא דַּם מַאֲכֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָה תַּחַת הַכַּר: ", + "קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֵד הַבָּדוּק לָהּ וְטָחֲתוֹ בִּירֵכָהּ וּלְמָחָר נִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא כְּשֶׁטָּחָה אוֹתָהּ בִּירֵכָהּ נֶהֶרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת. קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֵד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לָהּ וְלֹא יָדְעָה אִם הָיָה עָלָיו דָּם קֹדֶם שֶׁתְּקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ אוֹ לֹא הָיָה. נִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם אִם הָיָה הַדָּם כִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִכֵּן טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַמַאֲכֹלֶת: ", + "מִי שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּשֶׁתִּטְהַר פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּפַעַם שְׁנִיָּה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת פַּעַם שְׁלִישִׁית. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם בַּעַל זֶה לְעוֹלָם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שִׁמְּשָׁה סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ תּוֹלָה בַּוֶּסֶת. הָיְתָה בָּהּ מַכָּה תּוֹלָה בַּמַּכָּה. וְאִם הָיָה דַּם מַכָּתָהּ מְשֻׁנֶּה מִדָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בְּעֵת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בַּמַּכָּה. וְנֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה לוֹמַר מַכָּה יֵשׁ לִי בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּקוֹר שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הַדָּם יוֹצֵא וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדָּם יוֹצֵא מִן הַמָּקוֹר בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ: ", + "מִי שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וְאֵין שָׁם דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְשֵׁנִי. נִשֵּׂאת לְשֵׁנִי וְרָאֲתָה דָּם כָּךְ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וְתִנָּשֵׂא לִשְׁלִישִׁי. נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁלִישִׁי וְרָאֲתָה דָּם כָּךְ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וַאֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתַּבְרִיא מֵחלִי זֶה: ", + "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ לֵידַע אִם נִרְפֵּאת אוֹ לֹא נִרְפֵּאת. מְבִיאָה שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁל אֲבַר וּפִיהָ רָצוּף לְתוֹכָהּ וּמַכְנֶסֶת הַשְּׁפוֹפֶרֶת עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה. וּמַכְנֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁפוֹפֶרֶת מִכְחוֹל וּמוֹךְ מֻנָּח עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְדוֹפֶקֶת אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַמּוֹךְ לְצַוַּאר הָרֶחֶם וּמוֹצִיאָה הַמּוֹךְ. אִם נִמְצָא דָּם עַל רֹאשׁ הַמּוֹךְ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַמָּקוֹר. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצָא עַל הַמּוֹךְ כְּלוּם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁרוֹאָה מִדֹּחַק הַצְּדָדִין וּטְהוֹרָה הִיא וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לַאֲחֵרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: " + ], + [ + "הָאִשָׁה מִתְטַמֵּאת בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין לְנִדָּה בֵּין לְזִיבוּת. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּפְצָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אוֹ רָאֲתָה בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף מִתְעַסְּקִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְחָמְדָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הוֹאִיל וְרָאֲתָה דָּם מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִטְמֵאת וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. אֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה דָּם טִפָּה כְּחַרְדָּל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁזָּב מִמֶּנָּה דָּמִים הַרְבֵּה: ", + "כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מִתְטַמְּאוֹת בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא הַדָּם לַחוּץ אֶלָּא נֶעֱקַר מִן הָרֶחֶם וְלֹא שָׁתַת הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא מִבֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַדָּם בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ\". וְעַד הֵיכָן הוּא בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ אֵלָיו הָאֵיבָר בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה. וּבֵין הַשִּׁנַּיִם עַצְמוֹ כִּלְפָנִים: ", + "מָשָׁל מָשְׁלוּ חֲכָמִים בָּאִשָּׁה. הָרֶחֶם שֶׁנּוֹצַר בּוֹ הַוָּלָד הוּא הַנִּקְרָא מָקוֹר. וְהוּא שֶׁדַּם נִדָּה וְזָבָה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ. וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר לְפִי שֶׁהוּא לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים. וְצַוַּאר הָרֶחֶם כֻּלּוֹ וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם הָאָרֹךְ שֶׁמִּתְקַּבֵּץ רֹאשׁוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הָעִבּוּר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפּל הַוָּלָד וְנִפְתַּח הַרְבֵּה בִּשְׁעַת לֵדָה קוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ פְּרוֹזְדוֹר כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא בֵּית שַׁעַר לַרֶחֶם: ", + "וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה הָאֵיבָר נִכְנַס בִּפְרוֹזְדוֹר וְאֵינוֹ מַגִּיעַ עַד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמִּבִּפְנִים אֶלָּא רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט לְפִי הָאֶצְבָּעוֹת. וּלְמַעְלָה מִן הַחֶדֶר וּמִן הַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר בֵּין חֶדֶר לִפְרוֹזְדוֹר הוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצִים שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. וְהַשְּׁבִילִים שֶׁבָּהֶן מִתְבַּשֶּׁלֶת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁלָּהּ מָקוֹם זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עֲלִיָּה. וּכְמוֹ נֶקֶב פָּתוּחַ מִן הָעֲלִיָּה לְגַג הַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר וְנֶקֶב זֶה קוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ לוּל. וְהָאֵיבָר נִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַלּוּל בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה: ", + "דָּם הַבָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר כֻּלּוֹ טָמֵא חוּץ מִדַּם טֹהַר שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה טִהֲרַתּוּ וְדַם קֹשִׁי כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְדַם הָעֲלִיָּה כֻּלּוֹ טָהוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ דַּם מַכָּה שֶׁבַּמֵּעַיִם אוֹ בַּכָּבֵד אוֹ בְּכוּלְיָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְדָם הַנִּמְצָא בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר אִם נִמְצָא מִן הַלּוּל וּלְפָנִים הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ מִן הַחֶדֶר. וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְשׂוֹרְפִין עָלָיו תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא מִן הָעֲלִיָּה יָרַד דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּקֶב. שֶׁרֹב הַדָּמִים הַנִּמְצָאִין כָּאן מִן הַחֶדֶר. נִמְצָא הַדָּם בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר חוּץ לַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי טֻמְאָתוֹ בְּסָפֵק שֶׁמָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר בָּא אוֹ מִן הָעֲלִיָּה שָׁתַת דֶּרֶךְ הַלּוּל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עָלָיו תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו עַל בִּיאַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ: ", + "לֹא כָּל מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא הַדָּם בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ\". לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁתַת מִן הָרֶחֶם לֹבֶן אוֹ מַשְׁקֶה יָרֹק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסְּמִיכָתוֹ כְּדָם הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מַרְאָיו מַרְאֶה דָּם הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר: ", + "וַחֲמִשָּׁה דָּמִים טְמֵאִים בָּאִשָּׁה וְהַשְּׁאָר טְהוֹרִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הָאָדֹם. וְהַשָּׁחוֹר. וּכְקֶרֶן כַּרְכֹּם. וּכְמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה. וּכְיַיִן הַמָּזוּג: ", + "הָאָדֹם כֵּיצַד הוּא עֵינוֹ. כְּעַמּוּד שֶׁיָּצָא רִאשׁוֹן מִדַּם הַקָּזָה שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם, נוֹתֵן הַדָּם בְּכוֹס וּמַקִּיף לוֹ וְרוֹאֵהוּ. וְהַשָּׁחוֹר כְּעֵין הַדְּיוֹ הַיָּבֵשׁ. כְּקֶרֶן כַּרְכֹּם כֵּיצַד. יָבִיא כַּרְכֹּם לַח בְּגוּשׁ אֲדָמָה שֶׁעָלָיו וְלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבָּרוּר שֶׁבּוֹ הַקָּנֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ כְּמוֹ קָנֶה הוּא וּבְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שְׁלֹשָׁה קָנִים וּבְכָל קָנֶה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָלִים וּמַקִּיף הַדָּם לֶעָלֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁבַּקָּנֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי וְרוֹאֶה בּוֹ. כְּמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה כֵּיצַד. יָבִיא אֲדָמָה מִבִּקְעַת סִיכְנֵי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא אֲדֻמָּה וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם בִּכְלִי עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה הַמַּיִם עַל הֶעָפָר כִּקְלִפַּת הַשּׁוּם. וְאֵין שִׁעוּר לַמַּיִם וְלֹא לֶעָפָר. וּמְעַכְּרָן בִּכְלִי וּמְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן לִשְׁעָתוֹ וּבִמְקוֹמוֹ כְּשֶׁהֵן עֲכוּרִין. וְאִם צָלְלוּ חוֹזֵר וּמְעַכְּרָן: ", + "אַרְבָּעָה מַרְאוֹת הַלָּלוּ אִם הָיָה מַרְאֵה הַדָּם כְּמַרְאֵה כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ עָמֹק מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא. הָיָה דִּיהָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַדָּם שָׁחוֹר יֶתֶר מִכִּדְיוֹ הַיָּבֵשׁ טְמֵאָה. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מַרְאֵהוּ כְּעֵין הַזַּיִת הַשָּׁחוֹר אוֹ כְּעֵין הַזֶּפֶת אוֹ כְּעֵין הָעוֹרֵב הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה מַרְאוֹת: ", + "כְּיַיִן הַמָּזוּג כֵּיצַד. חֵלֶק אֶחָד יַיִן מִן הַיַּיִן הַשָּׁרוֹנִי שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי וְחָדָשׁ וּשְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים מַיִם. הָיָה מַרְאֵה הַדָּם עָמֹק מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ דִּיהָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּמֶזֶג זֶה בִּלְבַד. וְנֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה לוֹמַר כְּמַרְאֶה זֶה רָאִיתִי וְאִבַּדְתִּיו וְהֶחָכָם מְטַמֵּא לָהּ אוֹ מְטַהֵר: ", + "כֵּיצַד מַקִּיף וְרוֹאֶה. לוֹקֵחַ הַמַּטְלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ הַדָּם בְּיָדוֹ וּמַבִּיט בּוֹ וּבַדְּיוֹ. אוֹ בְּעָלֶה שֶׁל כַּרְכֹּם. אוֹ בְּדַם הַקָּזָה שֶׁבַּכּוֹס. אוֹ בְּמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה. אוֹ בְּמֶזֶג שֶׁבַּכּוֹס. וְעוֹרֵךְ לָהּ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת וּמְטַמֵּא אוֹ מְטַהֵר. וְאֵינוֹ מַבִּיט בַּזְּכוּכִית שֶׁל כּוֹס מִבַּחוּץ אֶלָּא בַּמַּשְׁקֶה שֶׁבַּכּוֹס. וְיִהְיֶה הַכּוֹס רָחָב מִשְׁקָלוֹ מָנֶה וּמַחֲזִיק שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס בּוֹ הָאוֹרָה וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָפֵל: ", + "אֵין בּוֹדְקִין הַדָּם אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי מַטְלִית לְבָנָה וּבַחַמָּה. וְעוֹשֶׂה צֵל בְּיָדוֹ עַל הַדָּם וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחַמָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה עֵינוֹ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא. וְלֹא כָּל הָרוֹאֶה צָרִיךְ לְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶלָּא טְבִיעוּת עַיִן יֵשׁ לְחָכָם בְּדָמִים. וּבְעֵת שֶׁיִּרְאֶה מִיָּד יְטַמֵּא אוֹ יְטַהֵר. וְאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ בְּמַרְאֶה מִן הַמַּרְאוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהַקִּיף וְלַעֲרֹךְ לִדְיוֹ אוֹ לְדַם הַקָּזָה אוֹ לִשְׁאָר הַמַּרְאוֹת: ", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲדֻמָּה אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּם טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה וַאֲפִלּוּ נִקְרְעָה הַחֲתִיכָה וְנִמְצֵאת מְלֵאָה דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה דַּם נִדָּה אֶלָּא דַּם חֲתִיכָה: ", + "הִפִּילָה חֲתִיכָה קְרוּעָה וְדָם אָגוּר בְּתוֹכָהּ טְמֵאָה. הִפִּילָה כְּמִין קְלִפָּה כְּמִין שַׂעֲרָה כְּמִין עָפָר כְּמוֹ יַבְחוּשִׁין אִם הָיָה מַרְאֵה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אָדֹם תַּטִּיל לְמַיִם פּוֹשְׁרִין. אִם נִמּוֹחוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שֶׁדָּם הוּא וְקָפָה וְכָל הָרוֹאָה דָּם יָבֵשׁ טְמֵאָה. וְאִם שָׁהוּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמּוֹחוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק טְמֵאָה. לֹא נִמּוֹחוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִמַּכָּה וּטְהוֹרָה הִיא: ", + "הִפִּילָה כְּמִין חֲגָבִים כְּמִין דָּגִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן דָּם טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר וְרָאֲתָה הַדָּם בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁפוֹפֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ\" עַד שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בִּבְשָׂרָהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים רוֹאוֹת. וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָאִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁתִּינָה מַיִם וְיָצָא דָּם עִם מֵי רַגְלַיִם. בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁתִּינָה וְהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁתִּינָה וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִרְגִּישׁ גּוּפָהּ וְנִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת שֶׁהַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם הִיא זוֹ שֶׁאֵין מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַחֶדֶר וְדָם זֶה דַּם מַכָּה הוּא בַּחַלְחֹלֶת אוֹ בַּכּוּלְיָא: ", + "דַּם בְּתוּלִים טָהוֹר הוּא וְאֵינוֹ לֹא דַּם נִדָּה וְלֹא דַּם זִיבָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמָּקוֹר אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ דַּם חַבּוּרָה. וְכֵיצַד דִּין הַבְּתוּלָה בְּדָמִים. אִם נִשֵּׂאת קְטַנָּה בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה שֶׁכָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה הוּא. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה: ", + "נִשֵּׂאת כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה מִיָּמֶיהָ דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת אֵין לוֹ לַבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא בְּעִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּפוֹרֵשׁ וְיִהְיֶה דַּם בְּתוּלִים זֶה כְּאִלּוּ הִיא תְּחִלַּת נִדָּה. וּבוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה מִיָּמֶיהָ נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כָּל לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן: ", + "אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לְנַעֲרָה שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּסֵרוּגִין בּוֹעֵל לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַמְתִּין אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּבוֹעֵל לַיְלָה שֵׁנִי. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה: ", + "וְכֵן קְטַנָּה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה אֲפִלּוּ לֹא חָיְתָה שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה בּוֹעֵל כָּל הַשָּׁנָה בֵּין בְּסֵרוּגִין בֵּין בְּיוֹם אַחַר יוֹם: ", + "קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת וְנַעֲשֵׂית נַעֲרָה תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ וַעֲדַיִן הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה כָּל בְּעִילוֹת שֶׁבָּעַל כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה נֶחְשָׁבוֹת לוֹ כְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד וּמַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ כָּל אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים בִּימֵי הַנַּעֲרוּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ בִּימֵי הַנַּעֲרוּת בְּסֵרוּגִין וּבָעַל בְּכָל שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים לַיְלָה אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה: ", + "כֵּיצַד יוֹדְעִין אִם חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה אוֹ לֹא חָיְתָה. הָיְתָה רוֹאָה הַדָּם בְּעֵת שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד וּכְשֶׁתֵּשֵׁב לֹא תִּרְאֶה וּבְעֵת שֶׁתֵּשֵׁב עַל הַקַּרְקַע תִּרְאֶה וְאִם תֵּשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת לֹא תִּרְאֶה עֲדַיִן לֹא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. פָּסַק הַדָּם וְלֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלָל בֵּין עוֹמֶדֶת בֵּין יוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכַּר כְּבָר חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. וְכֵן אִם לֹא פָּסַק כְּלָל אֶלָּא תִּרְאֶה הַדָּם וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּשֶׁהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכָּרִים וְהַכְּסָתוֹת אֵין זֶה דַּם מַכָּה אֶלָּא דַּם נִדָּה: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה בְּעֵת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה. שִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם נִדָּה: ", + "הַבּוֹעֵל בְּתוּלָה וְלֹא יָצָא מִמֶּנָּה דָּם וְחָזַר וּבְעָלָהּ וְיָצָא דָּם אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם נִדָּה שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה דַּם בְּתוּלִים הָיָה בָּא בַּתְּחִלָּה. הַבּוֹעֵל פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ וְיָצָא דָּם הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם בְּתוּלִים: " + ], + [ + "דַם הַנִּדָּה וְדַם הַזָּבָה וְדַם הַקֹּשִׁי וְדַם יוֹלֶדֶת וְדַם טֹהַר שֶׁל יוֹלֶדֶת כֻּלּוֹ דָּם אֶחָד הוּא וּמִן הַמָּקוֹר הוּא בָּא. וּמַעֲיָן אֶחָד הוּא. וּבִזְמַנִּים בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּנֶּה דִּינוֹ וְתִהְיֶה רוֹאָה דָּם זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְזוֹ נִדָּה. וְזוֹ זָבָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד. כְּשֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה דָּם תְּחִלָּה אוֹ כְּשֶׁתִּרְאֶה בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ וְהוּא הָעֵת שֶׁקָּבְעָה לְנִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים. בֵּין רָאֲתָה כָּל שִׁבְעָה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא טִפָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּלְבַד. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם זִיבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא עֵת נִדָּתָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּמִים שֶׁבֵּין וֶסֶת נִדָּה לְוֶסֶת נִדָּה הֲרֵי הוּא דַּם זִיבָה. וַהֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין בֵּין זְמַן נִדָּה לִזְמַן נִדָּה אֶלָּא אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם בִּלְבַד: ", + "כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים שֶׁנִּקְבְּעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת בִּתְחִלָּתָן הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. בֵּין רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִקְרָאִין יְמֵי נִדָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְנִדָּה. וְכָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בָּהֶם דַּם נִדָּה יֵחָשֵׁב: ", + "וְכָל אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. בֵּין רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָאִין יְמֵי זִיבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְזִיבָה. וְכָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בָּהֶן דַּם זִיבָה יֵחָשֵׁב. וְהִזָּהֵר בִּשְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ: ", + "כָּל יְמֵי הָאִשָּׁה מִיּוֹם שֶׁיִּקָּבַע לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּעָקֵר הַוֶּסֶת לְיוֹם אַחֵר תִּסְפֹּר לְעוֹלָם שִׁבְעָה מִתְּחִלַּת יוֹם הַוֶּסֶת וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן אַחַד עָשָׂר [וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן] שִׁבְעָה וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן אַחַד עָשָׂר. וְתִזָּהֵר בַּמִּנְיָן כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּעֵת שֶׁתִּרְאֶה דָּם אִם בִּימֵי נִדָּה רָאֲתָה אוֹ בִּימֵי זִיבָה. שֶׁכָּל יָמֶיהָ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה כָּךְ הֵן שִׁבְעָה יְמֵי נִדָּה וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יְמֵי זִיבָה. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִפְסִיקָה הַלֵּדָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: ", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד אוֹ שְׁנֵי יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה נִקְרֵאת זָבָה קְטַנָּה וְנִקְרֵאת שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם. וְאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה גְּמוּרָה וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וְנִקְרֵאת זָבָה סְתָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כה) \"וְאִשָּׁה כִּי יָזוּב זוֹב דָּמָהּ יָמִים רַבִּים\" מִעוּט יָמִים שְׁנַיִם רַבִּים שְׁלֹשָׁה: ", + "אֵין בֵּין זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה לְזָבָה קְטַנָּה אֶלָּא סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה וַהֲבָאַת קָרְבָּן. שֶׁזָּבָה גְּדוֹלָה צְרִיכָה לִסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְזָבָה קְטַנָּה אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶרֶת אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. וְזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן כְּשֶׁתִּטְהַר [וְזָבָה קְטַנָּה אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן כְּשֶׁתִּטְהַר]. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְאִסּוּר בִּיאָה שְׁתֵּיהֶן שָׁווֹת: ", + "כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה דָּם בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה בִּתְחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם. הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ טָמֵא וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא פָּסַק הַדָּם מֵעֵת שֶׁרָאֲתָה עַד שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה הַחַמָּה וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל הַלַּיְלָה. וְאִם לֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלוּם בַּלַּיְלָה מַשְׁכֶּמֶת לְמָחָר וְטוֹבֶלֶת אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל הַיּוֹם. אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד טָהוֹר כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא וַהֲרֵי הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב: ", + "רָאֲתָה דָּם גַּם בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי בֵּין בְּלֵילוֹ בֵּין בְּיוֹמוֹ אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה הֲרֵי הַיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי טָמֵא וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל לֵיל שְׁלִישִׁי. אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה מַשְׁכֶּמֶת לְמָחָר וְטוֹבֶלֶת אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל הַיּוֹם. אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד טָהוֹר כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵי יָמִים הַטְּמֵאִים וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב: ", + "רָאֲתָה דָּם גַּם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בֵּין בְּיוֹמוֹ בֵּין בְּלֵילוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וּצְרִיכָה לִסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִים בְּלֹא דָּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כח) \"וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים\" וְגוֹ' וְטוֹבֶלֶת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַחַר הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב. וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּנָהּ שְׁנֵי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה: ", + "זָבָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁטָּבְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁל יוֹם הַשִּׁמּוּר אוֹ זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁטָּבְלָה בְּלֵיל שְׁבִיעִי כְּאִלּוּ לֹא טָבְלָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּנִדָּה שֶׁטָּבְלָה בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעָה: ", + "הַבָּא עַל זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה בְּיוֹם שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁל סְפִירָה אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה אוֹ עַל זָבָה קְטַנָּה בְּיוֹם הַשִּׁמּוּר אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה פָּטוּר מִן הַכָּרֵת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּבְלָה בַּזְּמַן הָרָאוּי לִטְבִילָתָהּ טְהוֹרָה. וּלְאִשָּׁה זוֹ יִהְיֶה לָהּ תַּרְבּוּת רָעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּעִילָתָהּ וּמַגָּעָהּ תְּלוּיִין: ", + "כֵּיצַד הֵן תְּלוּיִין. אִם נִשְׁלַם הַיּוֹם אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם הֲרֵי כָּל שֶׁנָּגְעָה בּוֹ אַחַר טְבִילָתָהּ טָהוֹר וּבְעִילָתָהּ אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ כְּלוּם. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּיוֹם זֶה אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה נִמְצֵאת זָבָה לְמַפְרֵעַ וְכָל שֶׁנָּגְעָה בּוֹ לְמַפְרֵעַ טָמֵא. וְהִיא וּבוֹעֲלָהּ חַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן. וּלְפִיכָךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לָעֶרֶב שֶׁלֹּא תָּבִיא עַצְמָהּ לִידֵי סָפֵק: ", + "זָבָה שֶׁסָּפְרָה שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים נְקִיִּים. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי רָאֲתָה דָּם אֲפִלּוּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה סוֹתֶרֶת הַכּל וְחוֹזֶרֶת לִמְנוֹת מֵאַחַר הַיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים: ", + "פָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה סוֹתֶרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּזָב שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי שֶׁסּוֹתֵר יוֹם אֶחָד. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּעֲשִׂירִי מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וּבְאַחַד עָשָׂר וּבִשְׁתֵּים עָשָׂר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה אֵינָהּ זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה. אֶלָּא יָצָאת מִזִּיבוּת קְטַנָּה לְנִדָּה שֶׁיּוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מַתְחֶלֶת נִדָּתָהּ וְהָרוֹאָה בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ אֵינָהּ זָבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וּמַה הוּא זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (ויקרא טו כה) \"אוֹ כִּי תָזוּב עַל נִדָּתָהּ\". שֶׁאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁרָאֲתָה בַּשְּׁמִינִי לְנִדָּתָהּ וּבַתְּשִׁיעִי וּבָעֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהֵן רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי מֵהָאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁהֵן יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּי\"א מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְטָבְלָה לָעֶרֶב שֶׁהוּא לֵיל י\"ב וְשִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה וּבוֹעֲלָהּ טָמֵא וְעוֹשִׂין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב אֵינָם חַיָּבִים כָּרֵת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין יוֹם י\"ב מִצְטָרֵף לְיוֹם י\"א לַעֲשׂוֹת זָבָה. הוֹעִילָה לָהּ טְבִילַת לֵיל זֶה לְהַצִּילָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן: ", + "טָבְלָה בְּיוֹם י\"ב אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לָעֶרֶב כְּדִין כָּל זָבָה קְטַנָּה. וְאִם עָבַר וּבְעָלָהּ שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין מִכְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּיוֹם י\"ב אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם שֶׁזֶּה דַּם נִדָּה הוּא וְאֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לַיּוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו: ", + "רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּסוֹף שְׁבִיעִי לְנִדָּתָהּ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְרָאֲתָה בַּתְּשִׁיעִי וּבַעֲשִׂירִי הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. שֶׁמָּא רְאִיָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי הָיְתָה וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה מִתְּחִלַּת יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּתְּשִׁיעִי וּבַעֲשִׂירִי מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְרָאֲתָה בְּסוֹף יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. שֶׁמָּא רְאִיָּה אַחֲרוֹנָה בְּיוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר הָיְתָה וַהֲרֵי רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ: ", + "נִדָּה שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וּמָצְאָה שֶׁפָּסַק הַדָּם וַאֲפִלּוּ פָּסַק בְּשֵׁנִי לְנִדָּתָהּ וְשָׁגְגָה אוֹ הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה עַד לְאַחַר נִדָּתָהּ יָמִים רַבִּים וּכְשֶׁבָּדְקָה מָצְאָה טֻמְאָה. אֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא כָּל אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים הָיְתָה טְמֵאָה וְתִהְיֶה זָבָה אֶלָּא כָּל אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה. אֲפִלּוּ בָּדְקָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי לְנִדָּתָהּ וּבֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת לֹא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּדֵי לִפְרשׁ מִטֻּמְאַת נִדָּה אֶלָּא הִמְתִּינָה יָמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּדְקָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. וְאִם מָצְאָה טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה וַדָּאִית שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה מָצְאָה טְמֵאָה וּלְבַסּוֹף טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק. וְיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל נִדָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצְאָה בּוֹ טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁמָּצְאָה טְמֵאָה. שֶׁיּוֹם רִאשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ הֻחְזַק הַמַּעֲיָן פָּתוּחַ: ", + "זָבָה שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בָּרִאשׁוֹן מִימֵי הַסְּפִירָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וְלֹא בָּדְקָה עַד יוֹם שְׁבִיעִי וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה וּכְאִלּוּ בָּדְקָה כָּל שִׁבְעָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר: ", + "וְכֵן אִם בָּדְקָה בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מִימֵי הַסְּפִירָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. בָּדְקָה בְּיוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי לְזִיבָתָהּ וּמָצְאָה שֶׁפָּסַק הַדָּם וְלֹא בָּדְקָה בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מִימֵי הַסְּפִירָה וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְזָב בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַבְּדִיקוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר וְעָלוּ לוֹ יְמֵי סְפִירָה: ", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק נִדָּה סְפֵק זָבָה צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים מִסָּפֵק וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וּמְבִיאָה קָרְבַּן זָבָה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: " + ], + [ + "מְעֻבֶרֶת שֶׁהִתְחִילָה לְהִצְטַעֵר וַאֲחָזוּהָ חֶבְלֵי לֵדָה וְהִתְחִיל הַדָּם לָצֵאת קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד אוֹתוֹ הַדָּם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא דַּם הַקֹּשִׁי. וְהֵיאַךְ דִּינוֹ. אִם בָּא בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי הוּא דַּם נִדָּה וַהֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה נִדָּה. וְאִם בָּא בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּזָבָה (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ\". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ זוֹבָהּ מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת וָלָד. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד וָלָד חַי. אֲבָל אִם הִפִּילָה אֵין קֹשִׁי לִנְפָלִים. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד עִם הַחֲבָלִים וְהַצַּעַר י\"ד יוֹם קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם קֹשִׁי וְטָהוֹר. אֲבָל אִם הִתְחִיל הַדָּם קֹדֶם הַלֵּדָה בְּט\"ו יוֹם אוֹ יֶתֶר הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם זִיבָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא פָּסְקוּ הַצִּירִים וְהַחֲבָלִים וְהַצַּעַר אֶלָּא מִתְקַשָּׁה וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד שֶׁיָּלְדָה. אֲבָל אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ בְּצַעַר וַחֲבָלִים וּפָסַק לָהּ הַצַּעַר וְרָוַח לָהּ מִן הַחֲבָלִים אַחַר הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וְעָמְדָה בְּנַחַת כ\"ד שָׁעוֹת אוֹ יֶתֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק הַדָּם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר הַצַּעַר וְהַחֲבָלִים אַחַר כ\"ד שָׁעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה. שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּם מֵחֲמַת הַוָּלָד לֹא פָּסַק הַצַּעַר וְלֹא הַחֲבָלִים. וְאִם יָלְדָה אַחֲרֵי כֵן הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב: ", + "רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד בְּלֹא צַעַר וּשְׁנַיִם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ שְׁנַיִם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּקֹשִׁי וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ יוֹם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיוֹם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיוֹם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיָלְדָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. אֲבָל אִם רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד בְּקֹשִׁי וּשְׁנַיִם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ שְׁנַיִם בְּקֹשִׁי וְאֶחָד בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ יוֹם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיוֹם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיוֹם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיָלְדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. זֶה הַכְּלָל קֹשִׁי סָמוּךְ לַלֵּדָה אֵין זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. שֹׁפִי סָמוּךְ לַלֵּדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב: ", + "חָל שְׁלִישִׁי לִרְאִיָּתָהּ לִהְיוֹת בְּיוֹם הַלֵּדָה אֲפִלּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ בְּשֹׁפִי אֵין זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹם הַלֵּדָה סָמוּךְ לַקֹּשִׁי. רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁי הִפִּילָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה הִפִּילָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וּסְפֵק זָבָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד דִּין יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטוֹבֶלֶת לָעֶרֶב. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה לָהּ דַּם טֹהַר וּמְבִיאָה קָרְבַּן זָבָה וְקָרְבַּן יוֹלֶדֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָלְדָה זָכָר אֲפִלּוּ פָּסַק הַדָּם בְּיוֹם הַלֵּדָה סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטוֹבֶלֶת. וְאִם יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה וְסָפְרָה שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים וְשָׁלְמוּ עִם י\"ד שֶׁל לֵדָה אוֹ לְאַחֲרֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ טוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְאִם שָׁלְמוּ יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה בְּתוֹךְ י\"ד הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לֵיל ט\"ו: ", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְסָפְרָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים הֲרֵי עֲשָׂרָה. וַעֲדַיִן הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לֵיל ט\"ו. שֶׁכָּל י\"ד הִיא כְּנִדָּה. וְלָמָּה אֵין מַצְרִיכִין אֶת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב לִסְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה אַחַר שִׁבְעָה שֶׁל זָכָר וְאַחַר י\"ד שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּמֵי לֵדָתָהּ וִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה בָּהֶן עוֹלִין לָהּ לִסְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: ", + "יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק דָּמָהּ אֵין לָהּ דַּם טֹהַר. אֶלָּא כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה כְּדַם זִיבָה הוּא. אֲבָל אִם סָפְרָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְשָׁלְמוּ י\"ד שֶׁל נְקֵבָה וְטָבְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים שֶׁל זָכָר וּשְׁמוֹנִים שֶׁל נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם טֹהַר: ", + "סָפְרָה שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְלֹא טָבְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ מִיָּד. שֶׁכָּל יְמֵי טֹהַר אֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לֹא לְנִדָּה וְלֹא לְזִיבָה. אֲבָל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל דָּם טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא כְּדִין דַּם הַנִּדָּה עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל: ", + "הַיּוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה וְאַחַר י\"ד שֶׁלָּהּ נִתְעַבְּרָה וְהִתְחִיל דַּם הַקֹּשִׁי לָבֹא לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים הֲרֵי הוּא דַּם טֹהַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קֹשִׁי לִנְפָלִים שֶׁכָּל דָּמִים שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי טֹהַר טָהוֹר הוּא עַד שֶׁתַּפִּיל הַוָּלָד. וּכְשֶׁתַּפִּיל תִּהְיֶה טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. אִם הִפִּילָה זָכָר טֻמְאַת זָכָר וְאִם הִפִּילָה נְקֵבָה טֻמְאַת נְקֵבָה. וּמוֹנָה יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי מְלֹאת מִוָּלָד שֵׁנִי. אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ תְּאוֹמִים וְהִפִּילָה הַיּוֹם אֶחָד וְהִפִּילָה הָאַחֵר אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים מוֹנָה לַשֵּׁנִי יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי מְלֹאת: ", + "זָבָה שֶׁפָּסַק זוֹבָהּ וְהִתְחִילָה לִמְנוֹת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וּבָא לָהּ דַּם קֹשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. וִימֵי הַקֹּשִׁי עוֹלִים לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה. וְכֵן אִם יָלְדָה בְּשִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵין הַלֵּדָה סוֹתֶרֶת. וִימֵי הַלֵּדָה עוֹלִין לָהּ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כח) \"וְאִם טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה טֻמְאָה אַחֶרֶת כְּגוֹן טֻמְאַת לֵדָה אוֹ טֻמְאַת נִדָּה אוֹ טֻמְאַת צָרַעַת הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶרֶת בָּהֶן. וְאֵין טֻמְאוֹת אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן סוֹתְרִין הַסְּפִירָה: ", + "יְמֵי לֵדָתָהּ וִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִסְפִירַת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְאִם רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם אֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ יְמֵי הָרְאִיָּה וְלֹא סוֹתְרִין כָּל הַיָּמִים. אֶלָּא מַשְׁלֶמֶת עַל הַיָּמִים שֶׁסָּפְרָה כְּשֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם. שֶׁאֵין סוֹתֵר הַכּל אֶלָּא רְאִיָּה שֶׁל זוֹב אֲבָל אֵלּוּ סוֹתְרִין יוֹמָן בִּלְבַד: ", + "מֵאַחַר שֶׁתָּבִין כָּל הָעִקָּרִים שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. יִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה דָּם מִן הַמָּקוֹר יוֹם אַחַר יוֹם מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה זָבָה. כֵּיצַד. שְׁנַיִם לִפְנֵי נִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁבְעָה יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר קֹשִׁי. וּשְׁמוֹנִים שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. וְשִׁבְעָה יְמֵי נִדָּה. וּשְׁנַיִם אַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה אַחַר יוֹם מְלֹאת הוּא תְּחִלַּת נִדָּתָהּ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל וְסָתוֹת שֶׁמִּקֹּדֶם. לְפִיכָךְ הָרוֹאָה דָּם בְּסוֹף יוֹם מְלֹאת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה שֶׁמָּא בַּלַּיְלָה רָאֲתָה הַדָּם שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ: ", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַנִּדָּה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם כָּל שִׁבְעָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי אַחַר שֶׁתִּטְבּל. וְזָבָה קְטַנָּה מְשַׁמֶּרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד טָהוֹר וְטוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ לָעֶרֶב. וְזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי. וְאֵין בֵּין זְמַן נִדָּה לְנִדָּה אֶלָּא אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם בִּלְבַד. וּבְאוֹתָן הָאַחַד עָשָׂר תִּהְיֶה זָבָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְּדוֹלָה: ", + "וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זוֹכֵר כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעִקָּרִים יִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ זֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֻחְזְקָה כָּל יָמֶיהָ יוֹם תִּרְאֶה דָּם וְיוֹם לֹא תִּרְאֶה בַּתְּחִלָּה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וּבְיוֹם שְׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם אֶחָד אַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּכָל י\"ח יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת בִּלְבַד. וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיָּמִים הַטְּהוֹרִים שֶׁהַיּוֹם הַטָּהוֹר הוּא שׁוֹמֵר לַיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה רוֹאָה הַדָּם בְּכָל יוֹם טָמֵא מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת אֶלָּא בַּשְּׁמִינִי בִּלְבַד שֶׁהוּא יוֹם אֶחָד אַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים טְמֵאִין וּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טְהוֹרִים מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בַּשְּׁמִינִי וּבַשְּׁנֵים עָשָׂר וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וּבַעֶשְׂרִים: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים טְמֵאִין וּשְׁלֹשָׁה טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁנֵי יָמִים מֵהַשְּׁלֹשָׁה הַטְּהוֹרִין שֶׁאַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. שֶׁהָאֶחָד מֵהֶן שָׁמוּר לַשְּׁנַיִם הַטְּמֵאִין הַסְּמוּכִין לְנִדָּתָהּ. וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזְקָה זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאֵין לָהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים טְמֵאִים וְאַרְבָּעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁאַחַר נִדָּתָהּ וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים טְמֵאִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים טְהוֹרִים. מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה הַסְּמוּכִים לְנִדָּתָהּ וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שִׁשָּׁה יָמִים טְמֵאִין וְשִׁשָּׁה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בַּחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים הַסְּמוּכִים לְנִדָּתָהּ תְּחִלָּה וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שִׁבְעָה טְמֵאִין וְשִׁבְעָה טְהוֹרִין. מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת הַשָּׁבוּעַ הָרִאשׁוֹן הַטָּהוֹר הַסָּמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ וְיָבוֹא אַחֲרָיו שָׁבוּעַ טָמֵא תִּקָּבַע בּוֹ זָבָה וְהַשָּׁבוּעַ הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁיָּבוֹא אַחֲרָיו לִסְפִירָה וַאֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בּוֹ. נִמְצֵאת שֶׁלֹּא שִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה שָׁבוּעוֹת אֶלָּא שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד. וְכָל יָמֶיהָ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּכָל שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר שָׁבוּעוֹת. כֵּיצַד. שָׁבוּעַ חֲמִישִׁי הֲרֵי הִיא זָבָה. שָׁבוּעַ שִׁשִּׁי שֶׁהִיא בּוֹ טְהוֹרָה לִסְפִירָה. שָׁבוּעַ שְׁבִיעִי זָבָה. שָׁבוּעַ שְׁמִינִי לִסְפִירָה. שָׁבוּעַ תְּשִׁיעִי שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה בּוֹ. חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים מִמֶּנּוּ מִימֵי נִדָּה. וּשְׁנַיִם מִתְּחִלַּת יְמֵי זִיבָה. מְשַׁמֶּרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַשָּׁבוּעַ הַעֲשִׂירִי הַטָּהוֹר וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שִׁשָּׁה. שָׁבוּעַ אַחַד עָשָׂר שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם מִסּוֹף יְמֵי זוֹבָהּ. וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִתְּחִלַּת יְמֵי נִדָּה. וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים מִשָּׁבוּעַ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר הַטָּהוֹר. שָׁבוּעַ י\"ג זָבָה וְשָׁבוּעַ י\"ד לִסְפִירָה. וְכֵן שָׁבוּעַ ט\"ו זָבָה. שָׁבוּעַ ט\"ז לִסְפִירָה. וְשָׁבוּעַ י\"ז זָבָה. וְשָׁבוּעַ י\"ח לִסְפִירָה. וְסוֹפֶרֶת עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ לְעוֹלָם. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שֶׁבְּכָל י\"ח שָׁבוּעוֹת מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת י\"ח יוֹם. וְאִלּוּ לֹא אֵרַע לָהּ חלִי זֶה וְהָיְתָה שָׁבוּעַ נִדָּה וְי\"א יוֹם טְהוֹרָה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּכָל הַי\"ח שָׁבוּעוֹת י\"א שָׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁהֵן שִׁבְעָה וְשִׁבְעִים יוֹם: ", + "וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה שָׁבוּעַ טָמֵא וְשָׁבוּעַ טָהוֹר מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת י\"ח יוֹם שֶׁהֵם כְּמוֹ רְבִיעַ הַיָּמִים. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת רְבִיעַ יָמֶיהָ: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שְׁמֹנָה יָמִים טָמֵא וּשְׁמֹנָה יָמִים טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת ט\"ו יוֹם מִתּוֹךְ מ\"ח יָמִים. כֵּיצַד. שְׁמוֹנָה טָמֵא שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְיוֹם אֶחָד זִיבוּת סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ מְשַׁמֶּרֶת לוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁמוֹנָה הַטְּהוֹרִין וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שִׁבְעָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָבוֹאוּ לָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה טְמֵאִין. מֵהֶן שְׁנַיִם תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. וְשִׁשָּׁה מִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְיָבוֹאוּ שְׁמֹנָה טְהוֹרִין יוֹם אֶחָד מֵהֶן תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שִׁבְעָה שְׁנִיּוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָבוֹאוּ לָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה טְמֵאִים. מֵהֶן אַרְבָּעָה תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. וְאַרְבָּעָה מִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ. נִמְצֵאת זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וּצְרִיכָה סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה. יָבוֹאוּ לָהּ שְׁמֹנָה טְהוֹרִים. סוֹפֶרֶת מֵהֶן שִׁבְעָה וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת יוֹם אֶחָד. נִמְצֵאת מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת ט\"ו יוֹם בְּכָל מ\"ח: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים טְמֵאִים וְתִּשְׁעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמֹנָה יָמִים בְּכָל י\"ח יוֹם לְעוֹלָם. כֵּיצַד תִּשְׁעָה הַטְּמֵאִים. שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן נִדָּתָהּ וּשְׁנַיִם זִיבוּת סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ מְשַׁמֶּרֶת לָהֶן יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַתִּשְׁעָה הַטְּהוֹרִין וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמוֹנָה וְכֵן לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים טָמֵא וַעֲשָׂרָה טָהוֹר. וּמֵעֲשָׂרָה וּלְמַעְלָה אֲפִלּוּ אֶלֶף יוֹם טָמֵא וְאֶלֶף יוֹם טָהוֹר יִהְיֶה יְמֵי שִׁמּוּשָׁהּ כְּמִנְיַן זִיבָתָהּ. כֵּיצַד עֲשָׂרָה הַטְּמֵאִים. מֵהֶם שִׁבְעָה נִדָּה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה זִיבָה. עֲשָׂרָה הַטְּהוֹרִים סוֹפֶרֶת מֵהֶן שִׁבְעָה וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁלֹשָׁה. נִמְצְאוּ יְמֵי הַשִּׁמּוּשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה וִימֵי הַזָּבוּת שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכֵן מֵאָה יוֹם טְמֵאִין וּמֵאָה טְהוֹרִין. וּמֵאָה הַטְּמֵאִין שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן לְנִדָּה וְצ\"ג זִיבוּת. הַמֵּאָה הַטְּהוֹרִין שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן לִסְפִירָה צ\"ג לְשִׁמּוּשׁ. וְכֵן אֶלֶף וְכֵן כָּל מִנְיָן וּמִנְיָן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ: " + ], + [ + "יֵשׁ אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת וְיֵשׁ אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֶלָּא לֹא תַּרְגִּישׁ בְּעַצְמָהּ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַדָּם וְאֵין לָהּ יוֹם קָבוּעַ לִרְאִיָּתָהּ. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת הִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ יוֹם קָבוּעַ. אוֹ מֵעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם. אוֹ מִכ\"ד יוֹם לְכ\"ד יוֹם. אוֹ פָּחוֹת אוֹ יוֹתֵר: \n", + "וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבוֹא הַדָּם תַּרְגִּישׁ בְּעַצְמָהּ. מְפַהֶקֶת וּמִתְעַטֶּשֶׁת וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת פִּי כְּרֵסָהּ וְשִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעֶיהָ וְיִסְתַּמֵּר שַׂעֲרַת בְּשָׂרָהּ אוֹ יֵחַם בְּשָׂרָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּמְאֹרָעוֹת אֵלּוּ. וְיָבוֹאוּ לָהּ וְסָתוֹת אֵלּוּ אוֹ אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּשָׁעָה הַקְּבוּעָה לָהּ מִיּוֹם וֶסְתָּהּ: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק עַצְמָהּ תְּחִלָּה. וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּכָל עוֹנַת הַוֶּסֶת. אִם וֶסְתָּהּ בַּיּוֹם אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וְאִם וֶסְתָּהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה. וּמִתְּחִלַּת יוֹם הַוֶּסֶת תִּסְפֹּר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכוֹת הַנָּשִׁים לְהִזָּהֵר בִּוְסָתוֹת עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע הַיּוֹם וְהַשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּקְבְּעָה בָּהּ וֶסְתָּהּ. הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וּבָא יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה וּבָא יוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְרָאֲתָה הֲרֵי יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְיוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה בְּיוֹם כ\"ג וְלֹא רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים עֲדַיִן שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. רָאֲתָה פַּעַם שְׁלִישִׁית בְּיוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים טָהַר יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְנֶעֱקָר הַוֶּסֶת לְיוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים. שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְאֵינָהּ מִטַּהֶרֶת מִן הַוֶּסֶת עַד שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר מִמֶּנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n", + "כָּל וֶסֶת שֶׁנִּקְבַּע מֵחֲמַת אֹנֶס אֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה בּוֹ כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים אֵינוֹ וֶסֶת שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס רָאֲתָה. קָפְצָה וְרָאֲתָה קָפְצָה וְרָאֲתָה קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת לְיָמִים בְּלֹא קְפִיצוֹת. כֵּיצַד. קָפְצָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. וּלְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם קָפְצָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. וּלְאַחַר י\"ט קָפְצָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם וּלְאַחַר שַׁבָּת רָאֲתָה בְּלֹא קְפִיצָה. הֲרֵי נִקְבָּע אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אַחַר עֶשְׂרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי נוֹדַע שֶׁהַיּוֹם גָּרַם לָהּ לִרְאוֹת וְלֹא הַקְּפִיצָה. וּכְבָר נִקְבַּע יוֹם זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "רָאֲתָה יוֹם ט\"ו בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה וְיוֹם ט\"ז בְּחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו וְיוֹם י\"ז בְּחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו וְיוֹם י\"ח לְחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו הֲרֵי קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת לְדִלּוּג. בָּא חֹדֶשׁ רְבִיעִי וְרָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם י\"ז עֲדַיִן לֹא נִקְבָּע לָהּ וֶסֶת. וְכָל יוֹם שֶׁרָאֲתָה בּוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לוֹ לְהַבָּא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְלֹא תִּרְאֶה טָהַר אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם מִן הַוֶּסֶת שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ עֲקִירַת שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים אֶלָּא יוֹם שֶׁנִּקְבַּע שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n", + "הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם ט\"ו וְשִׁנְּתָה לְט\"ז שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין. שִׁנְּתָה לְי\"ז הֻתַּר ט\"ז וְנֶאֱסַר י\"ז וְט\"ו בְּאִסּוּרוֹ עוֹמֵד. שִׁנְּתָה לְי\"ח נֶאֱסַר י\"ח וְהֻתְּרוּ כֻּלָּם: \n", + "הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁנְּתָה לְיוֹם כ\"ב שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין. הִגִּיעַ עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה כ\"ב וְרָאֲתָה עֲדַיִן שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְרָאֲתָה טָהַר יוֹם כ\"ב. שֶׁהֲרֵי חָזְרָה לְוֶסְתָּהּ הַקָּבוּעַ וְנֶעֱקַר כ\"ב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבַּע שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n", + "אֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ שֶׁרָאֲתָה בָּהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּכָל הַשִּׁבְעָה. וְכֵן אֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת וֶסֶת בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ שֶׁהֵן אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם. אֲבָל קוֹבַעַת הִיא וֶסֶת בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה בָּהֶן. וְאִם נִקְבָּע לָהּ וֶסֶת בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוֶסְתָּהּ. וְכָל וֶסֶת שֶׁקָּבְעָה בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ אִם נֶעֶקְרָה אֲפִלּוּ פַּעַם אַחַת נֶעֶקְרָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהֵעָקֵר שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים שֶׁחֶזְקַת דָּמִים מְסֻלָּקִין הֵן לְיָמִים אֵלּוּ: \n", + "כֵּיצַד חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוֶסֶת. אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּוֶסֶת זוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד תֵּשֵׁב לְנִדָּתָהּ מִסָּפֵק וַאֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא רָאֲתָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמֵי הַוְּסָתוֹת. וְאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁמַּרְבָּה לִבְדֹּק עַצְמָהּ תָּמִיד הֲרֵי זוֹ מְשֻׁבַּחַת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת קְבוּעָה. שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיָּבוֹא דָּם בְּלֹא שְׁעַת הַוֶּסֶת. וְכָל י\"א יוֹם שֶׁל יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא בָּהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. אֲבָל אַחַר יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ צְרִיכָה לִבְדֹּק: \n", + "שָׁכְחָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק וְתִמָּצֵא טְמֵאָה: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ וּלְאַחַר יָמִים בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טָמֵא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד שְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם. וְאִם מָצְאָה עַצְמָהּ טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טְהוֹרָה: \n", + "וְכֵן אִשָּׁה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בַּמָּקוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ הִיא טְהוֹרָה וְהַדָּם טָהוֹר. שֶׁהַוְּסָתוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מְטַמְּאֵי מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב: \n", + "הַסּוּמָא בּוֹדֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ וּמַרְאָה לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ. אֲבָל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְהַשּׁוֹטָה צְרִיכוֹת פִּקְחוֹת לִבְדֹּק אוֹתָן וְלִקְבֹּעַ לָהֶן וְסָתוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁטָּעֲתָה וְלֹא יָדְעָה עֵת וֶסְתָּהּ וְרָאֲתָה דָּם חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּשְׁלוּם שִׁבְעָה שֶׁמָּא דָּם זֶה בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הִיא. וְאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים שֶׁמָּא בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הִיא עוֹמֶדֶת: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד הִיא עוֹשָׂה לְתַקֵּן וֶסְתָּהּ וְלֵידַע אִם הִיא זָבָה וַדָּאִית אוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה וְלֵידַע יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. הַכּל לְפִי יָמִים שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בָּהֶן. כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מַשְׁלֶמֶת עֲלֵיהֶן הַשִּׁבְעָה וְתַתְחִיל לִמְנוֹת הָאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם מֵאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה: \n", + "רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁמָּא יוֹם אֶחָד מֵהֶן קֹדֶם נִדָּתָהּ וּשְׁנַיִם בִּתְחִלַּת הַנִּדָּה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם קֹדֶם הַנִּדָּה וּשְׁנַיִם מִתְּחִלַּת הַנִּדָּה וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת חֲמִשָּׁה תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי נִדָּה וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יְמֵי זִיבָה אַחַר הַחֲמִשָּׁה: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם קֹדֶם יְמֵי נִדָּה וְשִׁבְעָה שֶׁל נִדָּה וּמַתְחֶלֶת לִמְנוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם מֵאַחַר הַתִּשְׁעָה שֶׁפָּסַק הַדָּם. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם קֹדֶם הַנִּדָּה וְשִׁבְעָה שֶׁל נִדָּה וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁל אַחַר הַנִּדָּה וְנִשְׁאַר לָהּ מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ תִּשְׁעָה: \n", + "רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר יוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה וַדָּאִית. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֵהֶן שְׁנַיִם לִפְנֵי הַנִּדָּה וְשִׁבְעָה שֶׁל נִדָּה הֲרֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה לְאַחַר הַנִּדָּה וְיִשָּׁאֵר לָהּ מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם יִשָּׁאֵר לָהּ מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ שִׁבְעָה וְהֵן יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה: \n", + "מָשְׁכָה בִּרְאִיַּת הַדָּם אֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה אֶלֶף יוֹם כְּשֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים. וְאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה יַתְחִילוּ יְמֵי הַנִּדָּה לְזוֹ שֶׁטָּעֲתָה: \n", + "הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל הַטּוֹעָה אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה מִשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁבְעָה וְלֹא יוֹתֵר עַל י\"ז וְיָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד וּפָסַק הַדָּם מוֹנָה י\"ז שִׁשָּׁה לְתַשְׁלוּם נִדָּתָהּ וְי\"א יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְיָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְאִם רָאֲתָה י\"ג אוֹ יֶתֶר מוֹנָה שִׁבְעָה מִשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם וְיָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִתְטַמְּאָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּנִדָּה אוֹ בְּזִיבָה עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ וְתִרְאֶה דָּם וְיֵצֵא בִּבְשָׂרָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְתִהְיֶה טְמֵאָה מֵעֵת שֶׁתִּרְאֶה וּלְהַבָּא בִּלְבַד. וְאִם לֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה וּבָדְקָה וּמָצְאָה הַדָּם לְפָנִים בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁבָּא בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אוֹ עַל בְּגָדֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִרְגִּישָׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא מָצְאָה דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה וּכְאִלּוּ מָצְאָה דָּם לְפָנִים בִּבְשָׂרָהּ. וְטֻמְאָה זוֹ בְּסָפֵק שֶׁמָּא כֶּתֶם זֶה מִדַּם הַחֶדֶר בָּא: ", + "וְכֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹאָה דָּם בְּלֹא עֵת וֶסְתָּהּ וְכָל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד כ\"ד שָׁעוֹת. וְאִם בָּדְקָה בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד זְמַן בְּדִיקָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה לְנִדָּתָהּ אוֹ לְכִתְמָהּ אֶלָּא מֵעֵת שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הַדָּם אוֹ שֶׁמָּצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם. וְכָל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻלְקֶלֶת (לְמִנְיָנָהּ) שֶׁמָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר בָּא וְנִתְקַלְקְלָה וֶסְתָּהּ: ", + "הָרוֹאָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעָתָהּ בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמֵינִיקָה בְּתוּלָה וּזְקֵנָה דַּיָּן שְׁעָתָן וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מְעֻבֶּרֶת. מִשֶּׁיֻּכַּר עֻבָּרָהּ. וְהוּא שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. מֵינִיקָה כָּל כ\"ד חֹדֶשׁ אֲפִלּוּ מֵת בְּנָהּ אוֹ גְּמָלַתּוּ אוֹ נְתָנַתּוּ לְמֵינִיקָה: ", + "בְּתוּלָה כָּל שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה מֵחֲמַת נִשּׂוּאִין אוֹ מֵחֲמַת לֵדָה. זְקֵנָה כָּל שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם סָמוּךְ לְזִקְנָתָהּ. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא זְקֵנָה כָּל שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין לָהּ זְקֵנָה וְאֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת. מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמֵינִיקָה וּזְקֵנָה כִּתְמָן כִּרְאִיָּתָן וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ. בְּתוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ וַעֲדַיִן הִיא קְטַנָּה כִּתְמָהּ טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁתִּרְאֶה דָּם שָׁלֹשׁ וְסָתוֹת: ", + "מַה בֵּין כֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ לְכֶתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בִּגְדָהּ. שֶׁהַכֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר. וְהַנִּמְצָא עַל הַבֶּגֶד אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כִּגְרִיס הַקִּלְקִי שֶׁהוּא מְרֻבָּע שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי תֵּשַׁע עֲדָשׁוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁעוּר זֶה טָהוֹר. נִמְצָא טִפִּין טִפִּין אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. הָיָה אָרֹךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מִצְטָרֵף: ", + "כֶּתֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה טָהוֹר וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לוֹ. כֵּיצַד. יָשְׁבָה עַל כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה וּכְלֵי גְּלָלִים אוֹ עַל עוֹר הַדָּג אוֹ עַל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ מִגַּבּוֹ אוֹ עַל בֶּגֶד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת עַל שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת וְנִמְצָא עֲלֵיהֶן דָּם טְהוֹרָה. אֲפִלּוּ בָּדְקָה הַקַּרְקַע וְיָשְׁבָה עָלֶיהָ וְנִמְצָא כֶּתֶם עַל הַקַּרְקַע כְּשֶׁעָמְדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל כֶּתֶם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בּוֹ. וְלֹא בִּמְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לָבָן. אֲבָל כְּלֵי צִבְעוֹנִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְכֶתֶם הַנִּמְצָא בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּלְבַּשׁ הָאִשָּׁה בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין כְּדֵי לְהַצִּילָהּ מִדִּין הַכְּתָמִים: ", + "לֹא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַדָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ תִּטְמָא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם עַד שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה. כֵּיצַד. נִמְצָא עַל עֲקֵבָהּ טְמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בְּבֵית תֻּרְפָּה בְּעֵת יְשִׁיבָתָהּ. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא עַל שׁוֹקָהּ אוֹ עַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִבִּפְנִים וְהֵם הַמְּקוֹמוֹת הַנִּדְבָּקוֹת זוֹ בְּזוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד וְתִדְבֹּק רֶגֶל לְרֶגֶל וְשׁוֹק לְשׁוֹק הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. נִמְצָא עַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדַל רַגְלָהּ טְמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נָטַף מִן הַחֶדֶר עַל רַגְלָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁהָלְכָה. וְכֵן כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּנָּתֵז עָלָיו דַּם נִדָּתָהּ כְּשֶׁתְּהַלֵּךְ וְנִמְצָא שָׁם דָּם טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא הַדָּם עַל יָדֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ עַל קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹת יָדֶיהָ טְמֵאָה שֶׁהַיָּדַיִם עַסְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא הַדָּם עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִבַּחוּץ אוֹ מִן הַצְּדָדִין וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם נִמְצָא מִן הַיְרֵכַיִם וּלְמַעְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא דָּם שֶׁנִּתַּז עָלֶיהָ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר: ", + "הַכֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ שֶׁהוּא אָרֹךְ כִּרְצוּעָה אוֹ עָגל. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ טִפִּין טִפִּין. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֹרֶךְ הַכֶּתֶם עַל רֹחַב יְרֵכָהּ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה נִרְאֶה כְּאִלּוּ הוּא מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית תֻּרְפָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים אִלּוּ נָטַף מִן הַגּוּף לֹא הָיָה כָּזֶה. שֶׁכָּל דָּם הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ מַחֲמִירִין בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק: ", + "הַכֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל הֶחָלוּק שֶׁלָּהּ מֵחֲגוֹרָהּ וּלְמַטָּה טְמֵאָה מֵחֲגוֹרָהּ וּלְמַעְלָה טְהוֹרָה. נִמְצָא עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁלָּהּ אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית תֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה: ", + "הָיְתָה פּוֹשַׁטְתוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בּוֹ דָּם טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן הָאֵזוֹר שֶׁלָּהּ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בּוֹ הַדָּם טְמֵאָה: ", + "הָיְתָה לוֹבֶשֶׁת חָלוּק אֶחָד וְשָׁהָה עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר בְּלֹא עֵת נִדָּתָהּ וּבָדְקָה וּמָצְאָה עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים אוֹ כֶּתֶם אֶחָד גָּדוֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שִׁעוּר שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁמָּא כֶּתֶם נָטַף מִמֶּנָּה בְּכָל יוֹם. וְכֵן אִם לָבְשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּגָדִים בְּדוּקִים וְשָׁהוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וּמָצְאָה כֶּתֶם בְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה: ", + "מָצְאָה כֶּתֶם אֶחָד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים אִם בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁל יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וְלֹא בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי מָצְאָה זֶה הַכֶּתֶם שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וְשָׁהָה עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּתֶם כְּדֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים: ", + "מָצְאָה כֶּתֶם עַל חֲלוּקָהּ הַיּוֹם וְרָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר כָּךְ שְׁנֵי יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה. אוֹ שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי רָאֲתָה כֶּתֶם. הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה: ", + "הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם תּוֹלָה כִּתְמָהּ בִּרְאִיָּתָהּ כָּל מֵעֵת לְעֵת. בֵּין שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁמָּצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם וּמְצָאתָהּ טָהוֹר. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה. אֲבָל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם אַחַר כֶּתֶם בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה כֶּתֶם בַּכֶּתֶם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בָּדְקָה בֵּינֵיהֶם. שֶׁאִם הִפְסִיקָה טָהֳרָה בֵּין הַכְּתָמִים אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְמִנְיַן זִיבוּת: ", + "כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה כֶּתֶם עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַיּוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא יָדְעָה אִם טְהוֹרָה הִיא אִם טְמֵאָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר כָּךְ עַד שָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִיּוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה לַכֶּתֶם. אֶלָּא תּוֹלָה הַכֶּתֶם בִּרְאִיָּה. וְאִם רָאֲתָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְשֵׁנִי בְּשַׁבָּת תִּהְיֶה זָבָה. רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּיוֹם שַׁבָּת בְּשָׁעָה שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת שֶׁמָּצְאָה בּוֹ הַכֶּתֶם וּבְשַׁבָּת שֶׁרָאֲתָה הַדָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם רָאֲתָה הַדָּם בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזִיבוּת: ", + "לֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּשַׁבָּת אֲבָל רָאֲתָה כֶּתֶם אַחֵר בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִיּוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת. אִם בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא לְכֶתֶם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת הוֹאִיל וּשְׁנֵיהֶם בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקָה וְלֹא יָדְעָה אִם הִפְסִיקָה טָהֳרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אִם לֹא הִפְסִיקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מוֹנָה לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאִם רָאֲתָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת: ", + "רָאֲתָה הַכֶּתֶם הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשָׁעָה שְׁנִיָּה מִיּוֹם שַׁבָּת בֵּין בָּדְקָה בֵּין לֹא בָּדְקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם רָאֲתָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אַחַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. רָאֲתָה בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִיּוֹם אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת כֶּתֶם שְׁלִישִׁי אִם הִפְסִיקָה טָהֳרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקָה חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת: ", + "כָּל כֶּתֶם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה בִּגְלָלוֹ אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ וְלוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא כֶּתֶם זֶה מִדָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי הוּא אִם נִמְצָא עַל הַבֶּגֶד הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר לְהַחֲמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל. וְאִם נִמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא וְאֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה לָהּ לִתְלוֹת בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יֶתֶר מֵחֲלוּקָהּ אַף עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ תּוֹלָה וּסְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר: ", + "כֵּיצַד. שָׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקָה בִּכְתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְּצַד הָעוֹסְקִין בָּהֶן אוֹ שֶׁעָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל חֲלוּקָהּ טְהוֹרָה וְתוֹלָה בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁמֵּהֶן בָּא הַכֶּתֶם: ", + "נִמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ בִּלְבַד אִם הַכֶּתֶם מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה טְמֵאָה. וְאִם נִתְהַפְּכָה וְקָפְצָה אֲפִלּוּ מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה דָּם זֶה מִן הַשְּׁחִיטָה אוֹ מִן הַשּׁוּק הָיָה לָהּ שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא גַּם עַל בְּגָדֶיהָ וְהוֹאִיל וְנִמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ וְלֹא בְּבִגְדָּהּ טְמֵאָה:", + "הָיְתָה בָּהּ מַכָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָיְתָה אִם יְכוֹלָה לְהִתְגַּלַּע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָּם וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ תּוֹלָה בַּמַּכָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "נִמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם עַל בְּגָדֶיהָ וּבְשָׂרָהּ כְּאֶחָד תּוֹלָה בְּכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ לִתְלוֹת. וְתוֹלָה בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת שֶׁמָּא בְּעֵת שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה נֶהֶרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת וְדָם זֶה דַּם מַאֲכֹלֶת הוּא. וְעַד כַּמָּה עַד כִּגְרִיס. אֲבָל אִם מָצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם יֶתֶר מִכִּגְרִיס אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מַאֲכֹלֶת רְצוּצָה בַּכֶּתֶם הוֹאִיל וְהוּא יֶתֶר מִכִּגְרִיס אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת: ", + "וְכֵן תּוֹלָה בִּבְנָהּ וּבְבַעְלָהּ אִם הָיוּ עֲסוּקִין בְּדָם אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ יְדֵיהֶן מְלֻכְלָכוֹת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּהֶן מַכָּה תּוֹלָה בָּהֶן וְאוֹמֶרֶת הֵן נָגְעוּ בָּהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה וְדָם זֶה מֵחֲמָתָן הוּא: ", + "אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין דָּם מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה לָהּ מַכָּה בִּכְתֵפָהּ וְנִמְצָא כֶּתֶם עַל שׁוֹקָהּ. אֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא בְּיָדֶיהָ נָגְעָה בַּמַּכָּה וְנָגְעָה בְּמָקוֹם זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה אֵין תּוֹלִין בּוֹ בֵּין בְּגוּפָהּ בֵּין בַּחֲלוּקָהּ: ", + "שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקוּ בְּצִפּוֹר אֶחָד וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּסֶלַע דָּם וְנִמְצָא עַל כָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן כֶּתֶם כְּסֶלַע שְׁתֵּיהֶן טְמֵאוֹת. נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּדָם שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִמֶּנּוּ כֶּתֶם אֶלָּא כִּגְרִיס וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ כֶּתֶם כִּשְׁנֵי גְּרִיסִין הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה כִּגְרִיס בַּדָּם שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקָה בּוֹ וְכִגְרִיס בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת. נִמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם יֶתֶר מִכִּשְׁנֵי גְּרִיסִין טְמֵאָה: ", + "נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּאָדֹם אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ שָׁחוֹר. נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִינֵי דָּם הַרְבֵּה וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ מַרְאֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן תּוֹלָה בּוֹ. הָיְתָה לוֹבֶשֶׁת שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת אִם יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת תּוֹלָה אַף בַּתַּחְתּוֹן. וְאִם אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה אַף בָּעֶלְיוֹן. כֵּיצַד. עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְבַדּוֹ תּוֹלָה בְּדַם הַטַּבָּחִים. לֹא עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק הַטַּבָּחִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם בָּעֶלְיוֹן לְבַדּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה סָפֵק עָבְרָה סָפֵק לֹא עָבְרָה סָפֵק נִתְעַסְּקָה סָפֵק לֹא נִתְעַסְּקָה אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה: ", + "עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲזִירִים אוֹ שֶׁהֵם בָּאִין לָהּ תָּמִיד אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִכְתָמֶיהָ הַנִּמְצָאִין בַּחֲלוּקָהּ: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁאִילָה חֲלוּקָהּ לְנִדָּה בֵּין עַכּוּ\"ם בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית וְחָזְרָה וְלָבְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם בְּדִיקָה וּמָצְאָה עָלָיו כֶּתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בַּנִּדָּה שֶׁלָּבְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ. הִשְׁאִילָה אוֹתוֹ לְזָבָה קְטַנָּה בַּיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ לַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טֹהַר אוֹ לִבְתוּלָה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ טְהוֹרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם הִשְׁאִילָה אוֹתוֹ לְזָבָה קְטַנָּה בַּיּוֹם הַשָּׁמוּר אוֹ לְזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה בְּשִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְחָזְרָה וְלָבְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם בְּדִיקָה וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו כֶּתֶם שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְקֻלְקָלוֹת הַשּׁוֹאֶלֶת וְהַמַּשְׁאֶלֶת אוֹתָהּ שֶׁמָּא מִזּוֹ שֶׁמָּא מִזּוֹ. הִשְׁאִילָה אוֹתוֹ לְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכֶּתֶם אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין כֶּתֶם בְּכֶתֶם: ", + "בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וּבָדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וְהִשְׁאִילָה הֶחָלוּק לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ וּלְבָשַׁתּוּ וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו כֶּתֶם כְּשֶׁהֶחֱזִירָתוֹ לָהּ הַשּׁוֹאֶלֶת טְמֵאָה. וְאֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּבַעֲלַת הֶחָלוּק שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּדְקָה אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּשְׁאִילֵהוּ לָהּ: ", + "אֲרֻכָּה שֶׁלָּבְשָׁה חֲלוּקָהּ שֶׁל קְצָרָה וְנִמְצָא בּוֹ כֶּתֶם אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁכֶּתֶם זֶה שֶׁל קְצָרָה הוּא: ", + "שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁלָּבְשׁוּ חָלוּק אֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא עָלָיו כֶּתֶם. וְכֵן אִם יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת כְּאַחַת וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. וְאִם בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן עַצְמָהּ מִיָּד וּמָצְאָה עַצְמָהּ טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי הַשְּׁתַּיִם טְהוֹרוֹת: ", + "בָּדְקוּ כֻּלָּן וּמָצְאוּ עַצְמָן טְהוֹרוֹת תּוֹלָה מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בְּמִי שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה. וְתִהְיֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה טְהוֹרָה וְהָרְאוּיָה טְמֵאָה. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה אַחַת מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאַחַת אֵינָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת טְהוֹרָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת טְמֵאָה. מֵינִיקָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מֵינִיקָה הַמֵּינִיקָה טְהוֹרָה. זְקֵנָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ זְקֵנָה הַזְּקֵנָה טְהוֹרָה. בְּתוּלָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּתוּלָה הַבְּתוּלָה טְהוֹרָה. הָיוּ כֻּלָּן מְעֻבָּרוֹת כֻּלָּן זְקֵנוֹת כֻּלָּן מֵינִיקוֹת כֻּלָּן בְּתוּלוֹת הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת: ", + "שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁעָלוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּטָּה וְיָשְׁנוּ כֻּלָּן וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת הָאֶמְצָעִית שְׁלָשְׁתָּן טְמֵאוֹת. תַּחַת הַפְּנִימִית הִיא וְשֶׁבְּצִדָּהּ טְמֵאוֹת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה טְהוֹרָה. תַּחַת הַחִיצוֹנָה הִיא וְשֶׁבְּצִדָּהּ טְמֵאוֹת וְהַפְּנִימִית טְהוֹרָה. וְאִם לֹא עָלוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּטָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָהֶם סֵדֶר וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּדְקוּ כֻּלָּן וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר וְלֹא תּוּכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן לִתְלוֹת בַּחֲבֵרְתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אִם בָּדְקָה אַחַת וּמָצְאָה עַצְמָהּ טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֵרְתָהּ לֹא בָּדְקָה תּוֹלָה הַטְּהוֹרָה בְּזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה וַהֲרֵי זוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה טְמֵאָה: ", + "כָּל כֶּתֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בְּמַה יִּתְלֶה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁהוּא דָּם. וְאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא הוּא דָּם אוֹ צֶבַע אָדֹם מַעֲבִירִין עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין אֵלּוּ עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אִם עָבַר אוֹ כֵּהָה עֵינוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כֶּתֶם דָּם וּטְמֵאָה וְאִם עָמַד כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע וּטְהוֹרָה: ", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַשִּׁבְעָה סַמָּנִים עַל סִדְרָן. רֹק תָּפֵל. וּלְעִיסַת גְּרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל. וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֶחֱמִיצוּ. וּבֹרִית. וְנֶתֶר. וְקִימוֹנְיָא. וְאַשְׁלָג. וְצָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים עַל כָּל סַם וְסַם וּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בְּכָל כִּסְכּוּס. הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱבִירָן כְּאֶחָד לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. הִקְדִּים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים לָרִאשׁוֹנִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁהֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וּמַעֲבִיר אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁהִקְדִּים עַד שֶׁיַּעַבְרוּ הַשִּׁבְעָה עַל הַסֵּדֶר: ", + "אֵי זֶהוּ רֹק תָּפֵל שֶׁלֹּא טָעַם כְּלוּם מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה וְהָיָה יָשֵׁן מֵחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה הָאַחֲרוֹן לְמָחָר קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאכַל נִקְרָא רֹק תָּפֵל. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא רֹב דִּבּוּרוֹ עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם. וְאִם הִשְׁכִּים וְשָׁנָה פִּרְקוֹ קֹדֶם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת אֵין זֶה רֹק תָּפֵל שֶׁהַדִּבּוּר מְבַטֵּל חֹזֶק הָרֹק וּמַחֲזִירוֹ כְּמַיִם. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא לְעִיסַת גְּרִיסִין הוּא שֶׁיִּלְעֹס הַגְּרִיסִין עַד שֶׁיִּתְעָרֵב עִם הַפּוֹל רֹק הַרְבֵּה מִפִּיו. וְאֵי זֶהוּ מֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֶחֱמִיצוּ אַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר: ", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם אִם מָצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה יָמִים וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְאִם מָצְאָה אוֹתוֹ בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ קְטַנָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּפֶרֶק זֶה. וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת יוֹם אֶחָד אִם הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אִם הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה מִסָּפֵק. וְהַכּל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּזָדוֹן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּפְטוּרִין מִקָּרְבָּן: " + ], + [ + "כָּל יוֹלֶדֶת טְמֵאָה כְּנִדָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם. וְאֶחָד הַיּוֹלֶדֶת חַי אוֹ מֵת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נֵפֶל. אִם זָכָר יוֹשֶׁבֶת לְזָכָר וְאִם נְקֵבָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת לִנְקֵבָה וְהוּא שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר צוּרָתוֹ. וְאֵין צוּרַת הַוָּלָד נִגְמֶרֶת לְפָחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אֶחָד הַזָּכָר וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבָה: \n", + "וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אֵינָהּ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים. הִפִּילָה בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד מֵאַחַר הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וְתֵשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה. הָיְתָה צוּרַת הָאָדָם דַּקָּה בְּיוֹתֵר וְאֵינָהּ נִכֶּרֶת בַּעֲלִיל הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא שַׁפִּיר מְרֻקָּם: \n", + "אֵי זֶה הוּא שַׁפִּיר מְרֻקָּם. תְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם גּוּפוֹ כַּעֲדָשָׁה. שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כִּשְׁתֵּי טִפֵּי זְבוּב מְרֻחָקוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. שְׁנֵי חֳטָמָיו כִּשְׁתֵּי טִפֵּי זְבוּב מְקֹרָבוֹת זֶה לָזֶה. פִּיו פָּתוּחַ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה. וְחִתּוּךְ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם אֵין לוֹ. נִתְבָּאֲרָה צוּרָתוֹ יֶתֶר מִזֶּה וַעֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ נִכָּר בֵּין זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמַיִם אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶן מְצַחְצְחוֹ. וּמֵבִיא קֵיסָם שֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ חָלָק וּמְנַעְנֵעַ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה אִם מְסַכְסֵךְ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא זָכָר. וְאִם רָאָה אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה סְדוּקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְקֵבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הָרְקִימוֹת שֶׁל נְפָלִים אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן יְמֵי טֹהַר עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂעִיר הַוָּלָד: \n", + "הִפִּילָה חֲתִיכָה לְבָנָה אִם נִקְרְעָה וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ עֶצֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. הִפִּילָה שַׁפִּיר מָלֵא מַיִם מָלֵא דָּם מָלֵא גִּנּוּנִים מָלֵא בָּשָׂר הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ מְרֻקָּם אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוָלָד: \n", + "יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן אֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה וְאֵין לָהּ יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי טָהֳרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ב) \"אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר\" עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁמַּזְרַעַת. הַמַּקְשָׁה וְיָלְדָה וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ הַדֹּפֶן הֲרֵי דַּם הַקֹּשִׁי הַבָּא דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶחֶם זִיבוּת אוֹ נִדָּה וְדָם הַיּוֹצֵא דֶּרֶךְ הַדֹּפֶן טָמֵא. וְאִם לֹא יָצָא דָּם דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶחֶם הֲרֵי הָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁיָּצָא מִדָּפְנָהּ טָמֵא. שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה טְמֵאָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַדְוֶהָ דֶּרֶךְ עֶרְוָתָהּ: \n", + "נֶחְתַּךְ הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וְיָצָא אֵיבָר אֵיבָר. בֵּין שֶׁיָּצָא עַל סֵדֶר הָאֵיבָרִים כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצְאָה הָרֶגֶל וְאַחֲרֶיהָ הַשּׁוֹק וְאַחֲרֶיהָ הַיָּרֵךְ. בֵּין שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אֵינָהּ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא רֻבּוֹ. וְאִם יָצָא רֹאשׁוֹ כֻּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרֻבּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נֶחְתַּךְ וְיָצָא כְּדַרְכּוֹ מִשֶּׁתֵּצֵא רֹב פַּדַּחְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ אַחַר כָּךְ: \n", + "הוֹצִיא הָעֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְאֵין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד כֻּלּוֹ אוֹ רֻבּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ: \n", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אִם הָיוּ פָּנָיו כִּפְנֵי אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד. אִם זָכָר תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְאִם נְקֵבָה תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִכָּר בֵּין זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁאָר הַגּוּף דּוֹמֶה לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ לְחַיָּה אוֹ לְעוֹף. וְאִם אֵין פָּנָיו כְּצוּרַת פְּנֵי הָאָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁאָר הַגּוּף גּוּף אָדָם שָׁלֵם וְיָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו יְדֵי וְרַגְלֵי אָדָם וַהֲרֵי הוּא זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה אֵינוֹ וָלָד וְאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה: \n", + "אֵי זוֹ הִיא צוּרַת פְּנֵי הָאָדָם. שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמֶּצַח וְהַגְּבִינִין וְהָעֵינַיִם וְהַלְּסָתוֹת וְגַבּוֹת הַזָּקָן כְּצוּרַת הָאָדָם. אֲבָל הַפֶּה וְהָאָזְנַיִם וְהָאַף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן כְּשֶׁל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד: \n", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת נָחָשׁ אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגַּלְגַּל עֵינָיו עָגל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּנָפַיִם שֶׁל בָּשָׂר אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. נִבְרָא בְּעַיִן אַחַת וְיָרֵךְ אַחַת אִם הָיוּ מִן הַצַּד הֲרֵי הוּא כַּחֲצִי אָדָם וְאִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. וְאִם הָיוּ בָּאֶמְצַע אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי זוֹ בְּרִיָּה אַחֶרֶת: \n", + "נִבְרָא וֵשֶׁט שֶׁלּוֹ אָטוּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חָסֵר מִטִּבּוּרוֹ וּלְמַטָּה וַהֲרֵי הוּא אָטוּם. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה גֻּלְגָּלְתּוֹ אֲטוּמָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ פָּנָיו טוּחוֹת וְאֵין בָּהֶן הֶכֵּר פָּנִים. אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁדֵרוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה בְּרִיַּת רֹאשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָתוּךְ. אוֹ יָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָתוּךְ. כָּל נֵפֶל מֵאֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ וָלָד וְאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. אֲבָל אִם הִפִּילָה יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה הֲרֵי חֶזְקָתָהּ מִוָּלָד שָׁלֵם וּמִצְטָרְפִין לְרֹב אֵיבָרָיו: \n", + "פְּעָמִים יִקְפֶּה מִשְּׁאָר הַדָּמִים שֶׁנּוֹצַר מֵהֶם הָאָדָם חֲתִיכָה כְּמוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַשּׁוֹר וְתִהְיֶה כְּרוּכָה עַל מִקְצָת הַוָּלָד וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת סַנְדָּל. וּלְעוֹלָם לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה סַנְדָּל זֶה אֶלָּא עִם וָלָד. אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁנּוֹצְרָה לְבַדָּהּ בְּלֹא וָלָד אֵינָהּ נִקְרֵאת סַנְדָּל. וְרֹב הָעֵבָּרִים לֹא יִהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם סַנְדָּל. וּפְעָמִים יַכֶּה הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת דָּבָר עַל בִּטְנָהּ וְיִפָּסֵד הָעֻבָּר וְיֵעָשֶׂה כְּסַנְדָּל זֶה. וּפְעָמִים יִשָּׁאֵר בּוֹ הֶכֵּר פָּנִים וּפְעָמִים יִיבַשׁ הַוָּלָד וְיִשְׁתַּנֶּה וְיִקְפְּאוּ עָלָיו הַדָּמִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר בּוֹ הֶכֵּר פָּנִים. לְפִיכָךְ הַמַּפֶּלֶת זָכָר וְסַנְדָּל עִמּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶכֵּר פָּנִים לַסַּנְדָּל הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה שֶׁמָּא סַנְדָּל זֶה נְקֵבָה הָיָה. וְחֻמְרָא הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ לְטַמְּאָהּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם וָלָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ צוּרַת פָּנִים הוֹאִיל וְהִיא טְמֵאָה לֵדָה מִפְּנֵי הַוָּלָד שֶׁעִמּוֹ: \n", + "הַחוֹתֶלֶת הֶעָבָה שֶׁהִיא כְּמוֹ חֵמֶת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ נוֹצָר הַוָּלָד וְהִיא מַקֶּפֶת אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת הַסַּנְדָּל אִם הָיָה עִמּוֹ סַנְדָּל וּכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת קוֹרֵעַ אוֹתָהּ וְיוֹצֵא הִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת שִׁלְיָא. וּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ דּוֹמָה לְחוּט שֶׁל עֵרֶב וַחֲלוּלָה כַּחֲצוֹצֶרֶת וְעָבָה כְּקֻרְקְבָן הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים. וְאֵין שִׁלְיָא פְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח: \n", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת שִׁלְיָא תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד. הִפִּילָה נֵפֶל וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לַשִּׁלְיָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּוָלָד אַחֵר וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין זוֹ שִׁלְיַת הַנֵּפֶל. שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָלְדָה וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא וְהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כ\"ג יוֹם תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ בַּוָּלָד וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. שֶׁהַוָּלָד קָרַע הַשִּׁלְיָא וְיָצָא: \n", + "הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁהִיא וָלָד אַחֵר וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בַּוָּלָד הַבָּא אַחֲרֶיהָ. שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל שִׁלְיָא לָצֵאת לִפְנֵי הַוָּלָד. יָצָאת מִקְצָת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמִקְצָתָהּ בַּשֵּׁנִי מוֹנִין לָהּ מִיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טָהֳרָה אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֵׁנִי לְהַחֲמִיר: \n", + "הִפִּילָה דְּמוּת בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְשִׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד. וְאִם אֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ מְטִילִין עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶר שְׁתֵּי וְלָדוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא נִמּוֹחַ שַׁפִּיר מְרֻקָּם שֶׁהָיָה בְּשִׁלְיָא זוֹ וְשֶׁמָּא נִמּוֹחָה הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁל שַׁפִּיר זֶה שֶׁהוּא דְּמוּת בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה: \n", + "כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְשִׁלְיָא אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן יְמֵי טֹהַר. וְכָל מִי שֶׁהִפִּילָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ וָלָד אוֹ שַׁפִּיר בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה צוּרָתוֹ אִם יָצָא עִמּוֹ דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה אוֹ זָבָה. וְאִם יָצָא יָבֵשׁ בְּלֹא דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיָּלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה תְּאוֹמִים תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה. יָלְדָה טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. יָלְדָה תְּאוֹמִים אֶחָד זָכָר וְהַשֵּׁנִי טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. הָאַחַת נְקֵבָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה בִּלְבַד. שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס סָפֵק הֵן שֶׁמָּא זָכָר הֵן שֶׁמָּא נְקֵבָה: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֻחְזְקָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה יָּלְדָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרָה לַנָּהָר וְהִפִּילָה שָׁם אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה לְבוֹר אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה וּגְרָרַתּוּ חַיָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִפִּילָה וָלָד וְתֵשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֻחְזְקָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְהִפִּילָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה הִפִּילָה הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וְתֵשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ד) \"תֵּשֵׁב\" לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה כֵּיצַד דִּינָה. תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ י\"ד יוֹם כְּיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה. שִׁבְעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וַדַּאי. וְהַשִּׁבְעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנִים סָפֵק. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר אֶלָּא עַד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם כְּיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר הָאַרְבָּעִים עַד שְׁמוֹנִים אֵינוֹ דַּם טֹהַר אֶלָּא סְפֵק דַּם נִדָּה אוֹ סְפֵק דַּם זִיבוּת אִם בָּא מִימֵי הַזִּיבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם יוֹם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹנִים בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה וְתֵשֵׁב שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַנִּדָּה שֶׁמָּא נְקֵבָה יָלְדָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת נִדּוּת עַד אַחַר מְלֹאת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ד) \"תֵּשֵׁב\" לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה כֵּיצַד דִּינָה. תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ י\"ד יוֹם כְּיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם ע\"ד וּבְיוֹם פ\"א הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם ל\"ד הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה וַאֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לֵיל אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה כְּיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר כְּלָל כְּנִדָּה. וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה. וְכָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה עַד שְׁמֹנִים יוֹם אִם בָּא בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה מֵאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה. וְאִם בָּא בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁכָּל יְמֵי מְלֹאת אֵין בָּהֶן וֶסֶת. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹנִים עֲדַיִן הִיא מְקֻלְקֶלֶת וְתִהְיֶה סְפֵק נִדָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד וּכְשֶׁיִּקָּבַע לָהּ הַוֶּסֶת אַחַר הַשְּׁמוֹנִים יָסוּר קִלְקוּלָהּ וְתַחֲזֹר לִהְיוֹת נִדָּה וַדָּאִית אוֹ זָבָה וַדָּאִית. וְכֵן מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה עַד שִׁבְעָה יָמִים וְתִהְיֶה נִדָּה וַדָּאִית אִם הִפִּילָה בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּנִדָּה וְזָבָה וְיוֹלֶדֶת הוּא דִּין תּוֹרָה. וּכְמִשְׁפָּטִים אֵלּוּ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל מְצוּיִין וְהָיוּ שָׁם חֲכָמִים גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁמַּכִּירִים הַדָּמִים וְאִם נוֹלַד לָהֶם סָפֵק בִּרְאִיּוֹת אוֹ בִּימֵי נִדָּה וְזִיבָה יַעֲלוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז ח) \"כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָּבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין\", בֵּין דַּם נִדָּה לְדַם זִיבָה. וּבְאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים הָיוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִזְהָרוֹת מִדָּבָר זֶה וּמְשַׁמְּרוֹת וִסְתוֹתֵיהֶן וְסוֹפְרוֹת תָּמִיד יְמֵי הַנִּדָּה וִימֵי הַזִּיבָה: ", + "וְטֹרַח גָּדוֹל יֵשׁ בְּמִנְיַן הַיָּמִים וּפְעָמִים רַבּוֹת יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי סָפֵק. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה הַבַּת דָּם בְּיוֹם הַלֵּדָה מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם מַתְחִילִין לִמְנוֹת לָהּ יְמֵי נִדָּה וִימֵי זִיבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּטָּמֵא הַבַּת בְּזִיבָה אֶלָּא בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁאִם רָאֲתָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁמִּתְּחִלַּת רְאִיָּה מַתְחֶלֶת לִמְנוֹת יְמֵי נִדָּה וִימֵי זִיבָה כָּל יָמֶיהָ וַאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה וְהִיא קְטַנָּה: ", + "וּבִימֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא נִסְתַּפֵּק הַדָּבָר הַרְבֵּה בִּרְאִיַּת הַדָּמִים וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַוְּסָתוֹת. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה כֹּחַ בְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים לִמְנוֹת יְמֵי נִדָּה וִימֵי זִיבָה. לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ חֲכָמִים בְּדָבָר זֶה וְגָזְרוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ כָּל יְמֵי הָאִשָּׁה כִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְיִהְיֶה כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה סְפֵק דַּם זִיבוּת: ", + "וְעוֹד הֶחֱמִירוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל עַצְמָן חֻמְרָא יְתֵרָה עַל זֶה. וְנָהֲגוּ כֻּלָּם בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁכָּל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁרוֹאָה דָּם אֲפִלּוּ לֹא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא טִפָּה כְּחַרְדָּל בִּלְבַד וּפָסַק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת לָהּ שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וַאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה בְּעֵת נִדָּתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ הַשִּׁבְעָה כֻּלָּן אוֹ יֶתֶר מִשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים כְּזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זָבָה, אוֹ בְּיוֹם שְׁמִינִי אִם הָיָה שָׁם דֹּחַק כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן כָּל הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב וּצְרִיכָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמִנְהָג פָּשׁוּט בְּשִׁנְעָר וּבְאֶרֶץ הַצְּבִי וּבִסְפָרַד וּבַמַּעֲרָב שֶׁאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי מְלֹאת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה אַחַר שֶׁסָּפְרָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטָבְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אַחַר שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר כְּלָל. אֶלָּא כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה בֵּין דַּם קֹשִׁי בֵּין דַּם טֹהַר הַכּל טָמֵא וְסוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אַחַר שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם: ", + "וְדִין זֶה בִּימֵי הַגְּאוֹנִים נִתְחַדֵּשׁ וְהֵם גָּזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה שָׁם דַּם טֹהַר כְּלָל. שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁהֶחְמִירוּ עַל עַצְמָן בִּימֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּרוֹאָה דָּם שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים. אֲבָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בִּימֵי טֹהַר אַחַר סְפִירָה וּטְבִילָה אֵין לָחוּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁאֵין יְמֵי טֹהַר רְאוּיִין לֹא לְנִדָּה וְלֹא לְזִיבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וְשָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁבְּצָרְפַת בּוֹעֲלִים עַל דַּם טֹהַר כְּדִין הַגְּמָרָא עַד הַיּוֹם אַחַר סְפִירָה וּטְבִילָה מִטֻּמְאַת יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב וְדָבָר זֶה תָּלוּי בַּמִּנְהָג: ", + "וְכֵן דִּין דַּם בְּתוּלִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּה לִרְאוֹת וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ בּוֹעֵל בְּעִילַת מִצְוָה וּפוֹרֵשׁ. וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הַדָּם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה הֲרֵי הִיא טְמֵאָה. וְאַחַר שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים: ", + "יֶתֶר עַל זֶה כָּל בַּת שֶׁתְּבָעוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא וְרָצְתָה שׁוֹהָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים מֵאַחַר שֶׁרָצְתָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִבָּעֵל. שֶׁמָּא מֵחִמּוּדָהּ לְאִישׁ רָאֲתָה דָּם טִפָּה אַחַת וְלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה בָּהּ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים מֵאַחַר שֶׁרָצְתָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּטְבּל וְתִבָּעֵל: ", + "וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ חֻמְרָא יְתֵרָה שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בָּהּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִימֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא וְאֵין לָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה לְעוֹלָם. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁרָצְתָה כְּשֶׁתְּבָעוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתִּסְפֹּר וְתִטְבּל וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא מִיָּד וְתִסְפֹּר מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּשָׂאַתּוּ וְתִטְבּל. שֶׁתַּלְמִיד חָכָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה וְנִזְהָר מִזֶּה וְלֹא יִקְרַב לָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל: ", + "דִּין הַכְּתָמִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאֵין בַּדָּבָר חִדּוּשׁ וְלֹא מִנְהָג אֶלָּא כָּל כֶּתֶם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי הִיא טְהוֹרָה וְכָל כֶּתֶם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ טְמֵאָה (אִם אֵין בַּכֶּתֶם שִׁעוּר כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לְזִיבוּת) סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַכֶּתֶם. וְאִם הָיָה שִׁעוּר הַכֶּתֶם כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לְזִיבוּת סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מֵאַחַר יוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַכֶּתֶם. שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹאָה דָּם כְּרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם: ", + "וְכֵן כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁאִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי הִיא טְהוֹרָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁרָאֲתָה לֹבֶן אוֹ דָּם יָרֹק אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁלִיכָה חֲתִיכָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ דָּם הֲרֵי הִיא טְהוֹרָה אַף בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִירוּ אֶלָּא בְּרוֹאָה דָּם טָמֵא [וְאֵין זֶה דָּם טָמֵא]: ", + "וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה בָּהּ מַכָּה וְהָיָה הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת מִמֶּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁבָּא הַדָּם עִם מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְלֹא נִתְחַדֵּשׁ דָּבָר אֶלָּא סְפִירַת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים לְכָל רוֹאָה דָּם טָמֵא כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ וְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל מַרְאֵה דָּמִים טְמֵאִים: ", + "זֶה שֶׁתִּמְצָא בְּמִקְצָת הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁהַנִּדָּה יוֹשֶׁבֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בְּנִדָּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד וְאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה תֵּשֵׁב שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵין זֶה מִנְהָג אֶלָּא טָעוּת הוּא מִמִּי שֶׁהוֹרָה לָהֶם כָּךְ וְאֵין רָאוּי לִפְנוֹת לְדָבָר זֶה כְּלָל אֶלָּא אִם רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד סוֹפֶרֶת אַחֲרָיו שִׁבְעָה (נְקִיִּים) וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא לַיִל שֵׁנִי שֶׁלְּאַחַר נִדָּתָהּ וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן זֶה שֶׁתִּמְצָא בְּמִקְצָת מְקוֹמוֹת וְתִמְצָא תְּשׁוּבוֹת לְמִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁיּוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר לֹא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתָהּ עַד סוֹף אַרְבָּעִים. וְיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה אַחַר שְׁמוֹנִים. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ הַשִּׁבְעָה. אֵין זֶה מִנְהָג אֶלָּא טָעוּת הוּא בְּאוֹתָן הַתְּשׁוּבוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹסוּת בְּאוֹתָן הַמְּקוֹמוֹת וּמִן הַצְּדוֹקִין לָמְדוּ דָּבָר זֶה. וּמִצְוָה לְכוֹפָן כְּדֵי לְהוֹצִיא מִלִּבָּן וּלְהַחֲזִירָן לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹלָה מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת מִידֵי עֶרְוָה עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּין בְּשָׂרָהּ וּבֵין הַמַּיִם. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מִקְוָאוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר הַמִּקְוֶה הַכָּשֵׁר וְהַפָּסוּל וְדֶרֶךְ הַטְּבִילָה וּמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַחֲצִיצָה. אֲבָל אִם רָחֲצָה בַּמֶּרְחָץ אֲפִלּוּ נָפְלוּ עָלֶיהָ כָּל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הֲרֵי הִיא אַחַר הָרְחִיצָה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה קֹדֶם הָרְחִיצָה בְּכָרֵת. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמַּעֲלֶה מִטֻּמְאָה לְטָהֳרָה אֶלָּא טְבִילָה בְּמֵי מִקְוֵה אוֹ בְּמַעֲיָן אוֹ בַּיַּמִּים שֶׁהֵם כְּמַעֲיָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מִקְוָאוֹת: ", + "כָּל שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים שֶׁבַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן סָפֵק אִם טָבְלָה בָּהֶן כְּאִלּוּ לֹא טָבְלָה. וְאִם טָבְלָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִבְעֹל בַּשְּׁבִיעִי אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה. הוֹאִיל וְטָבְלָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה זָבָה וַדָּאִית הֲרֵי זוֹ עָלְתָה לָהּ טְבִילָה: ", + "וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ בְּשִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵלּוּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּכְסוּתָהּ וְהוּא בִּכְסוּתוֹ. וְלֹא יִקְרַב לָהּ וְלֹא יִגַּע בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה. וְלֹא יֹאכַל עִמָּהּ בִּקְעָרָה אַחַת. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר יִנְהֹג עִמָּהּ בִּימֵי סְפִירָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּנְהֹג בִּימֵי נִדָּה שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא בְּכָרֵת עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "כָּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ נִדָּה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ חוּץ מֵהַרְחָצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס וְהַצָּעַת הַמִּטָּה בְּפָנָיו. גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ בִּקְעָרָה אַחַת וְלֹא יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה. וְכֵן בְּשִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְאִשָּׁה לְהִתְקַשֵּׁט בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְגַּנֶּה עַל בַּעְלָהּ: " + ], + [ + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּעַל עַכּוּ\"ם מִשְּׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אִישׁוּת. אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְעַכּוּ\"ם דֶּרֶךְ אִישׁוּת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לוֹקִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ג) \"לֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם בִּתְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לִבְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ לֹא תִקַּח לִבְנֶךָ\". אֶחָד שִׁבְעָה עֲמָמִין וְאֶחָד כָּל אֻמּוֹת בְּאִסּוּר זֶה. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא (נחמיה י לא) \"וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא נִתֵּן בְּנֹתֵינוּ לְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיהֶם לֹא נִקַּח לְבָנֵינוּ\": \n", + "וְלֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לְהִתְחַתֵּן. וְאִם יִחֲדָהּ לוֹ בִּזְנוּת חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה וּמִשּׁוּם שִׁפְחָה וּמִשּׁוּם כּוּתִית וּמִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאִם לֹא יִחֲדָהּ לוֹ אֶלָּא נִקְרֵאת מִקְרֶה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם כּוּתִית [ג.] וְכָל חִיּוּבִין אֵלּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַבּוֹעֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה כּוּתִית וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. וּבִבְעִילָה בִּלְבַד לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין: \n", + "כָּל הַבּוֹעֵל כּוּתִית בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אִם בְּעָלָהּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא וְהוּא שֶׁיִּבְעל לְעֵינֵי עֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יֶתֶר אִם פָּגְעוּ בּוֹ קַנָּאִין וַהֲרָגוּהוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשֻׁבָּחִין וּזְרִיזִין [ו.] וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הוּא. רְאָיָה לְדָבָר זֶה מַעֲשֶׂה פִּינְחָס בְּזִמְרִי: \n", + "וְאֵין הַקַּנַּאי רַשַּׁאי לִפְגֹּעַ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה כְּזִמְרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כה ח) \"וְאֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶל קֳבָתָהּ\". אֲבָל אִם פֵּרַשׁ אֵין הוֹרְגִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם הֲרָגוֹ נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו. וְאִם בָּא הַקַּנַּאי לִטּל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין לְהָרְגוֹ אֵין מוֹרִין לוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אִם בָּא הַקַּנַּאי לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבּוֹעֵל וְנִשְׁמַט הַבּוֹעֵל וְהָרַג הַקַּנַּאי כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ מִיָּדוֹ אֵין הַבּוֹעֵל נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו. וְהַבָּא עַל בַּת גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֵין הַקַּנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִים בּוֹ אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "לֹא פָּגְעוּ בּוֹ קַנָּאִים וְלֹא הִלְקוּהוּ בַּיִת דִּין הֲרֵי עָנְשׁוֹ מְפֹרָשׁ בְּדִבְרֵי קַבָּלָה שֶׁהוּא בְּכָרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ב יא) \"כִּי חִלֵּל יְהוּדָה קֹדֶשׁ ה' אֲשֶׁר אָהֵב וּבָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר\" (מלאכי ב יב) \"יַכְרֵת ה' לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה עֵר וְעֹנֶה\". אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא לֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ עֵר בַּחֲכָמִים וְלֹא עוֹנֶה בַּתַּלְמִידִים וְאִם כֹּהֵן הוּא לֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ מַגִּישׁ מִנְחָה לַה' צְבָאוֹת. הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַבּוֹעֵל כּוּתִית כְּאִלּוּ נִתְחַתֵּן לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר \"בָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר וְנִקְרָא מְחַלֵּל קֹדֶשׁ ה':\" \n", + "עָוֹן זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אַל יְהִי קַל בְּעֵינֶיךָ. אֶלָּא יֵשׁ בּוֹ הֶפְסֵד שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל הָעֲרָיוֹת כְּמוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהַבֵּן מִן הָעֶרְוָה בְּנוֹ הוּא לְכָל דָּבָר וּבִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶחְשָׁב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מַמְזֵר וְהַבֵּן מִן הַכּוּתִית אֵינוֹ בְּנוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ד) \"כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי\" מֵסִיר אוֹתוֹ מִלִּהְיוֹת אַחֲרֵי ה': \n", + "וְדָבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְהִדָּבֵק בְּעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִבְדִּילָנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵהֶם וְלָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרֵי ה' וְלִמְעל בּוֹ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הִיא נֶהֱרַג עָלֶיהָ וְאִם פְּנוּיָה הִיא אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרַג: \n", + "אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בֵּין קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין פְּנוּיָה בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בְּזָדוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶהֱרֶגֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ כִּבְהֵמָה. וְדָבָר זֶה מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לא טז) \"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם\" (במדבר לא יז) \"וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ\": \n", + "הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהִטְבִּילוּ אוֹתָם לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת וְקִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם מִצְוֹת שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים חַיָּבִים בָּהֶם יָצְאוּ מִכְּלַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְלִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא בָּאוּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲסוּרָה לְבֶן חוֹרִין. אֶחָד שִׁפְחָתוֹ וְאֶחָד שִׁפְחַת חֲבֵרוֹ. וְהַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהָאָדוֹן נוֹתֵן שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית לְעַבְדּוֹ הָעִבְרִי וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא ד) \"אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה\": \n", + "וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּדָבָר זֶה וְלֹא חִיְּבָה תּוֹרָה מַלְקוֹת בְּשִׁפְחָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אַל יְהִי עָוֹן זֶה קַל בְּעֵינֶיךָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַלְקוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁגַּם זֶה גּוֹרֵם לַבֵּן לָסוּר מֵאַחֲרֵי ה'. שֶׁהַבֵּן מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה הוּא עֶבֶד וְאֵינוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְנִמְצָא גּוֹרֵם לְזֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְהִתְחַלֵּל וְלִהְיוֹתָם עֲבָדִים. הֲרֵי אֻנְקְלוֹס הַמְתַרְגֵּם כָּלַל בְּעִילַת עֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה בִּכְלַל (דברים כג יח) \"לֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ\" (דברים כג יח) \"וְלֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה\": \n", + "הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא וּבִשְׁעַת עֲבֵרָה אֵין הַקַּנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח שִׁפְחָה דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁמֵּעֵת שֶׁטָּבְלָה וְקִבְּלָה מִצְוֹת יָצְתָה מִכְּלַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "נִתְעָרֵב וְלַד יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּוְלַד שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן סָפֵק וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן סְפֵק עֶבֶד וְכוֹפִין בַּעַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמְשַׁחְרֵר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה הַבֵּן הַהוּא (בֶּן) הָאָדוֹן שֶׁל עֶבֶד כְּשֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ יְשַׁחְרְרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה וְיִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל: \n", + "הָיוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת בָּנוֹת הֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן סְפֵק שְׁפָחוֹת וְהַבָּא עַל כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן הַוָּלָד סְפֵק עֶבֶד. וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרֵב וְלַד עַכּוּ\"ם בִּוְלַד יִשְׂרְאֵלִית מַטְבִּילִים אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּת וְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן סְפֵק גִּיֹּרֶת: \n", + "כָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם כֻּלָּם כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיְּרוּ וִיקַבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה וְהָעֲבָדִים כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו טו) \"הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם\". וּמֻתָּרִין לְהִכָּנֵס בִּקְהַל ה' מִיָּד. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשָּׂא הַגֵּר אוֹ הַמְשֻׁחְרָר בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשָּׂא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. חוּץ מֵאַרְבָּעָה עֲמָמִין בִּלְבַד וְהֵם עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב וּמִצְרַיִם וֶאֱדוֹם שֶׁהָאֻמּוֹת הָאֵלּוּ כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיֵּר אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן בִּיאָה בַּקָּהָל: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד דִּינָן. עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ד) \"לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה'\" וְגוֹ'. הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁהָעַמּוֹנִי הַזָּכָר וְהַמּוֹאָבִי הַזָּכָר הוּא שֶׁאָסוּר לְעוֹלָם לִשָּׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִלּוּ בֶּן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל עַמּוֹנִית וּמוֹאָבִית מֻתֶּרֶת מִיָּד כִּשְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת: \n", + "מִצְרִי וֶאֱדוֹמִי אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת דּוֹר רִאשׁוֹן וְדוֹר שֵׁנִי אֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְדוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי מֻתָּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ט) \"בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "מִצְרִית מְעֻבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה בְּנָהּ שֵׁנִי. מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה הַוָּלָד שֵׁנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ט) \"בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם\" הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאָן בְּלֵדָה: \n", + "גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית הַוָּלָד עַמּוֹנִי. גֵּר מִצְרִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא עַמּוֹנִית הַוָּלָד מִצְרִי. זֶה הַכְּלָל. בָּאֻמּוֹת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. נִתְגַּיְּרוּ הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַפָּחוּת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר מִשִּׁבְעָה עֲמָמִין אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל. וְהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיְּרוּ מֵהֶן אֶלָּא הַגִּבְעוֹנִים וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ גָּזַר עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲסוּרִים לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. וְלֹא אָסַר אוֹתָם אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יהושע ט כג) \"וְחֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשֹׁאֲבֵי מַיִם לְבֵית אֱלֹהָי\". תָּלָה הַרְחָקָתָם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: \n", + "וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים נְתִינִים לְפִי שֶׁנְּתָנָם לַעֲבוֹדַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. בָּא דָּוִד וְגָזַר עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ בַּקָּהָל לְעוֹלָם וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין מִקְדָּשׁ. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ בְּעֶזְרָא (עזרא ח כ) \"וּמִן הַנְּתִינִים שֶׁנָּתַן דָּוִיד וְהַשָּׂרִים לַעֲבֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם\". הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא תָּלָה אוֹתָם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: \n", + "וְלָמָּה גָּזַר עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא וּבֵית דִּינוֹ לְפִי שֶׁרָאָה עַזּוּת וְאַכְזָרִיּוּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּהֶם בְּעֵת שֶׁבִּקְּשׁוּ שִׁבְעַת בְּנֵי שָׁאוּל בְּחִיר ה' לִתְלוֹתָם וַהֲרָגוּם וְלֹא רִחֲמוּ עֲלֵיהֶם: \n", + "כְּשֶׁעָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר בִּלְבֵּל כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת וְעֵרְבָם זֶה בָּזֶה וְהִגְלָה אוֹתָם מִמְּקוֹמָם. וְאֵלּוּ הַמִּצְרִים שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַתָּה אֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים הֵם. וְכֵן הָאֱדוֹמִים שֶׁבִּשְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם. וְהוֹאִיל וְנִתְעָרְבוּ אַרְבַּע אֻמּוֹת הָאֲסוּרִים בְּכָל אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִים הֻתַּר הַכּל. שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן לְהִתְגַּיֵּר חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ מִן הָרֹב. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיֵּר הַגֵּר בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה בְּכָל מָקוֹם בֵּין אֱדוֹמִי בֵּין מִצְרִי בֵּין עַמּוֹנִי בֵּין מוֹאָבִי בֵּין כּוּשִׁי בֵּין שְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת אֶחָד הַזְּכָרִים וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבוֹת מֻתָּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל מִיָּד: \n" + ], + [ + "בִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים נִכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִבְרִית. בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְקָרְבָּן: \n", + "מִילָה הָיְתָה בְּמִצְרַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב מח) \"וְכָל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ\". מָל אוֹתָם משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ שֶׁכֻּלָּם בִּטְּלוּ בְּרִית מִילָה בְּמִצְרַיִם חוּץ מִשֵּׁבֶט לֵוִי וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (דברים לג ט) \"וּבְרִיתְךָ יִנְצֹרוּ\": \n", + "וּטְבִילָה הָיְתָה בַּמִּדְבָּר קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יט י) \"וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם\". וְקָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד ה) \"וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עלֹת\", עַל יְדֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל הִקְרִיבוּם: \n", + "וְכֵן לְדוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְהִכָּנֵס לִבְרִית וּלְהִסְתּוֹפֵף תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וִיקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן. וְאִם נְקֵבָה הִיא טְבִילָה וְקָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו טו) \"כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר\". מָה אַתֶּם בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן אַף הַגֵּר לְדוֹרוֹת בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן: \n", + "וּמַהוּ קָרְבַּן הַגֵּר. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה אוֹ שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵיהֶם עוֹלָה. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם קָרְבָּן צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וּכְשֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ יָבִיא קָרְבָּן: \n", + "גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל אוֹ טָבַל וְלֹא מָל אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיָּמוּל וְיִטְבּל. וְצָרִיךְ לִטְבּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְהוֹאִיל וְהַדָּבָר צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין אֵין מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְּיוֹם טוֹב וְלֹא בַּלַּיְלָה. וְאִם הִטְבִּילוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר: \n", + "גֵּר קָטָן מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל דַּעַת בֵּית דִּין שֶׁזְּכוּת הִיא לוֹ. מְעֻבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה וְטָבְלָה אֵין בְּנָהּ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. טָבַל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּר בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֵינוֹ גֵּר. בָּא וְאָמַר נִתְגַּיַּרְתִּי בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי וְהִטְבִּילוּנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדִים: \n", + "הָיָה נָשׂוּי לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית אוֹ לְגִיֹּרֶת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאָמַר נִתְגַּיַּרְתִּי בֵּינִי לְבֵין עַצְמִי נֶאֱמָן לִפְסל אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לִפְסל אֶת הַבָּנִים. וְחוֹזֵר וְטוֹבֵל בְּבֵית דִּין: \n", + "גִּיֹּרֶת שֶׁרְאִינוּהָ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תָּמִיד כְּגוֹן שֶׁתִּטְבּל לְנִדָּתָהּ וְתַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה מֵעִסָּתָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטּוֹבֵל לְקִרְיוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת גֵּרֵי צֶדֶק. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁמְּעִידִין לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם בָּאוּ לְהִתְעָרֵב בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אוֹתָם עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ עֵדִים אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹאִיל וְהֻחְזְקוּ עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "אֲבָל מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר שֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם וְנִתְגַּיֵּר בְּבֵית דִּין נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים שֶׁחֶזְקַת הַכּל שָׁם בְּחֶזְקַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁזּוֹ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין: \n", + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמָּלִין וּמַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַגֵּרִים כָּךְ מָלִין וּמַטְבִּילִין אֶת הָעֲבָדִים הַנִּלְקָחִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת. הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְקָדַם הָעֶבֶד וְטָבַל לְשֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין קָנָה עַצְמוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּעֵת טְבִילָה הֲרֵינִי טוֹבֵל בִּפְנֵיכֶם לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּת. וְאִם טָבַל בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּבַל נִשְׁתַּחְרֵר. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ רַבּוֹ לְתָקְפּוֹ בַּמַּיִם עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה וְהוּא תַּחַת שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ וּמוֹדִיעוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁלְּשֵׁם עַבְדוּת מַטְבִּילוֹ. וְאֵין הָעֶבֶד טוֹבֵל אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּבַיּוֹם כְּגֵר, שֶׁמִּקְצָת גֵּרוּת הוּא: \n", + "כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר הָעֶבֶד צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה אַחֶרֶת בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁבּוֹ תִּגָּמֵר גֵּרוּתוֹ וְיִהְיֶה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל עָלָיו מִצְוֹת וּלְהוֹדִיעוֹ עִקְּרֵי הַדָּת שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹדִיעוּהוּ כְּשֶׁטָּבַל לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת: \n", + "וּבְמִקְוֶה הַכָּשֵׁר לִטְבִילַת נִדָּה שָׁם מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַגֵּרִים וְאֶת הָעֲבָדִים וְאֶת הַמְשֻׁחְרָרִים. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹצֵץ בְּנִדָּה חוֹצֵץ בְּגֵרִים וּבַעֲבָדִים וּבִמְשֻׁחְרָרִים: \n", + "אַל יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁשִּׁמְשׁוֹן הַמּוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ שְׁלֹמֹה מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּקְרָא יְדִיד ה' נָשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת בְּגֵיוּתָן. אֶלָּא סוֹד הַדָּבָר כָּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהַמִּצְוָה הַנְּכוֹנָה כְּשֶׁיָּבֹא הַגֵּר אוֹ הַגִּיֹּרֶת לְהִתְגַּיֵּר בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא בִּגְלַל מָמוֹן שֶׁיִּטּל אוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שְׂרָרָה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לָהּ אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַפַּחַד בָּא לְהִכָּנֵס לַדָּת. וְאִם אִישׁ הוּא בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בְּאִשָּׁה יְהוּדִית. וְאִם אִשָּׁה הִיא בּוֹדְקִין שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָתְנָה בְּבָחוּר מִבַּחוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִם לֹא נִמְצָא לָהֶם עִלָּה מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָן כֹּבֶד עֹל הַתּוֹרָה וְטֹרַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּעֲשִׂיָּתָהּ עַל עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרשׁוּ. אִם קִבְּלוּ וְלֹא פֵּרְשׁוּ וְרָאוּ אוֹתָן שֶׁחָזְרוּ מֵאַהֲבָה מְקַבְּלִים אוֹתָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (רות א יח) \"וַתֵּרֶא כִּי מִתְאַמֶּצֶת הִיא לָלֶכֶת אִתָּהּ וַתֶּחְדַּל לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ\": \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ לֹא קִבְּלוּ בֵּית דִּין גֵּרִים כָּל יְמֵי דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה. בִּימֵי דָּוִד שֶׁמָּא מִן הַפַּחַד חָזְרוּ. וּבִימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁמָּא בִּשְׁבִיל הַמַּלְכוּת וְהַטּוֹבָה וְהַגְּדֻלָּה שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל חָזְרוּ. שֶׁכָּל הַחוֹזֵר מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר מֵהַבְלֵי הָעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מִגֵּרֵי הַצֶּדֶק. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הָיוּ גֵּרִים הַרְבֵּה מִתְגַּיְּרִים בִּימֵי דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה בִּפְנֵי הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. וְהָיוּ בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם לֹא דּוֹחִין אוֹתָן אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלוּ מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְלֹא מְקָרְבִין אוֹתָן עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה אַחֲרִיתָם: \n", + "וּלְפִי שֶׁגִּיֵּר שְׁלֹמֹה נָשִׁים וּנְשָׂאָן. וְכֵן שִׁמְשׁוֹן גִּיֵּר וְנָשָׂא. וְהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא חָזְרוּ אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר וְלֹא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין גִּיְּרוּם חֲשָׁבָן הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הֵן עַכּוּ\"ם וּבְאִסּוּרָן עוֹמְדִין. וְעוֹד שֶׁהוֹכִיחַ סוֹפָן עַל תְּחִלָּתָן שֶׁהֵן עוֹבְדוֹת כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן וּבָנוּ לָהֶן בָּמוֹת וְהֶעֱלָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הוּא בְּנָאָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א יא ז) \"אָז יִבְנֶה שְׁלֹמֹה בָּמָה\": \n", + "גֵּר שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקוּ אַחֲרָיו אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדִיעוּהוּ הַמִּצְוֹת וְעָנְשָׁן וּמָל וְטָבַל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר. אֲפִלּוּ נוֹדַע שֶׁבִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר הוּא מִתְגַּיֵּר הוֹאִיל וּמָל וְטָבַל יָצָא מִכְּלַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר צִדְקוּתוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ חָזַר וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר שֶׁקִּדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין. וּמִצְוָה לְהַחֲזִיר אֲבֵדָתוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁטָּבַל נַעֲשָׂה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּלְפִיכָךְ קִיְּמוּ שִׁמְשׁוֹן וּשְׁלֹמֹה נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּגְלָה סוֹדָן: \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים קָשִׁים לָהֶם גֵּרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּנֶגַע צָרַעַת שֶׁרֻבָּן חוֹזְרִין בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר וּמַטְעִין אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְקָשֶׁה הַדָּבָר לִפְרשׁ מֵהֶם אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. צֵא וּלְמַד מָה אֵרַע בַּמִּדְבָּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל וּבְקִבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה וְכֵן רֹב הַנִּסְיוֹנוֹת הָאֲסַפְסוּף הָיוּ בָּהֶן תְּחִלָּה: \n" + ], + [ + "כֵּיצַד מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרֵי הַצֶּדֶק. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא אֶחָד לִהִתְגַּיֵּר מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְיִבְדְּקוּ אַחֲרָיו וְלֹא יִמְצְאוּ עִלָּה. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁבָּאתָ לְהִתְגַּיֵּר. אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּווּיִים וּדְחוּפִים וּמְסֻחָפִין וּמְטֹרָפִין וְיִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עֲלֵיהֶן. אִם אָמַר אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ וְאֵינִי כְּדַאי מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד: ", + "וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עִקְּרֵי הַדָּת שֶׁהוּא יִחוּד הַשֵּׁם וְאִסּוּר עַכּוּ\"ם. וּמַאֲרִיכִין בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת. וְאֵין מַאֲרִיכִין בְּדָבָר זֶה. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עֲוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עָנְשָׁן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתָ לְדָת זוֹ אִם אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב אִי אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אִם חִלַּלְתָּ שַׁבָּת אִי אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ סְקִילָה. וְעַכְשָׁיו אַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגַּיֵּר אִם אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אִם חִלַּלְתָּ שַׁבָּת אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ סְקִילָה. וְאֵין מַרְבִּין עָלָיו. וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין עָלָיו. שֶׁמָּא יִגְרֹם לְטָרְדוֹ וּלְהַטּוֹתוֹ מִדֶּרֶךְ טוֹבָה לְדֶרֶךְ רָעָה. שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה אֵין מוֹשְׁכִין אֶת הָאָדָם אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי רָצוֹן וְרַכִּים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (הושע יא ד) \"בְּחַבְלֵי אָדָם אֶמְשְׁכֵם\" וְאַחַר כָּךְ (הושע יא ד) \"בַּעֲבֹתוֹת אַהֲבָה\": ", + "וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עָנְשָׁן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת כָּךְ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁבַּעֲשִׂיַּת מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ יִזְכֶּה לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְשֶׁאֵין שׁוּם צַדִּיק גָּמוּר אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַחָכְמָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ וְיוֹדְעָן: ", + "וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵינוֹ צָפוּן אֶלָּא לַצַּדִּיקִים וְהֵם יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְזֶה שֶׁתִּרְאֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַעַר בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה טוֹבָה הִיא צְפוּנָה לָהֶם שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְקַבֵּל רֹב טוֹבָה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה כָּאֻמּוֹת. שֶׁמָּא יָרוּם לִבָּם וְיִתְעוּ וְיַפְסִידוּ שְׂכַר הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לב טו) \"וַיִּשְׁמַן יְשֻׁרוּן וַיִּבְעָט\": ", + "וְאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רֹב פֻּרְעָנוּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאבְדוּ אֶלָּא כָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם כָּלִין וְהֵן עוֹמְדִין. וּמַאֲרִיכִין בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה כְּדֵי לְחַבְּבָן. אִם חָזַר בּוֹ וְלֹא רָצָה לְקַבֵּל הוֹלֵךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ. וְאִם קִבֵּל אֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם הָיָה מָהוּל מַטִּיפִין מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית וּמַשְׁהִים אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא רְפוּאָה שְׁלֵמָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ: ", + "וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹמְדִין עַל גַּבָּיו וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּמַּיִם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִשָּׁה נָשִׁים מוֹשִׁיבוֹת אוֹתָהּ בַּמַּיִם עַד צַוָּארָהּ וְהַדַּיָּנִין מִבַּחוּץ וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָהּ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וַחֲמוּרוֹת. וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּמַּיִם וְאַחַר כָּךְ טוֹבֶלֶת בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְהֵן מַחְזִירִין פְּנֵיהֶן וְיוֹצְאִין כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁתַּעֲלֶה מִן הַמַּיִם: ", + "אֵי זֶה הוּא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב זֶה עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עִם שְׁאָר הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְלֹא מָל וְלֹא טָבַל הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ וְהוּא מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ תּוֹשָׁב לְפִי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לָנוּ לְהוֹשִׁיבוֹ בֵּינֵינוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. אֲבָל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֲפִלּוּ קִבֵּל עָלָיו כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ חוּץ מִדִּקְדּוּק אֶחָד אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ: ", + "הָעֶבֶד הַנִּלְקָח מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין אוֹמְרִין לוֹ מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁבָּאתָ. אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִכְלַל עַבְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתִהְיֶה מִן הַכְּשֵׁרִים אוֹ לֹא. אִם רָצָה מוֹדִיעִין לוֹ עִקְּרֵי הַדָּת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וַחֲמוּרוֹת וְעָנְשָׁן וּשְׂכָרָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין אֶת הַגֵּר וּמַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ כְּגֵר. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּמַּיִם. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְקַבֵּל מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְאָסוּר לְקַיְּמוֹ יוֹתֵר עַל כֵּן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּל וְלֹא יִטְבּל אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. וְאֵין מְקַיְּמִין עֶבֶד כָּזֶה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן הַיּוֹבֵל: ", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין אֲסוּרִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וַאֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְזָכָר וּבְהֵמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מְלָכִים וּמִלְחֲמוֹתֵיהֶן. אֲבָל שְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת מֻתָּרִין לָהֶן: ", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְעֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד. וְכָל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד אֵינָן שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. וְאִם נִתְגַּיֵּר הוּא וְהֵם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל אַחַת מֵהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה כְּלָל: ", + "דִּין תּוֹרָה שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁיִּשָּׂא אִמּוֹ אוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָסְרוּ דָּבָר זֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ בָּאנוּ מִקְּדֻשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדֻשָּׁה קַלָּה. שֶׁאֶמֶשׁ הָיְתָה לוֹ זוֹ אֲסוּרָה וְהַיּוֹם מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ אוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ וְהִיא בְּגֵיוּתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּבָא עַל הַנָּכְרִית: ", + "כֵּיצַד דִּין הַגֵּרִים בַּעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. אִם הָיָה נָשׂוּי כְּשֶׁהוּא עַכּוּ\"ם לְאִמּוֹ אוֹ לַאֲחוֹתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיְּרוּ מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם הָיָה נָשׂוּי לִשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת וְנִתְגַּיֵּר הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן. גֵּר אָסוּר בִּשְׁאֵר הָאֵם אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וּמֻתָּר בִּשְׁאֵר הָאָב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה שְׁאֵרוֹ מֵאָבִיו. כְּגוֹן תְּאוֹמִים שֶׁדָּבָר בָּרוּר שֶׁאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה הוּא אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל שְׁאֵר אָבִיו. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹשֵׂא הַגֵּר אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אוֹ לְאָבִיו אוֹ לַאֲחִי אָבִיו אוֹ לִבְנוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. וְכֵן אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאָבִיהָ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. וּבִתּוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא לֹא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ וְלֹא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאִמָּהּ וְלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׂאָהּ אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר. אֲבָל אִם נְשָׂאָהּ אָחִיו כְּשֶׁהוּא עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ: ", + "שְׁנֵי אַחִים תְּאוֹמִים שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתָן שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָן בִּקְדֻשָּׁה חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח: ", + "הַנּוֹשֵׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּבִתָּהּ הַגִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת מִן הָאֵם יוֹשֵׁב עִם אַחַת מֵהֶן וּמְגָרֵשׁ הַשְּׁנִיָּה. נָשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּמֵתָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִמָּהּ אוֹ בִּתָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּחַיֵּיהֶן. וּמֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִשָּׂא שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת גִּיּוֹרוֹת מִן הָאָב שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ בִּשְׁאֵר הָאָב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת כֻּלָּן לֹא גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּגֵרִים. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר הַגֵּר לִשָּׂא אֵם אִמּוֹ. וְנוֹשֵׂא אָדָם גִּיֹּרֶת וְאֵם אִמָּהּ אוֹ בַּת בַּת בִּתָּהּ. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת: ", + "הָעֶבֶד מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִמּוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁכְּבָר יָצָא מִכְּלַל עַכּוּ\"ם. וְאֵין הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרוֹת עָלָיו וְלֹא בָּא לִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּאָסְרוּ עָלָיו עֲרָיוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת עַל הַגֵּרִים: ", + "וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם בָּא הָעֶבֶד עַל הַזָּכוּר וּבְהֵמָה יֵהָרֵגוּ. שֶׁאִסּוּר שְׁתֵּי עֲרָיוֹת אֵלּוּ שָׁוֶה בְּכָל הָאָדָם: ", + "עֲבָדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּגֵרִים. כָּל שֶׁאָסוּר לְגֵרִים אָסוּר לָהֶן וְכָל הַמֻּתָּר לְגֵרִים מֻתָּר לָהֶן. נוֹתֵן אָדָם שִׁפְחָתוֹ לְעַבְדּוֹ אוֹ לְעֶבֶד חֲבֵרוֹ. וּמוֹסֵר שִׁפְחָה אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין שׁוּם דָּבָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְהֵמוֹת. וְשִׁפְחָה שֶׁהִיא מְיֻחֶדֶת לְעֶבֶד אוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְיֻחֶדֶת אַחַת הִיא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אִישׁוּת אֶלָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲבָל לֹא לַעֲבָדִים עַל הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא לַעֲבָדִים עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל: " + ], + [ + "אֵי זֶהוּ (דברים כג ג) \"מַמְזֵר\" הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. זֶה הַבָּא מֵעֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת. חוּץ מִן הַנִּדָּה שֶׁהַבֵּן מִמֶּנָּה פָּגוּם וְאֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שְׁאָר הָעֲרָיוֹת בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וְאֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת אֲסוּרִין לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) \"גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי\" כְּלוֹמַר לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "אֶחָד מַמְזֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא יִשְׂרְאֵלִית אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּעֲלוּ אַחַר הַקִּדּוּשִׁין לוֹקִין. קִדֵּשׁ וְלֹא בָּעַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. בָּעַל וְלֹא קִדֵּשׁ אֵינָן לוֹקִין מִשּׁוּם מַמְזֵרוּת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּכָל חַיָּבֵי לָאוִין מִי שֶׁלּוֹקֶה עַל בְּעִילָה בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ עֶרְוָה: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר בֵּין פְּנוּיָה בֵּין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן. עַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד הַבָּאִים עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּמַמְזֵר הַבָּא עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַוָּלָד עַכּוּ\"ם. נִתְגַּיֵּר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּשֵׁר כִּשְׁאָר גֵּרִים. וְאִם בָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה הַוָּלָד עֶבֶד. שִׁחְרְרוֹ הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר כִּשְׁאָר עֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִין וּמֻתָּר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "זֶה הַכְּלָל בֵּן הַבָּא מִן הָעֶבֶד אוֹ מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה אוֹ מִן בַּת עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאִמּוֹ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הָאָב. לְפִי דָּבָר זֶה הִתִּירוּ לְמַמְזֵר לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה כְּדֵי לְטַהֵר אֶת בָּנָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מְשַׁחְרֵר אוֹתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה לְמַמְזֵר מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַבָּנִים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצַּד מַמְזֵרוּת וְצַד כַּשְׁרוּת מְעֹרָבִין בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אָסוּר בְּשִׁפְחָה וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּנָיו כְּמוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁטָּבְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד וְעֶבֶד שֶׁטָּבַל שֶׁבָּא עַל עַכּוּ\"ם הַוָּלָד עַכּוּ\"ם הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָאֵם אֲבָל עַכּוּ\"ם הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ עֶבֶד עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁבָּא עַל עַכּוּ\"ם בַּת חוֹרִין הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר: \n", + "מַמְזֵר מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא גִּיֹּרֶת. וְכֵן הַמַּמְזֶרֶת מֻתֶּרֶת לְגֵר. וְהַבָּנִים מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם מַמְזֵרִים שֶׁהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) \"בִּקְהַל ה'\" וּקְהַל גֵּרִים אֵינוֹ קָרוּי (דברים כג ג) \"קְהַל ה'\": \n", + "גִּיֹּרֶת שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְגֵר וְהוֹלִידוּ בֵּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵדָתוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְכֵן בֶּן בֶּן בְּנוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּקַּע שֵׁם גֵּרוּתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא יִוָּדַע שֶׁהוּא גֵּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאָסֵר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְאֶחָד הַגֵּרִים וְאֶחָד הָעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִין דִּין אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן: \n", + "גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת הַוָּלָד יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה מַמְזֵרִים הֵם. מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי וּמַמְזֵר סָפֵק וּמַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אֵי זֶהוּ מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי זֶה שֶׁבָּא מִן הָעֶרְוָה הַוַּדָּאִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמַמְזֵר סָפֵק זֶה שֶׁבָּא מִסְּפֵק עֶרְוָה כְּגוֹן הַבָּא עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה סְפֵק קִדּוּשִׁין אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. כְּגוֹן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ וְנִשֵּׂאת וַהֲרֵי בַּעְלָהּ קַיָּם וּבָא בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן עָלֶיהָ וְהִיא תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי הַבֵּן מַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "פְּנוּיָה שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִזְּנוּת אָמְרוּ לָהּ מַהוּ הָעֻבָּר הַזֶּה אוֹ הַיָּלוּד הַזֶּה אִם אָמְרָה בֵּן כָּשֵׁר הוּא וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִבְעַלְתִּי הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְהַבֵּן כָּשֵׁר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הָעִיר שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בָּהּ פְּסוּלִים: \n", + "וְאִם לֹא נִבְדְּקָה אִמּוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ אִלֶּמֶת אוֹ שׁוֹטָה אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה לִפְלוֹנִי הַמַּמְזֵר נִבְעַלְתִּי אוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי הַנָּתִין אֲפִלּוּ אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מוֹדֶה שֶׁהוּא מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה הַיָּלוּד סְפֵק מַמְזֵר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁזִּנְּתָה עִם זֶה שֶׁהוֹדָה לָהּ כָּךְ זִנְּתָה עִם אַחֵר. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא שְׁתוּקִי שֶׁמַּכִּיר אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אֶת אָבִיו וַדַּאי: \n", + "וְכֵן הַבֵּן הַנִּמְצָא בַּשּׁוּק וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אֲסוּפִי הֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק מַמְזֵר שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים מַה הוּא: \n", + "פְּנוּיָה שֶׁזִּנְּתָה וְאָמְרָה בֵּן זֶה בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי הוּא. אִם אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי הַבֵּן כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לִהְיוֹת זֶה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לִדְבָרֶיהָ וְיִהְיֶה הַבֵּן אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מִסָּפֵק. וְאִם אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לִהְיוֹת הַבֵּן מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי עַל פִּיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה סְפֵק מַמְזֵר: \n", + "אֲבָל הָאָב שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁזֶּה בְּנוֹ וְאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר הוּא נֶאֱמָן. וְאִם יֵשׁ לַבֵּן בָּנִים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה אוֹתוֹ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא עַל בְּנוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\" יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים: \n", + "וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לוֹמַר בְּנִי זֶה בְּכוֹר כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר אוֹ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעֻבֶּרֶת נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר עֻבָּר זֶה אֵינוֹ בְּנִי וּמַמְזֵר הוּא וְיִהְיֶה מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי. וְהָאוֹמֵר עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַמְזֵר נֶאֱמָן לֶאֱסֹר עַצְמוֹ בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע וַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא מַמְזֵר. וּבְנוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּנֵי בָּנִים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לִפְסל בְּנֵי בָּנָיו וְלֹא יִפְסל אֶלָּא עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "אֲרוּסָה שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד בְּחֶזְקַת מַמְזֵר וְאָסוּר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְאִם נִבְדְּקָה אִמּוֹ וְאָמְרָה מֵאֲרוּסִי נִתְעַבַּרְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם הִכְחִישָׁהּ הָאָרוּס וְאָמַר מֵעוֹלָם לֹא בָּאתִי עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בְּחֶזְקַת בְּנוֹ וְאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר נֶאֱמָן. וְהָאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת זוֹנָה אֶלָּא נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר לָאָרוּס נִבְעַלְתִּי וְאֵינָהּ זוֹנָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן לֹא תֵּצֵא וּוְלָדָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "הָיוּ הָעָם מְרַנְּנִים אַחֲרֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה עִם אֲרוּסָהּ וְעִם אֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֲרוּסָהּ בְּבֵית חָמִיו הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק מַמְזֵר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ לַאֲרוּסָהּ הִפְקִירָה לַאֲחֵרִים. וְאִם נִבְדְּקָה וְאָמְרָה עֻבָּר זֶה מֵאֲרוּסִי הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמְרָה עֻבָּר זֶה אֵינוֹ מִבַּעֲלִי אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לְפָסְלוֹ. וַהֲרֵי הַבֵּן בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא הָאָב. אָמַר הָאָב אֵינוֹ בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת מַמְזֵר. וְאִם אָמְרָה מֵעַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד נִתְעַבַּרְתִּי הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל יָכוֹל לְהַכְחִישָׁהּ בִּדְבָרֶיהָ. וְאֵין הָעֻבָּר מִשְׁתַּהֶה בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁיָּצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהָיְתָה זוֹנָה תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ וְהַכּל מְרַנְּנִין אַחֲרֶיהָ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְבָנֶיהָ שֶׁמָּא מַמְזֵרִים הֵם שֶׁרֹב בְּעִילוֹת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל. וּמֻתָּר לִשָּׂא בִּתָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל הִיא עַצְמָהּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה פְּרוּצָה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי אַף לְבָנֶיהָ חוֹשְׁשִׁין: \n", + "דִּין תּוֹרָה שֶׁסְּפֵק מַמְזֵר מֻתָּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) \"לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה'\" מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי אָסוּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל וְלֹא סָפֵק. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין וְאָסְרוּ גַּם הַסְּפֵקוֹת לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל. לְפִיכָךְ מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וַדָּאִית אֲבָל מַמְזֵר סָפֵק אוֹ שְׁתוּקִי אוֹ אֲסוּפִי אָסוּר לִשָּׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ מַמְזֶרֶת מִסָּפֵק אֲסוּרָה לוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר וְהַשֵּׁנִי מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי. וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַסְּפֵקוֹת אֲסוּרִין לִשָּׂא זֶה מִזֶּה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. שְׁתוּקִים וַאֲסוּפִים וּסְפֵק מַמְזֵרִים אֲסוּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה עִם זֶה וְאִם נָשְׂאוּ לֹא יְקַיְּמוּ אֶלָּא יוֹצִיאוּ בְּגֵט וְהַוָּלָד סָפֵק כַּאֲבוֹתָיו. וְאֵין לִסְפֵקוֹת אֵלּוּ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּשְּׂאוּ מִן הַגֵּרִים וְהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. שְׁתוּקִי אוֹ אֲסוּפִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אוֹ גֵּר וּמְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁנָּשָׂא שְׁתוּקִית אוֹ אֲסוּפִית. הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי אוֹ אֲסוּפִי: \n", + "הָאֲסוּפִי שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה רֹב עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ רֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק עַכּוּ\"ם לְעִנְיַן יוּחֲסִין. קִדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִסָּפֵק. מִי שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לֹא הָיָה נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו: \n", + "הִטְבִּילוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּת אוֹ שֶׁטָּבַל מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר אֲסוּפִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. הָיָה רֹב הָעִיר עַכּוּ\"ם מֻתָּר לְהַאֲכִילוֹ נְבֵלוֹת. הָיָה רֻבָּן יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְזִירִין לוֹ אֲבֵדָתוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה מִצְוָה לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל בְּשַׁבָּת וַהֲרֵי הוּא לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין כְּכָל סְפֵק מָמוֹן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל מְדִינָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם הָרְאוּיָה לֵילֵד הוֹאִיל וְהָאֲסוּפִי הַנִּמְצָא שָׁם סְפֵק עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ סְפֵק עֶבֶד כְּשֶׁיִּשָּׂא הַגִּיֹּרֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵין הוֹרְגִין עַל סָפֵק. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַשְּׁתוּקִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו וַהֲרֵי הִיא סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בַּעֲרָיוֹת: \n", + "וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיהָ אוֹ אָחִיהָ קַיָּם כְּשֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה בּוֹ אִמּוֹ. וְכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה אוֹ נִתְאַלְמְנָה שֶׁמָּא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו הִיא אוֹ אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו: \n", + "וּמִנַּיִן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁתוּקִי וְהָאֲסוּפִי אָסוּר בְּכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכָּשֵׁר שֶׁנִּבְדְּקָה אִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ אָסוּר בְּכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. וַהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (ויקרא יט כט) \"אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ\". וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁאִם יַעֲשֶׂה זֶה נִמְצָא אָב נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ וְאָח נוֹשֵׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה הַדִּין שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אָבִיו בְּוַדַּאי אָסוּר בְּכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. לֹא הָיִינוּ בָּאִים לַמִּדָּה הַזֹּאת לְעוֹלָם וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה הָאָרֶץ מְלֵאָה זִמָּה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין אוֹסְרִין עֲרָיוֹת וּמַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתָן בִּשְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר בְּסָפֵק עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזּוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן כָּל הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּירוּ אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם הָיוּ אֲסוּרִין לְהִנָּשֵׂא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁמָּא יִפְגְּעוּ בְּעֶרְוָה: \n", + "הַוָּלָד שֶׁהָיָה מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא וַאֲנִי הִשְׁלַכְתִּיו נֶאֱמָן. וְכֵן אִמּוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. נֶאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק וּבָאוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אַחַר כֵּן וְאָמְרוּ בְּנֵנוּ הוּא אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם אֲסוּפִי. וּבִשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן נֶאֱמָנִין שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי רָעָב הִשְׁלִיכוּהוּ וְהֵן רוֹצִין שֶׁיָּזוּנוּ אוֹתוֹ אֲחֵרִים וּלְפִיכָךְ שָׁתְקוּ עַד שֶׁנֶּאֱסַף: \n", + "נִמְצָא הַוָּלָד מָהוּל אוֹ שֶׁהֻחְתַּל אוֹ שֶׁהֻמְלַח אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַכֹּחַל בְּעֵינָיו אוֹ הַקְּמֵעִין בְּצַוָּארוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא תַּחַת אִילָן מְסֻבָּךְ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּה נִכְנֶסֶת לוֹ וְהָיָה סָמוּךְ לָעִיר אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת הַסָּמוּךְ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְּצִדֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵין כָּאן מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. מֵאַחֵר שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת בְּחֶזְקַת כָּשֵׁר הוּא. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא מֻשְׁלָךְ בְּאֶמְצַע הַדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ רָחוֹק מִן הָעִיר אֲפִלּוּ תַּחַת אִילָן אוֹ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא תָּלוּי בָּאִילָן מָקוֹם שֶׁחַיָּה מַגַּעַת לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אֲסוּפִי: \n", + "נֶאֱמֶנֶת חַיָּה לוֹמַר זֶה הַבֵּן כֹּהֵן הוּא אוֹ לֵוִי אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ מַמְזֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין יִחוּסָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהֻחְזְקָה בְּנֶאֱמָנוּת וְלֹא עִרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ אָדָם. אֲבָל אִם עִרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד וְאָמַר בְּשֶׁקֶר מְעִידָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וַהֲרֵי הַבֵּן בְּחֶזְקַת כָּשֵׁר וְאֵין לוֹ יִחוּס: \n", + "דָּבָר בָּרוּר שֶׁהַשְּׁתוּקִי אָסוּר לִשָּׂא שְׁתוּקִית. וַאֲסוּפִי אָסוּר בַּאֲסוּפִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן סְפֵקוֹת. אֲבָל מַמְזֵרִים וַדָּאִים וּנְתִינִים מֻתָּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּשְׁתוּקִי וַאֲסוּפִי מֻתָּרִין בִּנְתִינִים וּבִשְׁאָר הַגֵּרִים וְהַוָּלָד סָפֵק: \n" + ], + [ + "פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ בַּת יִשִׂרָאֵל וּבָעֲלוּ לוֹקִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ב) \"לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה בִּקְהַל ה'\". וּמֻתָּרִין לִשָּׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. וַאֲפִלּוּ כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁתוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נְתִינָה אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַסְּפֵקוֹת מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ: \n", + "הוֹאִיל וּפְצוּעַ דַּכָּא אָסוּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל לֹא גָּזְרוּ בּוֹ עַל הַנְּתִינִים וְלֹא עַל הַסְּפֵקוֹת. אֲבָל פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה אָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת וַדָּאִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "ואֵי זֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא. כָּל שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ. וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה כָּל שֶׁנִּכְרַת הַגִּיד שֶׁלּוֹ. וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה אֵיבָרִין אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּפָּסֵל הַזָּכָר בַּגִּיד וּבַבֵּיצִים וּבַשְּׁבִילִין שֶׁבָּהֶן תִּתְבַּשֵּׁל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּפְצַע אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה אֵיבָרִין אֵלּוּ אוֹ נִדָּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. נִפְצַע הַגִּיד אוֹ נִדָּךְ אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְרַת הָעֲטָרָה אוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲטָרָה פָּסוּל. וְאִם נִכְרַת מֵרֹאשׁ הָעֲטָרָה וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִלּוּ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה מֻקָּף לְכָל הַגִּיד כָּשֵׁר. נִכְרַת הַגִּיד לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲטָרָה כְּקֻלְמוֹס אוֹ כְּמַרְזֵב כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "נִקַּב לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה כָּשֵׁר. נִקְּבָה הָעֲטָרָה עַצְמָהּ אִם כְּשֶׁיִּרְאֶה קֶרִי תֵּצֵא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִן הַנֶּקֶב פָּסוּל. נִסְתַּם הַנֶּקֶב חָזַר לְהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ. נִקַּב לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ לְמַעְלָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֲטָרָה פָּסוּל שֶׁהָעֲטָרָה כֻּלָּהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת: \n", + "נִסְתַּם שְׁבִיל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְחָזַר לִרְאוֹת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִשְּׁבִיל שֶׁמַּשְׁתִּין בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל: \n", + "נִכְרְתוּ הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְצְעָה אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנִּדּוֹכָה אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְּבָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. נִכְרְתוּ חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים אוֹ אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁנִּדָּךְ אוֹ נִפְצַע הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל: \n", + "נִקַּב חוּט מִחוּטֵי הַבֵּיצִים לִשְׁבִיל מֵי רַגְלַיִם וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַטִּיל מַיִם מִשְּׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת מִשְּׁבִיל הַמַּיִם וּמִשְּׁבִיל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "כָּל פָּסוּל שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם כְּגוֹן שֶׁכְּרָתוֹ אָדָם אוֹ כֶּלֶב אוֹ הִכָּהוּ קוֹץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אֲבָל אִם נוֹלַד כְּרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא אוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּלֹא בֵּיצִים אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה מֵחֲמַת גּוּפוֹ וּבָטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵיבָרִים אֵלּוּ אוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהֶם שְׁחִין וְהֵמֵסָּה אוֹתָן אוֹ כְּרָתָן הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַפְסִיד אֵיבְרֵי זֶרַע בֵּין בְּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף. אֶחָד טְמֵאִים וְאֶחָד טְהוֹרִים. בֵּין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כד) \"וּבְאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה נוֹהֵג בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְעִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה זֹאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּגוּפָן בֵּין בְּגוּף אֲחֵרִים. וְכָל הַמְסָרֵס לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְסָרֵס אַחַר מְסָרֵס לוֹקֶה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא אֶחָד וְכָרַת אֶת הַגִּיד וּבָא אַחֵר וְכָרַת אֶת הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ נִתְּקָן וּבָא אַחֵר וְכָרַת חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים. אוֹ שֶׁבָּא אֶחָד וּמָעַךְ אֶת הַגִּיד וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְּקוֹ וּבָא אַחֵר וּכְרָתוֹ כֻּלָּן לוֹקִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא סֵרֵס הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶלָּא מְסֹרָס. בֵּין בָּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְהַמְסָרֵס אֶת הַנְּקֵבָה בֵּין בְּאָדָם בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר מִינִים פָּטוּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׁקֶה עִקָּרִין לְאָדָם אוֹ לִשְׁאָר מִינִים כְּדֵי לְסָרְסוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עִקָּרִין כְּדֵי לְסָרְסָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד. הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּפָה אֶת הָאָדָם וְשִׁסָּה בּוֹ כֶּלֶב אוֹ שְׁאָר חַיּוֹת עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוֹ בַּמַּיִם אוֹ בַּשֶּׁלֶג עַד שֶׁבִּטֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ אֵיבְרֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיְּסָרֵס בְּיָדוֹ. וְרָאוּי לְהַכּוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "אָסוּר לוֹמַר לְעַכּוּ\"ם לְסָרֵס בְּהֵמָה שֶׁלָּנוּ. וְאִם לְקָחָהּ הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ וְסֵרְסָהּ מֻתָּר. וְאִם הֶעֱרִים יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדָבָר זֶה קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹכְרָהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִבְנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל מֻתָּר לְמָכְרָהּ. אֲבָל לִבְנוֹ הַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָהּ לוֹ וְלֹא נוֹתְנָה לוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים נֶאֶסְרוּ עַל כָּל הַכֹּהֲנִים. גְּרוּשָׁה זוֹנָה וַחְללָה. וִעַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַרְבַּע. אֵלּוּ הַשָּׁלֹשׁ וְהָאַלְמָנָה. אֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה אוֹ הַמְרֻבֶּה בְּגָדִים. וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן הָעוֹבֵד וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמִּנּוּהוּ וְעָבַר. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. כֻּלָּן מְצֻוִּין עַל הַבְּתוּלָה וַאֲסוּרִין בְּאַלְמָנָה: \n", + "כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַחַת מֵהַשָּׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים אֵלּוּ בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט וּבָעַל לוֹקֶה. וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה אוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ חֲלָלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ז) \"לֹא יִקָּחוּ\" עַד שֶׁיִּקַּח וְיִבְעל: \n", + "אֲבָל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל אַלְמָנָה לוֹקֶה אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִדֵּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא טו) \"לֹא יְחַלֵּל\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּעָלָהּ חִלְּלָהּ וּפְסָלָהּ לִכְהֻנָּה. אֲבָל זוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה וּגְרוּשָׁה הֲרֵי הֵן מְחֻלָּלוֹת וְעוֹמְדוֹת קֹדֶם בְּעִילָתוֹ. וּלְפִיכָךְ לוֹקֶה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְבַדּוֹ עַל בְּעִילַת אַלְמָנָה לְבַדָּהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁהֲרֵי חִלְּלָהּ וְהוּא מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹּא יְחַלֵּל כְּשֵׁרִים לֹא אִשָּׁה וְלֹא זַרְעוֹ: \n", + "קִדֵּשׁ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַלְמָנָה וּבְעָלָהּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא כא יד) \"אַלְמָנָה לֹא יִקָּח\". וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא כא טו) \"לֹא יְחַלֵּל\". וּבֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּבֵין כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה מִן הָאַרְבַּע וְלֹא בָּעַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה הִיא לוֹקָה. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה הִיא אֵינָהּ לוֹקָה. שֶׁאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה לָעֳנָשִׁין זוּלָתִי בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "כָּל כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין וְהוּא אָסוּר בִּבְעִילַת זוֹנָה בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בֵּין כּוּתִית: \n", + "הַחֲלוּצָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּגְרוּשָׁה וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא סְפֵק חֲלוּצָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִתַּחְתָּיו וְהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה וּוְלָדָהּ כָּשֵׁר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵק חֲלוּצָה אֶלָּא עַל חֲלוּצָה וַדָּאִית. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה סְפֵק גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ סְפֵק אַלְמָנָה אוֹ סְפֵק זוֹנָה וּסְפֵק חֲלָלָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּמוֹצִיא בְּגֵט: \n", + "כְּלָל גָּדוֹל הוּא בְּכָל אִסּוּרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר חָל עַל אִסּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ שְׁנֵי אִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הָאִסּוּר הָאֶחָד מוֹסִיף דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים עַל אוֹתוֹ הָאִסּוּר. אוֹ אִם הָיָה כּוֹלֵל דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים עִם אִסּוּר זֶה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה אַלְמָנָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית גְּרוּשָׁה וְנַעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַחַר כָּךְ לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת עַל בִּיאָה אַחַת. לְפִי שֶׁהָאַלְמָנָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהֶדְיוֹט. \n", + "חָזְרָה לִהְיוֹת גְּרוּשָׁה נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר אַחֵר עַל אִסּוּר הָאַלְמָנָה וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה. נַעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱסֶרֶת בִּתְרוּמָה וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שֵׁם זְנוּת שֶׁאוֹסְרָהּ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם זִנְּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּרָצוֹן נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר אַחֵר. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ זוֹנָה שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ עַל בִּיאָה אַחַת. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה סֵדֶר זֶה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה מֵאֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מֵאֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אַחַת עַל כָּל בִּיאָה. אַלְמָנָה בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִן הָאֵרוּסִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְיַבֵּם אֶלָּא חוֹלֵץ. נָפְלָה לוֹ יְבָמָה וְהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר כְּשֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְיַבֵּם אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה. אֲבָל אִם אֵרֵס אֶת הָאַלְמָנָה וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְנֹס אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה. הָיְתָה מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת סְפֵק קִדּוּשִׁין וּמֵת אֲרוּסָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק אַלְמָנָה: \n", + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁיִּשָּׂא נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה. וּמִשֶּׁתִּבְגֹּר תֵּאָסֵר עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא יג) \"וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח\". אִשָּׁה לֹא קְטַנָּה. בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ וְלֹא בּוֹגֶרֶת. הָא כֵּיצַד. יָצָאת מִכְּלַל קַטְנוּת וְלִכְלַל בַּגְרוּת לֹא בָּאָה זוֹ נַעֲרָה. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים לְעוֹלָם כְּאַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא יִשָּׂא מֻכַּת עֵץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה. [נִבְעֲלָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּנִבְעֲלָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ. נִבְעֲלָה לִבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת]: \n", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּעוּלָה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֲבָל מוֹצִיא בְּגֵט. נָשָׂא בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ מֻכַּת עֵץ הֲרֵי זֶה יְקַיֵּם. אֵרֵס בְּעוּלָה וְנִתְמַנָּה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְנֹס אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה: \n", + "אָנַס נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ אֲנָסָהּ אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט וְנִתְמַנָּה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְנֹס הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנֹס. וְאִם כָּנַס מוֹצִיא: \n", + "אֵרֵס אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה וּבָגְרָה תַּחְתָּיו קֹדֶם נִשּׂוּאִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנֹס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה גּוּפָהּ. וְאִם כָּנַס לֹא יוֹצִיא: \n", + "אַחַת גְּרוּשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין אוֹ מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל הַמְמָאֶנֶת אֲפִלּוּ גֵּרְשָׁהּ בְּגֵט וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וּמֵאֲנָה בּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַחֲלִיצָה אִם נֶחְלְצָה לֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה: \n", + "יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן כָּתַב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ נָתַן גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִתַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר תֵּצֵא מִן הַשֵּׁנִי: \n", + "יָצָא שְׁמָהּ בָּעִיר שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַקִּדּוּשִׁין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהִיא חֲלוּצָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "יָצָא קוֹל עַל הַבְּתוּלָה שֶׁהִיא בְּעוּלָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וְתִנָּשֵׂא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהִיא שִׁפְחָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וְתִנָּשֵׂא אֲפִלּוּ לְכֹהֵן. יָצָא לָהּ שֵׁם מְזַנָּה בָּעִיר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוֹצִיאָהּ בַּעְלָהּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁעָבְרָה עַל דַּת יְהוּדִית אוֹ בְּעֵדֵי דָּבָר מְכֹעָר וּמֵת קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ גֵּט הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן. שֶׁאֵין אוֹסְרִין אִשָּׁה מֵאֵלּוּ אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה אוֹ בִּהוֹדָאַת פִּיהָ: \n" + ], + [ + "מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַ (ויקרא כא ז יד) \"זּוֹנָה\" הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא כָּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאָדָם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ אִסּוּר הַשָּׁוֶה לַכּל. אוֹ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְחָלָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּרְבַּעַת לִבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּסְקִילָה לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִבְעֲלָה לְאָדָם. וְהַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְדֵשָׁה שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ לַכּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּמַלְקוֹת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. אֲבָל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי לָאוִין הַשָּׁוִין בַּכּל וְאֵין מְיֻחָדִין בְּכֹהֲנִים. אוֹ מֵאִסּוּרֵי עֲשֵׂה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְמִי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה: \n", + "וְכֵן הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְהַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אֲפִלּוּ נִתְגַּיְּרָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה וַאֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אוֹ מִצְרִי וֶאֱדוֹמִי רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אוֹ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ חָלָל שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל הַיְּהוּדִית עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה וְנִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה וְאִם הָיְתָה כֹּהֶנֶת פְּסָלוּהָ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְכֵן יְבָמָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ זָר עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה. וְהָאַיְלוֹנִית מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן וְאֵינָהּ זוֹנָה: \n", + "הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּגוֹן הַבָּא עַל קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ אוֹ עַל חֲלוּצָתוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת יִבּוּם: \n", + "הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין הֱיוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה תּוֹלֶה בִּבְעִילָה שֶׁל אִסּוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה וְעַל הַקְּדֵשָׁה וְהַנִּרְבַּעַת לַבְּהֵמָה נִבְעֲלָה בְּעִילָה שֶׁל אִסּוּר וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה. וּמִי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְחָלָל נִבְעֲלָה בְּעִילָה שֶׁל הֶתֵּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְאֵין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בִּפְגִימָה וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ פְּגוּמָה אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם הָאָסוּר לָהּ אוֹ מֵחָלָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ: \n", + "כָּל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאָדָם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] מִשֶּׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ נִפְסְלָה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְיִהְיֶה הַבּוֹעֵל בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאַחֵר בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ד) \"לֹא יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַמָּאָה\". הַכּל בִּכְלָל שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלוּ אֲסוּרִין עַל בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. פֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה יג) \"וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה\" אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן בְּאִסּוּרָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא זוֹנָה: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ נֶאֱנַסְתִּי אוֹ שָׁגַגְתִּי וּבָא עָלַי אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד לוֹ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו. שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָתְנָה בְּאַחֵר. וְאִם הִיא נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹ אוֹ הָעֵד נֶאֱמָן לוֹ וְסָמַךְ דַּעְתּוֹ לְדִבְרֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצִיא כְּדֵי לָצֵאת יְדֵי סָפֵק: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ נֶאֱנַסְתִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלָהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדֵית שֶׁהִיא זוֹנָה וְאָסְרָה עַצְמָהּ וְנַעֲשֵׂית כַּחֲתִיכָה הָאֲסוּרָה: \n", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ קְטַנָּה וְאַחַר זְמַן בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְטָעַן שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא קֹדֶם קִדּוּשִׁין נִבְעֲלָה אוֹ אַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנָה זוֹ לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן שְׁנֵי סְפֵקוֹת שֶׁמָּא קֹדֶם קִדּוּשִׁין וְשֶׁמָּא אַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין. וַאֲפִלּוּ נֹאמַר לְאַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בְּאֹנֶס שֶׁמָּא בְּרָצוֹן. שֶׁהָאֲנוּסָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִסָּפֵק שֶׁאֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא סָפֵק אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא בְּאֹנֶס שֶׁמָּא בְּרָצוֹן וְסָפֵק אִסּוּר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְחֻמְרָא: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְלֹא שָׁתָת מֵי סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָת הִיא לִשְׁתּוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם עֵדוּת שֶׁמּוֹנְעָהּ מִלִּשְׁתּוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁקִּנְּאוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה מִן הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיוֹת לִשְׁתּוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁתָת מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה מִסָּפֵק: \n", + "פְּנוּיָה שֶׁרָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאֶחָד וְהָלַךְ לוֹ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלַיִךְ וְאָמְרָה אָדָם כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ רָאוּהָ מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מִמִּי נִתְעַבַּרְתְּ וְאָמְרָה מֵאָדָם כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בּוֹ פָּרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים אוֹ בִּקְרָנוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁהַכּל עוֹבְרִין שָׁם. וְהָיוּ רֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁם כְּשֵׁרִים וְרֹב הָעִיר שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ אֵלּוּ הָעוֹבְרִין מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁהַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין וְהִצְרִיכוּ שְׁנֵי רֻבּוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ רֹב הָעוֹבְרִים פּוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ כְּגוֹן עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ מַמְזֵרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רֹב אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם פְּסוּלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הָעוֹבְרִין שָׁם כְּשֵׁרִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא לְמִי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אוֹתָהּ נִבְעֲלָה וְלֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכֹהֵן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת (לֹא) תֵּצֵא: \n", + "רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בָּעִיר אוֹ נִתְעַבְּרָה בָּעִיר אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה שׁוֹכֵן שָׁם אֶלָּא עַכּוּ\"ם אֶחָד אוֹ חָלָל אֶחָד וְעֶבֶד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְכֹהֵן. שֶׁכָּל הַקָּבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה הוּא. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לְכָשֵׁר נִבְעַלְתִּי: \n", + "הָיְתָה אִלֶּמֶת אוֹ חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵינִי יוֹדַעַת לְמִי נִבְעַלְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַכֶּרֶת בֵּין כָּשֵׁר לְפָסוּל הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זוֹנָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן תֵּצֵא אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הָרֻבִּין הַמְּצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ כְּשֵׁרִים: \n", + "הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית וְהִיא בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ יֶתֶר אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלָה לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַחֵד הָעַכּוּ\"ם עִמָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד אוֹ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ קָרוֹב נֶאֱמָן לְעֵדוּת זוֹ. וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁהֵעִידָה כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְאִסּוּר כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת כֻּלָּן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְפִיכָךְ הֵקֵלּוּ בִּשְׁבוּיָה: \n", + "וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מַעֲשֵׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הוּא וְאִמּוֹ וּבְנָהּ מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְאָמַר נִשְׁבֵּינוּ לְבֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲנִי וְאִמִּי יָצָאתִי לִשְׁאֹב מַיִם וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי לִלְקֹט עֵצִים וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָהּ חֲכָמִים לְכֹהֵן עַל פִּיו: \n", + "אֵין הַבַּעַל נֶאֱמָן לְהָעִיד בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד לְעַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן שִׁפְחָתָהּ לֹא תָּעִיד לָהּ. אֲבָל שִׁפְחַת בַּעְלָהּ מְעִידָה לָהּ. וְשִׁפְחָתָהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסִיחָה לְפִי תֻּמָּהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת: \n", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵעִיד לִשְׁבוּיָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ. וְאִם פְּדָאָהּ וְהֵעִיד בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה לֹא נָתַן בָּהּ מְעוֹתָיו: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּיָה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד לָהּ אֶחָד שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד מַכְחִישׁ אוֹתוֹ וּמֵעִיד לָהּ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית. אֲפִלּוּ זֶה שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה אִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְהִתִּירוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְהִנָּשֵׂא וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּרָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ שַׁבַּאי וַהֲרֵי הִיא שְׁבוּיָה לְפָנֵינוּ בְּיַד אֲדוֹנֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּרָהּ שֶׁהִתִּירוּהָ. וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתָהּ מֵעַתָּה עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה: \n", + "בָּאוּ לָהּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת אֲפִלּוּ נִשֵּׂאת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּצֵא. וְאִם בָּא עֵד אֶחָד אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. אָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְיֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי טְהוֹרָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין נַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ עֵדֵי טֻמְאָה מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ. שֶׁבִּשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵלּוּ: \n", + "הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר קִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת בִּתִּי וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא קְטַנָּה נֶאֱמָן. קִדַּשְׁתִּיהָ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא גְּדוֹלָה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה. נִשְׁבֵּית וּפְדִיתִיהָ בֵּין שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה אוֹתוֹ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְאָסְרָהּ מִשּׁוּם אִישׁוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב טז) \"אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה\". אֲבָל לֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּיָה הוֹאִיל וְהַדָּבָר סָפֵק הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לָדוּר עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר אֶחָד וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עִמּוֹ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ תָּמִיד לְשָׁמְרוֹ: \n", + "עִיר שֶׁבָּאָה בְּמָצוֹר וְנִכְבְּשָׁה אִם הָיוּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם מַקִּיפִין אֶת הָעִיר מִכָּל רוּחוֹתֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּמָּלֵט אִשָּׁה אַחַת עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ וְתֵעָשֶׂה בִּרְשׁוּתָן הֲרֵי כָּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ פְּסוּלוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה כִּשְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלוּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּמָּלֵט אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְלֹא יֵדְעוּ בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בָּעִיר מַחֲבוֹאָה אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה אַחַת הֲרֵי זוֹ מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַכּל: \n", + "כֵּיצַד מַצֶּלֶת. שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עֵד מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לוֹמַר נִמְלַטְתִּי כְּשֶׁנִּכְבְּשָׁה הָעִיר אוֹ בְּמַחֲבוֹאָה הָיִיתִי וְנִצַּלְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר לֹא נִמְלַטְתִּי וְלֹא נֶחְבֵּאתִי וְלֹא נִטְמֵאתִי: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּגְדוּד שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת שֶׁהֵם מִתְיַשְּׁבִין בָּעִיר וְאֵין יְרֵאִין לְפִיכָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא בָּעֲלוּ. אֲבָל גְּדוּד שֶׁל מַלְכוּת אַחֶרֶת שֶׁפָּשַׁט וְשָׁטַף וְעָבַר לֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ הַנָּשִׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם פְּנַאי לִבְעל שֶׁהֵן עוֹסְקִים בַּשָּׁלָל וּבוֹרְחִין לָהֶם. וְאִם שָׁבוּ נָשִׁים וְנַעֲשׂוּ בִּרְשׁוּתָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִצִּילוּ אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶחְבְּשָׁה בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן מֻתֶּרֶת. עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהֵם יְרֵאִין מֵהֶם. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד הָעַכּוּ\"ם תַּקִּיפָה אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית בִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ\"ם נֶאֶסְרָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵעִיד לָהּ אֶחָד כִּשְׁבוּיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵי זוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה זוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלִדָה מֵאִסּוּר כְּהֻנָּה. וְכֵן אַחַת מִן הַנָּשִׁים הָאֲסוּרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְכֹהֵן נִתְחַלְּלָה. אֲבָל הַכֹּהֵן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁעָבַר הָעֲבֵרָה לֹא נִתְחַלֵּל: ", + "וּבֵין שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בְּאֹנֶס אוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] מִשֶּׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ נִתְחַלְּלָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כֹּהֵן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה וְתִהְיֶה זוֹ הָאֲסוּרָה לוֹ בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד. כֹּהֵן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ עַל הַזּוֹנָה. וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ עַל הָאַלְמָנָה אוֹ שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּעוּלָה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִתְחַלְּלוּ לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם הוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֶּן בֵּין זֶה שֶׁחִלְּלָהּ בֵּין כֹּהֵן אַחַר הַוָּלָד חָלָל. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה מֵאִסּוּרֵי כְּהֻנָּה וְנִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין לֹא נִתְחַלְּלָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה נִתְחַלְּלָה שֶׁכָּל נְשׂוּאָה בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה הִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּתוּלָה: ", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ מֻכַּת עֵץ לֹא חִלְּלָהּ. וְכֵן אִם בַּעַל בְּעוּלָה בְּלֹא נִשּׂוּאִין לֹא חִלְּלָהּ: ", + "כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת חוּץ מִנִּדָּה אוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין הַשָּׁוִין בְּכָל עֲשֵׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. חָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה בֵּין הוּא בֵּין כֹּהֵן אַחֵר נַעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה וְזַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חֲלָלִים. לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם וְנִתְעַבְּרָה מִבִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מֵאִסּוּרֵי כְּהֻנָּה וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה. חָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה וְנִתְעַבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה הִיא חֲלָלָה וּוְלָדָהּ חָלָל לְפִי שֶׁהוּא מֵאִסּוּרֵי כְּהֻנָּה: ", + "וְכֵן כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְהַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת חֲלָלָה וְזַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חֲלָלִים. כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ חָלָל שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר הַנִּדָּה מְיֻחָד בְּכֹהֲנִים אֶלָּא שָׁוֶה בַּכּל: ", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁה מְעֻבֶּרֶת בֵּין מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּין מֵאַחֵר וְיָלְדָה כְּשֶׁהִיא חֲלָלָה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא בָּא מִטִּפַּת עֲבֵרָה: ", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַחֲלוּצָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַחֲלוּצָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲלָלָה וְזַרְעָהּ מִכֹּהֵן חֲלָלִים וְהַכּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת הִיא כְּשֵׁרָה וְזַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁאִסּוּר הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת אִסּוּר הַשָּׁוֶה בַּכּל הוּא וְאֵינוֹ מְיֻחָד בְּכֹהֲנִים: ", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל סְפֵק זוֹנָה כְּגוֹן סְפֵק גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עַל סְפֵק גְּרוּשָׁה. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל סְפֵק אַלְמָנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק חֲלָלָה וּוְלָדָהּ סְפֵק חָלָל: ", + "נִמְצְאוּ הַחֲלָלִים שְׁלֹשָׁה. חָלָל מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְחָלָל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וּסְפֵק חָלָל. וְכָל סְפֵק חָלָל נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חֻמְרֵי כֹּהֲנִים וְחֻמְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְלֹא מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים וְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן. וְאִם אָכַל אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ נָשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּחָלָל שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל חָלָל שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הַוַּדַּאי הֲרֵי הוּא כְּזָר וְנוֹשֵׂא גְּרוּשָׁה וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא א) \"אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן\". אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּכִהוּנָם: ", + "כֹּהֵן זָכָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לִשָּׂא זוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה אָסוּר בְּגִיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא כְּזוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל הַכֹּהֶנֶת מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְחָלָל וּלְגֵר וְלִמְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא א) \"בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן\" וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן. נִמְצָא הַגֵּר מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וְלִשָּׂא כֹּהֶנֶת: ", + "גֵּרִים וּמְשֻׁחְרָרִים שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ אֵלּוּ מֵאֵלּוּ וְהוֹלִידוּ בַּת אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי אוֹתָהּ הַבַּת אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא הוֹאִיל וְהוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה. אֲבָל גֵּר אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהֻנָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה: ", + "גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכֵן מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּיאָתָם בַּעֲבֵרָה וַהֲרֵי נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן זוֹנוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּנוֹתֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה: ", + "חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֵׁרָה זַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חֲלָלִים. וְכֵן בֶּן בֶּן בְּנוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַר אֶלֶף דּוֹר. שֶׁבֶּן הֶחָלָל הַזָּכָר הוּא חָלָל לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם הָיְתָה בַּת אֲסוּרָה הִיא לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא חֲלָלָה. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה בַּת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לִכְהֻנָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה: ", + "כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים מֻתָּרִין לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. (לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וַחֲלָלִים מֻתָּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה וְהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר). שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר א יח) \"וַיִּתְיַלְדוּ עַל מִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם\". בֵּית אָבִיו הִיא מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֵין בֵּית אִמּוֹ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ: ", + "לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וַחֲלָלִים גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים מֻתָּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְהַגֵּר וְהַמְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁנָּשָׂא לְוִיָּה אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית אוֹ חֲלָלָה הֲרֵי הַבֵּן יִשְׂרְאֵלִי. וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי אוֹ לֵוִי אוֹ חָלָל שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר: ", + "כָּל מִשְׁפָּחוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת וּמֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מֵהֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם רָאִיתָ שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת שֶׁמִּתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ תָּמִיד אוֹ רָאִיתָ מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מַצָּה וּמְרִיבָה תָּמִיד. אוֹ רָאִיתָ אִישׁ שֶׁהוּא מַרְבֶּה מְרִיבָה עִם הַכּל וְעַז פָּנִים בְּיוֹתֵר. חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן וְרָאוּי לְהִתְרַחֵק מֵהֶן שֶׁאֵלּוּ סִימָנֵי פַּסְלוּת הֵם. וְכֵן הַפּוֹסֵל אֶת אֲחֵרִים תָּמִיד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנּוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶץ בְּמִשְׁפָּחוֹת אוֹ בִּיחִידִים וְאוֹמֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים. חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא מַמְזֵר הוּא. וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶן שֶׁהֵם עֲבָדִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֶבֶד הוּא. שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹסֵל בְּמוּמוֹ פּוֹסֵל. וְכֵן כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עַזּוּת פָּנִים אוֹ אַכְזָרִיּוּת וְשׂוֹנֵא אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹמֵל לָהֶם חֶסֶד חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁמָּא גִּבְעוֹנִי הוּא. שֶׁסִּימָנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאֻמָּה הַקְּדוֹשָׁה בַּיְשָׁנִין רַחֲמָנִים וְגוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים. וּבַגִּבְעוֹנִים הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמואל ב כא ב) \"וְהַגִּבְעֹנִים לֹא מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה\" לְפִי שֶׁהֵעֵזּוּ פְּנֵיהֶם וְלֹא נִתְפַּיְּסוּ וְלֹא רִחֲמוּ עַל בְּנֵי שָׁאוּל וְלֹא גָּמְלוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֶסֶד לִמְחל לִבְנֵי מַלְכָּם וְהֵם עָשׂוּ עִמָּהֶם חֶסֶד וְהֶחֱיוּם בַּתְּחִלָּה: ", + "מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעַר וְהוּא שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן מַמְזֵר אוֹ חָלָל אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַבְדוּת הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. וְאִם מִשְׁפַּחַת כֹּהֲנִים הִיא לֹא יִשָּׂא מִמֶּנָּה אִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע אִמָּהוֹת שֶׁהֵן שְׁמוֹנֶה. אִמָּהּ. וְאֵם אִמָּהּ. וְאֵם אֲבִי אִמָּהּ. וְאֵם אֵם אֲבִי אִמָּהּ. וְכֵן הוּא בּוֹדֵק עַל אֵם אָבִיהָ. וְאֵם אֵם אָבִיהָ. וְאֵם אֲבִי אָבִיהָ. וְאֵם אֵם אֲבִי אָבִיהָ: ", + "וְאִם הָיְתָה מִשְׁפָּחָה זוֹ שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעַר לְוִיִּם אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִים. מוֹסִיף לִבְדֹּק לָהֶם זוּג אֶחָד. וְנִמְצָא בּוֹדֵק עֶשֶׂר אִמָּהוֹת. שֶׁהָעֵרוּב בַּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים יֶתֶר מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים: ", + "וְלָמָּה בּוֹדֵק בַּנָּשִׁים בִּלְבַד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאֲנָשִׁים כָּל עֵת שֶׁיָּרִיבוּ זֶה עִם זֶה יְחָרֵף אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְסוּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיִחוּסוֹ. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם פָּסוּל הָיָה נִשְׁמָע. אֲבָל הַנָּשִׁים אֵין מְחָרְפוֹת בְּיוּחֲסִין: ", + "וְלָמָּה יִבְדֹּק הָאִישׁ כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה לִשָּׂא מִמִּשְׁפָּחָה זוֹ שֶׁהֻרְעָה חֶזְקָתָהּ וְלֹא תִּבְדֹּק אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין: ", + "כָּל שֶׁקּוֹרִין לוֹ מַמְזֵר וְשׁוֹתֵק. אוֹ נָתִין וְשׁוֹתֵק. אוֹ חָלָל וְשׁוֹתֵק. אוֹ עֶבֶד וְשׁוֹתֵק. חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וּלְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין מֵהֶן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בּוֹדְקִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהּ סְפֵק חָלָל כָּל אַלְמָנָה מֵאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי סְפֵקוֹת. שֶׁמָּא זוֹ אַלְמְנַת אוֹתוֹ חָלָל שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ אַלְמְנָתוֹ. וְאִם נֹאמַר שֶׁהִיא אַלְמְנָתוֹ שֶׁמָּא חָלָל הוּא שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חָלָל. אֲבָל אִם נִתְעָרֵב בָּהּ חָלָל וַדַּאי כָּל אִשָּׁה מֵהֶן אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם נִתְעָרֵב בָּהּ סְפֵק מַמְזֵר אוֹ מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי. שֶׁאֵשֶׁת מַמְזֵר וְאֵשֶׁת חָלָל לִכְהֻנָּה אִסּוּר אֶחָד הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: " + ], + [ + "כָּל כֹּהֲנִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה בַּחֲזָקָה הֵם כֹּהֲנִים וְאֵין אוֹכְלִין אֶלָּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְחַלָּה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֵין אוֹכֵל אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס: \n", + "אֵי זֶהוּ כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס כָּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי הַכֹּהֵן וּפְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי הַכֹּהֵן עַד אִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה וְהוּא הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא בָּדְקוּ בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל אַחֲרָיו לֹא הָיוּ מְנִיחִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲבֹד. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מֵהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וָמַעְלָה וְלֹא מִן הַסַּנְהֶדְרִין וָמַעְלָה. שֶׁאֵין מְמַנִּין בַּסַּנְהֶדְרִין אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים מְיֻחָסִין: \n", + "חַלָּה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו יח) \"בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל הָאָרֶץ\" בִּיאַת כֻּלְּכֶם וְלֹא בִּיאַת מִקְצַתְכֶם. וּכְשֶׁעָלוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא לֹא עָלוּ כֻּלָּם. וְכֵן תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּלְפִיכָךְ אוֹכְלִים אוֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁבִּזְמַנֵּינוּ שֶׁהֵן בַּחֲזָקָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו [שְׁנֵי] עֵדִים שֶׁרָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְיֻחָס. וְאֵין מַעֲלִין לְיוּחֲסִין לֹא מִנְּשִׂיאַת כַּפַּיִם וְלֹא מִקְּרִיאָה בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מֵחִלּוּק תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת וְלֹא עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד: \n", + "כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה כֹּהֵן הוּא אֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לְיוּחֲסִין עַל פִּיו עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹ: \n", + "כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס שֶׁיָּצָא הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁיָּדַעְנוּ שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וּבָא הוּא וְהִיא וּבָנִים כְּרוּכִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאָמַר אִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצָאת עִמִּי הִיא זוֹ וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא עֵדִים לֹא עַל הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא עַל הַבָּנִים. מֵתָה וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֵלּוּ בָּנָיו. וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא עֵדִים עַל אִמָּן שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּבָר הֻחְזַק שֶׁיָּצְאָה מֵעִמָּנוּ כְּאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "יָצָא כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וּבָא הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וְאָמַר אִשָּׁה זוֹ נָשָׂאתִי וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁאִשָּׁה זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כְּרוּכִין אַחֲרֶיהָ. וְאִם בָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְהֵבִיא רְאָיָה עַל הָאַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבָּנִים קְטַנִּים וּכְרוּכִין אַחֲרֶיהָ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁמָּא בָּנָיו מִן הָאַחֶרֶת הֵם וְנִכְרְכוּ אַחַר זוֹ הַמְיֻחֶסֶת: \n", + "בָּא הוּא וּבָנָיו וְאָמַר אִשָּׁה נָשָׂאתִי וָמֵתָה וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאוֹתָהּ הָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה הָיְתָה וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ. וְכַדִּין הַזֶּה דָּנִין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְיֻחָס וּבְלֵוִי מְיֻחָס. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָעִיד עַל בְּנוֹ זֶה שֶׁהוּא מְיֻחָס כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רָאוּי לְסַנְהֶדְרִין: \n", + "אֵין מַעֲלִין מִשְּׁטָרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה כָּתוּב בִּשְׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן לָוָה מִפְּלוֹנִי וְהִלְוָהוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בָּהֶם כֹּהֵן זֶה שֶׁהוּא מְיֻחָס שֶׁמָּא לֹא הֵעִידוּ אֶלָּא עַל הַמִּלְוֶה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים לְעִנְיַן יִחוּס. אֲבָל לַחֲזָקָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כֹּהֵן כְּכֹהֲנֵי זְמַן זֶה וְיֹאכַל תְּרוּמָה וְחַלָּה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּבִשְׁאָר קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל מַעֲלִין מִן הַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְעַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד וּמִנְּשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וּמִקְּרִיאָה בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן: \n", + "וְכֵן כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה כֹּהֵן נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה וְלִהְיוֹתוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת כֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה לֹא עַל הַבָּנִים וְלֹא עַל הָאִשָּׁה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ לִמְדִינָה זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי וַחֲבֵרִי כֹּהֵן וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי וַחֲבֵרִי כֹּהֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּרְאִין כְּגוֹמְלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין וּשְׁנֵיהֶם בְּחֶזְקַת כֹּהֲנִים. וְכֵן עֵד שֶׁאָמַר רָאִיתִי זֶה שֶׁנָּשָׂא כַּפָּיו אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל בִּתְרוּמָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלַק עַל הַגֹּרֶן אוֹ שֶׁקָּרָא בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וְקָרָא אַחֲרָיו לֵוִי מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּיו. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִיד שֶׁזֶּה קָרָא שֵׁנִי בַּתּוֹרָה אַחַר כֹּהֵן מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּלְוִיָּה: \n", + "הֵעִיד שֶׁרָאָה זֶה שֶׁחָלַק עִם אָחִיו בְּבֵית דִּין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן הַכֹּהֵן אֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ. שֶׁמָּא חָלָל הוּא וְלָקַח חֵלֶק יְרֻשָּׁתוֹ מִתְּרוּמָה לְמָכְרָהּ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁבָּא בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְאָמַר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו וְלֹא יֹאכַל בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד. אֲבָל אוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ בִּגְרוּשָׁה וְזוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים. וְאִם נָשָׂא אוֹ נִטְמָא לוֹקֶה. וְהַנִּבְעֶלֶת לוֹ סְפֵק חֲלָלָה: \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ נֶאֱמָן. כֵּיצַד. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְאָמַר זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי תִּינוֹק וְהָיִיתִי מֻרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵפוֹ שֶׁל אָבִי הוֹצִיאוּנִי מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר וְהִפְשִׁיטוּנִי כֻּתָּנְתִּי וְהִטְבִּילוּנִי לֶאֱכל תְּרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב וַחֲבֵרַי בּוֹדְלִין מִמֶּנִּי וְהָיוּ קוֹרְאִין אוֹתִי יוֹחָנָן אוֹכֵל חַלּוֹת וְהֶעֱלָהוּ רַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ לִכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "נֶאֱמָן גָּדוֹל לוֹמַר זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי תִּינוֹק וְרָאִיתִי פְּלוֹנִי טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב וּמַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְהֻנָּה בְּעֵדוּתוֹ. מִי שֶׁבָּא בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְאָמַר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה כֹּהֵן אֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה בְּעֵדוּת זֶה שֶׁמָּא חָלָל הוּא עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד שֶׁזֶּה כֹּהֵן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם הֻחְזַק אָבִיו כֹּהֵן אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה כֹּהֵן הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת אָבִיו: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק אָבִיו כֹּהֵן וְיָצָא עָלָיו קוֹל שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ חֲלוּצָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ. בָּא עֵד אֶחָד אַחַר כָּךְ וְהֵעִיד שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּיו. בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אַחַר כָּךְ וְהָעִידוּ שֶׁהוּא חָלָל מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. בָּא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן מִצְטָרֵף לְעֵד רִאשׁוֹן וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל יִדָּחוּ אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ וְיִדָּחֶה הַקּוֹל שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם כְּמֵאָה וְיִשָּׁאֵר כֹּהֵן בְּחֶזְקַת אָבִיו: \n", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ וְיָלְדָה. וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לְרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לְאַחֲרוֹן וְהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק כֹּהֵן. וְכָךְ אִם נִתְעָרֵב וְלַד כֹּהֵן בִּוְלַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן סְפֵק כֹּהֵן. וְנוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחֻמְרֵי כֹּהֲנִים. נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים הָרְאוּיוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה וְאֵין מִטַּמְּאִים לְמֵתִים וְלֹא אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה. וְאִם נָשְׂאוּ גְּרוּשָׁה מוֹצִיאִין וְאֵינָן לוֹקִין: \n", + "שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶם. אוֹ אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ עַל הַוָּלָד חֻמְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם. הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם וְהֵן אוֹנְנִין עָלָיו. הוּא אֵין מְטַמֵּא לָהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין לוֹ. וְעוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה. וְאֵין חוֹלֵק. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמִשְׁמָר אֶחָד וּבֵית אָב אֶחָד נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק אֶחָד: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין מִכֹּחַ נִשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל בִּזְנוּת גָּזְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהֻנָּה כְּלָל הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אָבִיו הַוַּדַּאי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כה יג) \"וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זַרְעוֹ מְיֻחָס אַחֲרָיו: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם וּבָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי הַוָּלָד כֹּהֵן וַדַּאי וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אָבִיו שֶׁיִּתְיַחֵס לוֹ מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהֻנָּה. וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד וְלֹא אוֹכֵל וְלֹא חוֹלֵק. וְאִם נִטְמָא לְמֵתִים אוֹ נָשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁה לוֹקֶה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן סְפֵק הֶתֵּר: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אֵיבָרִים אוֹ שֶׁחִבֵּק וְנִשֵּׁק דֶּרֶךְ תַּאֲוָה וְנֶהֱנָה בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ל) \"לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת\" וְגוֹ'. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ו) \"לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה\". כְּלוֹמַר לֹא תִּקְרְבוּ לִדְבָרִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה: \n", + "הָעוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר מֵחֻקּוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וְאָסוּר לָאָדָם לִקְרֹץ בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו אוֹ לִרְמֹז בְּעֵינָיו לְאַחַת מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת אוֹ לִשְׂחֹק עִמָּהּ אוֹ לְהָקֵל רֹאשׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ לְהָרִיחַ בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁעָלֶיהָ אוֹ לְהַבִּיט בְּיָפְיָהּ אָסוּר. וּמַכִּין לַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְדָבָר זֶה מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְהַמִּסְתַּכֵּל אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לֵהָנוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁנִּסְתַּכֵּל בִּמְקוֹם הַתֹּרֶף. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹל הָעֶרְוָה אוֹ לִרְאוֹת שְׂעָרָהּ אָסוּר: \n", + "וְהַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין. וּמֻתָּר לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בִּפְנֵי הַפְּנוּיָה וּלְבָדְקָהּ בֵּין בְּתוּלָה בֵּין בְּעוּלָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אִם הִיא נָאָה בְּעֵינָיו יִשָּׂאֶנָּה וְאֵין בָּזֶה צַד אִסּוּר וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁרָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. אֲבָל לֹא יִסְתַּכֵּל דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (איוב לא א) \"בְּרִית כָּרַתִּי לְעֵינַי וּמָה אֶתְבּוֹנֵן עַל בְּתוּלָה\": \n", + "וּמֻתָּר לָאָדָם לְהַבִּיט בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נִדָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָאַת לֵב מִמֶּנָּה בִּרְאִיָּה הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן אֵינוֹ בָּא בָּזֶה לִדְבַר מִכְשׁוֹל. אֲבָל לֹא יִשְׂחֹק וְלֹא יָקֵל רֹאשׁ עִמָּהּ שֶׁמָּא יַרְגִּיל לַעֲבֵרָה: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵשׁ בְּאִשָּׁה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. בְּאֵי זֶה שִׁמּוּשׁ אָמְרוּ רְחִיצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְהַצָּעַת מִטָּה לְפָנָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשָׂה לְאִישׁ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ: \n", + "הַמְחַבֵּק אַחַת מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם נוֹקְפוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנִּשֵּׁק לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּגוֹן אֲחוֹתוֹ הַגְּדוֹלָה וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם תַּאֲוָה וְלֹא הֲנָאָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זֶה מְגֻנֶּה בְּיוֹתֵר וְדָבָר אָסוּר הוּא וּמַעֲשֵׂה טִפְּשִׁים הוּא. שֶׁאֵין קְרֵבִין לְעֶרְוָה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה חוּץ מֵהָאֵם לִבְנָהּ וְהָאָב לְבִתּוֹ: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. מֻתָּר הָאָב לְחַבֵּק בִּתּוֹ וּלְנַשְּׁקָהּ וְתִישַׁן עִמּוֹ בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר. וְכֵן הָאֵם עִם בְּנָהּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵם קְטַנִּים. הִגְדִּילוּ וְנַעֲשָׂה הַבֵּן גָּדוֹל וְהַבַּת גְּדוֹלָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁדַיִם נָכֹנוּ וּשְׂעָרֵךְ צָמַח זֶה יָשֵׁן בִּכְסוּתוֹ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה בִּכְסוּתָהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַבַּת בּוֹשָׁה לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אָבִיהָ עֲרֻמָּה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת. וְכֵן אִם הָאֵם בּוֹשָׁה לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנֵי בְּנָהּ עֲרֻמָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִכָּלֵם מֵהֶן אֵין יְשֵׁנִים עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא בִּכְסוּתָן: \n", + "נָשִׁים הַמְסוֹלָלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ אָסוּר וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂה מִצְרַיִם הוּא שֶׁהֻזְהַרְנוּ עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ג) \"כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ\". אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים אִישׁ נוֹשֵׂא אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה אָסוּר אֵין מַלְקִין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לָאו מְיֻחָד וַהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם בִּיאָה כְּלָל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין נֶאֱסָרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת וְלֹא תֵּאָסֵר אִשָּׁה עַל בַּעְלָהּ בָּזֶה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן זְנוּת. וְרָאוּי לְהַכּוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת הוֹאִיל וְעָשׂוּ אִסּוּר. וְיֵשׁ לָאִישׁ לְהַקְפִּיד עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדָּבָר זֶה וּמוֹנֵעַ הַנָּשִׁים הַיְדוּעוֹת בְּכָךְ מִלְּהִכָּנֵס לָהּ וּמִלָּצֵאת הִיא אֲלֵיהֶן: \n", + "אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֻתֶּרֶת הִיא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. בּוֹעֵל בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וּמְנַשֵּׁק בְּכָל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. [וּבָא עָלֶיהָ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ ] וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שֶׁלֹּא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לְכָךְ וְשֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת. וְלֹא יָסוּר מִדֶּרֶךְ הָעוֹלָם וּמִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁאֵין דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לִפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר וְהָיָה הַנֵּר דָּלוּק הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּלָל. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּיּוֹם. שֶׁעַזּוּת פָּנִים הִיא לוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ בְּכָךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מַאֲפִיל בְּטַלִּיתוֹ וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ. וְאֵין נִזְקָקִין לְדָבָר זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי צֹרֶךְ גָּדוֹל. וְדֶרֶךְ קְדֻשָּׁה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאֶמְצַע הַלַּיְלָה: \n", + "אֵין דַּעַת חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה לְמִי שֶׁהוּא מַרְבֶּה בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה וְיִהְיֶה מָצוּי אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּתַרְנְגוֹל. וּפָגוּם הוּא עַד מְאֹד וּמַעֲשֵׂה בּוּרִים הוּא. אֶלָּא כָּל הַמְמַעֵט בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְבַטֵּל עוֹנָה [אֶלָּא] מִדַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא תִּקְּנוּ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְאוּ בַּתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְמַעֵט בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה: \n", + "וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אָדָם מִטָּתוֹ וְלִבּוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב בְּאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת. וְלֹא יִבְעל מִתּוֹךְ שִׁכְרוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂנְאָה וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ עַל כָּרְחָהּ וְהִיא יְרֵאָה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְנֻדֶּה. וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן הַבָּנִים אֵינָן הֲגוּנִים אֶלָּא מֵהֶן עַזֵּי פָּנִים וּמֵהֶן מוֹרְדִים וּפוֹשְׁעִים: \n", + "וְכֵן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה חֲצוּפָה שֶׁהִיא תּוֹבַעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה בְּפִיהָ. אוֹ הַמְפַתֶּה אִשָּׁהּ לְשֵׁם נִשּׂוּאִין. אוֹ הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לָבוֹא עַל רָחֵל אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָא עַל לֵאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וַהֲרֵי הַבֵּן סָפֵק. כָּל אֵלּוּ הַבָּנִים הַיִּלּוֹדִים מֵהֶם הֵם הַמּוֹרְדִים וְהַפּוֹשְׁעִים שֶׁיִּסּוּרֵי הַגָּלוּת בּוֹרְרִין אוֹתָן: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם לָבֹא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ בַּשְּׁוָקִים וּבָרְחוֹבוֹת אוֹ בַּגַּנּוֹת וּבַפַּרְדֵּסִין אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּירָה. שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָאֶה כִּזְנוּת וְיַרְגִּילוּ עַצְמָם לִידֵי זְנוּת. וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכֵן הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה וְהַמְקַדֵּשׁ בַּשּׁוּק וְהַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלֹא שִׁדּוּךְ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "וְאַכְסְנַאי אָסוּר בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה עַד שֶׁיַּחְזֹר לְבֵיתוֹ. וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַל הָאִישׁ שֶׁיָּדוּר בְּבֵית חָמִיו שֶׁזּוֹ עַזּוּת פָּנִים הִיא. וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ לְמֶרְחָץ: \n", + "וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס אָדָם עִם אָבִיו לַמֶּרְחָץ. וְלֹא עִם בַּעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ. וְלֹא עִם תַּלְמִידוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְתַלְמִידוֹ מֻתָּר. וְיֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים כְּאֶחָד לַמֶּרְחָץ: \n", + "לֹא יְהַלְּכוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ בַּשּׁוּק. אַחַת פְּנוּיָה וְאַחַת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וְלֹא תֵּלֵךְ אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק וּבְנָהּ אַחֲרֶיהָ גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִתְפְּשׂוּ בְּנָהּ וְתֵלֵךְ אַחֲרָיו לְהַחֲזִירוֹ וְיִתְעַלְּלוּ בָּהּ הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁתְּפָסוּהוּ דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה אָדָם דָּשׁ מִבִּפְנִים וְזוֹרֶה מִבַּחוּץ. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד. אֲבָל אֵלּוּ שֶׁמְּנָאֲפִין בַּיָּד וּמוֹצִיאִין שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לֹא דַּי לָהֶם שֶׁאִסּוּר גָּדוֹל הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה זֶה בְּנִדּוּי הוּא יוֹשֵׁב וַעֲלֵיהֶם נֶאֱמַר (ישעיה א טו) \"יְדֵיכֶם דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ\" וּכְאִלּוּ הָרַג הַנֶּפֶשׁ: \n", + "וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּקְשֶׁה עַצְמוֹ לְדַעַת אוֹ יָבִיא עַצְמוֹ לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. אֶלָּא אִם יָבוֹא לוֹ הִרְהוּר יַסִּיעַ לִבּוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי (וְהַשְׁחָתָה) לְדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה. שֶׁהִיא (משלי ה יט) \"אַיֶּלֶת אֲהָבִים וְיַעֲלַת חֵן\". לְפִיכָךְ אָסוּר לְאָדָם לִישֹׁן עַל עָרְפּוֹ וּפָנָיו לְמַעְלָה עַד שֶׁיִּטֶּה מְעַט כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי קִשּׁוּי: \n", + "וְלֹא יִסְתַּכֵּל בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמִּזְדַּקְקִין זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה. ומֻתָּר לְמַרְבִּיעֵי בְּהֵמָה לְהַכְנִיס כְּמִכְחוֹל בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן עֲסוּקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּן לֹא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי הִרְהוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בְּנָשִׁים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַכְּבִיסָה. אֲפִלּוּ לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בְּבִגְדֵי צֶמֶר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהוּא מַכִּירָהּ אָסוּר. שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁפָּגַע בְּאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק אָסוּר לוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא רָץ וּמְסַלְּקָהּ לַצְּדָדִין אוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו. וְכָל הַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק אַחֲרֵי אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מִקַּלֵּי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ. וְאָסוּר לַעֲבֹר עַל פֶּתַח אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיַּרְחִיק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ה ח) \"וְאַל תִּקְרַב אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ\": \n", + "וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָשׂוּי לִשְׁלֹחַ יָדוֹ בִּמְבוּשָׁיו שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ מִתַּחַת טִבּוּרוֹ לֹא יַכְנִיס יָדוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וְאִם הִשְׁתִּין מַיִם לֹא יֶאֱחֹז בָּאַמָּה וְיַשְׁתִּין. וְאִם הָיָה נָשׂוּי מֻתָּר. וּבֵין נָשׂוּי וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָשׂוּי לֹא יוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לָאַמָּה כְּלָל אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִנְקָבָיו: \n", + "חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וּגְדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הִתְפָּאֵר אֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁמֵּעוֹלָם לֹא נִסְתַּכֵּל בַּמִּילָה שֶׁלּוֹ. וּמֵהֶן מִי שֶּׁהִתְפָּאֵר שֶׁלֹּא הִתְבּוֹנֵן מֵעוֹלָם בְּצוּרַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ פּוֹנֶה מִדִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי לְדִבְרֵי הָאֱמֶת שֶׁהֵן אוֹחֲזוֹת לְבַב הַקְּדוֹשִׁים: \n", + "מִצְוַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁיַּשִּׂיא אָדָם בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו סָמוּךְ לְפִרְקָן. שֶׁאִם יַנִּיחָן יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי זְנוּת אוֹ לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (איוב ה כד) \"וּפָקַדְתָּ נָוְךָ וְלֹא תֶחֱטָא\". וְאָסוּר לְהַשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לְקָטָן שֶׁזֶּה כְּמוֹ זְנוּת הִיא: \n", + "וְאֵין הָאִישׁ רַשַּׁאי לֵישֵׁב בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא עֲקָרָה וּזְקֵנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד. וּרְשׁוּת לָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְעוֹלָם אוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לְסָרִיס. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא בָּחוּר זְקֵנָה וְלֹא יִשָּׂא זָקֵן יַלְדָּה שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לִזְנוּת: \n", + "וְכֵן מִי שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין לֹא תָּדוּר עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי זְנוּת. וְאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן לֹא תָּדוּר עִמּוֹ בְּמָבוֹי. וּכְפָר קָטָן נִדּוֹן כְּמָבוֹי. הָיָה לָהּ מִלְוֶה אֶצְלוֹ עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְתָבְעוֹ. וּגְרוּשָׁה שֶׁבָּאָה עִם הַמְגָרֵשׁ לַדִּין מְנַדִּין אוֹתָן אוֹ מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְאִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין מֻתֶּרֶת לְתָבְעוֹ בַּדִּין וְלָדוּר עִמּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ אַף מִן הָאֵרוּסִין אָסוּר. וּמִי נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי מִי הִיא נִדְּחֵת מִפָּנָיו. וְאִם הָיְתָה הֶחָצֵר שֶׁלָּהּ הוּא יִדָּחֶה מִפָּנֶיהָ: \n", + "אָסוּר לְאָדָם לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה וְדַעְתּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כט) \"אַל תַּחֲרשׁ עַל רֵעֲךָ רָעָה וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לָבֶטַח אִתָּךְ\". וְאִם הוֹדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָהּ לְיָמִים מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ וְאִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יַאֲרִיכוּ הַיָּמִים וְנִמְצָא אָח נוֹשֵׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ. וְאִם הָיָה אָדָם גָּדוֹל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ יָדוּעַ וַהֲרֵי זַרְעוֹ מְפֻרְסָמִין וִידוּעִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת מְצֹרָעִים וְלֹא מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת נִכְפִּין. וְהוּא שֶׁהֻחְזְקוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ בְּנֵיהֶם כָּךְ: \n", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וָמֵתוּ. לִשְׁלִישִׁי לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְקַדְּשָׁה יִכְנֹס. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁזֶּה כְּמוֹ חִלּוּל לְזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. וְאִם נָשָׂא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין זִוּוּגָן עוֹלֶה יָפֶה אֶלָּא מֵת בְּלֹא בָּנִים אוֹ מֵת הוּא אוֹ הִיא בִּמְהֵרָה אוֹ קְטָטָה תִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁנָּשָׂא כֹּהֶנֶת הֲרֵי זֶה נָאֶה וּמְשֻׁבָּח. הֲרֵי תּוֹרָה וּכְהֻנָּה כְּאֶחָד: \n", + "לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם בַּת עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאִם מֵת אוֹ גּוֹלֶה בָּנָיו עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיוּ שֶׁאֵין אִמָּן יוֹדַעַת כֶּתֶר הַתּוֹרָה. וְלֹא יַשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹתֵן בִּתּוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ כְּמִיִ שֶׁכְּפָתָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לִפְנֵי הָאֲרִי מַכֶּה וּבוֹעֵל וְאֵין לוֹ בּשֶׁת פָּנִים. וּלְעוֹלָם יִמְכֹּר אָדָם כָּל מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְיִשָּׂא בַּת תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאִם מֵת אוֹ גּוֹלֶה בָּנָיו תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. וְכֵן יַשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵין דָּבָר מְגֻנֶּה וְלֹא מְרִיבָה בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם: \n" + ], + [ + "אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת בֵּין זְקֵנָה בֵּין יַלְדָּה שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה. חוּץ מֵהָאֵם עִם בְּנָהּ וְהָאָב עִם בִּתּוֹ וְהַבַּעַל עִם אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה. וְחָתָן שֶׁפֵּרְסָה אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְעל אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אֶלָּא הִיא יְשֵׁנָה בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים וְהוּא יָשֵׁן בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים. וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמֵאת מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ: \n", + "לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם נִתְרַחֵק אֲפִלּוּ מִיִּחוּד זָכוּר וּבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וּגְדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הָיוּ מַרְחִיקִין הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְיַחֲדוּ עִמָּהּ. וְאִסּוּר יִחוּד הָעֲרָיוֹת מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה: \n", + "כְּשֶׁאֵרַע מַעֲשֶׂה אַמְנוֹן וְתָמָר גָּזַר דָּוִד וּבֵית דִּינוֹ עַל יִחוּד פְּנוּיָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֶרְוָה בִּכְלַל יִחוּד עֲרָיוֹת הִיא. וְשַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל גָּזְרוּ עַל יִחוּד כּוּתִית. נִמְצָא כָּל הַמִּתְיַחֵד עִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בֵּין כּוּתִית מַכִּין אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת הָאִישׁ וְהָאִשָּׁה. וּמַכְרִיזִין עֲלֵיהֶן. חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אִם נִתְיַחֵד אֵין לוֹקִין. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לַעַז עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה וְנִמְצְאוּ מוֹצִיאִין לַעַז עַל הַבָּנִים שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַחֵד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ. אֲבָל לֹא תִּתְיַחֵד יִשְׂרְאֵלִית עִם הַכּוּתִי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל כּוּתִי מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ וְאֵין לָהֶן בּוּשָׁה: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵין מוֹסְרִין תִּינוֹק יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכוּתִי לְלַמְּדוֹ סֵפֶר וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אָמָּנוּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּן חֲשׁוּדִין עַל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר. וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפֻנְדָּקִיּוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים וַאֲפִלּוּ זְכָרִים אֵצֶל זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת: \n", + "וְאֵין מוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף לְרוֹעֶה כּוּתִי אֲפִלּוּ זְכָרִים לְכוּתִים וּנְקֵבוֹת לְכוּתִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּן חֲשׁוּדִין עַל הַרְבָּעַת בְּהֵמָה וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בְּזָכוּר וּבִבְהֵמָה וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יד) \"וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל\": \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה נְקֵבָה לְכוּתִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּן בְּחֶזְקַת נוֹאֲפִים וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַנּוֹאֵף לִשְׁכַּב עִם הַכּוּתִית זוֹ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָאֶנָּה וְיִשְׁכַּב עִם הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יִמְצָאֶנָּה יִשְׁכַּב עִם הַבְּהֵמָה: \n", + "לֹא תִּתְיַחֵד אִשָּׁה אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ עִם אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם שָׁם. וְכֵן לֹא יִתְיַחֵד אִישׁ אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ עִם נָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה. נָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה עִם אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְיִחוּד. הָיוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִבַּחוּץ וְהַנָּשִׁים מִבִּפְנִים אוֹ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִבִּפְנִים וְהַנָּשִׁים מִבַּחוּץ וּפֵרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה אַחַת לְבֵין הָאֲנָשִׁים אוֹ אִישׁ לְבֵין הַנָּשִׁים אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד. אֲפִלּוּ אִישׁ שֶׁעִסְקוֹ וּמְלַאכְתּוֹ עִם הַנָּשִׁים אָסוּר לוֹ לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם הַנָּשִׁים. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִתְעַסֵּק עִמָּהֶן וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ אוֹ יִפְנֶה לִמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. אוֹ עִם שְׁתֵּי צָרוֹת. אוֹ עִם אִשָּׁה וַחֲמוֹתָהּ. אוֹ עִם אִשָּׁה וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. אוֹ עִם אִשָּׁה וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשּׂוֹנְאוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ וְאֵין מְחַפּוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ. וְכֵן מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ תִּינֹקֶת קְטַנָּה שֶׁיּוֹדַעַת טַעַם בִּיאָה וְאֵינָהּ מוֹסֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ לְבִיאָה. שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְזַנָּה בְּפָנֶיהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי זוֹ מְגַלָּה אֶת סוֹדָהּ: \n", + "תִּינֹקֶת מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ וּלְמַטָּה וְתִינוֹק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע וּלְמַטָּה מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהֶן. שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל יִחוּד אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לְבִיאָה וְאִישׁ הָרָאוּי לְבִיאָה: \n", + "אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵינוֹ מִתְיַחֵד עִם הַנָּשִׁים. וְאִם נִתְיַחֵד אֵין מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. אֲבָל הָאִישׁ מִתְיַחֵד עִם הָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְעִם הַטֻּמְטוּם: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ בָּעִיר אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְיִחוּד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵימַת בַּעְלָהּ עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיָה זֶה גַּס בָּהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּדְלָה עִמּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְרוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבַּעְלָהּ בָּעִיר. וְכֵן כָּל הַמִּתְיַחֵד עִם אִשָּׁה וְהָיָה הַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה לֹא יְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִמּוֹת הַבָּנִים בָּאוֹת לְבֵית הַסֵּפֶר לִבְנֵיהֶם וְנִמְצָא מִתְגָּרֶה בְּנָשִׁים. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה לֹא תְּלַמֵּד קְטַנִּים מִפְּנֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בִּגְלַל בְּנֵיהֶם וְנִמְצְאוּ מִתְיַחֲדִים עִמָּהּ. וְאֵין הַמְלַמֵּד צָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁרוּיָה עִמּוֹ בְּבֵית הַסֵּפֶר אֶלָּא הִיא בְּבֵיתָהּ וְהוּא מְלַמֵּד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּהְיֶינָה הַנָּשִׁים מְסַפְּרוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס שָׁם אִישׁ מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד: \n", + "אֵין מְמַנִּין אֲפִלּוּ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן וְכָשֵׁר לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹמֵר חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם נָשִׁים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ שֶׁאֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת. וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם לְמַנּוֹת אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַנְהִיג אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה: \n", + "אָסוּר לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם לִשְׁכֹּן בְּחָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אַלְמָנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן אַלְמָנָה אֲסוּרָה לְגַדֵּל כֶּלֶב מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד. וְלֹא תִּקְנֶה אִשָּׁה עֲבָדִים זְכָרִים אֲפִלּוּ קְטַנִּים מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד: \n", + "אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּסִתְרֵי עֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאֶחָד טָרוּד בִּשְׁאֵלַת הָרַב וְהַשְּׁנַיִם נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְאֵין דַּעְתָּם פְּנוּיָה לִשְׁמֹעַ. שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְרוֹבָה אֵצֶל עֲרָיוֹת. אִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁמַע מוֹרֶה לְהָקֵל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לִשְׁנַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מְפַנֶּה דַּעְתּוֹ וְיוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׁמַע מִן הָרַב: \n", + "אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה לְרֹב הָעָם לִפְרשׁ אֶלָּא מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת וְהַבִּיאוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת בָּכוּ וְקִבְּלוּ מִצְוָה זוֹ בְּתַרְעוֹמוֹת וּבְכִיָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא י) \"בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו\" עַל עִסְקֵי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת: \n", + "וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים גֵּזֶל וַעֲרָיוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמְּדָתָן. וְאֵין אַתָּה מוֹצֵא קָהָל בְּכָל זְמַן וּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן פְּרוּצִין בַּעֲרָיוֹת וּבִיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. [וְעוֹד] אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים רֹב בְּגֵזֶל מִעוּט בַּעֲרָיוֹת וְהַכּל בַּאֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי לוֹ לְאָדָם לָכֹף יִצְרוֹ בְּדָבָר זֶה וּלְהַרְגִּיל עַצְמוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה יְתֵרָה וּבְמַחֲשָׁבָה טְהוֹרָה וּבְדֵעָה נְכוֹנָה כְּדֵי לְהִנָּצֵל מֵהֶן. וְיִזָּהֵר מִן הַיִּחוּד שֶׁהוּא הַגּוֹרֵם הַגָּדוֹל. גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים לְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּי מִפְּנֵי בִּתִּי הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּי מִפְּנֵי כַּלָּתִי. כְּדֵי לְלַמֵּד לְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִתְבַּיְּשׁוּ מִדָּבָר זֶה וְיִתְרַחֲקוּ מִן הַיִּחוּד: \n", + "וְכֵן יִנְהֹג לְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הַשְּׂחוֹק וּמִן הַשִּׁכְרוּת וּמִדִּבְרֵי עֲגָבִים שֶׁאֵלּוּ גּוֹרְמִין גְּדוֹלִים וְהֵם מַעֲלוֹת שֶׁל עֲרָיוֹת. וְלֹא יֵשֵׁב בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה שֶׁמִּנְהָג זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְטָהֳרָה יְתֵרָה. גְּדוֹלָה מִכָּל זֹאת אָמְרוּ יַפְנֶה עַצְמוֹ וּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ לְדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה וְיַרְחִיב דַּעְתּוֹ בַּחָכְמָה שֶׁאֵין מַחְשֶׁבֶת עֲרָיוֹת מִתְגַּבֶּרֶת אֶלָּא בְּלֵב פָּנוּי מִן הַחָכְמָה. וּבַחָכְמָה הוּא אוֹמֵר (משלי ה יט) \"אַיֶּלֶת אֲהָבִים וְיַעֲלַת חֵן דַּדֶּיהָ יְרַוֵּךָ בְכָל עֵת בְּאַהֲבָתָהּ תִּשְׁגֶּה תָמִיד\": \n" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87350a40588df90c0db8d478f82c382e38908815 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,574 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "הבא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה במזיד חייב כרת שנאמר כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האלה ונכרתו הנפשות וגו' שניהם הבועל והנבעלת ואם היו שוגגין חייבין חטאת קבועה ויש מן העריות שהוא במיתת בית דין יתר על הכרת השוה בכולן.", + "אותן העריות שיש בהן מיתת ב\"ד אם היו שם עדים והתראה ולא פירשו ממעשיהם ממיתין אותן מיתה האמורה בהן.", + "ואפילו היה העובר תלמיד חכם אין ממיתין ולא מלקין עד שתהיה שם התראה שלא נתנה התראה בכ\"מ אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד.", + "העריות שיש בהן מיתת ב\"ד מהן שמיתתן בסקילה ומהן שמיתתן בשריפה ומהן שמיתתן בחנק ואלו שמיתתן בסקילה:הבא על אמו ועל אשת אביו ועל אשת בנו והיא הנקראת כלתו והשוכב עם זכר והשוכב עם בהמה והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה.", + "ואלו הן העריות שמיתתן בשריפה:הבא על בת אשתו בחיי אשתו ועל בת בתה ועל בת בנה ועל אם אשתו ועל אם אמה ועל אם אביה והבא על בתו ועל בת בתו ועל בת בנו.", + "אין לך ערוה בחנק אלא אשת איש בלבד שנאמר מות יומת הנואף והנואפת ומיתה האמורה בתורה סתם היא חנק ואם היתה בת כהן היא בשריפה ובועלה בחנק שנאמר ובת איש כהן כי תחל לזנות באש תשרף ואם היתה נערה מאורשה שניהם בסקילה שנאמר כי תהיה נערה בתולה וגו' וסקלתם אותם באבנים וכל מקום שנאמר בתורה מות יומתו דמיהם בם הרי הן בסקילה.", + "שאר העריות כולן בכרת בלבד ואין בהם מיתת ב\"ד לפיכך אם היו שם עדים והתראה ב\"ד מלקין אותן שכל חייבי כריתות לוקין.", + "הבא על אחת מחייבי לאוין במזיד הוא לוקה והיא ואם בשוגג פטורין מכלום והבא על אחת מהשניות במזיד מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם אבל הבא על אחת מחייבי עשה אינו לוקה ואם הכו אותם ב\"ד מכת מרדות כדי להרחיק מן העבירה הרשות בידם.", + "אנוס פטור מכלום מן המלקות ומן הקרבן ואין צריך לומר מן המיתה שנאמר ולנערה לא תעשה דבר בד\"א בשנאנס הנבעל אבל הבועל אין לו אונס שאין קישוי אלא לדעת ואשה שתחלת ביאתה באונס וסופה ברצון פטורה מכלום שמשהתחיל לבעול באונס אין בידה שלא תרצה שיצר האדם וטבעו כופה אותה לרצות.", + "המכניס ראש העטרה בלבד הוא הנקרא מערה מלשון את מקורה הערה והמכניס כל האבר הוא הנקרא גומר ובכל הביאות האסורות אחד המערה ואחד הגומר ואע\"פ שלא הוציא שכבת זרע ואף ע\"פ שפירש ולא גמר כיון שהכניס ראש העטרה נתחייבו שניהם מיתת ב\"ד או כרת או מלקות או מכת מרדות (ואחד הבא על הערוה כדרכה ואחד הבא עליה שלא כדרכה) משיערה בה יתחייבו שניהן מיתה או כרת או מלקות או מכת מרדות בין שהיו שוכבין בין שהיו עומדים על הכנסת העטרה הוא החיוב.", + "כל הבא ביאה אסורה בלא קישוי אלא שהיה האבר שלו מדולדל כמו אבר המתים כגון החולים או מי שנולד כך כגון סריס חמה אף על פי שהכניס את האבר בידו אינו חייב לא כרת ולא מלקות ואין צריך לומר מיתה שאין זו ביאה אבל פוסל הוא מן התרומה וב\"ד מכין את שניהם מכת מרדות.", + "הבא על ערוה מן העריות כמתעסק אף ע\"פ שאין כוונתו לכך חייב וכן בחייבי לאוין ובשניות אבל הבא על ערוה מן העריות והיא מתה פטור מכלום ואין צריך לומר בחייבי לאוין שהוא פטור והבא על הטריפה או ששכב עם בהמה טריפה חייב חי הוא אע\"פ שסופו למות מחולי זה ואפילו שחט בה שני סימנין ועדיין היא מפרכסת הבא עליה חייב עד שתמות או עד שיתיז ראשה.", + "כל אשה אסורה מאלו אם היתה בת ג' שנים ויום אחד ומעלה גדול הבא עליה חייב מיתה או כרת או מלקות והיא פטורה מכלום אא\"כ היתה גדולה ואם היתה פחותה מזה הרי שניהן פטורין שאין ביאתה ביאה וכן אשה גדולה שבא עליה קטן אם היה בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ומעלה היא חייבת כרת או מיתה או מלקות והוא פטור ואם היה בן ט' שנים ולמטה שניהם פטורין.", + "הבא על הזכר או הביא זכר עליו כיון שהערה אם היו שניהם גדולים נסקלים שנאמר ואת זכר לא תשכב בין שהיה בועל או נבעל ואם היה קטן בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ומעלה זה שבא עליו או הביאו על עצמו נסקל והקטן פטור ואם היה הזכר בן ט' או פחות שניהן פטורין וראוי לבית דין להכות הגדול מכת מרדות לפי ששכב עם זכר ואף על פי שהוא פחות מבן ט'.", + "[אחד הבא על הזכר או] הבא על אנדרוגינוס דרך זכרותו חייב [ואם בא עליו דרך נקבותו פטור] והטומטום ספק הוא לפיכך הבא על הטומטום או על אנדרוגינוס [דרך נקבותו] מכין אותו מכת מרדות והאנדרוגינוס מותר לישא אשה.", + "הבא על הבהמה או שהביא בהמה עליו שניהן נסקלין שנאמר ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך בין שרבעה או הביאה עליו ואחד בהמה ואחד חיה ועוף הכל בסקילה ולא חלק הכתוב בבהמה בין גדולה לקטנה שנאמר ובכל בהמה אפילו ביום לידתה (הבא עליה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה) כיון שהערה בה או שהערתה בו חייב.", + "קטן בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על הבהמה או הביאה עליו היא נסקלת על ידו והוא פטור היה בן ט' או פחות אין סוקלין את הבהמה וכן קטנה בת ג' שנים ויום אחד שהביאה בהמה וחיה עליה בין בהמה גדולה בין בהמה קטנה כיון שהערתה בה הבהמה (בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה) הבהמה נסקלת והיא פטורה ואם היתה גדולה שניהן נסקלין ואם היתה מבת ג' שנים ולמטה אין הבהמה נסקלת.", + "וכן השוכב עם הבהמה בשגגה והאשה שהביאה את הבהמה עליה בשגגה אין הבהמה נסקלת על ידן ואף ע\"פ שהן גדולים כל העריות כולן שהיה אחד גדול ואחד קטן הקטן פטור והגדול חייב כמו שביארנו אחר ער ואחד ישן הישן פטור אחד מזיד ואחד שוגג המזיד חייב והשוגג מביא קרבן אחד אנוס ואחד ברצון האנוס פטור כמו שביארנו.", + "אין העדים נזקקין לראות המנאפים שהערו זה בזה והכניס כמכחול בשפופרת אלא משיראו אותן דבוקין זה עם זה כדרך כל הבועלין הרי אלו נהרגין בראיה זו ואין אומרים שמא לא הערה מפני שחזקת צורה זו שהערה.", + "מי שהוחזק בשאר בשר דנין בו על פי החזקה אף ע\"פ שאין שם ראיה ברורה שזה קרוב ומלקין ושורפין וסוקלין וחונקין על חזקה זו כיצד הרי שהוחזק שזו אחותו או בתו או אמו ובא עליה בעדים הרי זה לוקה או נשרף או נסקל ואע\"פ שאין שם ראיה ברורה שזו היא אחותו או אמו או בתו אלא בחזקה בלבד ומעשה באשה אחת שבאת לירושלים ותינוק מורכב לה על כתיפה והגדילתו בחזקת שהוא בנה ובא עליה והביאוה לב\"ד וסקלוה ראיה לדין זה מה שדנה תורה במקלל אביו ומכה אביו שיומת ומנין לנו ראיה ברורה שזה אביו אלא בחזקה כך שאר קרובים בחזקה.", + "איש ואשה שבאו ממדינת הים הוא אומר זאת אשתי והיא אומרת זה בעלי אם הוחזקה בעיר ל' יום שהיא אשתו הורגין עליה אבל בתוך הל' יום אין הורגין עליה משום אשת איש.", + "האשה שהוחזקה נדה בשכונותיה בעלה לוקה עליה משום נדה המקנא לאשתו ונסתרה ובא עד אחד והעיד שנטמא והיה בעלה כהן ובא עליה אחר כך הרי זה לוקה עליה משום זונה אף על פי שעיקר העדות בעד אחד כבר הוחזקה בזונה.", + "האב שאמר בתי זו מקודשת היא לזה אע\"פ שהוא נאמן ותנשא לו אם זינתה אינה נסקלת על פיו עד שיהיו שם עדים שנתארסה בפניהם וכן האשה שאמרה מקודשת אני אינה נהרגת על פיה עד שיהיו שם עדים או תוחזק." + ], + [ + "אשת אביו ואשת בנו ואשת אחיו ואשת אחי אביו ארבעתן ערוה עליו לעולם בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנישואין בין שנתגרשו בין שלא נתגרשו בין בחיי בעליהן בין אחר מיתת בעליהן חוץ מאשת אחיו שלא הניח בן ואם בא על אחת מהן בחיי בעלה חייב שתים משום שאר בשר ומשום אשת איש שהרי שניהן האיסורין באין כאחד.", + "לפיכך הבא על אמו שהיא אשת אביו חייב שתים בין בחיי אביו בין לאחר מיתת אביו אחת משום אמו ואחת משום אשת אביו אחד אחיו מאביו או אחיו מאמו בין מנישואין בין מזנות אשתו ערוה עליו אבל אשת אחי אביו מן האם הרי היא שנייה כמו שביארנו ואחד אחותו מאביו או מאמו בין מן הנישואין בין מזנות כגון שזנתה אמו או אביו עם אחרים והיתה לו אחות מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו שנאמר מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ.", + "בת אשת אביו שהיא אחותו מאביו הרי היא ערוה עליו שנאמר ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אבל אם נשא אביו אשה ויש לה בת מאיש אחר אותה הבת מותרת לו שאין זו מולדת אביו והלא משום אחותו חייב עליה ולמה נאמר בת אשת אביך לחייב עליה אף משום זה.", + "לפיכך הבא על אחותו שהיא בת נשואת אביו חייב שתים אחת משום ערות אחותך ואחת משום ערות בת אשת אביך אבל אם אנס אביו אשה או פיתה אותה והוליד ממנה בת ובא עליה אינו חייב אלא משום אחותו בלבד שאין בת האנוסה בת אשת אביו.", + "אחות אמו בין אחותה מאביה בין אחותה מאמה בין מן הנישואין בין מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו משום אחות אם וכן אחות האב בין מן האם בין מן האב בין מן הנישואין בין מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו משום אחות אב.", + "הבא על אשה דרך זנות והוליד ממנה בת אותה הבת ערוה עליו משום בתו ואף על פי שלא נאמר בתורה ערות בתך לא תגלה מאחר שאסר בת הבת שתק מן הבת ואיסורה מן התורה ואינו מדברי סופרים לפיכך הבא על בתו מנשואתו חייב שתים משום בתו ומשום ערות אשה ובתה.", + "כיון שקידש אדם אשה נאסרו עליו מקרובותיה שש נשים וכל אחת מהן ערוה עליו לעולם בין כנס בין גירש בין בחיי אשתו בין לאחר מותה ואלו הן אמה ואם אמה ואם אביה ובתה ובת בתה ובת בנה ואם בא על אחת מהן בחיי אשתו שניהן נשרפין.", + "בא עליהן לאחר מיתת אשתו הרי אלו בכרת ואין בהן מיתת ב\"ד שנאמר באש ישרפו אותו ואתהן בזמן ששתיהן קיימות שהן אשתו וזו שבא עליה הרי הוא והערוה נשרפין ובזמן שאין שתיהן קיימות אין שם שריפה.", + "וכן אחות אשתו ערוה עליו עד שתמות אשתו בין אחותה מאמה בין אחותה מאביה בין מן הנישואין בין מזנות הרי זו ערוה עליו.", + "עבר ונאף עם אחת משבע נשים אלו בין בזדון בין בשגגה אע\"פ שהוא והנואפת במיתת בית דין או בכרת לא נאסרה אשתו עליו חוץ מאחות ארוסתו שהיא אוסרת אשתו עליו כמו שביארנו בהלכות גירושין.", + "הבועל אשה דרך זנות לא נאסרו עליו קרובותיה שהן השבע נשים שאמרנו אבל חכמים אסרו על מי שנאף עם אשה לישא אחת מן השבע נשים קרובותיה כל זמן שהזונה קיימת מפני שהזונה באה לקרובותיה לבקר אותן והוא מתייחד עמה ולבו גס בה ויבוא לידי עבירה שיבעול הערוה ולא עוד אלא אפילו נטען על אשה הרי זה לא ישא אחת מקרובותיה עד שתמות זו שנטען עליה ואם כנס הקרובה שזנה עם קרובותיה לא יוציא.", + "מי שנטען על ערוה או שיצא לו שם רע עמה לא ידור עמה במבוי אחד ולא יראה באותה שכונה ומעשה שהיו מרננין אחריו עם חמותו והכו אותו חכמים מכת מרדות מפני שעבר על פתח ביתה.", + "הבא על אשה ובתה דרך זנות או על אשה ואחותה וכיוצא בהן הרי זה כמי שבא על שתי נשים נכריות שאין נעשות ערוה זו עם זו אלא בנישואין לא בזנות וכן אם אנס אביו או בנו או אחיו או אחי אביו אשה או פיתה אותה הרי זו מותרת לו וישאנה שלא נאמר אלא אשת ואין כאן אישות.", + "אביו או בנו שנשא אשה הרי זה מותר לישא בתה או אמה כמו שביארנו ומותר לאדם לישא אשת בן אחיו ונושא אדם אשה ובת אחותה או בת אחיה כאחת ומצות חכמים שישא אדם בת אחותו והוא הדין לבת אחיו שנאמר ומבשרך לא תתעלם." + ], + [ + "הבא על אשת קטן אפילו היתה יבמה שבא עליה בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הרי זה פטור וכן הבא על אשת חרש ושוטה ואשת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס ועל החרשת ועל השוטה אשת הפקח ועל אשה שהיא מקודשת בספק או מגורשת בספק כולן פטורין ואם היו מזידין מכין אותן מכת מרדות.", + "הבא על הקטנה אשת הגדול אם קידשה אביה הרי זה בחנק והיא פטורה מכלום ונאסרה על בעלה כמו שביארנו בהלכות סוטה ואם היא בת מיאון מכין אותו מכת מרדות והיא מותרת לבעלה ואפילו היה כהן.", + "בת כהן שזינתה כשהיא אשת איש בין שהיה בעלה כהן בין שהיה ישראל ואפילו היה בעלה ממזר או נתין או שאר מחייבי לאוין הרי זו בשריפה שנאמר ובת כהן כי תחל לזנות ובועלה בחנק וכן בת ישראל אשת כהן בחנק כדין כל אשת איש.", + "הבא על נערה מאורשה שניהן בסקילה ואינן חייבין סקילה עד שתהיה נערה בתולה מאורשה והיא בבית אביה היתה בוגרת או שנכנסה לחופה אף על פי שלא נבעלה אפילו מסרה האב לשלוחי הבעל וזנתה בדרך הרי זו בחנק.", + "והבא על קטנה מאורשה בבית אביה הוא בסקילה והיא פטורה ונערה מאורשה בת כהן שזינתה בסקילה.", + "באו עליה עשרה והיא בתולה ברשות אביה זה אחר זה הרי הראשון בסקילה וכולן בחנק (במה דברים אמורים שבאו עליה כדרכה אבל אם באו עליה שלא כדרכה עדיין היא בתולה וכולן בסקילה).", + "נערה מאורשה שהיתה משוחררת או גיורת אע\"פ שנשתחררה ונתגיירה והיא פחותה מבת שלש שנים ויום אחד הרי זו בחנק ככל אשת איש.", + "דין חדש יש במוציא שם רע ומה הוא החדוש שאם נמצא הדבר אמת ובאו עדים שזינתה כשהיתה נערה מאורשה אף על פי שזינתה אחר שיצאה מבית אביה ואפילו שזינתה אחר שנכנסה לחופה קודם בעילת הבעל סוקלין אותה על פתח בית אביה אבל שאר נערות מאורסות שלא היה להן דין הוצאת שם רע שזנו מאחר שיצאו מבית האב הרי הן בחנק כמו שביארנו הא למדת שבאשת איש שלש מיתות יש אשת איש שהיא בחנק ויש אשת איש שהיא בשריפה ויש אשת איש שהיא בסקילה.", + "והיכן סוקלין נערה מאורשה שזינתה אם זנתה בבית אביה אף על פי שלא העידו עליה העדים אלא אחר שבאה לבית חמיה (וניסת) הרי זו נסקלת על פתח בית אביה זינתה בבית חמיה קודם שימסור אותה האב אע\"פ שהעידו עליה אחר שחזרה לבית אביה הרי זו נסקלת על פתח שער העיר ההיא.", + "באו עדים אחר שבגרה או אחר שבעלה בעלה אף על פי שהעידו שזינתה בבית אביה כשהיתה נערה הרי זו נסקלת בבית הסקילה.", + "היתה הורתה שלא בקדושה ולידתה בקדושה נסקלת על פתח שער העיר כל מי שמצותה לסקול אותה על פתח שער העיר אם היתה עיר שרובה עכו\"ם סוקלין אותה על פתח ב\"ד וכל מי שמצותה לסקול אותה על פתח בית אביה אם לא היה לה אב או שהיה לה אב ולא היה לו בית הרי זו נסקלת בבית הסקילה לא נאמר פתח בית אב אלא למצוה.", + "הבא על ערוה מן העריות ביאות הרבה חייב כרת או מיתת בית דין על כל ביאה וביאה אע\"פ שאין ב\"ד יכולין להמית אלא מיתה אחת הרי הביאות נחשבות לו כעבירות הרבה וכן אם בא ביאה אחת שחייבין עליה משמות הרבה אם היה שוגג מביא קרבן על כל שם ושם אף על פי שהיא ביאה אחת כמו שיתבאר בהלכות שגגות ואם היה מזיד הרי זו נחשבת לו כעבירות הרבה וכן יש בא ביאה אחת ולוקה עליה מלקיות הרבה כמו שיתבאר.", + "שפחה חרופה האמורה בתורה היא שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין ומקודשת לעבד עברי שנאמר לא יומתו כי לא חופשה הא אם נשתחררה כולה חייבין עליה מיתת ב\"ד שהרי נעשית אשת איש גמורה כמו שביארנו בהלכות אישות.", + "ביאת שפחה זו משונה מכל ביאות אסורות שבתורה שהרי היא לוקה שנאמר בקורת תהיה והוא חייב קרבן אשם שנאמר והביא את אשמו אחד שוגג אחד מזיד בשפחה חרופה מביא אשם והבא עליה ביאות הרבה בין בזדון בין בשגגה מביא אשם אחד אבל היא חייבת מלקות על כל ביאה וביאה אם היתה מזידה כשאר חייבי לאוין.", + "המערה בשפחה חרופה ולא גמר ביאתו פטור עד שיגמור ביאתו ואינו חייב אלא על הגדולה הבעולה המזידה וברצונה אבל אם היתה קטנה או שלא היתה בעולה או היתה שוגגת או אנוסה או ישנה פטור [וכן אם בא עליה שלא כדרכה פטור שבשפחה חרופה לא השוה ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא כדרכה שנאמר שכבת זרע אבל בשאר ביאות לא חלק בין ביאה לביאה שנאמר משכבי אשה מגיד [לך] הכתוב ששני משכבות באשה].", + "כל מקום שאמרנו בשפחה שהוא פטור הוא פטור מן הקרבן והיא פטורה מן המלקות אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם אם היו שניהן מזידין וגדולים.", + "בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על שפחה חרופה היא לוקה והוא מביא קרבן והוא שתהיה גדולה ובעולה וברצונה כמו שביארנו שאין האיש חייב קרבן עד שתתחייב היא מלקות שנאמר בקורת תהיה והביא את אשמו." + ], + [ + "הנדה הרי היא כשאר כל העריות המערה בה [בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה] חייב כרת ואפילו היתה קטנה בת שלש שנים ויום אחד כשאר עריות שהבת מתטמאה בנדה ואפילו ביום לידתה ובת עשרה ימים מטמאה בזיבה ודבר זה מפי השמועה למדו שאין הפרש בין גדולה לקטנה לטומאת נדות וזבות.", + "ואחד הבא על הנדה כל שבעת הימים ואפילו לא ראתה אלא יום ראשון ואחד הבא על יולדת זכר כל שבעה או על יולדת נקבה כל ארבעה עשר או על הזבה כל ימי זובה וספירתה בין שפחה בין משוחררת הכל בכרת שנאמר בנדה שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה ובזבה נאמר כל ימי זוב טומאתה כימי נדתה תהיה וביולדת זכר הוא אומר כימי נדת דותה תטמא וביולדת נקבה וטמאה שבועים כנדתה.", + "במה דברים אמורים שהטומאה תלויה בימים בשטבלה במי מקוה אחר הימים הספורים אבל נדה וזבה ויולדת שלא טבלו במי מקוה הבא על אחת מהן אפילו אחר כמה שנים חייב כרת שבימים וטבילה תלה הכתוב שנאמר ורחצו במים זה בנין אב לכל טמא שהוא בטומאתו עד שיטבול.", + "העכו\"ם אין חייבין עליהם משום נדה ולא משום זבה ולא משום יולדת וחכמים גזרו על כל העכו\"ם הזכרים והנקבות שיהו כזבים תמיד בין ראו בין לא ראו לענין טומאה וטהרה.", + "כל דם שתראה היולדת בתוך ל\"ג של זכר וס\"ו של נקבה הוא הנקרא דם טוהר ואין מונע את האשה מבעלה אלא טובלת אחר שבעה לזכר ואחר ארבעה עשר לנקבה ומשמשת מטתה אף ע\"פ שהדם שותת ויורד.", + "כל חייבי טבילות טבילתן ביום חוץ מנדה ויולדת שהרי הוא אומר בנדה שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה השבעה כולן בנדתה וטובלת בליל שמיני וכן יולדת זכר בליל שמיני ויולדת נקבה בליל חמשה עשר שהיולדת כנדה כמו שביארנו.", + "נתאחרה ימים רבים ולא טבלה כשתטבול לא תטבול אלא בלילה שאם תטבול ביום יטעו ותבא נדה אחרת לטבול בשביעי.", + "היתה חולה או שהיה מקום הטבילה רחוק ואין הנשים יכולות להגיע לו ולחזור בלילה מפני הלסטים או מפני הצינה או מפני שנועלין שערי המדינה בלילה הרי זו טובלת ביום השמיני או בימים של אחריו ביום.", + "כל הנשים שיש להן וסת בחזקת טהרה לבעליהן עד שתאמר לו טמאה אני או עד שתוחזק נדה בשכנותיה הלך בעלה למדינה אחרת והניחה טהורה כשיבוא אינו צריך לשאול לה אפילו מצאה ישנה הרי זה מותר לבוא עליה שלא בעונת וסתה ואינו חושש שמא נדה היא ואם הניחה נדה אסורה לו עד שתאמר לו טהורה אני.", + "האשה שאמרה לבעלה טמאה אני וחזרה ואמרה טהורה אני ודרך שחוק אמרתי לך תחלה אינה נאמנת ואם נתנה אמתלא לדבריה נאמנת כיצד תבעה בעלה ואחותו או אמו עמה בחצר ואמרה טמאה אני ואחר כך חזרה ואמרה טהורה אני ולא אמרתי לך טמאה אלא מפני אחותך ואמך שמא יראו אותנו הרי זו נאמנת וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "היה משמש עם הטהורה ואמרה לו נטמאתי לא יפרוש מיד והוא בקישויו שהנאה לו ביציאתו כביאתו ואם פירש והוא בקישויו חייב כרת כמו שבעל נדה והוא הדין בשאר עריות אלא כיצד יעשה נועץ צפרני רגליו בקרקע ושוהה ואינו מזדעזע עד שימות האבר ואחר כך נשמט ממנה.", + "ואסור לו לאדם לבא על אשתו סמוך לוסתה שמא תראה דם בשעת תשמיש שנא' והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם וכמה אם היה דרכה לראות ביום אסור לשמש מתחלת היום ואם היה דרכה לראות בלילה אסור לשמש מתחלת הלילה.", + "עבר וסתה ולא ראתה מותרת לשמש אחר שתעבור עונת הוסת כיצד היה דרכה לראות בשש שעות ביום אסורה לשמש מתחלת היום עברו שש שעות ביום ולא ראתה אסורה לשמש עד לערב וכן אם היה דרכה לראות בשש שעות בלילה ועברו ולא ראתה אסורה לשמש עד שתזרח השמש.", + "דרך בני ישראל ובנות ישראל לעולם לבדוק עצמם אחר התשמיש כיצד מקנח האיש עצמו במטלית נכונה לו ומקנחת האשה עצמה במטלית נכונה לה ורואין בהן שמא ראתה דם בשעת תשמיש ויש לאיש להניח אשתו שתבדוק במטלית שלו מתוך שנאמנת על שלה נאמנת על שלו.", + "בגדים אלו שמקנחין בהן צריכין שיהיו של פשתן שחקים ולבנים והם הנקראים עדים בענין זה והבגד שמקנח בו הוא נקרא עד שלו והבגד שמקנחת היא בו נקרא עד שלה.", + "הצנועות אין משמשות אלא עד שיבדקו עצמן תחלה קודם תשמיש ואשה שאין לה וסת אסורה לשמש עד שתבדוק לפיכך היא משמשת בשני עדים אחד לפני התשמיש ואחד לאחר התשמיש אבל אשה שיש לה וסת אינה צריכה עד לפני תשמיש אלא משום צניעות בלבד אבל אחר תשמיש הכל צריכין שני עדים אחד לו ואחד לה אפילו מעוברת ומניקה וזקנה וקטנה לא תשמש אלא בשני עדים אחד לו ואחד לה אבל בתולה ויושבת על דם טוהר אינה צריכה עדים שהרי הדם שותת ממנה.", + "המשמש מטתו פעמים רבות אינן צריכין לבדוק שני העדים שלהן על כל ביאה וביאה אלא מקנח הוא בעד שלו והיא בעד שלה אחר כל ביאה וביאה של כל הלילה ולמחר יבדקו העדים נמצא הדם על עד שלה או על עד שלו הרי זו טמאה שמשה מטתה וקנחה עצמה ואבד העד הרי זו לא תשמש פעם שנייה עד שתבדוק בעד אחר תחלה שמא דם היה על העד שאבד.", + "הניחה העד תחת הכר או תחת הכסת ונמצא עליו דם אם משוך טמאה שחזקתו מן הקנוח ואם היה עגול טהורה שאין זה אלא דם מאכולת שנהרגה תחת הכר.", + "קנחה עצמה בעד הבדוק לה וטחתו ביריכה ולמחר נמצא עליו דם הרי זו טמאה ואין אומרים שמא כשטחה אותה ביריכה נהרגה מאכולת קנחה עצמה בעד שאינו בדוק לה ולא ידעה אם היה עליו דם קודם שתקנח בו או לא היה נמצא עליו דם אם היה הדם כגריס ועוד הרי זו נדה היה פחות מיכן טהורה שאינו אלא מן המאכולת.", + "מי שראתה דם בשעת תשמיש הרי זו מותרת לשמש כשתטהר פעם שניה ראתה דם בפעם שניה משמשת פעם שלישית ראתה דם בשלישית הרי זו אסורה לשמש עם בעל זה לעולם בד\"א בשלא היה שם דבר לתלות בו אבל אם שמשה סמוך לוסתה תולה בוסת היתה בה מכה תולה במכה ואם היה דם מכתה משונה מדם שתראה בעת התשמיש אינה תולה במכה ונאמנת אשה לומר מכה יש לי בתוך המקור שממנה הדם יוצא ותהיה מותרת לבעלה ואע\"פ שדם יוצא מן המקור בשעת תשמיש.", + "מי שראתה דם בשעת תשמיש פעם ראשונה ושנייה ושלישית ואין שם דבר לתלות בו הרי זו תתגרש ומותרת להנשא לשני נשאת לשני וראתה דם כך בשעת תשמיש שלש פעמים הרי זו תתגרש ותנשא לשלישי נשאת לשלישי וראתה דם כך בשעת תשמיש שלש פעמים הרי זו תתגרש ואסורה להנשא עד שתבריא מחולי זה.", + "כיצד בודקת עצמה לידע אם נרפאת או לא נרפאת מביאה שפופרת של אבר ופיה רצוף לתוכה ומכנסת השפופרת עד מקום שהיא יכולה ומכנסת בתוך השפופרת מכחול ומוך מונח על ראשו ודופקת אותו עד שיגיע המוך לצואר הרחם ומוציאה המוך אם נמצא דם על ראש המוך בידוע שהדם שהיא רואה בשעת תשמיש מן המקור ואם לא נמצא על המוך כלום בידוע שהדם שרואה מדוחק הצדדין וטהורה היא ומותרת להנשא לאחרים כמו שביארנו בהלכות אישות." + ], + [ + "האשה מתטמאת באונס בין לנדה בין לזיבות כיצד כגון שקפצה ממקום למקום או ראתה בהמה או חיה או עוף מתעסקין זה עם זה וחמדה וראתה דם וכן כל כיוצא בזה הואיל וראתה דם מכל מקום נטמאת ומטמאה בכל שהוא אפילו ראתה דם טיפה כחרדל הרי זו כמי שזב ממנה דמים הרבה.", + "כל הנשים מתטמאות בבית החיצון ואף על פי שלא יצא הדם לחוץ אלא נעקר מן הרחם ולא שתת הואיל ויצא מבין השינים ה\"ז טמאה ואע\"פ שעדיין הדם בבשרה שנאמר דם יהיה זובה בבשרה ועד היכן הוא בין השינים עד מקום שיגיע אליו האבר בשעת גמר ביאה ובין השינים עצמו כלפנים.", + "משל משלו חכמים באשה הרחם שנוצר בו הולד הוא הנקרא מקור והוא שדם נדה וזבה יוצא ממנו וקוראין אותו חדר לפי שהוא לפני ולפנים וצואר הרחם כולו והוא המקום הארוך שמתקבץ ראשו בשעת העיבור כדי שלא יפול הולד ונפתח הרבה בשעת לידה קוראין אותו פרוזדור כלומר שהוא בית שער לרחם.", + "ובשעת גמר ביאה האבר נכנס בפרוזדור ואינו מגיע עד ראשו שמבפנים אלא רחוק ממנו מעט לפי האצבעות ולמעלה מן החדר ומן הפרוזדור בין חדר לפרוזדור הוא המקום שיש בו שתי ביצים של אשה והשבילים שבהן מתבשלת שכבת זרע שלה מקום זה הוא הנקרא עליה וכמו נקב פתוח מן העליה לגג הפרוזדור ונקב זה קוראין אותו לול והאבר נכנס לפנים מן הלול בשעת גמר ביאה.", + "דם הבא מן החדר כולו טמא חוץ מדם טוהר שהתורה טיהרתו ודם קושי כמו שיתבאר ודם העליה כולו טהור שהוא כמו דם מכה שבמעים או בכבד או בכוליא וכיוצא בהן ודם הנמצא בפרוזדור אם נמצא מן הלול ולפנים הרי זה טמא שחזקתו מן החדר וחייבין עליו על ביאת מקדש ושורפין עליו תרומה וקדשים ואין אומרים שמא מן העליה ירד דרך הנקב שרוב הדמים הנמצאין כאן מן החדר נמצא הדם בפרוזדור חוץ לנקב הרי טומאתו בספק שמא מן החדר בא או מן העליה שתת דרך הלול לפיכך אין שורפין עליו תרומה וקדשים ואין חייבין עליו על ביאת המקדש.", + "לא כל משקה הבא מן החדר מטמא אלא הדם בלבד שנאמר דם יהיה זובה לפיכך אם שתת מן הרחם לובן או משקה ירוק אף על פי שסמיכתו כדם הואיל ואין מראיו מראה דם ה\"ז טהור.", + "וחמשה דמים טמאים באשה והשאר טהורין ואלו הן:האדום והשחור וכקרן כרכום וכמימי אדמה וכיין המזוג.", + "האדום כיצד הוא עינו כעמוד שיצא ראשון מדם הקזה של בני אדם נותן הדם בכוס ומקיף לו ורואהו והשחור כעין הדיו היבש כקרן כרכום כיצד יביא כרכום לח בגוש אדמה שעליו ולוקח מן הברור שבו הקנה האמצעי שלו שכולו כמו קנה הוא ובכל אחד ואחד שלשה קנים ובכל קנה שלשה עלים ומקיף הדם לעלה האמצעי שבקנה האמצעי ורואה בו כמימי אדמה כיצד יביא אדמה מבקעת סיכני וכיוצא בה שהיא אדומה ונותן עליה מים בכלי עד שיעלה המים על העפר כקליפת השום ואין שיעור למים ולא לעפר ומעכרן בכלי ומשער בהן לשעתו ובמקומו כשהן עכורין ואם צללו חוזר ומעכרן.", + "ארבעה מראות הללו אם היה מראה הדם כמראה כל אחד מהן או עמוק מהן הרי זה טמא היה דיהה ממנו ה\"ז טהור כיצד היה הדם שחור יתר מכדיו היבש טמאה היה פחות ממנו כגון שהיה מראהו כעין הזית השחור או כעין הזפת או כעין העורב ה\"ז טהור וכן בשאר השלשה מראות.", + "כיין המזוג כיצד חלק אחד יין מן היין השרוני של ארץ ישראל חי וחדש ושני חלקים מים היה מראה הדם עמוק ממנו או דיהה ממנו הרי זה טהור עד שיהיה כמזג זה בלבד ונאמנת אשה לומר כמראה זה ראיתי ואבדתיו והחכם מטמא לה או מטהר.", + "כיצד מקיף ורואה לוקח המטלית שיש בה הדם בידו ומביט בו ובדיו או בעלה של כרכום או בדם הקזה שבכוס או במימי אדמה או במזג שבכוס ועורך לה כפי מה שעיניו רואות ומטמא או מטהר ואינו מביט בזכוכית של כוס מבחוץ אלא במשקה שבכוס ויהיה הכוס רחב משקלו מנה ומחזיק שני לוגין כדי שתכנס בו האורה ולא יהיה אפל.", + "אין בודקין הדם אלא על גבי מטלית לבנה ובחמה ועשוה צל בידו על הדם והוא עומד בחמה כדי שיראה עינו כמות שהיא ולא כל הרואה צריך לכל אלו הדברים בכל עת שיראה אלא טביעות עין יש לחכם בדמים ובעת שיראה מיד יטמא או יטהר ואם נסתפק לו במראה מן המראות צריך להקיף ולערוך לדיו או לדם הקזה או לשאר המראות.", + "המפלת חתיכה אע\"פ שהיא אדומה אם יש עמה דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה ואפילו נקרעה החתיכה ונמצאת מליאה דם הרי זו טהורה שאין זה דם נדה אלא דם חתיכה.", + "הפילה חתיכה קרועה ודם אגור בתוכה טמאה הפילה כמין קליפה כמין שערה כמין עפר כמו יבחושין אם היה מראה דברים אלו אדום תטיל למים פושרין אם נמוחו ה\"ז טמאה שדם הוא וקפה וכל הרואה דם יבש טמאה ואם שהו בפושרין מעת לעת ואח\"כ נמוחו הרי זו ספק טמאה לא נמוחו מעת לעת הרי אלו ממכה וטהורה היא.", + "הפילה כמין חגבים כמין דגים שקצים ורמשים אם יש עמהן דם טמאה ואם לאו טהורה.", + "האשה שהכניסה שפופרת בפרוזדור וראתה הדם בתוך השפופרת טהורה שנאמר דם יהיה זובה בבשרה עד שתראה בבשרה כדרך שהנשים רואות ואין דרך האשה לראות בשפופרת.", + "האשה שהשתינה מים ויצא דם עם מי רגלים בין שהשתינה והיא עומדת בין שהשתינה והיא יושבת הרי זו טהורה ואפילו הרגיש גופה ונזדעזעה אינה חוששת שהרגשת מי רגלים היא זו שאין מי רגלים מן החדר ודם זה דם מכה הוא בחלחולת או בכוליא.", + "דם בתולים טהור הוא ואינו לא דם נדה ולא דם זיבה שאינו מן המקור אלא כמו דם חבורה וכיצד דין הבתולה בדמים אם נשאת קטנה בין לא ראתה דם מימיה בין שראתה דם בבית אביה הרי זו מותרת לבעלה עד שתחיה המכה שכל דם שתראה מחמת המכה היא ואם ראתה דם אחר שתחיה המכה הרי זו נדה.", + "נשאת כשהיא נערה אם לא ראתה מימיה דם הרי זו מותרת לבעלה ארבעה ימים ביום ובלילה אף על פי שהדם שותת והוא שלא חיתה המכה ואם ראתה דם בבית אביה ואחר כך נשאת אין לו לבא עליה אלא בעילה ראשונה ופורש ויהיה דם בתולים זה כאילו היא תחלת נדה ובוגרת שלא ראתה מימיה נותנין לה כל לילה הראשון.", + "ארבעה לילות שנותנין לנערה שלא ראתה דם אע\"פ שהן בסירוגין בועל לילה הראשון וממתין אפילו שני חדשים או שלשה ובועל לילה שני והוא שלא חיתה המכה.", + "וכן קטנה שנותנין לה עד שתחיה המכה אפילו לא חיתה שנה הרי זה בועל כל השנה בין בסירוגין בין ביום אחר יום.", + "קטנה שנשאת ונעשת נערה תחת בעלה ועדיין הדם שותת מחמת המכה כל בעילות שבעל כשהיא קטנה נחשבות לו כלילה אחד ומשלימין לו כל ארבעה ימים בימי הנערות ואפילו היו השלשה ימים שנותנין לו בימי הנערות בסירוגין ובעל בכל שני חדשים לילה אחד הרי זה מותר והוא שלא חיתה המכה.", + "כיצד יודעין אם חיתה המכה או לא חיתה היתה רואה הדם בעת שתעמוד וכשתשב לא תראה ובעת שתשב על הקרקע תראה ואם תשב על גבי כרים וכסתות לא תראה עדיין לא חיתה המכה פסק הדם ולא ראתה כלל בין עומדת בין יושבת על הכר כבר חיתה המכה וכן אם לא פסק כלל אלא תראה הדם ואפילו כשהיא יושבת על הכרים והכסתות אין זה דם מכה אלא דם נדה.", + "היתה רואה בעת תשמיש הרי זה מחמת המכה שמשה מטתה ולא ראתה דם ואח\"כ ראתה דם שלא מחמת תשמיש הרי זה דם נדה.", + "הבועל בתולה ולא יצא ממנה דם וחזר ובעלה ויצא דם אפילו היתה קטנה הרי זה דם נדה שאילו היה דם בתולים היה בא בתחלה הבועל פחותה מבת שלש ויצא דם הרי זה דם בתולים." + ], + [ + "דם הנדה ודם הזבה ודם הקושי ודם יולדת ודם טוהר של יולדת כולו דם אחד הוא ומן המקור הוא בא ומעין אחד הוא ובזמנים בלבד הוא שישתנה דינו ותהיה רואה דם זו טהורה וזו נדה וזו זבה.", + "כיצד כשתראה האשה דם תחלה או כשתראה בשעת וסתה והוא העת שקבעה לנדתה הרי זו נדה כל שבעת הימים בין ראתה כל שבעה בין שלא ראתה אלא טיפה ראשונה בלבד ראתה דם ביום השמיני הרי זה דם זיבה מפני שהוא בלא עת נדתה.", + "וכן כל דם שתראה בתוך הימים שבין וסת נדה לוסת נדה הרי הוא דם זיבה והלכה למשה מסיני שאין בין זמן נדה לזמן נדה אלא אחד עשר יום בלבד.", + "כל שבעת הימים שנקבעה לה וסת בתחלתן הן הנקראין ימי נדתה בין ראתה בהן דם בין לא ראתה בהן דם ומפני מה נקראין ימי נדה מפני שהן ראויין לנדה וכל דם שתראה בהם דם נדה יחשב.", + "וכל אחד עשר יום שאחר השבעה הן הנקראין ימי זיבתה בין ראתה בהן דם בין לא ראתה ולמה נקראין ימי זיבה מפני שהן ראויין לזיבה וכל דם שתראה בהן דם זיבה יחשב והזהר בשני שמות אלו שהן ימי נדתה וימי זיבתה.", + "כל ימי האשה מיום שיקבע לה וסת עד שתמות או עד שיעקר הוסת ליום אחר תספור לעולם שבעה מתחלת יום הוסת ואחריהן אחד עשר [ואחריהן] שבעה ואחריהן אחד עשר ותזהר במנין כדי שתדע בעת שתראה דם אם בימי נדה ראתה או בימי זיבה שכל ימיה של אשה כך הן שבעה ימי נדה וי\"א ימי זיבה אלא אם כן הפסיקה הלידה כמו שיתבאר.", + "אשה שראתה דם בימי זיבתה יום אחד בלבד או ב' ימים זה אחר זה נקראת זבה קטנה ונקראת שומרת יום כנגד יום ואם ראתה ג' ימים זה אחר זה הרי זו זבה גמורה והיא הנקראת זבה גדולה ונקראת זבה סתם שנאמר ואשה כי יזוב זוב דמה ימים רבים מיעוט ימים שנים רבים ג'.", + "אין בין זבה גדולה לזבה קטנה אלא ספירת שבעה והבאת קרבן שזבה גדולה צריכה לספור שבעה ימים נקיים וזבה קטנה אינה סופרת אלא יום אחד בלבד וזבה גדולה מביאה קרבן כשתטהר [וזבה קטנה אינה מביאה קרבן כשתטהר] אבל לענין טומאה ואיסור ביאה שתיהן שוות.", + "כיצד ראתה דם בימי זיבתה בין שראתה בתחלת הלילה בין שראתה בסוף היום הרי אותו היום כולו טמא וכאילו לא פסק הדם מעת שראתה עד ששקעה החמה ומשמרת כל הלילה ואם לא ראתה כלום בלילה משכמת למחר וטובלת אחר שתנץ החמה ומשמרת כל היום אם לא ראתה כלום הרי זה יום אחד טהור כנגד היום הטמא והרי היא מותרת לבעלה לערב.", + "ראתה דם גם ביום הב' בין בלילו בין ביומו אחר שטבלה הרי היום השני טמא ומשמרת כל ליל ג' אם לא ראתה משכמת למחר וטובלת אחר שתנץ החמה ומשמרת כל היום אם לא ראתה כלום ה\"ז יום אחד טהור כנגד ב' ימים הטמאים ומותרת לבעלה לערב.", + "ראתה דם גם בג' בין ביומו בין בלילו ה\"ז זבה גדולה וצריכה לספור ז' ימים טהורים בלא דם שנאמר וספרה לה שבעה ימים וגו' וטובלת ביום השביעי אחר הנץ החמה והרי היא מותרת לבעלה לערב וביום השמיני מביאה קרבנה ב' תורים או ב' בני יונה.", + "זבה קטנה שטבלה בלילה של יום השמור או זבה גדולה שטבלה בליל ז' כאילו לא טבלה והרי היא כנדה שטבלה בתוך שבעה.", + "הבא על זבה גדולה ביום שביעי של ספירה אחר שטבלה או על זבה קטנה ביום השמור אחר שטבלה פטור מן הכרת כיון שטבלה בזמן הראוי לטבילתה טהורה ולאשה זו יהיה לה תרבות רעה שהרי בעילתה ומגעה תלויין.", + "כיצד הן תלויין אם נשלם היום אחר הטבילה ולא ראתה דם הרי כל שנגעה בו אחר טבילתה טהור ובעילתה אחר הטבילה אין חייבין עליה כלום ואם ראתה דם ביום זה אחר שטבלה נמצאת זבה למפרע וכל שנגעה בו למפרע טמא והיא ובועלה חייבין בקרבן ולפיכך היא אסורה לבעלה עד לערב שלא תביא עצמה לידי ספק.", + "זבה שספרה ששת ימים נקיים ובשביעי ראתה דם אפילו סמוך לשקיעת החמה סותרת הכל וחוזרת למנות מאחר היום הטמא שבעה ימים נקיים.", + "פלטה שכבת זרע בתוך ימי הספורה סותרת יום אחד מפני שהוא כזב שראה קרי שסותר יום אחד ראתה דם בעשירי מימי זיבתה ובאחד עשר ובשתים עשר אף על פי שראתה שלשה ימים זה אחר זה אינה זבה גדולה אלא יצאת מזיבות קטנה לנדה שיום שנים עשר מתחלת נדתה והרואה בימי נדתה אינה זבה כמו שביארנו.", + "ומה הוא זה שכתוב בתורה או כי תזוב על נדתה שאם ראתה שלשה ימים סמוך לנדתה הרי זו זבה כגון שראתה בשמיני לנדתה ובתשיעי ובעשירי שהן ראשון ושני ושלישי מהאחד עשר יום שהן ימי זיבתה ראתה דם בי\"א מימי זיבתה וטבלה לערב שהוא ליל י\"ב ושמשה מטתה אע\"פ שהיא טמאה ובועלה טמא ועושין משכב ומושב אינם חייבים כרת מפני שאין יום י\"ב מצטרף ליום י\"א לעשות זבה הועילה לה טבילת ליל זה להצילה מן הקרבן.", + "טבלה ביום י\"ב אחר שתנץ החמה הרי זו אסורה לבעלה עד לערב כדין כל זבה קטנה ואם עבר ובעלה שניהן פטורין מכלום ואפילו ראתה דם אחר שבא עליה ביום י\"ב אין בכך כלום שזה דם נדה הוא ואינו מצטרף ליום שלפניו.", + "ראתה דם בסוף שביעי לנדתה בין השמשות וראתה בט' ובי' הרי זו ספק זבה שמא ראיה ראשונה בליל שמיני היתה ונמצאת שראתה ג' ימים זה אחר זה מתחלת ימי זיבתה וכן אם ראתה דם בט' ובי' מימי זיבתה וראתה בסוף יום י\"א בין השמשות הרי זו ספק זבה שמא ראיה אחרונה ביום י\"א היתה והרי ראתה ג' ימים זה אחר זה בימי זיבתה.", + "נדה שבדקה עצמה בתוך ימי נדתה ומצאה שפסק הדם ואפילו פסק בשני לנדתה ושגגה או הזידה ולא בדקה עד לאחר נדתה ימים רבים וכשבדקה מצאה טומאה אין אומרים שמא כל אותן הימים היתה טמאה ותהיה זבה אלא כל אותן הימים שלא בדקה בחזקת טהרה בדקה עצמה ומצאה טמאה אפילו בדקה בשביעי לנדתה ובין השמשות לא בדקה עצמה כדי לפרוש מטומאת נדה אלא המתינה ימים ואח\"כ בדקה ומצאת טהורה הרי זו ספק זבה ואם מצאה טמאה הרי זו זבה ודאית שכיון שבתחלה מצאה טמאה ולבסוף טומאה הרי זו בחזקת שלא פסק ויום ראשון של נדה אף על פי שמצאה בו טהורה ה\"ז כמי שמצאה טמאה שיום ראשון כולו הוחזק המעין פתוח.", + "זבה שבדקה עצמה בראשון מימי הספירה ומצאה טהור ולא בדקה עד יום שביעי ומצאה טהור הרי זו בחזקת טהרה וכאילו בדקה כל שבעה ומצאה טהור.", + "וכן אם בדקה ביום ראשון מימי הספירה ומצאה טהור וביום הח' ומצאה טהור הרי זו בחזקת טהרה בדקה ביום ג' לזיבתה ומצאה שפסק הדם ולא בדקה ביום ראשון מימי הספירה ובשביעי בדקה ומצאה טהור ה\"ז בחזקת טהרה והוא הדין לזב בכל אלו הבדיקות שהוא טהור ועלו לו ימי ספירה.", + "כל אשה שהיא ספק נדה ספק זבה צריכה לישב שבעת ימים נקיים מספק וטובלת בליל שמיני ואחר כך תהיה מותרת לבעלה ומביאה קרבן זבה ואינו נאכל כמו שיתבאר במקומו." + ], + [ + "מעוברת שהתחילה להצטער ואחזוה חבלי לידה והתחיל הדם לצאת קודם שתלד אותו הדם הוא הנקרא דם הקושי והיאך דינו אם בא בימי נדתה הרי הוא דם נדה והרי זו טמאה נדה ואם בא בימי זיבתה ה\"ז טהורה שנאמר בזבה דם יהיה זובה בבשרה מפי השמועה למדו זובה מחמת עצמה ולא מחמת ולד ובלבד שתלד ולד חי אבל אם הפילה אין קושי לנפלים אפילו היה הדם שותת ויורד עם החבלים והצער י\"ד יום קודם שתלד ה\"ז דם קושי וטהור אבל אם התחיל הדם קודם הלידה בט\"ו יום או יתר ה\"ז דם זיבה והרי היא יולדת בזוב.", + "במה דברים אמורים בשלא פסקו הצירים והחבלים והצער אלא מתקשה והולכת עד שילדה אבל אם ראתה דם ג' ימים או יתר בימי זיבתה בצער וחבלים ופסק לה הצער ורווח לה מן החבלים אחר השלשה ימים ועמדה בנחת כ\"ד שעות או יתר אע\"פ שלא פסק הדם ואף על פי שחזר הצער והחבלים אחר כ\"ד שעות הרי זו זבה שאילו היה הדם מחמת הולד לא פסק הצער ולא החבלים ואם ילדה אחרי כן הרי זו יולדת בזוב.", + "ראתה יום אחד בלא צער ושנים בקושי וילדה או שנים בלא צער ויום אחד בקושי וילדה או יום בקושי ויום בלא צער ויום בקושי וילדה אינה יולדת בזוב אבל אם ראתה יום אחד בקושי ושנים בלא צער וילדה או ב' בקושי ואחד בלא צער וילדה או יום בלא צער ויום בקושי ויום בלא צער וילדה הרי זו יולדת בזוב זה הכלל קושי סמוך ללידה אין זו יולדת בזוב שופי סמוך ללידה הרי זו יולדת בזוב.", + "חל שלישי לראייתה להיות ביום הלידה אפילו כל היום כולו בשופי אין זו יולדת בזוב שהרי יום הלידה סמוך לקושי ראתה שני ימים ובשלישי הפילה ואין ידוע מה הפילה הרי זו ספק יולדת וספק זבה.", + "כיצד דין יולדת בזוב צריכה לישב שבעה ימים נקיים וטובלת לערב ואחר כך תהיה מותרת לבעלה ואח\"כ יהיה לה דם טוהר ומביאה קרבן זבה וקרבן יולדת לפיכך אם ילדה זכר אפילו פסק הדם ביום הלידה סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים וטובלת ואם ילדה נקבה וספרה שבעה נקיים ושלמו עם י\"ד של לידה או לאחריהן ה\"ז טובלת ומותרת לבעלה ואם שלמו ימי הספירה בתוך י\"ד ה\"ז אסורה לבעלה עד ליל ט\"ו.", + "כיצד הרי שראתה דם ג' וספרה שבעת ימים נקיים הרי י' ועדיין היא אסורה לבעלה עד ליל ט\"ו שכל י\"ד היא כנדה ולמה אין מצריכין את היולדת בזוב לספירת שבעה אחר שבעה של זכר ואחר י\"ד של נקבה מפני שימי לידתה וימי נדתה שאינה רואה בהן עולין לה לספירת ז' כמו שיתבאר.", + "יולדת בזוב שלא פסק דמה אין לה דם טוהר אלא כל דם שתראה כדם זיבה הוא אבל אם ספרה שבעת ימים נקיים ושלמו י\"ד של נקבה וטבלה ואחר כך ראתה דם בתוך מ' של זכר ושמונים של נקבה ה\"ז דם טוהר.", + "ספרה שבעה ימים נקיים ולא טבלה ואח\"כ ראתה דם ה\"ז טובלת ומותרת לבעלה מיד שכל ימי טוהר אינן ראויות לא לנדה ולא לזיבה אבל עצמו של דם טמא ומטמא כדין דם הנדה עד שתטבול.", + "היולדת נקבה ואחר י\"ד שלה נתעברה והתחיל דם הקושי לבא לה בתוך שמנים הרי הוא דם טוהר אע\"פ שאין קושי לנפלים שכל דמים שתראה בתוך ימי טוהר טהור הוא עד שתפיל הולד וכשתפיל תהיה טמאה לידה אם הפילה זכר טומאת זכר ואם הפילה נקבה טומאת נקבה ומונה ימי טומאה וימי מלאת מולד שני אפילו היו תאומים והפילה היום אחד והפילה האחר אפילו אחר כמה ימים מונה לשני ימי טומאה וימי מלאת.", + "זבה שפסק זובה והתחילה למנות שבעת ימים נקיים ובא לה דם קושי בתוך ימים נקיים אינו סותר וימי הקושי עולים למנין ז' וכן אם ילדה בשבעה ימים נקיים אין הלידה סותרת וימי הלידה עולין לה למנין שבעה אף על פי שהיא טמאה בהן שנאמר ואם טהרה מזובה כיון שטהרה מזובה אע\"פ שהיא טמאה טומאה אחרת כגון טומאת לידה או טומאת נדה או טומאת צרעת הרי זו סופרת בהן ואין טומאות אלו וכיוצא בהן סותרין הספירה.", + "ימי לידתה וימי נדתה אם לא ראתה בהן דם הרי אלו עולין לה לספירת שבעת ימים נקיים ואם ראתה בהן דם אין עולין לה ימי הראייה ולא סותרין כל הימים אלא משלמת על הימים שספרה כשיפסוק הדם שאין סותר הכל אלא ראיית של זוב אבל אלו סותרין יומן בלבד.", + "מאחר שתבין כל העיקרים שביארנו יתבאר לך מה שאמרו חכמים שאפשר שתראה האשה דם מן המקור יום אחר יום מאה וארבעה עשר יום ולא תהיה זבה כיצד שנים לפני נדתה ושבעה ימי נדתה ושנים לאחר ימי נדתה וארבעה עשר קושי ושמונים של נקבה ושבעה ימי נדה ושנים אחר ימי נדה הא למדת שכל דם שתראה האשה אחר יום מלאת הוא תחלת נדתה ואין משגיחין על וסתות שמקודם לפיכך הרואה דם בסוף יום מלאת בין השמשות הרי זו ספק נדה שמא בלילה ראתה הדם שהוא תחלת ימי נדתה.", + "כבר ביארנו שהנדה שראתה דם כל שבעה מותרת לשמש בליל ח' אחר שתטבול וזבה קטנה משמרת יום אחד טהור וטובלת ומותרת לשמש לערב וזבה גדולה סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים וטובלת ומותרת לשמש בליל שמיני ואין בין זמן נדה לנדה אלא אחד עשר יום בלבד ובאותן האחד עשר תהיה זבה קטנה או גדולה.", + "ומאחר שתהיה זוכר כל אלו העיקרים יתבאר לך זה שאמרו חכמים האשה שהוחזקה כל ימיה יום תראה דם ויום לא תראה בתחלה משמשת בליל ח' וביום ח' שהוא יום אחד אחר ימי נדתה ומשמשת בכל י\"ח יום ארבעה לילות בלבד ואינה יכולה לשמש בימים הטהורים שהיום הטהור הוא שומר ליום הטמא לפיכך אם היתה רואה הדם בכל יום טמא מתחלת הלילה אינה משמשת אלא בח' בלבד שהוא יום אחד אחר ימי נדתה.", + "היתה רואה ב' ימים טמאין וב' ימים טהורים משמשת בח' ובי\"ב ובט\"ז ובכ'.", + "היתה רואה ג' ימים טמאין וג' טהורין משמשת שני ימים מהג' הטהורין שאחר ימי נדתה שהאחד מהן שמור לשנים הטמאין הסמוכין לנדתה ושוב אינה משמשת לעולם שהרי הוחזקה זבה גדולה ואין לה שבעת ימים נקיים.", + "היתה רואה ד' ימים טמאים וד' ימים טהורין משמשת יום אחד שאחר נדתה ושוב אינה משמשת לעולם.", + "היתה רואה חמשה ימים טמאים וחמשה ימים טהורים משמרת הג' הסמוכים לנדתה ושוב אינה משמשת לעולם.", + "היתה רואה ששה ימים טמאין וששה ימים טהורין משמשת בחמשה ימים הסמוכים לנדתה תחלה ושוב אינה משמשת לעולם.", + "היתה רואה שבעה טמאין ושבעה טהורין משמשת השבוע הראשון הטהור הסמוך לנדתה ויבוא אחריו שבוע טמא תקבע בו זבה והשבוע הטהור שיבוא אחריו לספירה ואסורה לשמש בו נמצאת שלא שמשה מטתה בד' שבועות אלא שבוע אחד וכל ימיה משמשת שמנה עשר יום בכל שמנה עשר שבועות כיצד שבוע חמישי הרי היא זבה שבוע ששי שהיא בו טהורה לספירה שבוע שביעי זבה שבוע שמיני לספירה שבוע תשיעי שהיא רואה בו חמשה ימים ממנו מימי נדה ושנים מתחלת ימי זיבה משמרת יום אחד מן השבוע הי' הטהור ומשמשת ששה שבוע אחד עשר שהיא רואה בו שנים מסוף ימי זובה וחמשה מתחלת ימי נדה ומשמשת ה' ימים משבוע שנים עשר הטהור שבוע י\"ג זבה ושבוע י\"ד לספירה וכן שבוע ט\"ו זבה שבוע ט\"ז לספירה ושבוע י\"ז זבה ושבוע י\"ח לספירה וסופרת על דרך זו לעולם נמצאת אומר שבכל י\"ח שבועות משמשת י\"ח יום ואילו לא אירע לה חולי זה והיתה שבוע נדה וי\"א יום טהורה היתה משמשת בכל הי\"ח שבועות י\"א שבועות שהן שבעה ושבעים יום.", + "ובזמן שהיא רואה שבוע טמא ושבוע טהור משמשת י\"ח יום שהם כמו רביע הימים וזו היא שאמרו חכמים משמשת רביע ימיה.", + "היתה רואה ח' ימים טמא וח' ימים טהור הרי זו משמשת ט\"ו יום מתוך מ\"ח ימים כיצד שמנה טמא שבתחלה שבעה מהן ימי נדתה ויום אחד זיבות סמוך לנדתה משמרת לו יום אחד מן השמונה הטהורין ומשמשת שבעה ואחר כך יבואו לה שמונה טמאין מהן שנים תשלום ימי זיבתה וששה מימי נדתה ויבואו ח' טהורין יום אחד מהן תשלום ימי נדתה ומשמשת ז' שניות ואח\"כ יבואו לה שמונה טמאים מהן ד' תשלום ימי זיבתה וד' מימי נדתה נמצאת זבה גדולה וצריכה ספירת שבעה יבאו לה ח' טהורים סופרת מהן שבעה ומשמשת יום אחד נמצאת משמשת ט\"ו יום בכל מ\"ח.", + "היתה רואה ט' ימים טמאים וט' ימים טהורין משמשת ח' ימים בכל י\"ח יום לעולם כיצד ט' הטמאים ז' מהן נדתה ושנים זיבות סמוך לנדתה משמרת להן יום אחד מן הט' הטהורין ומשמשת שמנה וכן לעולם.", + "היתה רואה י' ימים טמא וי' טהור ומי' ולמעלה אפילו אלף יום טמא ואלף יום טהור יהיה ימי שמושה כמנין זיבתה כיצד י' הטמאים מהם ז' נדה וג' וג' זיבה י' הטהורים סופרת מהן שבעה ומשמשת ג' נמצאו ימי השמוש ג' וימי הזבות ג' וכן ק' יום טמאין וק' טהורין וק' הטמאין ז' מהן לנדה וצ\"ג זיבות הק' הטהורין ז' מהן לספירה צ\"ג לשמוש וכן אלף וכן כל מנין ומנין על דרך זו." + ], + [ + "יש אשה שיש לה וסת ויש אשה שאין לה וסת אלא לא תרגיש בעצמה עד שיצא הדם ואין לה יום קבוע לראייתה וזהו שיש לה וסת היא שיש לה יום קבוע או מכ' יום לכ' יום או מכ\"ד יום לכ\"ד יום או פחות או יותר.", + "וקודם שיבוא הדם תרגיש בעצמה מפהקת ומתעטשת וחוששת פי כריסה ושיפולי מעיה ויסתמר שערת בשרה או ייחם בשרה וכיוצא במאורעות אלו ויבואו לה וסתות אלו או אחד מהן בשעה הקבועה לה מיום וסתה.", + "כבר ביארנו שכל אשה שאין לה וסת אסורה לשמש עד שתבדוק עצמה תחלה ושיש לה וסת אסורה לשמש בכל עונת הוסת אם וסתה ביום אסורה לשמש כל אותו היום ואם וסתה בלילה אסורה לשמש כל אותו הלילה ומתחלת יום הוסת תספור ימי נדתה וימי זיבתה לעולם.", + "לפיכך צריכות הנשים להזהר בוסתות עד שתדע היום והשעה שנקבעה בה וסתה היה דרכה לראות ביום עשרים ובא יום עשרים ולא ראתה ובא יום שלשה ועשרים וראתה הרי יום עשרים ויום שלשה ועשרים שניהן אסורין וכן אם ראתה פעם שנייה ביום כ\"ג ולא ראתה ביום כ' עדיין שניהן אסורין ראתה פעם שלישית ביום שלשה ועשרים ולא ראתה ביום עשרים טהר יום עשרים ונעקר הוסת ליום שלשה ועשרים שאין האשה קובעת וסת עד שתקבענו שלש פעמים ואינה מטהרת מן הוסת עד שתעקר ממנה שלש פעמים.", + "כל וסת שנקבע מחמת אונס אפילו ראתה בו כמה פעמים אינו וסת שמפני האונס ראתה קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קבעה לה וסת לימים בלא קפיצות כיצד קפצה באחד בשבת וראתה דם ולאחר כ' יום קפצה באחד בשבת וראתה דם ולאחר י\"ט קפצה ביום השבת ולא ראתה דם ולאחר שבת ראתה בלא קפיצה הרי נקבע אחד בשבת אחר כ' שהרי נודע שהיום גרם לה לראות ולא הקפיצה וכבר נקבע יום זה ג' פעמים וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "ראתה יום ט\"ו בחדש זה ויום ט\"ז בחדש של אחריו ויום י\"ז בחדש של אחריו ויום י\"ח לחדש של אחריו הרי קבעה לה וסת לדילוג בא חדש רביעי וראתה ביום י\"ז עדיין לא נקבע לה וסת וכל יום שראתה בו חוששת לו להבא כיון שיגיע אותו היום ולא תראה טהר אותו היום מן הוסת שאין צריך עקירת ג' פעמים אלא יום שנקבע ג' פעמים.", + "היה דרכה להיות רואה יום ט\"ו ושינתה לט\"ז שניהם אסורין שינתה לי\"ז הותר ט\"ז ונאסר י\"ז וט\"ו באיסורו עומד שינתה לי\"ח נאסר י\"ח והותרו כולם.", + "היה דרכה לראות יום כ' ושינתה ליום כ\"ב שניהם אסורין הגיע כ' ולא ראתה כ\"ב וראתה עדיין שניהן אסורין הגיע יום כ' וראתה טהר יום כ\"ב שהרי חזרה לוסתה הקבוע ונעקר כ\"ב מפני שלא נקבע ג' פעמים.", + "אין האשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה שראתה בהן כיון שראתה יום אחד אינה קובעת לה וסת בכל השבעה וכן אין האשה קובעת וסת בימי זיבתה שהן אחד עשר יום אבל קובעת היא וסת בימי נדתה שאינה רואה בהן ואם נקבע לה וסת בימי זיבתה ה\"ז חוששת לוסתה וכל וסת שקבעה בימי זיבתה אם נעקרה אפילו פעם אחת נעקרה ואינה צריכה להיעקר ג' פעמים שחזקת דמים מסולקין הן לימים אלו.", + "כיצד חוששת לוסת אם ראתה דם בוסת זו אפילו יום אחד תשב לנדתה מספק ואסורה לשמש באותו היום ואפילו לא ראתה בשאר ימי הוסתות ואם ראתה ג' ימים הרי זו זבה.", + "כל אשה שמרבה לבדוק עצמה תמיד ה\"ז משובחת ואף על פי שיש לה וסת קבועה שאפשר שיבוא דם בלא שעת הוסת וכל י\"א יום של ימי זיבתה הרי היא בהן בחזקת טהרה ואינה צריכה בדיקה אבל אחר ימי זיבתה צריכה לבדוק.", + "שכחה ולא בדקה בין באונס בין ברצון ה\"ז בחזקת טהרה עד שתבדוק ותמצא טמאה.", + "האשה שלא בדקה עצמה בשעת וסתה ולאחר ימים בדקה ומצאה טמא אע\"פ שהיא טמאה למפרע עד שעת וסתה כמו שיתבאר בענין טומאה וטהרה הרי זו אינה מטמאה את בועלה למפרע ואינה מונה אלא משעה שראתה דם ואם מצאה עצמה טהורה הרי זו בחזקת טהורה.", + "וכן אשה שראתה דם מחמת מכה שיש לה במקור אף ע\"פ שראתה בשעת וסתה היא טהורה והדם טהור שהוסתות מדבריהם כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מטמאי משכב ומושב.", + "הסומא בודקת עצמה ומראה לחבירתה אבל החרשת והשוטה צריכות פקחות לבדוק אותן ולקבוע להן וסתות ואחר כך יהיו מותרות לבעליהן.", + "כל אשה שטעתה ולא ידעה עת וסתה וראתה דם חוששת לזיבות לפיכך אם ראתה יום אחד או שנים יושבת תשלום שבעה שמא דם זה בימי נדתה היא ואם ראתה שלשה ימים סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים שמא בימי זיבתה היא עומדת.", + "וכיצד היא עושה לתקן וסתה ולידע אם היא זבה ודאית או ספק זבה ולידע ימי זיבתה הכל לפי ימים שתראה בהן כיצד ראתה יום אחד או שנים משלמת עליהן השבעה ותתחיל למנות האחד עשר יום מאחר השבעה.", + "ראתה שלשה ימים הרי זו ספק זבה שמא יום אחד מהן קודם נדתה ושנים בתחלת הנדה וכן אם ראתה ארבעה שמא שנים קודם הנדה ושנים מתחלת הנדה ויושבת חמשה תשלום ימי נדה ואחד עשר ימי זיבה אחר החמשה.", + "וכן אם ראתה תשעה ימים הרי זו ספק זבה שמא שנים קודם ימי נדה ושבעה של נדה ומתחלת למנות אחד עשר יום מאחר התשעה שפסק הדם וכן אם ראתה אחד עשר יום הרי זו ספק זבה שמא שנים קודם הנדה ושבעה של נדה וב' של אחר הנדה ונשאר לה מימי זיבתה תשעה.", + "ראתה שנים עשר יום הרי זו זבה ודאית שאפילו היו מהן שנים לפני הנדה ושבעה של נדה הרי שלשה לאחר הנדה וישאר לה מימי זיבתה שמונה וכן אם ראתה שלשה עשר יום ישאר לה מימי זיבתה שבעה והן ימי הספירה.", + "משכה בראיית הדם אפילו ראתה אלף יום כשיפסוק הדם סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים ואחר הז' יתחילו ימי הנדה לזו שטעתה.", + "הנה למדת שכל הטועה אינה מונה משיפסוק הדם פחות מז' ולא יותר על י\"ז ויבואו ימי נדתה כיצד ראתה יום אחד ופסק הדם מונה י\"ז ו' לתשלום נדתה וי\"א ימי זיבתה ויבואו ימי נדתה ואם ראתה י\"ג או יתר מונה ז' משיפסוק הדם ויבואו ימי נדתה כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "אין האשה מתטמאה מן התורה בנדה או בזיבה עד שתרגיש ותראה דם ויצא בבשרה כמו שביארנו ותהיה טמאה מעת שתראה ולהבא בלבד ואם לא הרגישה ובדקה ומצאה הדם לפנים בפרוזדור ה\"ז בחזקת שבא בהרגשה כמו שביארנו.", + "ומדברי סופרים שכל הרואה כתם דם על בשרה או על בגדיה אף ע\"פ שלא הרגישה אף על פי שבדקה עצמה ולא מצאה דם ה\"ז טמאה וכאילו מצאה דם לפנים בבשרה וטומאה זו בספק שמא כתם זה מדם החדר בא.", + "וכן מד\"ס שכל הרואה דם בלא עת וסתה וכל הרואה כתם טמאה למפרע עד כ\"ד שעות ואם בדקה בתוך זמן זה ומצאה טהור טמאה למפרע עד זמן בדיקה ואע\"פ שהיא טמאה למפרע מדבריהם אינה מטמאה את בועלה למפרע כמו שביארנו ואינה מונה לנדתה או לכתמה אלא מעת שתראה הדם או שמצאה הכתם וכל הרואה כתם ה\"ז מקולקלת (למנינה) שמא מן החדר בא ונתקלקלה וסתה.", + "הרואה דם בשעת וסתה אינה מטמאה למפרע אלא בשעתה בלבד וכן מעוברת ומניקה בתולה וזקנה דיין שעתן ואינן מטמאות למפרע איזו היא מעוברת משיוכר עוברה והוא ג' חדשים מניקה כל כ\"ד חדש אפילו מת בנה או גמלתו או נתנתו למניקה.", + "בתולה כל שלא ראתה דם מימיה אף על פי שראתה מחמת נישואין או מחמת לידה זקנה כל שעברו עליה צ' יום סמוך לזקנתה ואי זו היא זקנה כל שקוראין לה זקנה ואינה מקפדת מעוברת ומניקה וזקנה כתמן כראייתן ואינו מטמא למפרע בתולה שלא ראתה דם מימיה ועדיין היא קטנה כתמה טהור עד שתראה דם שלש וסתות.", + "מה בין כתם הנמצא על בשרה לכתם הנמצא על בגדה שהכתם הנמצא על בשרה אין לו שיעור והנמצא על הבגד אינו מטמא עד שיהיה כגריס הקילקי שהוא מרובע שיש בו כדי תשע עדשות שלש על שלש היה פחות משיעור זה טהור נמצא טיפין טיפין אין מצטרפות היה ארוך הרי זה מצטרף.", + "כתם שנמצא ע\"ד שאינו מקבל טומאה טהור ואינה חוששת לו כיצד ישבה על כלי אבנים כלי אדמה וכלי גללים או על עור הדג או על כלי חרש מגבו או על בגד שאין בו ג' אצבעות על ג' אצבעות ונמצא עליהן דם טהורה אפילו בדקה הקרקע וישבה עליה ונמצא כתם על הקרקע כשעמדה הרי זו טהורה שכל שאינו מקבל טומאה לא גזרו על כתם שימצא בו ולא במקבל טומאה אלא א\"כ היה לבן אבל כלי צבעונין אין חוששין לכתם הנמצא בהן לפיכך תקנו חכמים שתלבש האשה בגדי צבעונין כדי להצילה מדין הכתמים.", + "לא בכל מקום שנמצא הדם על בשרה תטמא משום כתם עד שימצא כנגד בית התורפה כיצד נמצא על עקיבה טמאה שמא נגע בבית תורפה בעת ישיבתה וכן אם נמצא על שוקה או על פרסותיה מבפנים והם המקומות הנדבקות זו בזו בעת שתעמוד ותדבוק רגל לרגל ושוק לשוק הרי זו טמאה נמצא על ראש גודל רגלה טמאה שמא נטף מן החדר על רגלה בעת שהלכה וכן כ\"מ שאפשר שינתז עליו דם נדתה כשתהלך ונמצא שם דם טמאה וכן אם נמצא הדם על ידיה אפילו על קשרי אצבעות ידיה טמאה שהידים עסקניות הן אבל אם נמצא הדם על שוקה ועל פרסותיה מבחוץ או מן הצדדין ואין צריך לומר אם נמצא מן הירכים ולמעלה הרי זו טהורה שאין זה אלא דם שניתז עליה ממקום אחר.", + "הכתם הנמצא על בשרה שהוא ארוך כרצועה או עגול או שהיו טפין טפין או שהיה אורך הכתם על רוחב יריכה או שהיה נראה כאילו הוא ממטה למעלה הואיל והוא כנגד בית תורפה הרי זו טמאה ואין אומרים אילו נטף מן הגוף לא היה כזה שכל דם הנמצא במקומות אלו מחמירין בו אע\"פ שהוא ספק.", + "הכתם הנמצא על החלוק שלה מחגורה ולמטה טמאה מחגורה ולמעלה טהורה נמצא על בית יד שלה אם מגיע כנגד בית תורפה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה.", + "היתה פושטתו ומתכסה בו בלילה כל מקום שימצא בו דם טמאה וכן האזור שלה כל מקום שימצא בו הדם טמאה.", + "היתה לובשת חלוק אחד ושהה עליה שלשה ימים או יתר בלא עת נדתה ובדקה ומצאה עליו שלשה כתמים או כתם אחד גדול שיש בו שיעור שלשה כתמים הרי זו ספק זבה שמא כתם נטף ממנה בכל יום וכן אם לבשה שלשה בגדים בדוקים ושהו עליה שלשה ימים בימי זיבתה ומצאה כתם בכל אחד מהן אף על פי שזה כנגד זה הרי זו ספק זבה.", + "מצאה כתם אחד שאין בו כדי שלשה כתמים אם בדקה עצמה כל בין השמשות של יום ראשון ומצאה טהור ולא בדקה חלוקה וביום השלישי מצאה זה הכתם שאינו כשלשה כתמים אינה חוששת לזיבות ואם לא בדקה עצמה כל בין השמשות הואיל ולא בדקה חלוקה ושהה עליה שלשה ימים בימי זיבתה חוששת לזיבות ואע\"פ שאין הכתם כדי שלשה כתמים.", + "מצאה כתם על חלוקה היום וראתה דם אח\"כ שני ימים זה אחר זה או שראתה שני ימים וביום השלישי ראתה כתם הרי זו ספק זבה.", + "הרואה כתם ואחר כך ראתה דם תולה כתמה בראייתה כל מעת לעת בין שבדקה עצמה בעת שמצאה הכתם ומצאתה טהור בין שלא בדקה אבל הרואה כתם אחר כתם בתוך עשרים וארבע שעות אינה תולה כתם בכתם אא\"כ בדקה ביניהם שאם הפסיקה טהרה בין הכתמים אין מצטרפין למנין זיבות.", + "כיצד ראתה כתם ערב שבת בשעה ראשונה מן היום אף ע\"פ שלא בדקה עצמה ולא ידעה אם טהורה היא אם טמאה וראתה דם אח\"כ עד שעה ראשונה מיום השבת אינה מונה לכתם אלא תולה הכתם בראייה ואם ראתה באחד בשבת ובשני בשבת תהיה זבה ראתה דם ביום שבת בשעה שנייה הרי זו טמאה שני ימים ערב שבת שמצאה בו הכתם ובשבת שראתה הדם שהרי אין שניהם בתוך מעת לעת ואם ראתה הדם באחד בשבת חוששין לזיבות.", + "לא ראתה דם בשבת אבל ראתה כתם אחר בשעה ראשונה מיום השבת אם בדקה עצמה בערב שבת ומצאה טהור אינה מונה אלא לכתם אחד שהוא ביום השבת הואיל ושניהם בתוך מעת לעת ואם לא בדקה ולא ידעה אם הפסיקה טהרה ביניהן אם לא הפסיקה הרי זו מונה לע\"ש ואם ראתה באחד בשבת חוששת לזיבות.", + "ראתה הכתם השני בשעה שנייה מיום שבת בין בדקה בין לא בדקה הרי זו טמאה שני ימים שהרי אין שניהם בתוך מעת לעת ואם ראתה באחד בשבת אחר מעת לעת חוששת לזיבות ראתה בשעה ראשונה מיום אחד בשבת כתם שלישי אם הפסיקה טהרה ביניהן אין מצטרפין ואינה חוששת לזיבות ואם לא בדקה חוששת לזיבות.", + "כל כתם שאמרנו שהיא טמאה בגללו אם יש לה דבר לתלות בו ולומר שמא כתם זה מדבר פלוני הוא אם נמצא על הבגד הרי זו טהורה שלא אמרו חכמים בדבר להחמיר אלא להקל ואם נמצא על בשרה ספיקו טמא ואינה תולה בו ואם היה לה לתלות בבשרה יתר מחלוקה אף על בשרה תולה וספיקו טהור.", + "כיצד שחטה בהמה או חיה או עוף או שנתעסקה בכתמים או שישבה בצד העוסקין בהן או שעברה בשוק של טבחים ונמצא דם על חלוקה טהורה ותולה בדברים אלו שמהן בא הכתם.", + "נמצא הכתם על בשרה בלבד אם הכתם מחגור ולמטה טמאה ואם נתהפכה וקפצה אפילו מחגור ולמעלה טמאה שאילו היה דם זה מן השחיטה או מן השוק היה לה שימצא גם על בגדיה והואיל ונמצא על בשרה ולא בבגדה טמאה.", + "היתה בה מכה אע\"פ שחיתה אם יכולה להתגלע ולהוציא דם ונמצא דם על בשרה תולה במכה וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "נמצא הכתם על בגדיה ובשרה כאחד תולה בכל שיש לה לתלות ותולה במאכולת שמא בעת שישבה נהרגה מאכולת ודם זה דם מאכולת הוא ועד כמה עד כגריס אבל אם מצאה הכתם יתר מכגריס אינה תולה במאכולת ואפילו היתה מאכולת רצוצה בכתם הואיל והוא יתר מכגריס אינה תולה במאכולת.", + "וכן תולה בבנה ובבעלה אם היו עסוקין בדם או שהיו ידיהן מלוכלכות או שהיתה בהן מכה תולה בהן ואומרת הן נגעו בה והיא לא ידעה ודם זה מחמת הוא.", + "אין מחזיקין דם ממקום למקום לתלות בו כיצד היתה לה מכה בכתיפה ונמצא כתם על שוקה אין אומרין שמא בידיה נגעה במכה ונגעה במקום זה וכן כל כיוצא בזה אין תולין בו בין בגופה בין בחלוקה.", + "שתי נשים שנתעסקו בצפור אחד ואין בו אלא כסלע דם ונמצא על כל אחת משתיהן כתם כסלע שתיהן טמאות נתעסקה בדם שאי אפשר שיהיה ממנו כתם אלא כגריס ונמצא עליה כתם כשני גריסין הרי זו תולה כגריס בדם שנתעסקה בו ובגריס במאכולת נמצא הכתם יתר מכשני גריסין טמאה.", + "נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור נתעסקה בעוף שיש בו מיני דם הרבה ונמצא עליה מראה אחד מהן תולה בו היתה לובשת שלשה חלוקות אם יכולה לתלות תולה אף בתחתון ואם אינה יכולה לתלות אינה תולה אף בעליון כיצד עברה בשוק של טבחים אף על פי שנמצא הכתם על התחתון לבדו תולה בדם הטבחים לא עברה בשוק הטבחים וכיוצא בו אע\"פ שנמצא הכתם בעליון לבדו הרי זו טמאה ספק עברה ספק לא עברה ספק נתעסקה ספק לא נתעסקה אינה תולה.", + "עיר שיש בה חזירים או שהם באין לה תמיד אין חוששין לכתמיה הנמצאין בחלוקה.", + "האשה שהשאילה חלוקה לנדה בין עכו\"ם בין ישראלית וחזרה ולבשה אותו קודם בדיקה ומצאה עליו כתם ה\"ז תולה בנדה שלבשה אותו השאילה אותו לזבה קטנה ביום הטמא שלה או ליושבת על דם טוהר או לבתולה שדמיה טהורין ה\"ז תולה בה אבל אם השאילה אותו לזבה קטנה ביום השמור או לזבה גדולה בז' ימים נקיים וחזרה ולבשה אותו קודם בדיקה ונמצא עליו כתם שתיהן מקולקלות השואלת והמשאלת אותה שמא מזו שמא מזו השאילה אותו ליושבת על הכתם אינה תולה בה שאין תולין כתם בכתם.", + "בדקה חלוקה ובדקה עצמה ונמצאת טהור והשאילה החלוק לחבירתה ולבשתו ונמצא עליו כתם כשהחזירתו לה השואלת טמאה ואינה תולה בבעלת החלוק שהרי בדקה אותו קודם שתשאילהו לה.", + "ארוכה שלבשה חלוקה של קצרה ונמצא בו כתם אם מגיע כנגד בית התורפה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה שכתם זה של קצרה הוא.", + "שלש נשים שלבשו חלוק אחד זו אחר זו ואחר כך נמצא עליו כתם וכן אם ישנות במטה אחת כאחת ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות ואם בדקה אחת מהן עצמה מיד ומצאה עצמה טמאה הרי השתים טהורות.", + "בדקו כולן ומצאו עצמן טהורות תולה מי שאינה ראויה לראות דם במי שהיא ראויה ותהיה שאינה ראויה טהורה והראויה טמאה כיצד היתה אחת מעוברת ואחת אינה מעוברת המעוברת טהורה ושאינה מעוברת טמאה מניקה ושאינה מניקה המניקה טהורה זקנה ושאינה זקנה הזקנה טהורה בתולה ושאינה בתולה הבתולה טהורה היו כולן מעוברות כולן זקנות כולן מניקות כולן בתולות הרי כולן טמאות.", + "ג' נשים שעלו דרך מרגלות המטה וישנו כולן ונמצא דם תחת האמצעית שלשתן טמאות תחת הפנימית היא ושבצדה טמאות והחיצונה טהורה תחת החיצונה היא ושבצדה טמאות והפנימית טהורה ואם לא עלו דרך מרגלות המטה שהרי אין להם סדר ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות.", + "בד\"א שבדקו כולן ומצאו טהור ולא תוכל אחת מהן לתלות בחבירתה כמו שביארנו אבל אם בדקה אחת ומצאה עצמה טהורה וחבירתה לא בדקה תולה הטהורה בזו שלא בדקה והרי זו שלא בדקה טמאה.", + "כל כתם שנמצא על הבגד שאין לה במה יתלה אינו מטמא עד שיודע שהוא דם ואם נסתפק להם שמא הוא דם או צבע אדום מעבירין עליו שבעה סמנין אלו על הסדר אם עבר או כהה עינו הרי זו כתם דם וטמאה ואם עמד כמות שהוא הרי זה צבע וטהורה.", + "ואלו הן השבעה סמנים על סדרן:רוק תפל ולעיסת גריסין של פול ומי רגלים שהחמיצו ובורית ונתר וקימוניא ואשלג וצריך לכסכס שלש פעמים על כל סם וסם ומוליך ומביא בכל כסכוס העבירן שלא על הסדר או שהעבירן כאחד לא עשה כלום הקדים האחרונים לראשונים אלו שהעביר באחרונה שהן הראשונים עלו לו וחוזר ומעביר אחריהם אחרונים שהקדים עד שיעברו השבעה על הסדר.", + "אי זהו רוק תפל שלא טעם כלום מתחלת הלילה והיה ישן מחצי הלילה האחרון למחר קודם שיאכל נקרא רוק תפל והוא שלא יצא רוב דבורו עד שלש שעות ביום ואם השכים ושנה פרקו קודם שלש שעות אין זו רוק תפל שהדבור מבטל חוזק הרוק ומחזירו כמים ואי זו הוא לעיסת גריסין הוא שילעוס הגריסין עד שיתערב עם הפול רוק הרבה מפיו ואי זהו מי רגלים שהחמיצו אחר שלשה ימים או יתר.", + "כל אשה שהיא טמאה משום כתם אם מצאה הכתם בימי נדתה הרי זו ספק נדה ויושבת עליו שבעה ימים וטובלת בליל שמיני ואח\"כ תהיה מותרת לבעלה ואם מצאה אותו בימי זיבתה הרי זו ספק זבה גדולה או קטנה כמו שנתבאר בפרק זה ויושבת יום אחד אם היתה קטנה או שבעת ימים נקיים אם היתה גדולה מספק והכל מדברי סופרים כמו שביארנו לפיכך הבא עליה בזדון מכין אותו מכת מרדות ופטורין מקרבן." + ], + [ + "כל יולדת טמאה כנדה ואע\"פ שלא ראתה דם ואחד היולדת חי או מת או אפילו נפל אם זכר יושבת לזכר ואם נקבה יושבת לנקבה והוא שתגמר צורתו ואין צורת הולד נגמרת לפחות מארבעים יום אחד הזכר ואחד הנקבה.", + "והמפלת בתוך ארבעים יום אינה טמאה לידה אפילו ביום ארבעים הפילה ביום ארבעים ואחד מאחר התשמיש הרי זו ספק יולדת ותשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה היתה צורת האדם דקה ביותר ואינה ניכרת בעליל הרי זו תשב לזכר ולנקבה וזהו הנקרא שפיר מרוקם.", + "אי זה הוא שפיר מרוקם תחלת ברייתו של אדם גופו כעדשה שתי עיניו כשתי טיפי זבוב מרוחקות זו מזו שני חוטמיו כשתי טיפי זבוב מקורבות זה לזה פיו פתוח כחוט השערה וחיתוך ידים ורגלים אין לו נתבארה צורתו יתר מזה ועדיין אינו ניכר בין זכר לנקבה אין בודקין אותו במים אלא בשמן שהשמן מצחצחו ומביא קיסם שראשו חלק ומנענע באותו מקום מלמעלה למטה אם מסכסך בידוע שהוא זכר ואם ראה אותו מקום כשעורה סדוקה הרי זו נקבה ואינה צריכה בדיקה וכל אלו הרקימות של נפלים אין נותנין להן ימי טוהר עד שישעיר הולד.", + "הפילה חתיכה לבנה אם נקרעה ונמצא בה עצם הרי זו טמאה לידה הפילה שפיר מלא מים מלא דם מלא גנונים מלא בשר הואיל ואינו מרוקם אינה חוששת לולד.", + "יוצא דופן אין אמו טמאה לידה ואין לה ימי טומאה וימי טהרה שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר עד שתלד ממקום שמזרעת המקשה וילדה ולד דרך הדופן הרי דם הקושי הבא דרך הרחם זיבות או נדה ודם היוצא דרך הדופן טמא ואם לא יצא דם דרך הרחם הרי האשה טהורה אף על פי שהדם שיצא מדפנה טמא שאין האשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה.", + "נחתך הולד במעיה ויצא אבר אבר בין שיצא על סדר האיברים כגון שיצאה הרגל ואחריה השוק ואחריה הירך בין שיצא שלא על הסדר אינה טמאה לידה עד שיצא רובו ואם יצא ראשו כולו כאחד הרי זה כרובו ואם לא נחתך ויצא כדרכו משתצא רוב פדחתו הרי זה כילוד אף ע\"פ שנחתך אח\"כ.", + "הוציא העובר את ידו והחזירה אמו טמאה לידה מדברי סופרים ואין לה ימי טוהר עד שיצא הולד כולו או רובו כמו שאמרנו.", + "המפלת כמין בהמה חיה או עוף אם היו פניו כפני אדם הרי זה ולד אם זכר תשב לזכר ואם נקבה תשב לנקבה ואם אינו ניכר בין זכר לנקבה תשב לזכר ולנקבה אע\"פ ששאר הגוף דומה לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף ואם אין פניו כצורת פני האדם אף על פי ששאר הגוף גוף אדם שלם וידיו ורגליו ידי ורגלי אדם והרי הוא זכר או נקבה אינו ולד ואין אמו טמאה לידה.", + "אי זו היא צורת פני האדם שיהיה המצח והגבינין והעינים והלסתות וגבות הזקן כצורת האדם אבל הפה והאזנים והאף אע\"פ שהן כשל בהמה וחיה ה\"ז ולד.", + "המפלת דמות נחש אמו טמאה לידה מפני שגלגל עיניו עגול כשל אדם המפלת דמות אדם שיש לו כנפים של בשר אמו טמאה לידה נברא בעין אחת וירך אחת אם היו מן הצד הרי הוא כחצי אדם ואמו טמאה לידה ואם היו באמצע אמו טהורה שהרי זו בריה אחרת.", + "נברא ושט שלו אטום או שהיה חסר מטיבורו ולמטה והרי הוא אטום או שהיתה גלגלתו אטומה או שהיו פניו טוחות ואין בהן הכר פנים או שיש לו שני גבין ושתי שדרות או שהפילה בריית ראש שאינו חתוך או יד שאינו חתוך כל נפל מאלו אינו ולד ואין אמו טמאה לידה אבל אם הפילה יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה הרי חזקתה מולד שלם ומצטרפין לרוב איבריו.", + "פעמים יקפה משאר הדמים שנוצר מהם האדם חתיכה כמו לשון השור ותהיה כרוכה על מקצת הולד והיא הנקראת סנדל ולעולם לא יעשה סנדל זה אלא עם ולד אבל חתיכה שנוצרה לבדה בלא ולד אינה נקראת סנדל ורוב העוברים לא יהיה עמהם סנדל ופעמים יכה המעוברת דבר על בטנה ויפסד העובר ויעשה כסנדל זה ופעמים ישאר בו הכר פנים ופעמים ייבש הולד וישתנה ויקפאו עליו הדמים עד שלא ישאר בו הכר פנים לפיכך המפלת זכר וסנדל עמו אף על פי שאין הכר פנים לסנדל הרי זו תשב לזכר ולנקבה שמא סנדל זה נקבה היה וחומרא החמירו בו לטמאה בו משום ולד אע\"פ שאין בו צורת פנים הואיל והיא טמאה לידה מפני הולד שעמו.", + "החותלת העבה שהיא כמו חמת שבתוכה נוצר הולד והיא מקפת אותו ואת הסנדל אם היה עמו סנדל וכשיגיע זמנו לצאת קורע אותה ויוצא היא הנקראת שליא ותחלת ברייתה דומה לחוט של ערב וחלולה כחצוצרת ועבה כקרקבן התרנגולים ואין שליא פחותה מטפח.", + "המפלת שליא תשב לזכר ולנקבה לא שהשליא ולד אלא שאין שליא בלא ולד הפילה נפל ואחר כך הפילה שליא חוששין לשליא והרי הוא כולד אחר ואין אומרין זו שלית הנפל שאין תולין את השליא אלא בולד של קיימא לפיכך אם ילדה ולד של קיימא והפילה שליא אפילו אחר כ\"ג יום תולין אותו בולד ואין חוששין לולד אחר שהולד קרע השליא ויצא.", + "הפילה שליא תחילה ואח\"כ ילדה ולד של קיימא חוששין לשליא שהיא ולד אחר ואין תולין אותה בולד הבא אחריה שאין דרכה של שליא לצאת לפני הולד יצאת מקצת השליא ביום הראשון ומקצתה בשני מונין לה מיום הראשון ואין נותנין לה ימי טהרה אלא מיום שני להחמיר.", + "הפילה דמות בהמה חיה ועוף ושליא קשורה בו אין חוששין לולד ואם אינה קשורה בו מטילין עליה חומר שתי ולדות שאני אומר שמא נימוח שפיר מרוקם שהיה בשליא זו ושמא נימוחה השליא של שפיר זה שהוא דמות בהמה וחיה.", + "כל אלו שחוששין לשליא אין נותנין להן ימי טוהר וכל מי שהפילה דבר שאינו ולד או שפיר בתוך ארבעים יום שעדיין לא נגמרה צורתו אם יצא עמו דם הרי זו נדה או זבה ואם יצא יבש בלא דם הרי זו טהורה.", + "מי שילדה זכר ונקבה תאומים תשב לנקבה ילדה טומטום או אנדרוגינוס תשב לזכר ולנקבה ילדה תאומים אחד זכר והשני טומטום או אנדרוגינוס תשב לזכר ולנקבה האחת נקבה והשני טומטום או אנדרוגינוס תשב לנקבה בלבד שהטומטום והאנדרוגינוס ספק הן שמא זכר הן שמא נקבה.", + "האשה שהוחזקה מעוברת וילדה ואין ידוע מה ילדה כגון שעברה לנהר והפילה שם או שהפילה לבור או שהפילה וגררתו חיה הרי זו בחזקת שהפילה ולד ותשב לזכר ולנקבה אבל אם לא הוחזקה מעוברת והפילה ואין ידוע מה הפילה ה\"ז ספק יולדת ותשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה.", + "כל מקום שנאמר תשב לזכר ולנקבה כיצד דינה תהיה אסורה לבעלה י\"ד יום כיולדת נקבה שבעה הראשונים ודאי והשבעה האחרונים ספק ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר אלא עד ארבעים יום כיולדת זכר ואם ראתה דם אחר הארבעים עד שמונים אינו דם טוהר אלא ספק דם נדה או ספק דם זיבות אם בא מימי הזיבה כמו שביארנו וכן אם ראתה דם יום אחד ושמונים בלבד הרי זו ספק נדה ותשב שבעת ימי הנדה שמא נקבה ילדה שאין לה וסת נדות עד אחר מלאות כמו שביארנו.", + "כל מקום שנאמר תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה כיצד דינה תהיה אסורה לבעלה י\"ד יום כיולדת נקבה ואם ראתה דם ביום אחד ושמונים הרי זו ספק נדה וכן אם ראתה ביום ע\"ד וביום פ\"א הרי זו ספק נדה וכן אם ראתה ביום ארבעים ואחד אף על פי שראתה ביום ל\"ד הרי זו ספק נדה ואסורה לבעלה עד ליל ארבעים ושמונה כיולדת זכר ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר כלל כנדה והרי היא כמי שלא ילדה וכל דם שתראה מיום שהפילה עד פ' יום אם בא בימי נדתה ה\"ז ספק נדה מאחר השבעה מיום שהפילה ואם בא בימי זיבתה הרי זו ספק זבה שכל ימי מלאת אין בהן וסת וכן אם ראתה ביום אחד ושמונים עדיין היא מקולקלת ותהיה ספק נדה כמו שביארנו אע\"פ שלא ראתה אלא יום אחד וכשיקבע לה הוסת אחר השמונים יסור קילקולה ותחזור להיות נדה ודאית או זבה ודאית וכן מיום שהפילה עד ז' ימים ותהיה נדה ודאית אם הפילה בתוך ימי נדתה כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "כל שאמרנו בנדה וזבה ויולדת הוא דין תורה וכמשפטים אלו היו עושין כשהיו ב\"ד הגדול מצויין והיו שם חכמים גדולים שמכירים הדמים ואם נולד להם ספק בראיות או בימי נדה וזיבה יעלו לב\"ד וישאלו כמו שהבטיחה תורה עליהן שנאמר כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דין לדין בין דם נדה לדם זיבה ובאותן הימים היו בנות ישראל נזהרות מדבר זה ומשמרות וסתותיהן וסופרות תמיד ימי הנדה וימי הזיבה.", + "וטורח גדול יש במנין הימים ופעמים רבות יבואו לידי ספק שאפילו ראתה הבת דם ביום הלידה מאותו היום מתחילין למנות לה ימי נדה וימי זיבה כמו שביארנו ולפיכך לא תטמא הבת בזיבה אלא בת י' ימים שאם ראתה ביום שנולדה הרי זו נדה שבעת ימים ושלשת ימים סמוך לנדתה הרי י' ימים הנה למדת שמתחילת ראייה מתחלת למנות ימי נדה וימי זיבה כל ימיה ואפילו ראתה והיא קטנה.", + "ובימי חכמי הגמרא נסתפק הדבר הרבה בראיית הדמים ונתקלקלו הוסתות לפי שלא היה כח בכל הנשים למנות ימי נדה וימי זיבה לפיכך החמירו חכמים בדבר זה וגזרו שיהו כל ימי האשה כימי זיבתה ויהיה כל דם שתראה ספק דם זיבות.", + "ועוד החמירו בנות ישראל על עצמן חומרא יתירה על זה ונהגו כולם בכ\"מ שיש ישראל שכל בת ישראל שרואה דם אפילו לא ראתה אלא טיפה כחרדל בלבד ופסק הדם סופרת לה ז' ימים נקיים ואפילו ראתה בעת נדתה בין שראתה יום אחד או שנים או השבעה כולן או יתר משיפסוק הדם סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים כזבה גדולה וטובלת בליל שמיני אף על פי שהיא ספק זבה או ביום שמיני אם היה שם דוחק כמו שאמרנו ואחר כך תהיה מותרת לבעלה.", + "וכן כל היולדת בזמן הזה הרי היא כיולדת בזוב וצריכה שבעת ימים נקיים כמו שביארנו ומנהג פשוט בשנער ובארץ הצבי ובספרד ובמערב שאם ראתה דם בתוך ימי מלאת אע\"פ שראתה אחר שספרה שבעת ימים נקיים וטבלה הרי זו סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים אחר שיפסוק הדם ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר כלל אלא כל דם שתראה האשה בין דם קושי בין דם טוהר הכל טמא וסופרת שבעת ימים נקיים אחר שיפסוק הדם.", + "ודין זה בימי הגאונים נתחדש והם גזרו שלא יהיה שם דם טוהר כלל שזה שהחמירו על עצמן בימי חכמי הגמרא אינו אלא ברואה דם שהוא טמא שיושבת עליו ז' נקיים אבל דם שתראה בימי טוהר אחר ספירה וטבילה אין לחוש לו שאין ימי טוהר ראויין לא לנדה ולא לזיבה כמו שביארנו.", + "ושמענו שבצרפת בועלים על דם טוהר כדין הגמרא עד היום אחר ספירה וטבילה מטומאת יולדת בזוב ודבר זה תלוי במנהג.", + "וכן דין דם בתולים בזמן הזה שאפילו היתה קטנה שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ולא ראתה דם מימיה בועל בעילת מצוה ופורש וכל זמן שתראה הדם מחמת המכה הרי היא טמאה ואחר שיפסוק הדם סופרת ז' ימים נקיים.", + "יתר על זה כל בת שתבעוה להנשא ורצתה שוהה שבעת ימים נקיים מאחר שרצתה ואחר כך תהיה מותרת להבעל שמא מחמודה לאיש ראתה דם טיפה אחת ולא הרגישה בה בין שהיתה האשה גדולה בין שהיתה קטנה צריכה לישב ז' נקיים מאחר שרצתה ואח\"כ תטבול ותבעל.", + "וכל הדברים האלו חומרא יתירה שנהגו בה בנות ישראל מימי חכמי הגמרא ואין לסור ממנה לעולם לפיכך כל אשה שרצתה כשתבעוה להנשא לא תנשא עד שתספור ותטבול ואם נשאת לתלמיד חכם מותרת להנשא מיד ותספור מאחר שנשאתו ותטבול שתלמיד חכם יודע שהיא אסורה ונזהר מזה ולא יקרב לה עד שתטבול.", + "דין הכתמים בזמן הזה כמו שביארנו ואין בדבר חידוש ולא מנהג אלא כל כתם שאמרנו שהיא טהורה הרי היא טהורה וכל כתם שאמרנו טמאה (אם אין בכתם שיעור כדי לחוש לזיבות) סופרת שבעת ימים מיום שנמצא בו הכתם ואם היה שיעור הכתם כדי לחוש לזיבות סופרת שבעת ימים מאחר יום שנמצא בו הכתם שאין הרואה דם כרואה כתם.", + "וכן כל מה שאמרנו ביולדת שאמו טהורה הרי היא טהורה בזמן הזה וכן האשה שראתה לובן או דם ירוק או שהשליכה חתיכה אדומה שאין עמה דם הרי היא טהורה אף בזמן הזה שלא החמירו אלא ברואה דם טמא [ואין זה דם טמא].", + "וכן אם היתה בה מכה והיה הדם שותת ממנה או שבא הדם עם מימי רגלים ה\"ז טהורה ולא נתחדש דבר אלא ספירת שבעת ימים נקיים לכל רואה דם טמא כמו שאמרנו ושיהיו כל מראה דמים טמאים.", + "זה שתמצא במקצת המקומות שהנדה יושבת שבעת ימים בנדתה אף ע\"פ שלא ראתה דם אלא יום אחד ואחר השבעה תשב שבעת ימים נקיים אין זה מנהג אלא טעות הוא ממי שהורה להם כך ואין ראוי לפנות לדבר זה כלל אלא אם ראתה יום אחד סופרת אחריו ז' (נקיים) וטובלת בליל ח' שהוא ליל שני שלאחר נדתה ומותרת לבעלה.", + "וכן זה שתמצא במקצת מקומות ותמצא תשובות למקצת הגאונים שיולדת זכר לא תשמש מטתה עד סוף ארבעים ויולדת נקבה אחר שמונים ואף על פי שלא ראתה דם אלא בתוך השבעה אין זה מנהג אלא טעות הוא באותן התשובות ודרך אפיקורוסות באותן המקומות ומן הצדוקין למדו דבר זה ומצוה לכופן כדי להוציא מלבן ולהחזירן לדברי חכמים שתספור ז' ימים נקיים בלבד כמו שביארנו.", + "אין האשה עולה מטומאתה ויוצא מידי ערוה עד שתטבול במי מקוה כשר ולא יהיה דבר חוצץ בין בשרה ובין המים ובהלכות מקואות יתבאר המקוה הכשר והפסול ודרך הטבילה ומשפטי החציצה אבל אם רחצה במרחץ אפילו נפלו עליה כל מימות שבעולם הרי היא אחר הרחיצה כמות שהיתה קודם הרחיצה בכרת שאין לך דבר שמעלה מטומאה לטהרה אלא טבילה במי מקוה או במעיין או בימים שהם כמעיין כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מקואות.", + "כל ז' ימים נקיים שבזמן הזה אע\"פ שהן ספק אם טבלה בהן כאילו לא טבלה ואם טבלה בשביעי אף על פי שאסור לעשות כן לכתחלה שמא יבוא לבעול בשביעי אחר הטבילה הואיל וטבלה בזמנה אפי' היתה זבה ודאית הרי זו עלתה לה טבילה.", + "ואסור לאדם שידבק באשתו בשבעת ימים נקיים אלו ואע\"פ שהיא בכסותה והוא בכסותו ולא יקרב לה ולא יגע בה אפילו באצבע קטנה ולא יאכל עמה בקערה אחת כללו של דבר ינהוג עמה בימי ספירה כמו שינהוג בימי נדה שעדיין היא בכרת עד שתטבול כמו שביארנו.", + "כל מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה נדה עושה לבעלה חוץ מהרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו ומזיגת הכוס והצעת המטה בפניו גזירה שמא יבוא לדבר עבירה ומפני זה לא תאכל עמו בקערה אחת ולא יגע בבשרה מפי הרגל עבירה וכן בשבעת ימים נקיים לא תעשה לו שלש מלאכות אלו ומותר לאשה להתקשט בימי נדתה כדי שלא תתגנה על בעלה." + ], + [ + "ישראל שבעל עכו\"ם משאר האומות דרך אישות או ישראלית שנבעלה לעכו\"ם דרך אישות הרי אלו לוקין מן התורה שנאמר לא תתחתן בם בתך לא תתן לבנו ובתו לא תקח לבנך אחד שבעה עממין ואחד כל אומות באיסור זה וכן מפורש על ידי עזרא ואשר לא נתן בנותינו לעמי הארץ ואת בנותיהם לא נקח לבנינו.", + "ולא אסרה תורה אלא דרך חתנות אבל הבא על הכותית דרך זנות מכין אותו מכת מרדות מד\"ס גזירה שמא יבא להתחתן ואם ייחדה לו בזנות חייב עליה משום נדה ומשום שפחה ומשום כותית ומשום זונה ואם לא ייחדה לו אלא נקראת מקרה אינו חייב אלא משום כותית וכל חיובין אלו מדבריהן.", + "במה דברים אמורים כשהיה הבועל ישראל אבל כהן הבא על הכותית לוקה מן התורה משום זונה ואחד זונה כותית ואחד זונה ישראלית ובבעילה בלבד לוקה שהרי אינה בת קידושין.", + "כל הבועל כותית בין דרך חתנות בין דרך זנות אם בעלה בפרהסיא והוא שיבעול לעיני עשרה מישראל או יתר אם פגעו בו קנאין והרגוהו הרי אלו משובחין וזריזין ודבר זה הל\"מ הוא ראיה לדבר זה מעשה פנחס בזמרי.", + "ואין הקנאי רשאי לפגוע בהן אלא בשעת מעשה כזמרי שנאמר ואת האשה אל קבתה אבל אם פירש אין הורגין אותו ואם הרגו נהרג עליו ואם בא הקנאי ליטול רשות מב\"ד להרגו אין מורין לו ואף על פי שהוא בשעת מעשה ולא עוד אלא אם בא הקנאי להרוג את הבועל ונשמט הבועל והרג הקנאי כדי להציל עצמו מידו אין הבועל נהרג עליו והבא על בת גר תושב אין הקנאין פוגעים בו אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "לא פגעו בו קנאים ולא הלקוהו ב\"ד הרי עונשו מפורש בדברי קבלה שהוא בכרת שנאמר כי חלל יהודה קדש י\"י אשר אהב ובעל בת אל נכר יכרת י\"י לאיש אשר יעשנה ער ועונה אם ישראל הוא לא יהיה לו ער בחכמים ולא עונה בתלמידים ואם כהן הוא לא יהיה לו מגיש מנחה לי\"י צבאות הנה למדת שהבועל כותית כאילו נתחתן לעכו\"ם שנאמר ובעל בת אל נכר ונקרא מחלל קדש ה'.", + "עון זה אע\"פ שאין בו מיתת ב\"ד אל יהי קל בעיניך אלא יש בו הפסד שאין בכל העריות כמותו שהבן מן הערוה בנו הוא לכל דבר ובכלל ישראל נחשב אף על פי שהוא ממזר והבן מן הכותית אינו בנו שנאמר כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי מסיר אותו מלהיות אחרי י\"י.", + "ודבר זה גורם להדבק בעכו\"ם שהבדילנו הקדוש ברוך הוא מהם ולשוב מאחרי י\"י ולמעול בו.", + "עכו\"ם הבא על בת ישראל אם אשת איש היא נהרג עליה ואם פנויה היא אינו נהרג.", + "אבל ישראל הבא על הכותית בין קטנה בת שלש שנים ויום אחד בין גדולה בין פנויה בין אשת איש ואפילו היה קטן בן ט' שנים ויום אחד כיון שבא על הכותית בזדון ה\"ז נהרגת מפני שבא לישראל תקלה על ידיה כבהמה ודבר זה מפורש בתורה שנאמר הן הנה היו לבני ישראל בדבר בלעם וכל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר הרוגו.", + "העבדים שהטבילו אותם לשם עבדות וקבלו עליהם מצות שהעבדים חייבים בהם יצאו מכלל העכו\"ם ולכלל ישראל לא באו לפיכך השפחה אסורה לבן חורין אחד שפחתו ואחד שפחת חבירו והבא על השפחה מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדברי סופרים שהרי מפורש בתורה שהאדון נותן שפחה כנענית לעבדו העברי והיא מותרת לו שנאמר אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה.", + "ולא גזרו חכמים בדבר זה ולא חייבה תורה מלקות בשפחה אא\"כ היתה נחרפת לאיש כמו שביארנו.", + "אל יהי עון זה קל בעיניך מפני שאין בו מלקות מן התורה שגם זה גורם לבן לסור מאחרי י\"י שהבן מן השפחה הוא עבד ואינו מישראל ונמצא גורם לזרע הקדש להתחלל ולהיותם עבדים הרי אונקלוס המתרגם כלל בעילת עבד ושפחה בכלל לא יהיה קדש ולא תהיה קדשה.", + "הבא על שפחה ואפילו בפרהסיא ובשעת עבירה אין הקנאין פוגעין בו וכן אם לקח שפחה דרך חתנות אינו לוקה מן התורה שמעת שטבלה וקבלה מצות יצתה מכלל העכו\"ם.", + "נתערב ולד ישראלית בולד שפחה הרי שניהן ספק וכל אחד מהן ספק עבד וכופין בעל השפחה ומשחרר את שניהם ואם היה הבן ההוא (בן) האדון של עבד כשיגדלו ישחררו זה את זה ויהיו מותרין לבא בקהל.", + "היו התערובות בנות הרי שתיהן ספק שפחות והבא על כל אחת מהן הולד ספק עבד וכן אם נתערב ולד עכו\"ם בולד ישראלית מטבילים את שניהן לשם גירות וכל אחת מהן ספק גיורת.", + "כל העכו\"ם כולם כשיתגיירו ויקבלו עליהן כל המצות שבתורה והעבדים כשישתחררו הרי הן כישראל לכל דבר שנאמר הקהל חוקה אחת יהיה לכם ומותרין להכנס בקהל י\"י מיד והוא שישא הגר או המשוחרר בת ישראל וישא הישראלי גיורת ומשוחררת חוץ מד' עממין בלבד והם עמון ומואב ומצרים ואדום שהאומות האלו כשיתגייר אחד מהן הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבר אלא לענין ביאה בקהל.", + "וכיצד דינן עמון ומואב איסורין איסור עולם זכרים ולא נקבות שנאמר לא יבוא עמוני ומואבי בקהל י\"י וגו' הל\"מ שהעמוני הזכר והמואבי הזכר הוא שאסור לעולם לישא בת ישראל אפילו בן בנו עד סוף העולם אבל עמונית ומואבית מותרת מיד כשאר האומות.", + "מצרי ואדומי אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות דור ראשון ודור שני אסורין לבא בישראל ודור שלישי מותר שנאמר בנים אשר יולדו להם וגו'.", + "מצרית מעוברת שנתגיירה בנה שני מצרי שני שנשא מצרית ראשונה או מצרי ראשון שנשא מצרית שנייה הולד שני שנאמר בנים אשר יולדו להם הכתוב תלאן בלידה.", + "גר עמוני שנשא מצרית הולד עמוני גר מצרי שנשא עמונית הולד מצרי זה הכלל באומות הלך אחר הזכר נתגיירו הלך אחר הפחות.", + "מי שנתגייר משבעה עממין אינן אסורין מן התורה לבוא בקהל והדבר ידוע שלא נתגיירו מהן אלא הגבעונים ויהושע גזר עליהם שיהיו אסורים לבא בקהל אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות ולא אסר אותם אלא בזמן שיש מקדש שנאמר וחוטבי עצים ושואבי מים לבית אלהי תלה הרחקתם במקדש.", + "והם הנקראים נתינים לפי שנתנם לעבודת המקדש בא דוד וגזר עליהם שלא יכנסו בקהל לעולם ואפילו בזמן שאין מקדש וכן מפורש בעזרא ומן הנתינים שנתן דוד והשרים לעבודת הלוים הא למדת שלא תלה אותם במקדש.", + "ולמה גזר עליהם הוא ובית דינו לפי שראה עזות ואכזריות שהיתה בהם בעת שבקשו שבעת בני שאול בחיר ה' לתלותם והרגום ולא רחמו עליהם.", + "כשעלה סנחריב מלך אשור בלבל כל האומות ועירבם זה בזה והגלה אותם ממקומם ואלו המצרים שבארץ מצרים עתה אנשים אחרים הם וכן האדומים שבשדה אדום והואיל ונתערבו ד' אומות האסורים בכל אומות העולם שהן מותרים הותר הכל שכל הפורש מהן להתגייר חזקתו שפירש מן הרוב לפיכך כשיתגייר הגר בזמן הזה בכ\"מ בין אדומי בין מצרי בין עמוני בין מואבי בין כושי בין שאר האומות אחד הזכרים ואחד הנקבות מותרין לבא בקהל מיד." + ], + [ + "בשלושה דברים נכנסו ישראל לברית: במילה, וטבילה, וקרבן.", + "מילה היתה במצרים, שנאמר: \"וכל ערל לא יאכל בו\". מל אותם משה רבינו, שכולם ביטלו ברית מילה במצרים חוץ משבט לוי. ועל זה נאמר: \"ובריתך ינצורו\".", + "וטבילה היתה במדבר קודם מתן תורה, שנאמר: \"וקדשתם היום ומחר, וכבסו שמלותם\". וקרבן, שנאמר: \"וישלח את נערי בני ישראל, ויעלו עולות\" – על ידי כל ישראל הקריבום.", + "וכן לדורות כשירצה העובד כוכבים להכנס לברית, ולהסתופף תחת כנפי השכינה, ויקבל עליו עול תורה – צריך מילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן. ואם נקיבה היא – טבילה וקרבן, שנאמר: \"ככם כגר\" – מה אתם במילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן, אף הגר לדורות במילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן.", + "ומהו קרבן הגר? עולת בהמה, או שתי תורים או שני בני יונה, ושניהם עולה. ובזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן – צריך מילה וטבילה. וכשיבנה בית המקדש יביא קרבן.", + "גר שמל ולא טבל, או טבל ולא מל – אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול. וצריך לטבול בפני שלושה. והואיל והדבר צריך בית דין – אין מטבילין אותו בשבת, ולא ביום טוב, ולא בלילה. ואם הטבילוהו – הרי זה גר.", + "גר קטן – מטבילין אותו על דעת בית דין, שזכות היא לו. מעוברת שנתגיירה וטבלה – אין בנה צריך טבילה. טבל בינו לבין עצמו, ונתגייר בינו לבין עצמו, ואפילו בפני שנים – אינו גר. בא ואמר \"נתגיירתי בבית דינו של פלוני והטבילוני\" – אינו נאמן לבוא בקהל עד שיביא עדים.", + "היה נשוי לישראלית או לגיורת, ויש לו בנים, ואמר \"נתגיירתי ביני לבין עצמי\" – נאמן לפסול את עצמו, ואינו נאמן לפסול את הבנים. וחוזר וטובל בבית דין.", + "גיורת שראינוה נוהגת בדרכי ישראל תמיד, כגון שתטבול לנידתה, ותפריש תרומה מעיסתה, וכיוצא בזה; וכן גר שנוהג בדרכי ישראל, שטובל לקריו, ועושה כל המצות – הרי אלו בחזקת גרי צדק, ואף על פי שאין שם עדים שמעידין לפני מי שנתגיירו. ואף על פי כן, אם באו להתערב בישראל – אין משיאין אותם עד שיביאו עדים, או עד שיטבלו בפנינו, הואיל והוחזקו עובדי כוכבים.", + "אבל מי שבא ואמר שהיה עובד כוכבים ונתגייר בבית דין – נאמן, שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. במה דברים אמורים? בארץ ישראל ובאותן הימים, שחזקת הכל שם בחזקת ישראל. אבל בחוצה לארץ – צריך להביא ראיה, ואחר כך ישא ישראלית. ואני אומר שזו מעלה ביוחסין.", + "כשם שמלין ומטבילין את הגרים, כך מלין ומטבילין את העבדים הנלקחים מן העובדי כוכבים לשם עבדות. הלוקח עבד מן העובדי כוכבים, וקדם העבד וטבל לשם בן חורין – קנה עצמו. והוא שיאמר בעת טבילה \"הריני טובל בפניכם לשם גירות\". ואם טבל בפני רבו – אינו צריך לפרש, אלא כיון שטבל נשתחרר. לפיכך צריך רבו לתקפו במים עד שיעלה והוא תחת שיעבודו, ומודיעו בפני הדיינין שלשם עבדות מטבילו. ואין העבד טובל אלא בפני שלושה וביום כגר, שמקצת גירות הוא.", + "כשישתחרר העבד – צריך טבילה אחרת בפני שלושה, ביום שבו תיגמר גירותו ויהיה כישראל. ואין צריך לקבל עליו מצות ולהודיעו עיקרי הדת, שכבר הודיעוהו כשטבל לשם עבדות.", + "ובמקוה הכשר לטבילת נידה – שם מטבילין את הגרים ואת העבדים ואת המשוחררים. וכל דבר שחוצץ בנידה – חוצץ בגרים ובעבדים ובמשוחררים.", + "אל יעלה על דעתך ששמשון המושיע את ישראל, או שלמה מלך ישראל שנקרא \"ידיד יי\", נשאו נשים נכריות בגיותן. אלא סוד הדבר כך הוא: שהמצוה הנכונה כשיבוא הגר או הגיורת להתגייר – בודקין אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול, או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה, או מפני הפחד בא להכנס לדת. ואם איש הוא – בודקין אחריו שמא עיניו נתן באשה יהודית, ואם אשה היא – בודקין שמא עיניה נתנה בבחור מבחורי ישראל. אם לא נמצא להם עילה – מודיעין אותן כובד עול התורה, וטורח שיש בעשייתה על עמי הארצות, כדי שיפרושו. אם קבלו ולא פירשו, וראו אותן שחזרו מאהבה – מקבלים אותן, שנאמר: \"ותרא כי מתאמצת היא ללכת אתה, ותחדל לדבר אליה\".", + "לפיכך לא קבלו בית דין גרים כל ימי דוד ושלמה. בימי דוד שמא מן הפחד חזרו, ובימי שלמה שמא בשביל המלכות והטובה והגדולה שהיו בה ישראל חזרו. שכל החוזר מן העובדי כוכבים בשביל דבר מהבלי העולם – אינו מגרי הצדק. ואף כל פי כן היו גרים הרבה מתגיירים בימי דוד ושלמה בפני הדיוטות, והיו בית דין הגדול חוששין להם: לא דוחין אותן אחר שטבלו מכל מקום, ולא מקרבין אותן עד שתראה אחריתם.", + "ולפי שגייר שלמה נשים ונשאן, וכן שמשון גייר ונשא, והדבר ידוע שלא חזרו אלו אלא בשביל דבר, ולא על פי בית דין גיירום – חשבן הכתוב כאילו הן עובדות כוכבים ובאיסורן עומדין. ועוד שהוכיח סופן על תחילתן שהן עובדות כוכבים ומזלות שלהן, ובנו להן במות. והעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הוא בנאן, שנאמר: \"אז יבנה שלמה במה\".", + "גר שלא בדקו אחריו, או שלא הודיעוהו המצות ועונשן, ומל וטבל בפני שלושה הדיוטות – הרי זה גר. אפילו נודע שבשביל דבר הוא מתגייר, הואיל ומל וטבל – יצא מכלל עבדי הכוכבים ומזלות, וחוששין לו עד שיתבאר צדקותו. ואפילו חזר ועבד כוכבים ומזלות – הרי הוא כישראל מומר שקידושיו קידושין, ומצוה להחזיר אבידתו, מאחר שטבל נעשה כישראל. ולפיכך קיימו שמשון ושלמה נשותיהן, ואף על פי שנגלה סודן.", + "ומפני זה אמרו חכמים: קשים להם גרים לישראל כנגע צרעת, שרובן חוזרין בשביל דבר ומטעין את ישראל, וקשה הדבר לפרוש מהם אחר שנתגיירו. צא ולמד מה אירע במדבר במעשה העגל ובקברות התאוה, וכן רוב הנסיונות האספסוף היו בהן תחילה." + ], + [ + "כיצד מקבלין גירי הצדק כשיבוא אחד להתגייר מן העכו\"ם ויבדקו אחריו ולא ימצאו עילה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים ודחופים ומסוחפין ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהן אם אמר אני יודע ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד.", + "ומודיעין אותו עיקרי הדת שהוא ייחוד השם ואיסור עכו\"ם ומאריכין בדבר הזה ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ואין מאריכין בדבר זה ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופיאה ומעשר שני ומודיעין אותו עונשן של מצות כיצד אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת לדת זו אם אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת אם חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אחר שתתגייר אם אכלת חלב אתה ענוש כרת אם חללת שבת אתה ענוש סקילה ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו שמא יגרום לטרדו ולהטותו מדרך טובה לדרך רעה שבתחלה אין מושכין את האדם אלא בדברי רצון ורכים וכן הוא אומר בחבלי אדם אמשכם ואחר כך בעבותות אהבה.", + "וכשם שמודיעין אותו עונשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו שכרן של מצות ומודיעין אותו שבעשיית מצות אלו יזכה לחיי העולם הבא ושאין שום צדיק גמור אלא בעל החכמה שעושה מצות אלו ויודען.", + "ואומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו צפון אלא לצדיקים והם ישראל וזה שתראה ישראל בצער בעולם הזה טובה היא צפונה להם שאינן יכולין לקבל רוב טובה בעולם הזה כאומות שמא ירום לבם ויתעו ויפסידו שכר העולם הבא כענין שנאמר וישמן ישורון ויבעט.", + "ואין הקב\"ה מביא עליהן רוב פורענות כדי שלא יאבדו אלא כל העכו\"ם כלין והן עומדין ומאריכין בדבר הזה כדי לחבבן אם חזר בו ולא רצה לקבל הולך לדרכו ואם קיבל אין משהין אותו אלא מלין אותו מיד ואם היה מהול מטיפין ממנו דם ברית ומשהים אותו עד שיתרפא רפואה שלימה ואחר כך מטבילין אותו.", + "ושלשה עומדין על גביו ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות פעם שנייה והוא עומד במים ואם היתה אשה נשים מושיבות אותה במים עד צוארה והדיינין מבחוץ ומודיעין אותה מקצת מצות קלות וחמורות והיא יושבת במים ואח\"כ טובלת בפניהם והן מחזירין פניהן ויוצאין כדי שלא יראו אותה כשתעלה מן המים.", + "אי זה הוא גר תושב זה עכו\"ם שקיבל עליו שלא יעבוד כו\"ם עם שאר המצות שנצטוו בני נח ולא מל ולא טבל ה\"ז מקבלין אותו והוא מחסידי אומות העולם ולמה נקרא שמו תושב לפי שמותר לנו להושיבו בינינו בארץ ישראל כמו שביארנו בהלכות עכו\"ם.", + "ואין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אבל בזמן הזה אפילו קיבל עליו כל התורה כולה חוץ מדקדוק אחד אין מקבלין אותו.", + "העבד הנלקח מן העכו\"ם אין אומרין לו מה ראית שבאת אלא אומרים לו רצונך שתכנס לכלל עבדי ישראל ותהיה מן הכשרים או לא אם רצה מודיעין לו עיקרי הדת ומקצת מצות קלות וחמורות ועונשן ושכרן כמו שמודיעין את הגר ומטבילין אותו כגר ומודיעין אותו כשהוא במים ואם לא רצה לקבל מגלגלין עליו כל שנים עשר חדש ומוכרו לעכו\"ם ואסור לקיימו יותר על כן ואם התנה עליו מתחלה שלא ימול ולא יטבול אלא יהיה גר תושב מותר לקיימו בעבודתו כשהוא גר תושב ואין מקיימין עבד כזה אלא בזמן היובל.", + "העכו\"ם אין אסורים עליהם משום ערוה אלא אמו ואשת אביו ואחותו מאמו ואשת איש וזכר ובהמה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מלכים ומלחמותיהן אבל שאר עריות מותרין להן.", + "עכו\"ם שנתגייר ועבד שנשתחרר הרי הוא כקטן שנולד וכל שאר בשר שהיו לו כשהוא עכו\"ם או כשהוא עבד אינן שאר בשר ואם נתגייר הוא והם אינו חייב על אחת מהם משום ערוה כלל.", + "דין תורה שמותר לעכו\"ם שישא אמו או אחותו מאמו שנתגיירו אבל חכמים אסרו דבר זה כדי שלא יאמרו באנו מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה שאמש היתה לו זו אסורה והיום מותרת וכן גר שבא על אמו או אחותו והיא בגיותה ה\"ז כבא על הנכרית.", + "כיצד דין הגרים בעריות של שאר בשר אם היה נשוי כשהוא עכו\"ם לאמו או לאחותו ונתגיירו מפרישין אותן כמו שביארנו ואם היה נשוי לשאר עריות ונתגייר הוא ואשתו אין מפרישין אותן גר אסור בשאר האם אחר שנתגייר מד\"ס ומותר בשאר האב אף על פי שיודע בודאי שזה שארו מאביו כגון תאומים שדבר ברור שאביו של זה הוא אביו של זה אע\"פ כן לא גזרו על שאר אביו לפיכך נושא הגר אשת אחיו מאביו ואשת אחי אביו ואשת אביו ואשת בנו אף על פי שנשאת לאחיו או לאביו או לאחי אביו או לבנו אחר שנתגיירו וכן אחות אמו מאביה ואחותו מאביו ובתו שנתגיירה מותרת לו אבל אינו נושא לא אחותו מאמו ולא אחות אמו מאמה ולא אשת אחיו מאמו שנשאה אחיו מאמו אחר שנתגייר אבל אם נשאה אחיו כשהוא עכו\"ם ה\"ז מותרת לו.", + "שני אחים תאומים שהיתה הורתן שלא בקדושה ולידתן בקדושה חייבין משום אשת אח.", + "הנושא גיורת ובתה הגיורת או שתי אחיות מן האם יושב עם אחת מהן ומגרש השנייה נשא גיורת ומתה הרי זה מותר לישא אמה או בתה שלא גזרו אלא בחייהן ומותר לאדם לישא שתי אחיות גיורות מן האב שלא גזרו בשאר האב כמו שבארנו.", + "השניות כולן לא גזרו עליהן בגרים לפיכך מותר הגר לישא אם אמו ונושא אדם גיורת ואם אמה או בת בת בתה וכן בשאר השניות.", + "העבד מותר לישא אמו כשהוא עבד ואין צריך לומר בתו ואחותו וכיוצא בהן שכבר יצא מכלל עכו\"ם ואין העריות האסורות על העכו\"ם אסורות עליו ולא בא לכלל ישראל כדי שיאסרו עליו עריות האסורות על הגרים.", + "ויראה לי שאם בא העבד על הזכור ובהמה יהרגו שאיסור שתי עריות אלו שוה בכל האדם.", + "עבדים שנשתחררו הרי הן כגרים כל שאסור לגרים אסור להן וכל המותר לגרים מותר להן נותן אדם שפחתו לעבדו או לעבד חבירו ומוסר שפחה אחת לשני עבדים לכתחלה ואינן צריכין שום דבר אלא הרי הן כבהמות ושפחה שהיא מיוחדת לעבד או שאינה מיוחדת אחת היא לפי שאין אישות אלא לישראל או לעכו\"ם על העכו\"ם אבל לא לעבדים על העבדים ולא לעבדים על ישראל." + ], + [ + "אי זהו ממזר האמור בתורה זה הבא מערוה מן העריות חוץ מן הנדה שהבן ממנה פגום ואינו ממזר אבל הבא על שאר העריות בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה הולד ממזר ואחד זכרים ואחד נקבות אסורין לעולם שנאמר גם דור עשירי כלומר לעולם.", + "אחד ממזר שנשא ישראלית או ישראלי שנשא ממזרת כיון שבעלו אחר הקידושין לוקין קידש ולא בעל אינו לוקה בעל ולא קידש אינן לוקין משום ממזרות שאין לך בכל חייבי לאוין מי שלוקה על בעילה בלא קידושין אלא כהן גדול באלמנה כמו שיתבאר המחזיר גרושתו משנשאת הולד כשר שהרי אינה ערוה.", + "עכו\"ם ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בין פנויה בין באשת איש בין באונס בין ברצון עכו\"ם ועבד הבאים על הממזרת הולד ממזר וממזר הבא על העכו\"ם הולד עכו\"ם נתגייר הרי הוא כשר כשאר גרים ואם בא על השפחה הולד עבד שחררו הולד כשר כשאר עבדים משוחררין ומותר בבת ישראל.", + "זה הכלל בן הבא מן העבד או מן העכו\"ם או מן השפחה או מן בת עכו\"ם הרי הוא כאמו ואין משגיחין על האב לפי דבר זה התירו לממזר לישא שפחה כדי לטהר את בניו שהרי הוא משחרר אותם ונמצאו בני חורין ולא גזרו על השפחה לממזר מפני תקנת הבנים.", + "מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין הבא על אשת איש אותו הבן אין לו תקנה מפני שצד ממזרות וצד כשרות מעורבין בו לפיכך אסור בשפחה ונמצאו בניו כמותו לעולם.", + "עכו\"ם הבא על השפחה שטבלה הרי זה עבד ועבד שטבל שבא על עכו\"ם הולד עכו\"ם הלך אחר האם אבל עכו\"ם הבא על שפחה עכו\"ם או עבד עכו\"ם שבא על עכו\"ם בת חורין הלך אחר הזכר.", + "ממזר מותר לישא גיורת וכן הממזרת מותרת לגר והבנים משניהם ממזרים שהולד הולך אחר הפגום שנאמר בקהל ה' וקהל גרים אינו קרוי קהל י\"י.", + "גיורת שנשאת לגר והולידו בן אע\"פ שהורתו ולידתו בקדושה הרי זה מותר בממזרת וכן בן בן בנו עד שישתקע שם גירותו ממנו ולא יודע שהוא גר ואחר כך יאסר בממזרת ואחד הגרים ואחד העבדים משוחררין דין אחד לכולן.", + "גר שנשא בת ישראל או ישראל שנשא גיורת הולד ישראל לכל דבר ואסור בממזרת.", + "שלשה ממזרים הם ממזר ודאי וממזר ספק וממזר מדברי סופרים אי זהו ממזר ודאי זה שבא מן הערוה הודאית כמו שביארנו וממזר ספק זה שבא מספק ערוה כגון הבא על האשה שנתקדשה ספק קידושין או נתגרשה ספק גירושין וכיוצא בהן מדברי סופרים כגון האשה ששמעה שמת בעלה ונשאת והרי בעלה קיים ובא בעלה הראשון עליה והיא תחת השני הרי הבן ממזר מדברי סופרים.", + "פנויה שנתעברה מזנות אמרו לה מהו העובר הזה או הילוד הזה אם אמרה בן כשר הוא ולישראל נבעלתי הרי זו נאמנת והבן כשר ואף ע\"פ שרוב העיר שזנתה בה פסולים.", + "ואם לא נבדקה אמו עד שמתה או שהיתה חרשת או אלמת או שוטה או שאמרה לפלוני הממזר נבעלתי או לפלוני הנתין אפילו אותו פלוני מודה שהוא ממנו הרי זה הילוד ספק ממזר כשם שזינתה עם זה שהודה לה כך זינתה עם אחר וזה הוא הנקרא שתוקי שמכיר את אמו ואינו מכיר את אביו ודאי.", + "וכן הבן הנמצא בשוק והוא הנקרא אסופי הרי הוא ספק ממזר שאין אנו יודעים מה הוא.", + "פנויה שזנתה ואמרה בן זה בן פלוני הוא אם אותו פלוני כשר הרי הבן כשר ואינה נאמנת להיות זה בנו של פלוני ויראה לי שחוששין לדבריה ויהיה הבן אסור בקרובות אותו פלוני מספק ואם אותו פלוני ממזר אינה נאמנת להיות הבן ממזר ודאי על פיה כמו שביארנו אלא יהיה ספק ממזר.", + "אבל האב שהוחזק שזה בנו ואמר בני זה ממזר הוא נאמן ואם יש לבן בנים אינו נאמן שלא האמינה אותו תורה אלא על בנו שנאמר כי את הבכור בן השנואה יכיר יכירנו לאחרים.", + "וכשם שנאמן לומר בני זה בכור כך נאמן לומר בני זה ממזר או בן גרושה או בן חלוצה וכן אם היתה אשתו מעוברת נאמן לומר עובר זה אינו בני וממזר הוא ויהיה ממזר ודאי והאומר על עצמו שהוא ממזר נאמן לאסור עצמו בבת ישראל ואסור בממזרת עד שיודע ודאי שהוא ממזר ובנו כמוהו ואם יש לו בני בנים אינו נאמן לפסול בני בניו ולא יפסול אלא עצמו.", + "ארוסה שנתעברה והיא בבית אביה הרי הולד בחזקת ממזר ואסור בבת ישראל ואסור בממזרת ואם נבדקה אמו ואמרה מארוסי נתעברתי נאמנת והולד כשר ואם הכחישה הארוס ואמר מעולם לא באתי עליה הרי הולד ממזר שאפילו היה בחזקת בנו ואמר בני זה ממזר נאמן והאשה אינה בחזקת זונה אלא נאמנת לומר לארוס נבעלתי ואינה זונה ואם נשאת לכהן לא תצא וולדה ממנו כשר.", + "היו העם מרננים אחריה והיא ארוסה עם ארוסה ועם אנשים אחרים אף על פי שבא עליה ארוסה בבית חמיו הרי זה ספק ממזר כשם שהפקירה עצמה לארוסה הפקירה לאחרים ואם נבדקה ואמרה עובר זה מארוסי הרי זה כשר כמו שביארנו.", + "אשת איש שהיתה מעוברת ואמרה עובר זה אינו מבעלי אינה נאמנת לפסלו והרי הבן בחזקת כשרות שלא האמינה תורה אלא האב אמר האב אינו בני או שהיה בעלה במדינת הים הרי זה בחזקת ממזר ואם אמרה מעכו\"ם ועבד נתעברתי הרי הולד כשר שאין הבעל יכול להכחישה בדבריה ואין העובר משתהה במעי אמו יתר על שנים עשר חדש.", + "אשת איש שיצא עליה קול שהיתה זונה תחת בעלה והכל מרננין אחריה אין חוששין לבניה שמא ממזרים הם שרוב בעילות אצל הבעל ומותר לישא בתה לכתחלה אבל היא עצמה חוששין לה משום זונה ואם היתה פרוצה יותר מדאי אף לבניה חוששין.", + "דין תורה שספק ממזר מותר לבוא בקהל שנאמר לא יבא ממזר בקהל י\"י ממזר ודאי אסור לבוא בקהל ולא ספק אבל חכמים עשו מעלה ביוחסין ואסרו גם הספיקות לבוא בקהל לפיכך ממזר ודאי מותר לישא ממזרת ודאית אבל ממזר ספק או שתוקי או אסופי אסור לישא בת ישראל.", + "ואסור לישא ממזרת ואפילו ממזרת מספק אסורה לו שמא אחד מהן אינו ממזר והשני ממזר ודאי וממזר של דבריהם מותר לישא ממזרת של דבריהם וכן שאר הספיקות אסורין לישא זה מזה.", + "כיצד שתוקים ואסופים וספק ממזרים אסורים לבוא זה עם זה ואם נשאו לא יקיימו אלא יוציאו בגט והולד ספק כאבותיו ואין לספיקות אלו תקנה אלא שישאו מן הגרים והולד הולך אחר הפגום.", + "כיצד שתוקי או אסופי שנשא גיורת או משוחררת או גר ומשוחרר שנשא שתוקית או אסופית הולד שתוקי או אסופי.", + "האסופי שנמצא בעיר שיש בה עכו\"ם בין שהיה רוב עכו\"ם או רוב ישראל ה\"ז ספק עכו\"ם לענין יחוסין קידש אשה צריכה גט מספק מי שהרגו לא היה נהרג עליו.", + "הטבילוהו בית דין לשם גרות או שטבל משהגדיל הרי הוא כשאר אסופים הנמצאים בערי ישראל היה רוב העיר עכו\"ם מותר להאכילו נבילות היה רובן ישראל מחזירין לו אבידתו כישראל מחצה על מחצה מצוה להחיותו כישראל ומפקחין עליו את הגל בשבת והרי הוא לענין נזקין ככל ספק ממון המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.", + "יראה לי שכל מדינה שיש בה שפחה או עכו\"ם הראויה לילד הואיל והאסופי הנמצא שם ספק עכו\"ם או ספק עבד כשישא הגיורת כמו שביארנו הרי זו ספק אשת איש והבא עליה פטור שאין הורגין על ספק וכן יראה לי שהשתוקי שנשא אשה שאפשר שהיא ערוה עליו והרי היא ספק אשת איש שאין קידושין תופסין בעריות.", + "ואי זו היא האשה שאפשר שתהיה ערוה עליו כל אשה שהיה אביה או אחיה קיים כשנתעברה בו אמו וכל אשה שנתגרשה או נתאלמנה שמא אשת אביו היא או אשת אחי אביו.", + "ומנין אני אומר שאין השתוקי והאסופי אסור בכל אשה שאפשר שתהיה ערוה עליו שהרי הכשר שנבדקה אמו אינו אסור בכל אשה שאפשר שתהיה ערוה עליו והרי נאמר בתורה אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה ואמרו חכמים שאם יעשה זה נמצא אב נושא בתו ואח נושא אחותו ואילו היה הדין שכל מי שאינו יודע אביו בודאי אסור בכל אשה שאפשר שתהיה ערוה עליו לא היינו באים למדה הזאת לעולם ולא תהיה הארץ מלאה זמה הא למדת שאין אוסרין עריות ומחזיקין אותן בשאר בשר בספק עד שיודע בודאי שזו ערוה עליו שאם אתה אומר כן כל היתומים שבעולם שלא הכירו אבותיהם היו אסורין להנשא בכ\"מ שמא יפגעו בערוה.", + "הולד שהיה מושלך בדרך ובא אחד ואמר בני הוא ואני השלכתיו נאמן וכן אמו נאמנת נאסף מן השוק ובאו אביו ואמר אחר כן ואמרו בננו הוא אין נאמנין הואיל ויצא עליו שם אסופי ובשני רעבון נאמנין שמפני רעב השליכוהו והן רוצין שיזונו אותם אחרים ולפיכך שתקו עד שנאסף.", + "נמצא הולד מהול או שהוחתל או שהומלח או שהיה הכוחל בעיניו או הקמיעין בצוארו או שנמצא תחת אילן מסובך שאין חיה נכנסת לו והיה סמוך לעיר או שנמצא בבית הכנסת הסמוך לר\"ה או בצידי ר\"ה אין כאן משום אסופי מאחר שהן משמרין אותו שלא ימות בחזקת כשר הוא אבל אם נמצא מושלך באמצע הדרך או רחוק מן העיר אפילו תחת אילן או בבית הכנסת או שנמצא תלוי באילן מקום שחיה מגעת לו הרי זה אסופי.", + "נאמנת חיה לומר זה הבן כהן הוא או לוי או נתין או ממזר מפני שלא הוחזק ואין אנו יודעין יחוסן בד\"א בשהוחזקה בנאמנות ולא ערער עליה אדם אבל אם ערער עליה אפילו אחד ואמר בשקר מעידה אינה נאמנת והרי הבן בחזקת כשר ואין לו ייחוס.", + "דבר ברור שהשתוקי אסור לישא שתוקית ואסופי אסור באסופית מפני שהן ספיקות אבל ממזרים ודאים ונתינים מותרים לבוא זה בזה והולד ממזר ושתוקי ואסופי מותרין בנתינים ובשאר הגרים והולד ספק." + ], + [ + "פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה שנשאו בת ישראל ובעלו לוקין שנאמר לא יבוא פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה בקהל י\"י ומותרין לישא גיורת ומשוחררת ואפי' כהן שהוא פצוע דכא מותר לישא גיורת ומשוחררת לפי שאינו בקדושתו ואפילו נתינה או אחד מן הספיקות מותרת לו.", + "הואיל ופצוע דכא אסור לבוא בקהל לא גזרו בו על הנתינים ולא על הספיקות אבל פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה אסור בממזרת ודאית שהרי אסורה מן התורה.", + "ואי זהו פצוע דכא כל שנפצעו הביצים שלו וכרות שפכה כל שנכרת הגיד שלו ובשלשה איברין אפשר שיפסל הזכר בגיד ובביצים ובשבילין שבהן תתבשל שכבת זרע והן הנקראין חוטי ביצים וכיון שנפצע אחד מג' איברין אלו או נדך הרי זה פסול.", + "כיצד נפצע הגיד או נדך או שנכרת העטרה או למעלה מעטרה פסול ואם נכרת מראש העטרה ונשתייר ממנה אפילו כחוט השערה מוקף לכל הגיד כשר נכרת הגיד למעלה מעטרה כקולמוס או כמרזב כשר.", + "ניקב למטה מעטרה כשר ניקבה העטרה עצמה אם כשיראה קרי תצא שכבת זרע מן הנקב פסול נסתם הנקב חזר להכשרו ניקב למטה מעטרה שכנגדו למעלה בתוך העטרה פסול שהעטרה כולה מעכבת.", + "נסתם שביל שכבת זרע וחזר לראות שכבת זרע משביל שמשתין בו הרי זה פסול.", + "נכרתו הביצים או אחת מהן או שנפצעה אחת מהן או שנדוכה אחת מהן או שחסרה או שנקבה הרי זה פסול נכרתו חוטי ביצים או אחת או שנדך או נפצע הרי זה פסול.", + "ניקב חוט מחוטי הביצים לשביל מי רגלים והרי הוא מטיל מים משני מקומות משביל המים ומשביל שכבת זרע ה\"ז כשר.", + "כל פסול שאמרנו בענין זה כשלא היו בידי שמים כגון שכרתו אדם או כלב או הכהו קוץ וכיוצא בדברים אלו אבל אם נולד כרות שפכה או פצוע דכא או שנולד בלא ביצים או שחלה מחמת גופו ובטלו ממנו אברים אלו או שנולד בהם שחין והמסה אותן או כרתן ה\"ז כשר לבא בקהל שכל אלו בידי שמים.", + "אסור להפסיד איברי זרע בין באדם בין בבהמה חיה ועוף אחד טמאים ואחד טהורים בין בארץ ישראל בין בחוצה לארץ אע\"פ שנאמר ובארצכם לא תעשו מפי השמועה למדו שדבר זה נוהג בכל מקום וענין הכתוב לא יעשה זאת בישראל בין בגופן בין בגוף אחרים וכל המסרס לוקה מן התורה בכ\"מ ואפילו מסרס אחר מסרס לוקה.", + "כיצד הרי שבא אחד וכרת את הגיד ובא אחר וכרת את הביצים או נתקן ובא אחר וכרת חוטי ביצים או שבא אחד ומעך את הגיד ובא אחר ונתקו ובא אחר וכרתו כולן לוקין ואף על פי שלא סרס האחרון אלא מסורס בין באדם בין בבהמה חיה ועוף והמסרס את הנקבה בין באדם בין בשאר מינים פטור.", + "המשקה עיקרין לאדם או לשאר מינים כדי לסרסו ה\"ז אסור ואין לוקין עליו ואשה מותרת לשתות עיקרין כדי לסרסה עד שלא תלד הרי שכפה את האדם ושסה בו כלב או שאר חיות עד שעשאוהו כרות שפכה או שהושיבו במים או בשלג עד שביטל ממנו איברי תשמיש אינו לוקה עד שיסרס בידו וראוי להכותו מכת מרדות.", + "אסור לומר לעכו\"ם לסרס בהמה שלנו ואם לקחה הוא מעצמו וסרסה מותר ואם הערים ישראל בדבר זה קונסין אותו ומוכרה לישראל אחר ואפילו לבנו הגדול מותר למוכרה אבל לבנו הקטן אינו מוכרה לו ולא נותנה לו." + ], + [ + "שלש נשים נאסרו על כל הכהנים גרושה זונה וחללה ועל כהן גדול ארבע אלו השלש והאלמנה אחד כהן גדול משוח בשמן המשחה או המרובה בגדים ואחד כהן העובד ואחד כהן גדול שמנוהו ועבר וכן כהן משוח מלחמה כולן מצווין על הבתולה ואסורין באלמנה.", + "כל כהן שנשא אחת מהשלש נשים אלו בין גדול בין הדיוט ובעל לוקה ואם בא עליה דרך זנות אינו לוקה משום זונה או גרושה או חללה שנאמר לא יקחו עד שיקח ויבעול.", + "אבל כהן גדול שבא על אלמנה לוקה אחת אע\"פ שלא קידש שנאמר לא יחלל כיון שבעלה חללה ופסלה לכהונה אבל זונה וחללה וגרושה הרי הן מחוללות ועומדות קודם בעילתו ולפיכך לוקה כהן גדול לבדו על בעילת אלמנה לבדה אף על פי שאין שם קידושין שהרי חללה והוא מוזהר שלא יחלל כשרים לא אשה ולא זרעו.", + "קידש כהן גדול אלמנה ובעלה לוקה שתים אחת משום אלמנה לא יקח ואחת משום לא יחלל ובין כהן גדול ובין כהן הדיוט שנשא אשה מן הארבע ולא בעל אינו לוקה.", + "וכל מקום שהוא לוקה היא לוקה וכל מקום שהוא אינו לוקה היא אינה לוקה שאין הפרש בין איש לאשה לעונשין זולתי בשפחה חרופה בלבד כמו שביארנו.", + "כל כהן הבא על הכותית בין גדול בין הדיוט לוקה משום זונה שהרי אינה בת קידושין והוא אסור בבעילת זונה בין ישראלית בין כותית.", + "החלוצה אסורה לכהן מד\"ס מפני שהיא כגרושה ומכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם כהן שנשא ספק חלוצה אין מוציאין אותה מתחתיו והיא כשרה וולדה כשר מפני שלא גזרו על ספק חלוצה אלא על חלוצה ודאית וכן מי שהיתה ספק גרושה או ספק אלמנה או ספק זונה וספק חללה מכין אותו מכת מרדות ומוציא בגט.", + "כלל גדול הוא בכל איסורים שבתורה שאין איסור חל על איסור אלא א\"כ היו שני איסורין באין כאחת או שהיה האיסור האחד מוסיף דברים אחרים על אותו האיסור או אם היה כולל דברים אחרים עם איסור זה.", + "לפיכך אשה שהיתה אלמנה ונעשית גרושה ונעשית חללה ונעשית זונה ובא עליה כהן גדול אח\"כ לוקה ארבע מלקיות על ביאה אחת לפי שהאלמנה אסורה לכהן גדול ומותרת להדיוט חזרה להיות גרושה נוסף בה איסור ונאסרת לכהן הדיוט לפיכך נוסף בה איסור אחר על איסור האלמנה ועדיין היא מותרת לאכול בתרומה נעשית חללה נוסף בה איסור שהרי נאסרת בתרומה ועדיין היא מותרת לישראל נעשית זונה הואיל ויש שם זנות שאוסרה על ישראל אם זינתה אשתו ברצון נוסף בה איסור אחר והוא הדין לכהן הדיוט שבא על הגרושה שנעשית חללה ואחר כך זונה שהוא לוקה שלש על ביאה אחת אבל אם נשתנה סדר זה אינו לוקה אלא אחת.", + "מי שנתאלמנה מאנשים הרבה או נתגרשה מאנשים הרבה אין לוקין עליה אלא אחת על כל ביאה אלמנה בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנישואין אסורה.", + "כהן גדול שמת אחיו אע\"פ שהוא מן האירוסין ה\"ז לא ייבם אלא חולץ נפלה לו יבמה והוא כהן הדיוט ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול אף על פי שעשה בה מאמר כשהוא כהן הדיוט ה\"ז לא ייבם אחר שנתמנה אבל אם אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כ\"ג ה\"ז יכנוס אחר שנתמנה היתה מקודשת ספק קידושין ומת ארוסה הרי זו ספק אלמנה.", + "מצות עשה על כהן גדול שישא נערה בתולה ומשתבגור תאסר עליו והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח אשה לא קטנה בבתוליה ולא בוגרת הא כיצד יצאת מכלל קטנות ולכלל בגרות לא באה זו נערה ואינו נושא שתי נשים לעולם כאחת שנאמר אשה אחת ולא שתים.", + "כהן גדול לא ישא מוכת עץ אע\"פ שלא נבעלה [נבעלה שלא כדרכה הרי זו כנבעלה כדרכה נבעלה לבהמה ה\"ז מותרת].", + "כ\"ג שנשא בעולה אינו לוקה אבל מוציא בגט נשא בוגרת או מוכת עץ ה\"ז יקיים אירס בעולה ונתמנה כהן גדול ה\"ז יכנוס אחר שנתמנה.", + "אנס נערה בתולה או פיתה אותה אפילו אנסה או פיתה אותה כשהוא כהן הדיוט ונתמנה כהן גדול קודם שיכנוס הרי זה לא יכנוס ואם כנס מוציא.", + "אירס את הקטנה ובגרה תחתיו קודם נישואין ה\"ז לא יכנוס מפני שנשתנה גופה ואם כנס לא יוציא.", + "אחת גרושה מן האירוסין או מן הנישואין אבל הממאנת אפילו גירשה בגט והחזירה ומיאנה בו ה\"ז מותרת לכהן כמו שביארנו בהלכות גירושין וכל מי שאינה ראויה לחליצה אם נחלצה לא נפסלה לכהונה.", + "יצא עליה קול איש פלוני כהן כתב גט לאשתו או נתן גט לאשתו והרי היא יושבת תחתיו ומשמשתו אין מוציאין אותה מתחת בעלה ואם נשאת לכהן אחר תצא מן השני.", + "יצא שמה בעיר שנתקדשה ונתגרשה מן הקידושין חוששין לה כמו שביארנו בהלכות גירושין אבל אם יצא עליה קול שהיא חלוצה אין חוששין לה.", + "יצא קול על הבתולה שהיא בעולה אין חוששין לה ותנשא לכהן גדול יצא עליה קול שהיא שפחה אין חוששין לה ותנשא אפילו לכהן יצא לה שם מזנה בעיר אין חוששין לה ואפילו הוציאה בעלה משום שעברה על דת יהודית או בעדי דבר מכוער ומת קודם שיתן לה גט הרי זו מותרת לכהן שאין אוסרין אשה מאלו אלא בעדות ברורה או בהודאת פיה." + ], + [ + "מפי השמועה למדנו שהזונה האמורה בתורה היא כל שאינה בת ישראל או בת ישראל שנבעלה לאדם שהיא אסורה להנשא לו איסור השוה לכל או שנבעלה לחלל אף על פי שהיא מותרת להנשא לו לפיכך הנרבעת לבהמה אע\"פ שהיא בסקילה לא נעשית זונה ולא נפסלה לכהונה שהרי לא נבעלה לאדם והבא על הנדה אף על פי שהיא בכרת לא נעשית זונה ולא נפסלה לכהונה שהרי אינה אסורה להנשא לו.", + "וכן הבא על הפנויה אפילו היתה קדשה שהפקירה עצמה לכל אע\"פ שהיא במלקות לא נעשת זונה ולא נפסלה מן הכהונה שהרי אינה אסורה להנשא לו אבל הנבעלת לאחד מאיסורי לאוין השוין בכל ואין מיוחדין בכהנים או מאיסורי עשה ואין צריך לומר למי שהיא אסורה לו משום ערוה או לעכו\"ם ועבד הואיל והיא אסורה לו להנשא הרי זו זונה.", + "וכן הגיורת והמשוחררת אפילו נתגיירה ונשתחררה פחותה מבת שלש שנים הואיל ואינה בת ישראל הרי זו זונה ואסורה לכהן מכאן אמרו עכו\"ם או נתין או ממזר או גר עמוני ומואבי או מצרי ואדומי ראשון ושני או פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה או חלל שבאו על היהודית עשו אותה זונה ונפסלה לכהונה ואם היתה כהנת פסלוה מן התרומה וכן יבמה שבא עליה זר עשאה זונה והאילונית מותרת לכהן ואינה זונה.", + "הבא על אחת מהשניות וכיוצא בהן כגון הבא על קרובת חלוצתו או על חלוצתו לא עשה אותה זונה שהרי אינה אסורה להנשא לו מן התורה כמו שביארנו בהלכות יבום.", + "הא למדת שאין היותה זונה תולה בבעילה של איסור שהרי הבא על הנדה ועל הקדשה והנרבעת לבהמה נבעלה בעילה של איסור ולא נעשית זונה ומי שנשאת לחלל נבעלה בעילה של היתר כמו שיתבאר ונעשית זונה ואין הדבר תלוי אלא בפגימה ומפי השמועה למדו שאינה פגומה אלא מאדם האסור לה או מחלל כמו שאמרנו.", + "כל הנבעלת לאדם שעושה אותה זונה בין באונס בין ברצון בין בזדון בין בשגגה [בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה] משהערה בה נפסלה משום זונה ובלבד שתהיה בת שלש שנים ויום אחד ויהיה הבועל בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ומעלה לפיכך אשת איש שנבעלה לאחר בין באונס בין ברצון נפסלה לכהונה.", + "אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום טומאה שנאמר לא יוכל בעלה הראשון אשר שלחה לשוב לקחתה להיות לו לאשה אחרי אשה הוטמאה הכל בכלל שאם נבעלו אסורין על בעליהן פרט לך הכתוב באשת ישראל שנאנסה שהיא מותרת לבעלה שנאמר והיא לא נתפשה אבל אשת כהן באיסורה עומדת שהרי היא זונה.", + "אשת ישראל שנאנסה אף על פי שהיא מותרת לבעלה אסורה לכהונה אשת כהן שאמרה לבעלה נאנסתי או שגגתי ובא עלי אחד או שבא עד אחד והעיד לו עליה שזינתה בין באונס בין ברצון הרי זו אינה אסורה עליו שמא עיניה נתנה באחר ואם היא נאמנת לו או העד נאמן לו וסמך דעתו לדבריהם ה\"ז יוציא כדי לצאת ידי ספק.", + "אשת כהן שאמרה לבעלה נאנסתי אף ע\"פ שהיא מותרת לבעלה כמו שביארנו הרי היא אסורה לכל כהן שבעולם אחר שימות בעלה שהרי הודת שהיא זונה ואסרה עצמה ונעשית כחתיכה האסורה.", + "כהן שקידש גדולה או קטנה ואחר זמן בא עליה וטען שמצאה דרוסת איש נאסרה עליו מספק שמא קודם קידושין נבעלה או אחר קידושין אבל ישראל שטען טענה זו לא נאסרה עליו שיש כאן שני ספיקות שמא קודם קידושין ושמא אחר קידושין ואפילו נאמר לאחר קידושין שמא באונס שמא ברצון שהאנוסה מותרת לישראל כמו שביארנו.", + "לפיכך אם קדשה אביה לישראל והיא פחותה מבת ג' שנים ויום אחד וטען שמצאה דרוסת איש נאסרה עליו מספק שאין כאן אלא ספק אחד שמא באונס שמא ברצון וספק איסור של תורה לחומרא.", + "כל אשה שקינא לה בעלה ונסתרה ולא שתת מי סוטה אסורה לכהן מפני שהיא ספק זונה בין שלא רצת היא לשתות בין שלא רצה להשקותה בין שהיתה שם עדות שמונעה מלשתות בין שקנאו לה בית דין בין שהיתה מן הנשים שאין ראויות לשתות הואיל ולא שתת מכל מקום הרי זו אסורה לכהונה מספק.", + "פנויה שראוה שנבעלה לאחד והלך לו ואמרו לה מי הוא זה שבא עליך ואמרה אדם כשר הרי זו נאמנת ולא עוד אלא אפילו ראוה מעוברת ואמרו לה ממי נתעברת ואמרה מאדם כשר הרי זו נאמנת ותהיה מותרת לכהן.", + "במה דברים אמורים בשיהיה המקום שנבעלה בו פרשת דרכים או בקרנות שבשדות שהכל עוברין שם והיו רוב העוברים שם כשרים ורוב העיר שפרשו אלו העוברין ממנה כשרים שהחכמים עשו מעלה ביוחסין והצריכו שני רובות אבל אם היו רוב העוברים פוסלים אותה כגון עכו\"ם או ממזרים וכיוצא בהם אף על פי שרוב המקום שבאו ממנה כשרים או שהיו רוב אנשי המקום פסולין אע\"פ שרוב העוברין שם כשרים חוששין לה שמא למי שפוסל אותה נבעלה ולא תינשא לכהן לכתחלה ואם נשאת (לא) תצא.", + "ראוה שנבעלה בעיר או נתעברה בעיר אפילו לא היה שוכן שם אלא עכו\"ם אחד או חלל אחד ועבד וכיוצא בהן הרי זו לא תנשא לכתחלה לכהן שכל הקבוע כמחצה על מחצה הוא ואם נשאת לא תצא הואיל והיא אומרת לכשר נבעלתי.", + "היתה אלמת או חרשת או שאמרה איני יודעת למי נבעלתי או שהיתה קטנה שאינה מכרת בין כשר לפסול הרי זו ספק זונה ואם נשאת לכהן תצא אלא אם כן היו שני הרובין המצויין אצלה כשרים.", + "השבויה שנפדית והיא בת ג' שנים ויום אחד או יתר אסורה לכהן מפני שהיא ספק זונה שמא נבעלה לעכו\"ם ואם יש לה עד שלא נתייחד העכו\"ם עמה הרי זו כשרה לכהונה ואפי' עבד או שפחה או קרוב נאמן לעדות זו ושתי שבויות שהעידה כל אחת מהן לחבירתה הרי אלו נאמנות הואיל ואיסור כל הספיקות כולן מדברי סופרים לפיכך הקלו בשבויה.", + "וכן קטן שהיה מסיח לפי תומו נאמן מעשה באחד שנשבה הוא ואמו ובנה מסיח לפי תומו ואמר נשבינו לבין העכו\"ם אני ואמי יצאתי לשאוב מים ודעתי על אמי ללקוט עצים ודעתי על אמי והשיאו אותה חכמים לכהן על פיו.", + "אין הבעל נאמן להעיד באשתו השבויה שלא נטמאה שאין אדם מעיד לעצמו וכן שפחתה לא תעיד לה אבל שפחת בעלה מעידה לה ושפחתה שהיתה מסיחה לפי תומה נאמנת.", + "כהן שהעיד לשבויה שהיא טהורה הרי זה לא ישאנה שמא עיניו נתן בה ואם פדאה והעיד בה הרי זה ישאנה שאילו לא ידע שהיא טהורה לא נתן בה מעותיו.", + "האשה שאמרה נשביתי וטהורה אני נאמנת שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר אפילו היה שם עד אחד שמעיד שהיא שבויה אבל אם יש שם שני עדים שנשבית אינה נאמנת עד שיעיד לה אחד שהיא טהורה היו שם שני עדים שנשבית ועד אחד מעיד שנטמאת ואחד מכחיש אותו ומעיד לה שהיא טהורה ולא נתייחד עמה עכו\"ם עד שנפדית אפילו זה שמעיד שהיא טהורה אשה או שפחה הרי זו מותרת.", + "מי שאמרה נשביתי וטהורה אני והתירוה בית דין להנשא ואח\"כ באו שני עדים שנשבית הרי זו תנשא לכתחלה ולא תצא מהיתרה ואפילו נכנס אחריה שבאי והרי היא שבויה לפנינו ביד אדוניה הרי זו לא תצא מהיתרה שהתירוה ומשמרין אותה מעתה עד שתפדה.", + "באו לה שני עדים אחר כך שנטמאת אפילו נשאת ואפילו היו לה בנים הרי זו תצא ואם בא עד אחד אינו כלום אמרה נשביתי וטהורה אני ויש לי עדים שאני טהורה אין אומרין נמתין עד שיבואו העדים אלא מתירין אותה מיד ולא עוד אלא אפילו יצא עליה קול שיש עליה עדי טומאה מתירין אותה עד שיבואו שבשבויה הקלו.", + "האב שאמר קדשתי את בתי וגירשתיה והרי היא קטנה נאמן קדשתיה וגירשתיה כשהיתה קטנה והרי היא גדולה אינו נאמן להחזיקה גרושה נשבית ופדיתיה בין שהיא גדולה בין שהיא קטנה אינו נאמן שלא האמינה אותו תורה אלא לאסרה משום אישות שנאמר את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה אבל לא לפוסלה משום זנות.", + "אשת כהן שנאסרה עליו משום שבויה הואיל והדבר ספק הרי זו מותרת לדור עמו בחצר אחד ובלבד שיהיו עמו בניו ובני ביתו תמיד לשמרו.", + "עיר שבאה במצור ונכבשה אם היו העכו\"ם מקיפין את העיר מכל רוחותיה כדי שלא תמלט אשה אחת עד שיראו אותה ותעשה ברשותן הרי כל הנשים שבתוכה פסולות לכהונה כשבויות שמא נבעלו לעכו\"ם אלא מי שהיתה מבת שלש שנים ולמטה כמו שביארנו.", + "ואם היה איפשר שתמלט אשה אחת ולא ידעו בה או שתהיה בעיר מחבואה אחת אפילו אינה מחזקת אלא אשה אחת הרי זו מצלת על הכל.", + "כיצד מצלת שכל אשה שאמרה טהורה אני נאמנת ואף על פי שאין לה עד מתוך שיכולה לומר נמלטתי כשנכבשה העיר או במחבואה הייתי ונצלתי נאמנת לומר לא נמלטתי ולא נחבאתי ולא נטמאתי.", + "בד\"א בגדוד של אותה מלכות שהם מתיישבין בעיר ואין יראין לפיכך חוששין להם שמא בעלו אבל גדוד של מלכות אחרת שפשט ושטף ועבר לא נאסרו הנשים מפני שאין להם פנאי לבעול שהן עוסקים בשלל ובורחין להם ואם שבו נשים ונעשו ברשותן אע\"פ שרדפו אחריהם ישראל והצילו אותן מידם הרי הן אסורות.", + "האשה שנחבשה ביד עכו\"ם על ידי ממון מותרת ע\"י נפשות אסורה לכהונה ולפיכך אם היה בעלה כהן נאסרה עליו במה דברים אמורים בזמן שיד ישראל תקיפה על העכו\"ם והם יראין מהם אבל בזמן שיד העכו\"ם תקיפה אפילו על ידי ממון כיון שנעשית ברשות העכו\"ם נאסרה אלא אם כן העיד לה אחד כשבויה כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "אי זו היא חללה זו שנולדה מאיסור כהונה וכן אחת מן הנשים האסורות לכהונה שנבעלה לכהן נתחללה אבל הכהן עצמו שעבר העבירה לא נתחלל.", + "ובין שנבעלה באונס או בשגגה [בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה] משהערה בה נתחללה והוא שיהיה כהן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ומעלה ותהיה זו האסורה לו בת שלש שנים ויום אחד ומעלה.", + "כיצד כהן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על הגרושה או על הזונה וכהן גדול שבא עליהן או על האלמנה או שנשא בעולה ובא עליה הרי אלו נתחללו לעולם ואם הוליד ממנה בן בין זה שחללה בין כהן אחר הולד חלל אבל כהן שקידש אשה מאיסורי כהונה ונתאלמנה או נתגרשה מן האירוסין לא נתחללה ואם נשאת אף על פי שלא נבעלה נתחללה שכל נשואה בחזקת בעולה היא אף ע\"פ שנמצאת בתולה.", + "כהן גדול שנשא בוגרת או מוכת עץ לא חיללה וכן אם בעל בעולה בלא נישואין לא חיללה.", + "כהן הבא על ערוה מן העריות חוץ מנדה או על אחת מחייבי לאוין השוין בכל עשה אותה זונה כמו שביארנו חזר ובא עליה ביאה שנייה בין הוא בין כהן אחר נעשית חללה וזרעו ממנה חללים לפיכך כהן שבא על זקוקה ליבם ונתעברה מביאה ראשונה הולד כשר לפי שאינה מאיסורי כהונה ונעשית זונה חזר ובא עליה ביאה שנייה נתעברה וילדה היא חללה וולדה חלל לפי שהוא מאיסורי כהונה.", + "וכן כהן הבא על הגיורת והמשוחררת חללה וזרעו ממנה חללים כהן הבא על הנדה הולד כשר ואינו חלל שאין איסור הנדה מיוחד בכהנים אלא שוה בכל.", + "כהן שנשא גרושה מעוברת בין ממנו בין מאחר וילדה כשהיא חללה הולד כשר שהרי לא בא מטיפת עבירה.", + "כבר ביארנו שהחלוצה אסורה לכהן מדבריהם לפיכך כהן שבא על החלוצה הרי זו חללה וזרעה מכהן חללים והכל מדבריהן אבל כהן שבא על אחת מהשניות היא כשירה וזרעו ממנה כשרים שאיסור השניות איסור השוה בכל הוא ואינו מיוחד בכהנים.", + "כהן שבא על ספק זונה כגון ספק גיורת או משוחררת או שבא על ספק גרושה וכן כהן גדול שבא על ספק אלמנה הרי זו ספק חללה וולדה ספק חלל.", + "נמצאו החללים שלשה חלל מן התורה וחלל מדבריהם וספק חלל וכל ספק חלל נותנין עליו חומרי כהנים וחומרי ישראל אינו אוכל בתרומה ולא מטמא למתים ונושא אשה הראויה לכהן ואם אכל או נטמא או נשא גרושה מכין אותו מכת מרדות והוא הדין בחלל של דבריהם אבל חלל של תורה הודאי הרי הוא כזר ונושא גרושה ומטמא למתים שנאמר אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן אע\"פ שהם בני אהרן עד שיהיו בכיהונם.", + "כהן זכר שהוא אסור לישא זונה וחללה אסור בגיורת ומשוחררת שהיא כזונה כמו שביארנו אבל הכהנת מותרת להנשא לחלל ולגר ולמשוחרר שלא הוזהרו כשרות להנשא לפסולין שנאמר בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן נמצא הגר מותר לישא ממזרת ולישא כהנת.", + "גרים ומשוחררים שנשאו אלו מאלו והולידו בת אפילו לאחר כמה דורות הואיל ולא נתערב בהן זרע ישראל הרי אותה הבת אסורה לכהן ואם נשאת לא תצא הואיל והורתה ולידתה בקדושה אבל גר או משוחרר שנשא בת ישראל או ישראל שנשא גיורת או משוחררת בתו כשרה לכהונה לכתחלה.", + "גר עמוני שנשא בת ישראל וכן מצרי שני שנשא בת ישראל אף על פי שביאתם בעבירה והרי נשותיהן זונות כמו שביארנו בנותיהם כשרות לכהונה לכתחלה.", + "חלל שנשא כשרה זרעו ממנה חללים וכן בן בן בנו ואפילו אחר אלף דור שבן החלל הזכר הוא חלל לעולם ואם היתה בת אסורה היא לכהונה שהרי היא חללה אבל ישראל שנשא חללה הולד כשר לפיכך אם היתה בת הרי זו תנשא לכהונה לכתחלה.", + "כהנים ולוים וישראלים מותרין לבוא זה בזה והולד הולך אחר הזכר (לויים וישראלים וחללים מותרים לבוא זה בזה והולד הולך אחר הזכר) שנאמר ויתילדו על משפחותם לבית אבותם בית אביו היא משפחתו ואין בית אמו משפחתו.", + "לויים וישראלים וחללים גרים ועבדים משוחררים מותרים לבוא זה בזה והגר והמשוחרר שנשא לויה או ישראלית או חללה הרי הבן ישראלי וישראלי או לוי או חלל שנשאו גיורת או משוחררת הולד הולך אחר הזכר.", + "כל משפחות בחזקת כשרות ומותר לישא מהן לכתחלה ואע\"פ כן אם ראית שתי משפחות שמתגרות זו בזו תמיד או ראית משפחה שהיא בעלת מצה ומריבה תמיד או ראית איש שהוא מרבה מריבה עם הכל ועז פנים ביותר חוששין להן וראוי להתרחק מהן שאלו סימני פסלות הם וכן הפוסל את אחרים תמיד כגון שנותן שמץ במשפחות או ביחידים ואומר עליהן שהן ממזרים חוששין לו שמא ממזר הוא ואם אמר להן שהם עבדים חוששין לו שמא עבד הוא שכל הפוסל במומו פוסל וכן כל מי שיש בו עזות פנים או אכזריות ושונא את הבריות ואינו גומל להם חסד חוששין לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא שסימני ישראל האומה הקדושה ביישנין רחמנים וגומלי חסדים ובגבעונים הוא אומר והגבעונים לא מבני ישראל המה לפי שהעיזו פניהם ולא נתפייסו ולא רחמו על בני שאול ולא גמלו לישראל חסד למחול לבני מלכם והם עשו עמהם חסד והחיום בתחלה.", + "משפחה שקרא עליה ערער והוא שיעידו שנים שנתערב בהן ממזר או חלל או שיש בהן עבדות ה\"ז ספק ואם משפחת כהנים היא לא ישא ממנה אשה עד שיבדוק עליה ארבע אמהות שהן שמנה:אמה ואם אמה ואם אבי אמה ואם אם אבי אמה וכן הוא בודק על אם אביה ואם אם אביה ואם אבי אביה ואם אם אבי אביה.", + "ואם היתה משפחה זו שקרא עליה ערער לוים או ישראלים מוסיף לבדוק להם זוג אחד ונמצא בודק עשר אמהות שהעירוב בלוים וישראלים יתר מן הכהנים.", + "ולמה בודק בנשים בלבד מפני שהאנשים כל עת שיריבו זה עם זה יחרף את חבירו בפסול שיש בייחוסו ואילו היה שם פסול היה נשמע אבל הנשים אין מחרפות ביוחסין.", + "ולמה יבדוק האיש כשירצה לישא ממשפחה זו שהורעה חזקתה ולא תבדוק אשה שתנשא להן מפני שלא הוזהרו כשרות להנשא לפסולין.", + "כל שקורין לו ממזר ושותק או נתין ושותק או חלל ושותק או עבד ושותק חוששין לו ולמשפחתו ואין נושאין מהן אא\"כ בודקין כמו שביארנו.", + "משפחה שנתערב בה ספק חלל כל אלמנה מאותה משפחה אסורה לכהן לכתחלה ואם נשאת לא תצא מפני שהן שתי ספיקות שמא זו אלמנת אותו חלל שמא אינה אלמנתו ואם נאמר שהיא אלמנתו שמא חלל הוא שמא אינו חלל אבל אם נתערב בה חלל ודאי כל אשה מהן אסורה לכהן עד שיבדוק ואם נשאת תצא והוא הדין אם נתערב בה ספק ממזר או ממזר ודאי שאשת ממזר ואשת חלל לכהונה איסור אחד הוא כמו שביארנו." + ], + [ + "כל כהנים בזמן הזה בחזקה הם כהנים ואין אוכלין אלא בקדשי הגבול והוא שתהיה תרומה של דבריהם אבל תרומה של תורה וחלה של תורה אין אוכל אותה אלא כהן מיוחס.", + "אי זהו כהן מיוחס כל שהעידו לו שני עדים שהוא כהן בן פלוני הכהן ופלוני בן פלוני הכהן עד איש שאינו צריך בדיקה והוא הכהן ששימש על גבי המזבח שאילו לא בדקו בית דין הגדול אחריו לא היו מניחין אותו לעבוד לפיכך אין בודקין מהמזבח ומעלה ולא מן הסנהדרין ומעלה שאין ממנין בסנהדרין אלא כהנים לויים וישראלים מיוחסין.", + "חלה בזמן הזה ואפילו בארץ ישראל אינה של תורה שנאמר בבואכם אל הארץ ביאת כולכם ולא ביאת מקצתכם וכשעלו בימי עזרא לא עלו כולם וכן תרומה בזמן הזה של דברי סופרים ולפיכך אוכלים אותה הכהנים שבזמנינו שהן בחזקה.", + "מי שהעידו עליו [שני] עדים שראוהו שהיה אוכל בתרומה של תורה הרי זה מיוחס ואין מעלין ליוחסין לא מנשיאת כפים ולא מקריאה בתורה ראשון ולא מחילוק תרומה בבית הגרנות ולא על פי עד אחד.", + "כהן מיוחס שאמר בני זה כהן הוא אין מעלין אותו ליוחסין על פיו עד שיביא עדים שהוא בנו.", + "כהן מיוחס שיצא הוא ואשתו שידענו שהיא כשרה למדינה אחרת ובא הוא והיא ובנים כרוכין אחריהן ואמר אשה שיצאת עמי היא זו ואלו בניה אינו צריך להביא עדים לא על האשה ולא על הבנים מתה ואלו בניה צריך להביא עדים שאלו בניו ואינו צריך להביא עדים על אמן שהיא כשרה מפני שכבר הוחזק שיצאה מעמנו כאשה כשרה.", + "יצא כהן מיוחס למדינה אחרת ובא הוא ואשתו ובניו ואמר אשה זו נשאתי ואלו בניה צריך להביא ראיה שאשה זו כשרה ואינו מביא עדים שאלו בניה והוא שיהיו כרוכין אחריה ואם בא בשתי נשים והביא ראיה על האחת אף על פי שהבנים קטנים וכרוכין אחריה צריך להביא ראיה עליהם שמא בניו מן האחרת הם ונכרכו אחר זו המיוחסת.", + "בא הוא ובניו ואמר אשה נשאתי ומתה ואלו כניה מביא עדים שאותה האשה כשרה היתה ואלו בניה וכדין הזה דנין בישראל מיוחס ובלוי מיוחס ואח\"כ נעיד על בנו זה שהוא מיוחס כדי שיהיה ראוי לסנהדרין.", + "אין מעלין משטרות לכהונה כיצד הרי שהיה כתוב בשטר פלוני כהן לוה מפלוני והלוהו כך וכך והעדים מלמטה אין מחזיקין בהם כהן זה שהוא מיוחס שמא לא העידו אלא על המלוה בד\"א לענין ייחוס אבל לחזקה שיהיה כהן ככהני זמן זה ויאכל תרומה וחלה של דברי סופרים ובשאר קדשי הגבול מעלין מן השטרות וע\"פ עד אחד ומנשיאות כפים ומקריאה בתורה ראשון.", + "וכן כל כהן שאמר בני זה כהן נאמן להאכילו בתרומה ולהיותו בחזקת כהן ואינו צריך להביא ראיה לא על הבנים ולא על האשה.", + "שנים שבאו למדינה זה אומר אני וחבירי כהן וזה אומר אני וחבירי כהן אע\"פ שנראין כגומלין זה את זה הרי אלו נאמנין ושניהם בחזקת כהנים וכן עד שאמר ראיתי זה שנשא כפיו או שאכל בתרומה או שחלק על הגורן או שקרא בתורה ראשון וקרא אחריו לוי מחזיקין אותו בכהונה על פיו וכן אם העיד שזה קרא שני בתורה אחר כהן מחזיקין אותו בלויה.", + "העיד שראה זה שחלק עם אחיו בבית דין תרומה שהניח להן אביהן הכהן אין מעלין אותו לכהונה בעדות זו שמא חלל הוא ולקח חלק ירושתו מתרומה למכרה.", + "מי שבא בזמן הזה ואמר כהן אני אינו נאמן ואין מעלין אותו לכהונה על פי עצמו ולא יקרא בתורה ראשון ולא ישא את כפיו ולא יאכל בקדשי הגבול עד שיהיה לו עד אחד אבל אוסר עצמו בגרושה וזונה וחללה ואינו מטמא למתים ואם נשא או נטמא לוקה והנבעלת (לו) ספק חללה.", + "ואם היה מסיח לפי תומו נאמן כיצד מעשה באחד שהיה מסיח לפי תומו ואמר זכור אני כשהייתי תינוק והייתי מורכב על כתיפו של אבי הוציאוני מבית הספר והפשיטוני כתנתי והטבילוני לאכול תרומה לערב וחביריי בודלין ממני והיו קוראין אותי יוחנן אוכל חלות והעלהו רבינו הקדוש לכהונה ע\"פ עצמו.", + "נאמן גדול לומר זכור אני כשהייתי תינוק וראיתי פלוני טובל ואוכל בתרומה לערב ומחזיקין אותו בכהונה בעדותו מי שבא בזמן הזה ואמר כהן אני ועד אחד מעיד לו שאני יודע שאביו של זה כהן אין מעלין אותו לכהונה בעדות זה שמא חלל הוא עד שיעיד שזה כהן הוא אבל אם הוחזק אביו כהן או שבאו שנים והעידו שאביו של זה כהן הרי הוא בחזקת אביו.", + "מי שהוזחק אביו כהן ויצא עליו קול שהוא בן גרושה או חלוצה חוששין לו ומורידין אותו בא עד אחד אחר כך והעיד שהוא כשר מעלין אותו לכהונה על פיו באו שנים עדים אח\"כ והעידו שהוא חלל מורידין אותו מן הכהונה בא עד אחד והעיד שהוא כשר מעלין אותו לכהונה שזה האחרון מצטרף לעד ראשון והרי שנים מעידין שהוא כשר ושנים מעידים שהוא פסול ידחו אלו ואלו וידחה הקול שהשנים כמאה וישאר כהן בחזקת אביו.", + "אשה שלא שהתה שלשה חדשים אחר בעלה וילדה ואין ידוע אם בן תשעה לראשון או בן שבעה לאחרון והיה אחד מהן כהן והשני ישראל הרי זה ספק כהן וכך אם נתערב ולד כהן בולד ישראל והגדילו התערובות כל אחד מהן ספק כהן ונותנין עליהן חומרי ישראל וחומרי כהנים נושאין נשים הראויות לכהונה ואין מטמאים למתים ולא אוכלין בתרומה ואם נשאו גרושה מוציאין ואינן לוקין.", + "שני כהנים שנתערבו ולדותיהם או אשת כהן שלא שהתה אחר בעלה שלשה חדשים ונשאת לכהן אחר ואין ידוע אם בן תשעה לראשון או בן שבעה לאחרון נותנין לו על הולד חומרי שניהם הוא אונן עליהם והן אוננין עליו הוא אין מטמא להם והם אינן מטמאין לו ועולה במשמרו של זה ושל זה ואין חולק ואם היו שניהם במשמר אחד ובית אב אחד נוטל חלק אחד.", + "במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהן באין מכח נישואין אבל בזנות גזרו חכמים שמשתקין אותו מדין כהונה כלל הואיל ואינו יודע אביו הודאי שנאמר והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו עד שיהיה זרעו מיוחס אחריו.", + "כיצד עשרה כהנים שפירש אחד מהם ובעל שהרי הולד כהן ודאי ואף על פי כן הואיל ואינו יודע אביו שיתייחס לו משתקין אותו מדין כהונה ואינו עובד ולא אוכל ולא חולק ואם נטמא למתים או נשא גרושה לוקה שאין כאן ספק היתר." + ], + [ + "כל הבא על ערוה מן העריות דרך איברים או שחבק ונשק דרך תאוה ונהנה בקרוב בשר הרי זה לוקה מן התורה שנאמר לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות וגו' ונאמר לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה כלומר לא תקרבו לדברים המביאין לידי גילוי ערוה.", + "העושה דבר מחוקות אלו הרי הוא חשוד על העריות ואסור לאדם לקרוץ בידיו וברגליו או לרמוז בעיניו לאחת מן העריות או לשחוק עמה או להקל ראש ואפילו להריח בשמים שעליה או להביט ביפיה אסור ומכין למתכוין לדבר זה מכת מרדות והמסתכל אפילו באצבע קטנה של אשה ונתכוון להנות כמי שנסתכל במקום התורף ואפילו לשמוע קול הערוה או לראות שערה אסור.", + "והדברים האלו אסורין בחייבי לאוין ומותר להסתכל בפני הפנויה ולבדקה בין בתולה בין בעולה כדי שיראה אם היא נאה בעיניו ישאנה ואין בזה צד איסור ולא עוד אלא שראוי לעשות כן אבל לא יסתכל דרך זנות הרי הוא אומר ברית כרתי לעיני ומה אתבונן על בתולה.", + "ומותר לאדם להביט באשתו כשהיא נדה ואע\"פ שהיא ערוה ואף על פי שיש לו הנאת לב ממנה בראייה הואיל והיא מותרת לו לאחר זמן אינו בא בזה לדבר מכשול אבל לא ישחוק ולא יקל ראש עמה שמא ירגיל לעבירה.", + "אסור להשתמש באשה כלל בין גדולה בין קטנה בין שפחה בין משוחררת שמא יבוא לידי הרהור באי זה שמוש אמרו רחיצת פניו ידיו ורגליו והצעת מטה לפניו ומזיגת הכוס שאין עושה לאיש דברים אלו אלא אשתו בלבד ואין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל ואפילוע\"ישליח.", + "המחבק אחת מן העריות שאין לבו של אדם נוקפו עליהן או שנשק לאחת מהן כגון אחותו הגדולה ואחות אמו וכיוצא בהן אע\"פ שאין שם תאוה ולא הנאה כלל הרי זה מגונה ביותר ודבר אסור הוא ומעשה טפשים הוא שאין קריבין לערוה כלל בין גדולה בין קטנה חוץ מהאם לבנה והאב לבתו.", + "כיצד מותר האב לחבק בתו ולנשקה ותישן עמו בקרוב בשר וכן האם עם בנה כל זמן שהם קטנים הגדילו ונעשה הבן גדול והבת גדולה עד שיהיו שדים נכונו ושערך צמח זה ישן בכסותו והיא ישנה בכסותה ואם היתה הבת בושה לעמוד לפני אביה ערומה או שנישאת וכן אם האם בושה לעמוד בפני בנה ערומה ואף על פי שהן קטנים משהגיעו להכלם מהן אין ישנים עמהם אלא בכסותן.", + "נשים המסוללות זו בזו אסור וממעשה מצרים הוא שהוזהרנו עליו שנאמר כמעשה ארץ מצרים לא תעשו אמרו חכמים מה היו עושים איש נושא איש ואשה נושא אשה ואשה נשאת לשני אנשים אע\"פ שמעשה זה אסור אין מלקין עליו שאין לו לאו מיוחד והרי אין שם ביאה כלל לפיכך אין נאסרות לכהונה משום זנות ולא תיאסר אשה על בעלה בזה שאין כאן זנות וראוי להכותן מכת מרדות הואיל ועשו איסור ויש לאיש להקפיד על אשתו מדבר זה ומונע הנשים הידועות בכך מלהכנס לה ומלצאת היא אליהן.", + "אשתו של אדם מותרת היא לו לפיכך כל מה שאדם רוצה לעשות באשתו עושה בועל בכל עת שירצה ומנשק בכל אבר שירצה ובא עליה בין כדרכה, בין שלא כדרכה, בין דרך אברים ואף על פי כן מדת חסידות שלא יקל אדם את ראשו לכך ושיקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש כמו שביארנו בהלכות דעות ולא יסיר מדרך העולם ומנהגו שאין דבר זה אלא כדי לפרות ולרבות.", + "אסור לאדם לשמש מטתו לאור הנר הרי שהיתה שבת ולא היה לו בית אחר והיה הנר דלוק הרי זה לא ישמש כלל וכן אסור לישראלי לשמש מטתו ביום שעזות פנים היא לו ואם היה תלמיד חכם שאינו בא להמשך בכך הרי זה מאפיל בטליתו ומשמש ואין נזקקין לדבר זה אלא מפני צורך גדול ודרך קדושה לשמש באמצע הלילה.", + "אין דעת חכמים נוחה למי שהוא מרבה בתשמיש המטה ויהיה מצוי אצל אשתו כתרנגול ופגום הוא עד מאד ומעשה בורים הוא אלא כל הממעט בתשמיש הרי זה משובח והוא שלא יבטל עונה [אלא] מדעת אשתו ולא תקנו בראשונה לבעלי קריין שלא יקראו בתורה עד שיטבלו אלא כדי למעט בתשמיש המטה.", + "וכן אסרו חכמים שלא ישמש אדם מטתו ולבו מחשב באשה אחרת ולא יבעול מתוך שכרות ולא מתוך מריבה ולא מתוך שנאה ולא יבוא עליה על כרחה והיא יראה ממנו ולא כשיהיה אחד מהן מנודה ולאו יבוא עליה אחר שגמר בלבו לגרשה ואם עשה כן הבנים אינן הגונים אלא מהן עזי פנים ומהן מורדים ופושעים.", + "וכן אמרו חכמים שכל אשה חצופה שהיא תובעת תשמיש המטה בפיה או המפתה אשה לשם נישואין או המתכוין לבוא על רחל אשתו ובא על לאה אשתו ומי שלא שהתה אחר מיתת בעלה שלשה חדשים והרי הבן ספק כל אלו הבנים הילודים מהם הם המורדים והפושעים שיסורי הגלות בוררין אותן.", + "ואסור לאדם לבא על אשתו בשווקים וברחובות או בגנות ובפרדסין אלא בבית דירה שלא יראה כזנות וירגילו עצמם לידי זנות והבועל את אשתו במקומות אלו מכין אותו מכת מרדות וכן המקדש בביאה והמקדש בשוק והמקדש בלא שדוך מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "ואכסנאי אסור בתשמיש המטה עד שיחזור לביתו וכן אסרו חכמים על האיש שידור בבית חמיו שזו עזות פנים היא ולא יכנס עמו למרחץ.", + "ולא יכנס אדם עם אביו למרחץ ולא עם בעל אחותו ולא עם תלמידו ואם היה צריך לתלמידו מותר ויש מקומות שנהגו שלא יכנסו שני אחים כאחד למרחץ.", + "לא יהלכו בנות ישראל פרועי ראש בשוק אחת פנויה ואחת אשת איש ולא תלך אשה בשוק ובנה אחריה גזירה שמא יתפשו בנה ותלך אחריו להחזירו ויתעללו בה הרשעים שתפסוהו דרך שחוק.", + "אסור להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה לפיכך לא יהיה אדם דש מבפנים וזורה מבחוץ ולא ישא קטנה שאינה ראויה לילד אבל אלו שמנאפין ביד ומוציאין שכבת זרע לא די להם שאיסור גדול הוא אלא שהעושה זה בנדוי הוא יושב ועליהם נאמר ידיכם דמים מלאו וכאילו הרג הנפש.", + "וכן אסור לאדם שיקשה עצמו לדעת או יביא עצמו לידי הרהור אלא אם יבא לו הרהור יסיע לבו מדברי הבאי (והשחתה) לדברי תורה שהיא אילת אהבים ויעלת חן לפיכך אסור לאדם לישן על ערפו ופניו למעלה עד שיטה מעט כדי שלא יבוא לידי קישוי.", + "ולא יסתכל בבהמה ובחיה ועוף בשעה שמזדקקין זכר לנקבה ומותר למרביעי בהמה להכניס כמכחול בשפופרת מפני שהן עסוקין במלאכתן לא יבואו לידי הרהור.", + "וכן אסור לאדם להסתכל בנשים בשעה שהן עומדות על הכביסה אפילו להסתכל בבגדי צמר של אשה שהוא מכירה אסור שלא יבוא לידי הרהור.", + "מי שפגע באשה בשוק אסור לו להלך אחריה אלא רץ ומסלקה לצדדין או לאחריו וכל המהלך בשוק אחרי אשה הרי זה מקלי עמי הארץ ואסור לעבור על פתח אשה זונה עד שירחיק ד' אמות שנאמר ואל תקרב אל פתח ביתה.", + "ואסור לאדם שאינו נשוי לשלוח ידו במבושיו שלא יבוא לידי הרהור ואפילו מתחת טיבורו לא יכניס ידו שמא יבוא לידי הרהור ואם השתין מים לא יאחוז באמה וישתין ואם היה נשוי מותר ובין נשוי ובין שאינו נשוי לא יושיט ידו לאמה כלל אלא בשעה שהוא צריך לנקביו.", + "חסידים הראשונים וגדולי החכמים התפאר אחד מהם שמעולם לא נסתכל במילה שלו ומהן מי שהתפאר שלא התבונן מעולם בצורת אשתו מפני שלבו פונה מדברי הבאי לדברי האמת שהן אוחזות לבב הקדושים.", + "מצות חכמים שישיא אדם בניו ובנותיו סמוך לפרקן שאם יניחן יבואו לידי זנות או לידי הרהור ועל זה נאמר ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא ואסור להשיא אשה לקטן שזה כמו זנות היא.", + "ואין האיש רשאי לישב בלא אשה ולא ישא עקרה וזקנה שאינה ראויה לילד ורשות לאשה שלא תנשא לעולם או תנשא לסריס ולא ישא בחור זקנה ולא ישא זקן ילדה שדבר זה גורם לזנות.", + "וכן מי שגירש את אשתו מן הנשואין לא תדור עמו בחצר שמא יבואו לידי זנות ואם היה כהן לא תדור עמו במבוי וכפר קטן נידון כמבוי היה לה מלוה אצלו עושה שליח לתובעו וגרושה שבאה עם המגרש לדין מנדין אותן או מכין אותן מכת מרדות ואם נתגרשה מן האירוסין מותרת לתובעו בדין ולדור עמו ואם היה לבו גס בה אף מן האירוסין אסור ומי נדחה מפני מי היא נדחת מפניו ואם היתה החצר שלה הוא ידחה מפניה.", + "אסור לאדם לישא אשה ודעתו לגרשה שנאמר (משלי ג כט): \"אל תחרוש על רעך רעה והוא יושב לבטח אתך\" ואם הודיעה בתחלה שהוא נושא אותה לימים מותר.", + "ולא ישא אדם אשה במדינה זו ואשה במדינה אחרת שמא יאריכו הימים ונמצא אח נושא אחותו ואחות אמו ואחות אביו וכיוצא בהן ואינו ידוע ואם היה אדם גדול ששמו ידוע והרי זרעו מפורסמין וידועין הרי זה מותר.", + "לא ישא אדם אשה ממשפחת מצורעים ולא ממשפחת נכפין והוא שהוחזקו שלשה פעמים שיבואו בניהם כך.", + "אשה שנשאת לשני אנשים ומתו לשלישי לא תנשא ואם נשאת לא תצא ואפילו נתקדשה יכנוס ולא ישא ישראל עם הארץ כהנת שזה כמו חילול לזרעו של אהרן ואם נשא אמרו חכמים אין זווגן עולה יפה אלא מת בלא בנים או מת הוא או היא במהרה או קטטה תהיה ביניהם אבל תלמיד חכם שנשא כהנת הרי זה נאה ומשובח הרי תורה וכהונה כאחד.", + "לא ישא אדם בת עמי הארץ שאם מת או גולה בניו עמי הארץ יהיו שאין אמן יודעת כתר התורה ולא ישיא בתו לעם הארץ שכל הנותן בתו לעם הארץ כמי שכפתה ונתנה לפני הארי מכה ובועל ואין לו בושת פנים ולעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם שאם מת או גולה בניו תלמידי חכמים וכן ישיא בתו לתלמיד חכם שאין דבר מגונה ולא מריבה בביתו של תלמיד חכם." + ], + [ + "אסור להתייחד עם ערוה מן העריות בין זקנה בין ילדה שדבר זה גורם לגלות ערוה חוץ מהאם עם בנה והאב עם בתו והבעל עם אשתו נדה וחתן שפירסה אשתו נדה קודם שיבעול אסור להתייחד עמה אלא היא ישנה בין הנשים והוא ישן בין האנשים ואם בא עליה ביאה ראשונה ואחר כך נטמאת מותר להתייחד עמה.", + "לא נחשדו ישראל על משכב זכור ועל הבהמה לפיכך אין אסור להתייחד עמהן ואם נתרחק אפילו מייחוד זכור ובהמה הרי זה משובח וגדולי החכמים היו מרחיקין הבהמה כדי שלא יתייחדו עמה ואיסור ייחוד העריות מפי הקבלה.", + "כשאירע מעשה אמנון ותמר גזר דוד ובית דינו על ייחוד פנויה ואע\"פ שאינה ערוה בכלל ייחוד עריות היא ושמאי והלל גזרו על ייחוד כותית נמצא כל המתייחד עם אשה שאסור להתייחד עמה בין ישראלית בין כותית מכין את שניהן מכת מרדות האיש והאשה ומכריזין עליהן חוץ מאשת איש שאף על פי שאסור להתייחד עמה אם נתייחד אין לוקין שלא להוציא לעז עליה שזינתה ונמצאו מוציאין לעז על הבנים שהן ממזרים.", + "כל אשה שאסור להתייחד עמה אם היתה אשתו עמו ה\"ז מותרת להתייחד מפני שאשתו משמרתו אבל לא תתייחד ישראלית עם הכותי ואע\"פ שאשתו עמו שאין אשתו של כותי משמרתו ואין להן בושה.", + "וכן אין מוסרין תינוק ישראל לכותי ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות מפני שכולן חשודין על משכב זכור ואין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקיות של כותים ואפילו זכרים אצל זכרים ונקבות אצל נקבות.", + "ואין מוסרין בהמה חיה ועוף לרועה כותי אפילו זכרים לכותים ונקבות לכותית מפני שכולן חשודין על הרבעת בהמה וכבר ביארנו שהן אסורין בזכור ובבהמה ונאמר ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול.", + "ומפני מה אין מוסרין בהמה נקבה לכותית מפני שכולן בחזקת נואפים וכשיבוא הנואף לשכב עם הכותית זו אפשר שלא ימצאנה וישכב עם הבהמה או אפילו ימצאנה ישכב עם הבהמה.", + "לא תתייחד אשה אחת אפילו עם אנשים הרבה עד שתהיה אשתו של אחד מהם שם וכן לא יתייחד איש אחד אפילו עם נשים הרבה נשים הרבה עם אנשים הרבה אין חוששין לייחוד היו האנשים מבחוץ והנשים מבפנים או האנשים מבפנים והנשים מבחוץ ופירשה אשה אחת לבין האנשים או איש לבין הנשים אסורין משום ייחוד אפילו איש שעסקו ומלאכתו עם הנשים אסור לו להתייחד עם הנשים כיצד יעשה יתעסק עמהן ואשתו עמו או יפנה למלאכה אחרת.", + "מותר להתייחד עם שתי יבמות או עם שתי צרות או עם אשה וחמותה או עם אשה ובת בעלה או עם אשה ובת חמותה מפני ששונאות זו את זו ואין מחפות זו על זו וכן מותר להתייחד עם אשה שיש עמה תינוקת קטנה שיודעת טעם ביאה ואינה מוסרת עצמה לביאה שאינה מזנה בפניה שהרי זו מגלה את סודה.", + "תינקות מבת שלש ולמטה ותינוק בן תשע ולמטה מותר להתייחד עמהן שלא גזרו אלא על ייחוד אשה הראויה לביאה ואיש הראוי לביאה.", + "אנדרוגינוס אינו מתייחד עם הנשים ואם נתייחד אין מכין אותו מפני שהוא ספק אבל האיש מתייחד עם האנדרוגינוס ועם הטומטום.", + "אשת איש שהיה בעלה בעיר אינה חוששת לייחוד מפני שאימת בעלה עליה ואם היה זה גס בה כגון שגדלה עמו או שהיתה קרובתו לא יתייחד עמה ואף על פי שבעלה בעיר וכן כל המתייחד עם אשה והיה הפתח פתוח לרשות הרבים אין חוששין משום ייחוד.", + "מי שאין לו אשה לא ילמד תינוקות מפני שאמות הבנים באות לבית הספר לבניהם ונמצא מתגרה בנשים וכן אשה לא תלמד קטנים מפני אבותיהן שהן באין בגלל בניהם ונמצאו מתייחדים עמה ואין המלמד צריך שתהיה אשתו שרויה עמו בבית הספר אלא היא בביתה והוא מלמד במקומו.", + "תיקנו חכמים שתהיינה הנשים מספרות זו עם זו בבית הכסא כדי שלא יכנס שם איש משום ייחוד.", + "אין ממנין אפילו אדם נאמן וכשר להיות שומר חצר שיש שם נשים אע\"פ שהוא עומד בחוץ שאין אפוטרופוס לעריות ואסור לאדם למנות אפוטרופוס על ביתו שלא ינהיג אשתו לדבר עבירה.", + "אסור לתלמיד חכם לשכון בחצר שיש בה אלמנה אף על פי שאינו מתייחד עמה מפני החשד אלא א\"כ היתה אשתו עמו וכן אלמנה אסורה לגדל כלב מפני החשד ולא תקנה אשה עבדים זכרים אפילו קטנים מפני החשד.", + "אין דורשין בסתרי עריות בשלשה מפני שהאחד טרוד בשאלת הרב והשנים נושאין ונותנין זה עם זה ואין דעתם פנויה לשמוע שדעתו של אדם קרובה אצל עריות אם נסתפק לו דבר ששמע מורה להקל לפיכך אין דורשין אלא לשנים כדי שיהיה האחד השומע מפנה דעתו ויודע מה שישמע מן הרב.", + "אין לך דבר בכל התורה כולה שהוא קשה לרוב העם לפרוש אלא מן העריות והביאות האסורות אמרו חכמים בשעה שנצטוו ישראל על העריות בכו וקבלו מצוה זו בתרעומות ובכיה שנאמר בוכה למשפחותיו על עסקי משפחות.", + "ואמרו חכמים גזל ועריות נפשו של אדם מתאוה להן ומחמדתן ואין אתה מוצא קהל בכל זמן וזמן שאין בהן פרוצין בעריות וביאות אסורות [ועוד] אמרו חכמים רוב בגזל מיעוט בעריות והכל באבק לשון הרע.", + "לפיכך ראוי לו לאדם לכוף יצרו בדבר זה ולהרגיל עצמו בקדושה יתירה ובמחשבה טהורה ובדעה נכונה כדי להנצל מהן ויזהר מן הייחוד שהוא הגורם הגדול גדולי החכמים היו אומרים לתלמידיהם הזהרו בי מפני בתי הזהרו בי מפני כלתי כדי ללמד לתלמידיהם שלא יתביישו מדבר זה ויתרחקו מן הייחוד.", + "וכן ינהוג להתרחק מן השחוק ומן השכרות ומדברי עגבים שאלו גורמין גדולים והם מעלות של עריות ולא ישב בלא אשה שמנהג זה גורם לטהרה יתירה גדולה מכל זאת אמרו יפנה עצמו ומחשבתו לדברי תורה וירחיב דעתו בחכמה שאין מחשבת עריות מתגברת אלא בלב פנוי מן החכמה ובחכמה הוא אומר אילת אהבים ויעלת חן דדיה ירווך בכל עת באהבתה תשגה תמיד:סליקו להו הלכות איסורי ביאה בס\"ד." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..00aef019eb518dbf29550d649ccc0f311452e2ac --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,572 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Forbidden_Intercourse", + "text": [ + [ + "הַבָא עַל אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כט) \"כִּי כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת\" וְגוֹ' שְׁנֵיהֶם הַבּוֹעֵל וְהַנִּבְעֶלֶת. וְאִם הָיוּ שׁוֹגְגִין חַיָּבִין חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְיֵשׁ מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתַת בֵּית דִּין יֶתֶר עַל הַכָּרֵת הַשָּׁוֶה בְּכֻלָּן: ", + "אוֹתָן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה וְלֹא פָּרְשׁוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם מְמִיתִין אוֹתָן מִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בָּהֶן: ", + "וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָעוֹבֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֵין מְמִיתִין וְלֹא מַלְקִין עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שָׁם הַתְרָאָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנָה הַתְרָאָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא לְהַבְחִין בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד: ", + "הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין מֵהֶן שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּסְקִילָה. וּמֵהֶן שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵפָה. וּמֵהֶן שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בְּחֶנֶק. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּסְקִילָה. הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ. וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. וְעַל אֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת כַּלָּתוֹ. וְהַשּׁוֹכֵב עִם זָכָר. וְהַשּׁוֹכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה. וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְּבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ: ", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁמִּיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵפָה. הַבָּא עַל בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְעַל בַּת בִּתָּהּ. וְעַל בַּת בְּנָהּ. וְעַל אֵם אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְעַל אֵם אִמָּהּ. וְעַל אֵם אָבִיהָ. וְהַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ. וְעַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ. וְעַל בַּת בְּנוֹ: ", + "אֵין לְךָ עֶרְוָה בְּחֶנֶק אֶלָּא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ י) \"מוֹת יוּמַת הַנֹּאֵף וְהַנֹּאָפֶת\" וּמִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם הִיא חֶנֶק. וְאִם הָיְתָה בַּת כֹּהֵן הִיא בִּשְׂרֵפָה וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בְּחֶנֶק שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ט) \"וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת\" (ויקרא כא ט) \"בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף\". וְאִם הָיְתָה נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּסְקִילָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב כד) \"כִּי תִּהְיֶה נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה\" וְגוֹ' (דברים כב כד) \"וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים\". וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה(ויקרא כ יג) (ויקרא כ טז) \"מוֹת יוּמְתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם\" הֲרֵי הֵן בִּסְקִילָה: ", + "שְׁאָר הָעֲרָיוֹת כֻּלָּן בְּכָרֵת בִּלְבַד וְאֵין בָּהֶם מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה בֵּית דִּין מַלְקִין אוֹתָן. שֶׁכָּל חַיָּבֵי כְּרֵתוֹת לוֹקִין: ", + "הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין בְּמֵזִיד. הוּא לוֹקֶה וְהִיא. וְאִם בְּשׁוֹגֵג פְּטוּרִין מִכְּלוּם. וְהַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת בְּמֵזִיד מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי עֲשֵׂה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְאִם הִכּוּ אוֹתָם בֵּית דִּין מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק מִן הָעֲבֵרָה הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָם: ", + "אָנוּס פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם מִן הַמַּלְקוֹת וּמִן הַקָּרְבָּן וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִן הַמִּיתָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב כו) \"וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר\". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁנֶּאֱנַס הַנִּבְעָל. אֲבָל הַבּוֹעֵל אֵין לוֹ אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵין קִשּׁוּי אֶלָּא לְדַעַת. וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁתְּחִלַּת בִּיאָתָהּ בְּאֹנֶס וְסוֹפָהּ בְּרָצוֹן פְּטוּרָה מִכְּלוּם שֶׁמִּשֶּׁהִתְחִיל לִבְעל בְּאֹנֶס אֵין בְּיָדָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּרְצֶה שֶׁיֵּצֶר הָאָדָם וְטִבְעוֹ כּוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ לִרְצוֹת: ", + "הַמַּכְנִיס רֹאשׁ הָעֲטָרָה בִּלְבַד הוּא הַנִּקְרָא מְעָרֶה מִלְּשׁוֹן (ויקרא כ יח) \"אֶת מְקֹרָהּ הֶעֱרָה\". וְהַמַּכְנִיס כָּל הָאֵיבָר הוּא הַנִּקְרָא גּוֹמֵר. וּבְכָל הַבִּיאוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת אֶחָד הַמְעָרֶה וְאֶחָד הַגּוֹמֵר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ וְלֹא גָּמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכְנִיס רֹאשׁ הָעֲטָרָה נִתְחַיְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. (וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ) מִשֶּׁיְּעָרֶה בָּהּ יִתְחַיְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מִיתָה אוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹכְבִין בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹמְדִים עַל הַכְנָסַת הָעֲטָרָה הוּא הַחִיּוּב: ", + "כָּל הַבָּא בִּיאָה אֲסוּרָה בְּלֹא קִשּׁוּי. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה הָאֵיבָר שֶׁלּוֹ מְדֻלְדָּל כְּמוֹ אֵיבָר הַמֵּתִים כְּגוֹן הַחוֹלִים. אוֹ מִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד כָּךְ כְּגוֹן סְרִיס חַמָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִכְנִיס אֶת הָאֵיבָר בְּיָדוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לֹא כָּרֵת וְלֹא מַלִקוֹת וִאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִיתָה. שֵׁאֵין זוֹ בִּיאָה. אֲבָל פּוֹסֵל הוּא מִן הַתִּרוּמָה. וּבֵית דִּין מַכִּין אֵת שִׁנֵיהֵם מַכַּת מַרִדּוּת: ", + "הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת כְּמִתְעַסֵּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ לְכָךְ חַיָּב. וְכֵן בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין וּבִשְׁנִיּוֹת. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת וְהִיא מֵתָה פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר. וְהַבָּא עַל הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁכַב עִם בְּהֵמָה טְרֵפָה חַיָּב. חַי הוּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לָמוּת מֵחלִי זֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיז רֹאשָׁהּ: ", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה אֲסוּרָה מֵאֵלּוּ אִם הָיְתָה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה גָּדוֹל הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ חַיָּב מִיתָה אוֹ כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִכְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה פְּחוּתָה מִזֶּה הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתָהּ בִּיאָה. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ קָטָן אִם הָיָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה הִיא חַיֶּבֶת כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתָה אוֹ מַלְקוֹת וְהוּא פָּטוּר. וְאִם הָיָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין: ", + "הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכָר אוֹ הֵבִיא זָכָר עָלָיו כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֱרָה אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם גְּדוֹלִים נִסְקָלִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כב) \"וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכָּב\" בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹעֵל אוֹ נִבְעָל. וְאִם הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלָיו אוֹ הֱבִיאוֹ עַל עַצְמוֹ נִסְקָל וְהַקָּטָן פָּטוּר. וְאִם הָיָה הַזָּכָר בֶּן תֵּשַׁע אוֹ פָּחוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין וְרָאוּי לְבֵית דִּין לְהַכּוֹת הַגָּדוֹל מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁכַב עִם זָכָר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע: ", + "[אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכָר אוֹ] הַבָּא עַל אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס דֶּרֶךְ זִכְרוּתוֹ חַיָּב. [וְאִם בָּא עָלָיו דֶּרֶךְ נְקֵבוּתוֹ פָּטוּר] וְהַטֻּמְטוּם סָפֵק הוּא לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל הַטֻּמְטוּם אוֹ עַל אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס [דֶּרֶךְ נְקֵבוּתוֹ] מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה: ", + "הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא בְּהֵמָה עָלָיו שְׁנֵיהֶן נִסְקָלִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כג) \"וּבְכָל בְּהֵמָה לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ\" בֵּין שֶׁרִבְּעָהּ אוֹ הֱבִיאָהּ עָלָיו. וְאֶחָד בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד חַיָּה וָעוֹף הַכּל בִּסְקִילָה. וְלֹא חִלַּק הַכָּתוּב בִּבְהֵמָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה לִקְטַנָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבְכָל בְּהֵמָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם לֵדָתָהּ (הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ) כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֶרְתָה בּוֹ חַיָּב: ", + "קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הֱבִיאָהּ עָלָיו הִיא נִסְקֶלֶת עַל יָדוֹ וְהוּא פָּטוּר. הָיָה בֶּן תֵּשַׁע אוֹ פָּחוֹת אֵין סוֹקְלִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. וְכֵן קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיאָה בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה עָלֶיהָ בֵּין בְּהֵמָה גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין בְּהֵמָה קְטַנָּה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֶרְתָה בָּהּ הַבְּהֵמָה (בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ) הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה שְׁנֵיהֶן נִסְקָלִין. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה אֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת: ", + "וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִם הַבְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְהָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ בִּשְׁגָגָה אֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נִסְקֶלֶת עַל יָדָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן גְּדוֹלִים. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כֻּלָּן שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן הַקָּטָן פָּטוּר וְהַגָּדוֹל חַיָּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֶחָד עֵר וְאֶחָד יָשֵׁן הַיָּשֵׁן פָּטוּר. אֶחָד מֵזִיד וְאֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג הַמֵּזִיד חַיָּב וְהַשּׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אֶחָד אָנוּס וְאֶחָד בְּרָצוֹן הָאָנוּס פָּטוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "אֵין הָעֵדִים נִזְקָקִין לִרְאוֹת הַמְנָאֲפִים שֶׁהֶעֱרוּ זֶה בָּזֶה וְהִכְנִיס כְּמִכְחוֹל בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת. אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁיִּרְאוּ אוֹתָן דְּבוּקִין זֶה עִם זֶה כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַבּוֹעֲלִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶהֱרָגִין בִּרְאִיָּה זוֹ. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא לֹא הֶעֱרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקַת צוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱרָה: ", + "מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק בִּשְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר דָּנִין בּוֹ עַל פִּי הַחֲזָקָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁזֶּה קָרוֹב. וּמַלְקִין וְשׂוֹרְפִין וְסוֹקְלִין וְחוֹנְקִין עַל חֲזָקָה זוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁזּוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ בִּתּוֹ אוֹ אִמּוֹ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אוֹ נִשְׂרָף אוֹ נִסְקָל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ אִמּוֹ אוֹ בִּתּוֹ אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה בִּלְבַד. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְתִינוֹק מֻרְכָּב לָהּ עַל כְּתֵפָהּ וְהִגְדִּילַתּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא בְּנָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ וֶהֱבִיאוּהָ לְבֵית דִּין וּסְקָלוּהָ. רְאָיָה לְדִין זֶה מַה שֶּׁדָּנָה תּוֹרָה בִּמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וּמַכֶּה אָבִיו שֶׁיּוּמַת. וּמִנַּיִן לָנוּ רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁזֶּה אָבִיו, אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה, כָּךְ שְׁאָר קְרוֹבִים בַּחֲזָקָה: ", + "אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם הוּא אוֹמֵר זֹאת אִשְׁתִּי וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת זֶה בַּעְלִי. אִם הֻחְזְקָה בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ הוֹרְגִין עָלֶיהָ. אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵין הוֹרְגִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֻחְזְקָה נִדָּה בִּשְׁכוּנוֹתֶיהָ בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה. הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִסְתְּרָה וּבָא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה וְהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן וּבָא עָלֶיהָ אַחַר כָּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעִקַּר הָעֵדוּת בְּעֵד אֶחָד כְּבָר הֻחְזְקָה בְּזוֹנָה: ", + "הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר בִּתִּי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת הִיא לָזֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן וְתִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ אִם זִנְּתָה אֵינָהּ נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פִּיו עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת אֲנִי אֵינָהּ נֶהֱרֶגֶת עַל פִּיהָ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים אוֹ תֻּחְזַק: " + ], + [ + "אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו אַרְבַּעְתָּן עֶרְוָה עָלָיו לְעוֹלָם. בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשׁוּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ. בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלֵיהֶן בֵּין אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלֵיהֶן. חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ בֵּן. וְאִם בָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. אֶחָד אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין מִנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת. אִשְׁתּוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו מִן הָאֵם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁנִיָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאֶחָד אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו אוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת. כְּגוֹן שֶׁזָּנְתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ אָבִיו עִם אֲחֵרִים וְהָיְתָה לוֹ אָחוֹת מִזְּנוּת. הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ט) \"מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ\": \n", + "בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו הֲרֵי הִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח יא) \"עֶרְוַת בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ מוֹלֶדֶת אָבִיךָ\". אֲבָל אִם נָשָׂא אָבִיו אִשָּׁה וְיֵשׁ לָהּ בַּת מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר אוֹתָהּ הַבַּת מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ שֶׁאֵין זוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת אָבִיו. וַהֲלֹא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹתוֹ חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח יא) \"בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ\" לְחַיֵּב עָלֶיהָ אַף מִשּׁוּם זֶה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא בַּת נְשׂוּאַת אָבִיו חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יח ט) \"עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ\" וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יח יא) \"עֶרְוַת בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ\". אֲבָל אִם אָנַס אָבִיו אִשָּׁה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בַּת וּבָא עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹתוֹ בִּלְבַד. שֶׁאֵין בַּת הָאֲנוּסָה בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו: \n", + "אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אֵם. וְכֵן אֲחוֹת הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אָב: \n", + "הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בַּת אוֹתָהּ הַבַּת עֶרְוָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה עֶרְוַת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְּגַלֶּה מֵאַחַר שֶׁאָסַר בַּת הַבַּת שָׁתַק מִן הַבַּת וְאִסּוּרָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאֵינוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ מִנְּשׂוּאָתוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ: \n", + "כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אָדָם אִשָּׁה נֶאֶסְרוּ עָלָיו מִקְּרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ נָשִׁים. וְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן עֶרְוָה עָלָיו לְעוֹלָם בֵּין כָּנַס בֵּין גֵּרֵשׁ בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מוֹתָהּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אִמָּהּ וְאֵם אִמָּהּ וְאֵם אָבִיהָ וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ. וְאִם בָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּחַיֵּי אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׂרָפִין: \n", + "בָּא עֲלֵיהֶן לְאַחַר מִיתַת אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּכָרֵת וְאֵין בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ יד) \"בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן\". בִּזְמַן שֶּׁשְּׁתֵּיהֶן קַיָּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן אִשְׁתּוֹ וְזוֹ שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי הוּא וְהָעֶרְוָה נִשְׂרָפִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שְׁתֵּיהֶן קַיָּמוֹת אֵין שָׁם שְׂרֵפָה: \n", + "וְכֵן אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ בֵּין אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין בֵּין מִזְּנוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו: \n", + "עָבַר וְנָאַף עִם אַחַת מִשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים אֵלּוּ בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא וְהַנּוֹאֶפֶת בְּמִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אוֹ בְּכָרֵת לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עָלָיו חוּץ מֵאֲחוֹת אֲרוּסָתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אוֹסֶרֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עָלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין: \n", + "הַבּוֹעֵל אִשָּׁה דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת לֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ עָלָיו קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהֵן הַשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָסְרוּ עַל מִי שֶׁנָּאַף עִם אִשָּׁה לִשָּׂא אַחַת מִן הַשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַזּוֹנָה קַיֶּמֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַזּוֹנָה בָּאָה לִקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ לְבַקֵּר אוֹתָן וְהוּא מִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְלִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיִּבְעל הָעֶרְוָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ נִטְעַן עַל אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂא אַחַת מִקְּרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת זוֹ שֶׁנִּטְעַן עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם כָּנַס הַקְּרוֹבָה שֶׁזָּנָה עִם קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ לֹא יוֹצִיא: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּטְעַן עַל עֶרְוָה אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ שֵׁם רַע עִמָּהּ לֹא יָדוּר עִמָּהּ בְּמָבוֹי אֶחָד וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה בְּאוֹתָהּ שְׁכוּנָה. וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ מְרַנְּנִין אַחֲרָיו עִם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְהִכּוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ: \n", + "הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אוֹ עַל אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁבָּא עַל שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת שֶׁאֵין נַעֲשׂוֹת עֶרְוָה זוֹ עִם זוֹ אֶלָּא בְּנִשּׂוּאִין לֹא בִּזְנוּת. וְכֵן אִם אָנַס אָבִיו אוֹ בְּנוֹ אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֲחִי אָבִיו אִשָּׁה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ וְיִשָּׂאֶנָּה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֵשֶׁת וְאֵין כָּאן אִישׁוּת: \n", + "אָבִיו אוֹ בְּנוֹ שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אִמָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִשָּׂא אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו. וְנוֹשֵׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה וּבַת אֲחוֹתָהּ אוֹ בַּת אָחִיהָ כְּאַחַת. וּמִצְוַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּשָּׂא אָדָם בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַת אָחִיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה נח ז) \"וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם\": \n" + ], + [ + "הַבָא עַל אֵשֶׁת קָטָן אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה יְבָמָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה וְאֵשֶׁת טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְעַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְעַל הַשּׁוֹטָה אֵשֶׁת הַפִּקֵּחַ וְעַל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת בְּסָפֵק אוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת בְּסָפֵק כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: ", + "הַבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנָּה אֵשֶׁת הַגָּדוֹל אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶנֶק וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִכְּלוּם וְנֶאֶסְרָה עַל בַּעְלָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת סוֹטָה. וְאִם הִיא בַּת מֵאוּן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן: ", + "בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה כְּשֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ שְׁאָר מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין הֲרֵי זוֹ בִּשְׂרֵפָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ט) \"וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת\". וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בְּחֶנֶק. וְכֵן בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן בְּחֶנֶק כְּדִין כָּל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ: ", + "הַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּסְקִילָה. וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין סְקִילָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. הָיְתָה בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְחֻפָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה אֲפִלּוּ מְסָרָהּ הָאָב לִשְׁלוּחֵי הַבַּעַל וְזִנְּתָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק: ", + "וְהַבָּא עַל קְטַנָּה מְאֹרָשָׂה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הוּא בִּסְקִילָה וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה. וְנַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בִּסְקִילָה: ", + "בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשָׂרָה וְהִיא בְּתוּלָה בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ זֶה אַחַר זֶה הֲרֵי הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה וְכֻלָּן בְּחֶנֶק (בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ כְּדַרְכָּהּ אֲבָל אִם בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ עֲדַיִן הִיא בְּתוּלָה וְכֻלָּן בִּסְקִילָה): ", + "נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אוֹ גִּיֹּרֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרָה וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה וְהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק כְּכָל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ: ", + "דִּין חָדָשׁ יֵשׁ בְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. וּמַה הוּא הַחִדּוּשׁ. שֶׁאִם נִמְצָא הַדָּבָר אֱמֶת וּבָאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּנְּתָה כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזִּנְּתָה אַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאָה מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לַחֻפָּה קֹדֶם בְּעִילַת הַבַּעַל סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר נְעָרוֹת מְאֹרָסוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶן דִּין הוֹצָאַת שֵׁם רַע שֶׁזָּנוּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִבֵּית הָאָב הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶנֶק כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁבְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שָׁלֹשׁ מִיתוֹת. יֵשׁ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהִיא בְּחֶנֶק. וְיֵשׁ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהִיא בִּשְׂרֵפָה. וְיֵשׁ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהִיא בִּסְקִילָה: ", + "וְהֵיכָן סוֹקְלִין נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָשָׂה שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. אִם זִנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵעִידוּ עָלֶיהָ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁבָּאָה לְבֵית חָמִיהָ (וְנִיסֵת) הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. זִנִּתָה בִּבֵית חָמִיהָ קֹדֵם שֵׁיִּמִסֹר אוֹתָהּ הָאָב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁחָזְרָה לְבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִיא: ", + "בָּאוּ עֵדִים אַחַר שֶׁבָּגְרָה אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁבְּעָלָהּ בַּעְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה נַעֲרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת בְּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה: ", + "הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר. כָּל מִי שֶׁמִּצְוָתָהּ לִסְקל אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר אִם הָיְתָה עִיר שֶׁרֻבָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁמִּצְוָתָהּ לִסְקל אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ אִם לֹא הָיָה לָהּ אָב אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ אָב וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ בַּיִת הֲרֵי זוֹ נִסְקֶלֶת בְּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב כא) \"פֶּתַח בֵּית אָב\" אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה: ", + "הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְהָמִית אֶלָּא מִיתָה אַחַת הֲרֵי הַבִּיאוֹת נֶחְשָׁבוֹת לוֹ כַּעֲבֵרוֹת הַרְבֵּה. וְכֵן אִם בָּא בִּיאָה אַחַת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁמוֹת הַרְבֵּה אִם הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל כָּל שֵׁם וְשֵׁם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּיאָה אַחַת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת. וְאִם הָיָה מֵזִיד הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶחְשֶׁבֶת לוֹ כַּעֲבֵרוֹת הַרְבֵּה. וְכֵן יֵשׁ בָּא בִּיאָה אַחַת וְלוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מַלְקִיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: ", + "שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּמְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה\". הָא אִם נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה כֻּלָּהּ חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשֵׂית אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ גְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: ", + "בִּיאַת שִׁפְחָה זוֹ מְשֻׁנָּה מִכָּל בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא לוֹקָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה\" וְהוּא חַיָּב קָרְבַּן אָשָׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כא) \"וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ\". אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג אֶחָד מֵזִיד בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם. וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם אֶחָד. אֲבָל הִיא חַיֶּבֶת מַלְקוֹת עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה אִם הָיְתָה מְזִידָה כִּשְׁאָר חַיָּבֵי לָאוִין: ", + "הַמְעָרֶה בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה וְלֹא גָּמַר בִּיאָתוֹ פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיִּגְמֹר בִּיאָתוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה הַבְּעוּלָה הַמְּזִידָה וּבִרְצוֹנָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה בְּעוּלָה אוֹ הָיְתָה שׁוֹגֶגֶת אוֹ אֲנוּסָה אוֹ יְשֵׁנָה פָּטוּר [וְכֵן אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁבְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה לֹא הִשְׁוָה בִּיאָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ לְבִיאָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע\". אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר בִּיאוֹת לֹא חָלַק בֵּין בִּיאָה לְבִיאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כב) (ויקרא כ יג) \"מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה\" מַגִּיד [לְךָ] הַכָּתוּב שֶׁשְּׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת בְּאִשָּׁה]: ", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּשִׁפְחָה שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר הוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן וְהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּלְקוֹת. אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מְזִידִין וּגְדוֹלִים: ", + "בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה הִיא לוֹקָה וְהוּא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה גְּדוֹלָה וּבְעוּלָה וּבִרְצוֹנָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. שֶׁאֵין הָאִישׁ חַיָּב קָרְבָּן עַד שֶׁתִּתְחַיֵּב הִיא מַלְקוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) \"בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה\" (ויקרא יט כא) \"וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ\": " + ], + [ + "הַנִּדָה הֲרֵי הִיא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. הַמְעָרֶה בָּהּ [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] חַיָּב כָּרֵת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כִּשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁהַבַּת מִתְטַמְּאָה בְּנִדָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם לֵדָתָהּ. וּבַת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים מְטַמְּאָה בְּזִיבָה וְדָבָר זֶה מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה לִקְטַנָּה לְטֻמְאַת נִדּוֹת וְזָבוֹת: ", + "וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן. וְאֶחָד הַבָּא עַל יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר כָּל שִׁבְעָה אוֹ עַל יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה כָּל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אוֹ עַל הַזָּבָה כָּל יְמֵי זוֹבָהּ וּסְפִירָתָהּ. בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת הַכֹּל בְּכָרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּנִדָּה (ויקרא טו יט) \"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְּנִדָּתָהּ\". וּבְזָבָה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כה) \"כָּל יְמֵי זוֹב טֻמְאָתָהּ כִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ תִּהְיֶה\". וּבְיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יב ב) \"כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא\". וּבְיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה (ויקרא יב ה) \"וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ\": ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהַטֻּמְאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּיָמִים בְּשֶׁטָּבְלָה בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה אַחַר הַיָּמִים הַסְּפוּרִים. אֲבָל נִדָּה וְזָבָה וְיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלוּ בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים חַיָּב כָּרֵת. שֶׁבְּיָמִים וּטְבִילָה תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יח) \"וְרַחֲצוּ בַמַּיִם\" זֶה בִּנְיַן אָב לְכָל טָמֵא שֶׁהוּא בְּטֻמְאָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּטְבֹּל: ", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם זָבָה וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם יוֹלֶדֶת. וַחֲכָמִים גָּזְרוּ עַל כָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַזְּכָרִים וְהַנְּקֵבוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ כְּזָבִים תָּמִיד בֵּין רָאוּ בֵּין לֹא רָאוּ לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה: ", + "כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּתוֹךְ ל\"ג שֶׁל זָכָר וְס\"ו שֶׁל נְקֵבָה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא דַּם טֹהַר. וְאֵין מוֹנֵעַ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה מִבַּעְלָהּ אֶלָּא טוֹבֶלֶת אַחַר שִׁבְעָה לְזָכָר וְאַחַר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִנִקֵבָה וּמִשַׁמֵּשֵׁת מִטָּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד: ", + "כָּל חַיָּבֵי טְבִילוֹת טְבִילָתָן בַּיּוֹם חוּץ מִנִּדָּה וְיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּנִדָּה (ויקרא טו יט) \"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְּנִדָּתָהּ\". הַשִּׁבְעָה כֻּלָּן בְּנִדָּתָהּ וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי. וְכֵן יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וְיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה בְּלֵיל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. שֶׁהַיּוֹלֶדֶת כְּנִדָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "נִתְאַחֲרָה יָמִים רַבִּים וְלֹא טָבְלָה כְּשֶׁתִּטְבֹּל לֹא תִּטְבֹּל אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁאִם תִּטְבֹּל בַּיּוֹם יִטְעוּ וְתָבוֹא נִדָּה אַחֶרֶת לִטְבֹּל בִּשְׁבִיעִי: ", + "הָיְתָה חוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְקוֹם הַטְּבִילָה רָחוֹק וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים יְכוֹלוֹת לְהַגִּיעַ לוֹ וְלַחֲזֹר בַּלַּיְלָה מִפְּנֵי הַלִּסְטִים אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַצִּנָּה אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֲלִין שַׁעֲרֵי הַמְּדִינָה בַּלַּיְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טוֹבֶלֶת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי אוֹ בַּיָּמִים שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו בַּיּוֹם: ", + "כָּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן וֶסֶת בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה לְבַעְלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ טְמֵאָה אֲנִי אוֹ עַד שֶׁתֻּחְזַק נִדָּה בִּשְׁכֵנוֹתֶיהָ. הָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וֶהֱנִיחָהּ טְהוֹרָה כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאֹל לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ מְצָאָהּ יְשֵׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעוֹנַת וִסְתָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נִדָּה הִיא. וְאִם הֱנִיחָהּ נִדָּה אֲסוּרָה לוֹ עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ טְמֵאָה אֲנִי וְחָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְדֶרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ תְּחִלָּה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאִם נָתְנָה אֲמַתְלָא לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. כֵּיצַד. תְּבָעָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ אוֹ אִמּוֹ עִמָּהּ בֶּחָצֵר וְאָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אֲנִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה וְאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ טְמֵאָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי אֲחוֹתְךָ וְאִמְּךָ שֶׁמָּא יִרְאוּ אוֹתָנוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִטְמֵאתִי לֹא יִפְרשׁ מִיָּד וְהוּא בְּקִשּׁוּיוֹ שֶׁהֲנָאָה לוֹ בִּיצִיאָתוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ. וְאִם פֵּרֵשׁ וְהוּא בְּקִשּׁוּיוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבָּעַל נִדָּה. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. נוֹעֵץ צִפָּרְנֵי רַגְלָיו בַּקַּרְקַע וְשׁוֹהֶה וְאֵינוֹ מִזְדַּעֲזֵעַ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאֵיבָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמָט מִמֶּנָּה: ", + "וְאָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לָבֹא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ שֶׁמָּא תִּרְאֶה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו לא) \"וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטֻּמְאָתָם\". וְכַמָּה. אִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בַּיּוֹם אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הַיּוֹם. וְאִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה: ", + "עָבַר וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא רָאֲתָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ אַחַר שֶׁתַּעֲבֹר עוֹנַת הַוֶּסֶת. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בְּשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הַיּוֹם. עָבְרוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא רָאֲתָה אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד לָעֶרֶב. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בְּשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה וְעָבְרוּ וְלֹא רָאֲתָה אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּזְרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ: ", + "דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעוֹלָם לִבְדֹּק עַצְמָם אַחַר הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. כֵּיצַד. מְקַנֵּחַ הָאִישׁ עַצְמוֹ בְּמַטְלִית נְכוֹנָה לוֹ וּמְקַנַּחַת הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ בְּמַטְלִית נְכוֹנָה לָהּ וְרוֹאִין בָּהֶן שֶׁמָּא רָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ. וְיֵשׁ לָאִישׁ לְהָנִיחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק בְּמַטְלִית שֶׁלּוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמֶנֶת עַל שֶׁלָּהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַל שֶׁלּוֹ: ", + "בְּגָדִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁמְּקַנְּחִין בָּהֶן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן שַׁחֲקִים וּלְבָנִים וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים עֵדִים בְּעִנְיָן זֶה. וְהַבֶּגֶד שֶׁמְּקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ הוּא נִקְרָא עֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַבֶּגֶד שֶׁמְּקַנַּחַת הִיא בּוֹ נִקְרָא עֵד שֶׁלָּהּ: ", + "הַצְּנוּעוֹת אֵין מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּבְדְּקוּ עַצְמָן תְּחִלָּה קֹדֶם תַּשְׁמִישׁ. וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק. לְפִיכָךְ הִיא מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֶחָד לִפְנֵי הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ וְאֶחָד לְאַחַר הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. אֲבָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה עֵד לִפְנֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם צְנִיעוּת בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל אַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמֵינִיקָה וּזְקֵנָה. וּקְטַנָּה לֹא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ. אֲבָל בְּתוּלָה וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טֹהַר אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה עֵדִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת מִמֶּנָּה: ", + "הַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לִבְדֹּק שְׁנֵי הָעֵדִים שֶׁלָּהֶן עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה. אֶלָּא מְקַנֵּחַ הוּא בְּעֵד שֶׁלּוֹ וְהִיא בְּעֵד שֶׁלָּהּ אַחַר כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה שֶׁל כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וּלְמָחָר יִבְדְּקוּ הָעֵדִים. נִמְצָא הַדָּם עַל עֵד שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ עַל עֵד שֶׁלּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. שִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ וְקִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ וְאָבַד הָעֵד הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק בְּעֵד אַחֵר תְּחִלָּה. שֶׁמָּא דָּם הָיָה עַל הָעֵד שֶׁאָבַד: ", + "הִנִּיחָה הָעֵד תַּחַת הַכַּר אוֹ תַּחַת הַכֶּסֶת וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם. אִם מָשׁוּךְ טְמֵאָה שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ מִן הַקִּנּוּחַ. וְאִם הָיָה עָגֹל טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא דַּם מַאֲכֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָה תַּחַת הַכַּר: ", + "קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֵד הַבָּדוּק לָהּ וְטָחֲתוֹ בִּירֵכָהּ וּלְמָחָר נִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא כְּשֶׁטָּחָה אוֹתָהּ בִּירֵכָהּ נֶהֶרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת. קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֵד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לָהּ וְלֹא יָדְעָה אִם הָיָה עָלָיו דָּם קֹדֶם שֶׁתְּקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ אוֹ לֹא הָיָה. נִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם אִם הָיָה הַדָּם כִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִכֵּן טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַמַאֲכֹלֶת: ", + "מִי שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּשֶׁתִּטְהַר פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּפַעַם שְׁנִיָּה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת פַּעַם שְׁלִישִׁית. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם בַּעַל זֶה לְעוֹלָם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שִׁמְּשָׁה סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ תּוֹלָה בַּוֶּסֶת. הָיְתָה בָּהּ מַכָּה תּוֹלָה בַּמַּכָּה. וְאִם הָיָה דַּם מַכָּתָהּ מְשֻׁנֶּה מִדָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בְּעֵת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בַּמַּכָּה. וְנֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה לוֹמַר מַכָּה יֵשׁ לִי בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּקוֹר שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הַדָּם יוֹצֵא וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדָּם יוֹצֵא מִן הַמָּקוֹר בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ: ", + "מִי שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וְאֵין שָׁם דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְשֵׁנִי. נִשֵּׂאת לְשֵׁנִי וְרָאֲתָה דָּם כָּךְ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וְתִנָּשֵׂא לִשְׁלִישִׁי. נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁלִישִׁי וְרָאֲתָה דָּם כָּךְ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וַאֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתַּבְרִיא מֵחלִי זֶה: ", + "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ לֵידַע אִם נִרְפֵּאת אוֹ לֹא נִרְפֵּאת. מְבִיאָה שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁל אֲבַר וּפִיהָ רָצוּף לְתוֹכָהּ וּמַכְנֶסֶת הַשְּׁפוֹפֶרֶת עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה. וּמַכְנֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁפוֹפֶרֶת מִכְחוֹל וּמוֹךְ מֻנָּח עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְדוֹפֶקֶת אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַמּוֹךְ לְצַוַּאר הָרֶחֶם וּמוֹצִיאָה הַמּוֹךְ. אִם נִמְצָא דָּם עַל רֹאשׁ הַמּוֹךְ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַמָּקוֹר. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצָא עַל הַמּוֹךְ כְּלוּם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁרוֹאָה מִדֹּחַק הַצְּדָדִין וּטְהוֹרָה הִיא וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לַאֲחֵרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִישׁוּת: " + ], + [ + "הָאִשָׁה מִתְטַמֵּאת בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין לְנִדָּה בֵּין לְזִיבוּת. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּפְצָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אוֹ רָאֲתָה בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף מִתְעַסְּקִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְחָמְדָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הוֹאִיל וְרָאֲתָה דָּם מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִטְמֵאת וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. אֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה דָּם טִפָּה כְּחַרְדָּל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁזָּב מִמֶּנָּה דָּמִים הַרְבֵּה: ", + "כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מִתְטַמְּאוֹת בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא הַדָּם לַחוּץ אֶלָּא נֶעֱקַר מִן הָרֶחֶם וְלֹא שָׁתַת הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא מִבֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הַדָּם בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ\". וְעַד הֵיכָן הוּא בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ אֵלָיו הָאֵיבָר בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה. וּבֵין הַשִּׁנַּיִם עַצְמוֹ כִּלְפָנִים: ", + "מָשָׁל מָשְׁלוּ חֲכָמִים בָּאִשָּׁה. הָרֶחֶם שֶׁנּוֹצַר בּוֹ הַוָּלָד הוּא הַנִּקְרָא מָקוֹר. וְהוּא שֶׁדַּם נִדָּה וְזָבָה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ. וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר לְפִי שֶׁהוּא לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים. וְצַוַּאר הָרֶחֶם כֻּלּוֹ וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם הָאָרֹךְ שֶׁמִּתְקַּבֵּץ רֹאשׁוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הָעִבּוּר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפּל הַוָּלָד וְנִפְתַּח הַרְבֵּה בִּשְׁעַת לֵדָה קוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ פְּרוֹזְדוֹר כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא בֵּית שַׁעַר לַרֶחֶם: ", + "וּבִשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה הָאֵיבָר נִכְנַס בִּפְרוֹזְדוֹר וְאֵינוֹ מַגִּיעַ עַד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמִּבִּפְנִים אֶלָּא רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט לְפִי הָאֶצְבָּעוֹת. וּלְמַעְלָה מִן הַחֶדֶר וּמִן הַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר בֵּין חֶדֶר לִפְרוֹזְדוֹר הוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי בֵּיצִים שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. וְהַשְּׁבִילִים שֶׁבָּהֶן מִתְבַּשֶּׁלֶת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁלָּהּ מָקוֹם זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עֲלִיָּה. וּכְמוֹ נֶקֶב פָּתוּחַ מִן הָעֲלִיָּה לְגַג הַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר וְנֶקֶב זֶה קוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ לוּל. וְהָאֵיבָר נִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַלּוּל בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה: ", + "דָּם הַבָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר כֻּלּוֹ טָמֵא חוּץ מִדַּם טֹהַר שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה טִהֲרַתּוּ וְדַם קֹשִׁי כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְדַם הָעֲלִיָּה כֻּלּוֹ טָהוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ דַּם מַכָּה שֶׁבַּמֵּעַיִם אוֹ בַּכָּבֵד אוֹ בְּכוּלְיָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְדָם הַנִּמְצָא בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר אִם נִמְצָא מִן הַלּוּל וּלְפָנִים הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ מִן הַחֶדֶר. וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְשׂוֹרְפִין עָלָיו תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא מִן הָעֲלִיָּה יָרַד דֶּרֶךְ הַנֶּקֶב. שֶׁרֹב הַדָּמִים הַנִּמְצָאִין כָּאן מִן הַחֶדֶר. נִמְצָא הַדָּם בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר חוּץ לַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי טֻמְאָתוֹ בְּסָפֵק שֶׁמָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר בָּא אוֹ מִן הָעֲלִיָּה שָׁתַת דֶּרֶךְ הַלּוּל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עָלָיו תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו עַל בִּיאַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ: ", + "לֹא כָּל מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא הַדָּם בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ\". לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁתַת מִן הָרֶחֶם לֹבֶן אוֹ מַשְׁקֶה יָרֹק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסְּמִיכָתוֹ כְּדָם הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מַרְאָיו מַרְאֶה דָּם הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר: ", + "וַחֲמִשָּׁה דָּמִים טְמֵאִים בָּאִשָּׁה וְהַשְּׁאָר טְהוֹרִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הָאָדֹם. וְהַשָּׁחוֹר. וּכְקֶרֶן כַּרְכֹּם. וּכְמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה. וּכְיַיִן הַמָּזוּג: ", + "הָאָדֹם כֵּיצַד הוּא עֵינוֹ. כְּעַמּוּד שֶׁיָּצָא רִאשׁוֹן מִדַּם הַקָּזָה שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם, נוֹתֵן הַדָּם בְּכוֹס וּמַקִּיף לוֹ וְרוֹאֵהוּ. וְהַשָּׁחוֹר כְּעֵין הַדְּיוֹ הַיָּבֵשׁ. כְּקֶרֶן כַּרְכֹּם כֵּיצַד. יָבִיא כַּרְכֹּם לַח בְּגוּשׁ אֲדָמָה שֶׁעָלָיו וְלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבָּרוּר שֶׁבּוֹ הַקָּנֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ כְּמוֹ קָנֶה הוּא וּבְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שְׁלֹשָׁה קָנִים וּבְכָל קָנֶה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָלִים וּמַקִּיף הַדָּם לֶעָלֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁבַּקָּנֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי וְרוֹאֶה בּוֹ. כְּמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה כֵּיצַד. יָבִיא אֲדָמָה מִבִּקְעַת סִיכְנֵי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא אֲדֻמָּה וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם בִּכְלִי עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה הַמַּיִם עַל הֶעָפָר כִּקְלִפַּת הַשּׁוּם. וְאֵין שִׁעוּר לַמַּיִם וְלֹא לֶעָפָר. וּמְעַכְּרָן בִּכְלִי וּמְשַׁעֵר בָּהֶן לִשְׁעָתוֹ וּבִמְקוֹמוֹ כְּשֶׁהֵן עֲכוּרִין. וְאִם צָלְלוּ חוֹזֵר וּמְעַכְּרָן: ", + "אַרְבָּעָה מַרְאוֹת הַלָּלוּ אִם הָיָה מַרְאֵה הַדָּם כְּמַרְאֵה כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ עָמֹק מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא. הָיָה דִּיהָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה הַדָּם שָׁחוֹר יֶתֶר מִכִּדְיוֹ הַיָּבֵשׁ טְמֵאָה. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה מַרְאֵהוּ כְּעֵין הַזַּיִת הַשָּׁחוֹר אוֹ כְּעֵין הַזֶּפֶת אוֹ כְּעֵין הָעוֹרֵב הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה מַרְאוֹת: ", + "כְּיַיִן הַמָּזוּג כֵּיצַד. חֵלֶק אֶחָד יַיִן מִן הַיַּיִן הַשָּׁרוֹנִי שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי וְחָדָשׁ וּשְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים מַיִם. הָיָה מַרְאֵה הַדָּם עָמֹק מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ דִּיהָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּמֶזֶג זֶה בִּלְבַד. וְנֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה לוֹמַר כְּמַרְאֶה זֶה רָאִיתִי וְאִבַּדְתִּיו וְהֶחָכָם מְטַמֵּא לָהּ אוֹ מְטַהֵר: ", + "כֵּיצַד מַקִּיף וְרוֹאֶה. לוֹקֵחַ הַמַּטְלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ הַדָּם בְּיָדוֹ וּמַבִּיט בּוֹ וּבַדְּיוֹ. אוֹ בְּעָלֶה שֶׁל כַּרְכֹּם. אוֹ בְּדַם הַקָּזָה שֶׁבַּכּוֹס. אוֹ בְּמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה. אוֹ בְּמֶזֶג שֶׁבַּכּוֹס. וְעוֹרֵךְ לָהּ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת וּמְטַמֵּא אוֹ מְטַהֵר. וְאֵינוֹ מַבִּיט בַּזְּכוּכִית שֶׁל כּוֹס מִבַּחוּץ אֶלָּא בַּמַּשְׁקֶה שֶׁבַּכּוֹס. וְיִהְיֶה הַכּוֹס רָחָב מִשְׁקָלוֹ מָנֶה וּמַחֲזִיק שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס בּוֹ הָאוֹרָה וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָפֵל: ", + "אֵין בּוֹדְקִין הַדָּם אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי מַטְלִית לְבָנָה וּבַחַמָּה. וְעוֹשֶׂה צֵל בְּיָדוֹ עַל הַדָּם וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחַמָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה עֵינוֹ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא. וְלֹא כָּל הָרוֹאֶה צָרִיךְ לְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶלָּא טְבִיעוּת עַיִן יֵשׁ לְחָכָם בְּדָמִים. וּבְעֵת שֶׁיִּרְאֶה מִיָּד יְטַמֵּא אוֹ יְטַהֵר. וְאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ בְּמַרְאֶה מִן הַמַּרְאוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהַקִּיף וְלַעֲרֹךְ לִדְיוֹ אוֹ לְדַם הַקָּזָה אוֹ לִשְׁאָר הַמַּרְאוֹת: ", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת חֲתִיכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲדֻמָּה אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּם טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה וַאֲפִלּוּ נִקְרְעָה הַחֲתִיכָה וְנִמְצֵאת מְלֵאָה דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה דַּם נִדָּה אֶלָּא דַּם חֲתִיכָה: ", + "הִפִּילָה חֲתִיכָה קְרוּעָה וְדָם אָגוּר בְּתוֹכָהּ טְמֵאָה. הִפִּילָה כְּמִין קְלִפָּה כְּמִין שַׂעֲרָה כְּמִין עָפָר כְּמוֹ יַבְחוּשִׁין אִם הָיָה מַרְאֵה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אָדֹם תַּטִּיל לְמַיִם פּוֹשְׁרִין. אִם נִמּוֹחוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שֶׁדָּם הוּא וְקָפָה וְכָל הָרוֹאָה דָּם יָבֵשׁ טְמֵאָה. וְאִם שָׁהוּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמּוֹחוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק טְמֵאָה. לֹא נִמּוֹחוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִמַּכָּה וּטְהוֹרָה הִיא: ", + "הִפִּילָה כְּמִין חֲגָבִים כְּמִין דָּגִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן דָּם טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר וְרָאֲתָה הַדָּם בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁפוֹפֶרֶת טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ\" עַד שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בִּבְשָׂרָהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים רוֹאוֹת. וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָאִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁתִּינָה מַיִם וְיָצָא דָּם עִם מֵי רַגְלַיִם. בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁתִּינָה וְהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁתִּינָה וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִרְגִּישׁ גּוּפָהּ וְנִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת שֶׁהַרְגָּשַׁת מֵי רַגְלַיִם הִיא זוֹ שֶׁאֵין מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַחֶדֶר וְדָם זֶה דַּם מַכָּה הוּא בַּחַלְחֹלֶת אוֹ בַּכּוּלְיָא: ", + "דַּם בְּתוּלִים טָהוֹר הוּא וְאֵינוֹ לֹא דַּם נִדָּה וְלֹא דַּם זִיבָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמָּקוֹר אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ דַּם חַבּוּרָה. וְכֵיצַד דִּין הַבְּתוּלָה בְּדָמִים. אִם נִשֵּׂאת קְטַנָּה בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה שֶׁכָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה הוּא. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה: ", + "נִשֵּׂאת כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה מִיָּמֶיהָ דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת אֵין לוֹ לַבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא בְּעִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּפוֹרֵשׁ וְיִהְיֶה דַּם בְּתוּלִים זֶה כְּאִלּוּ הִיא תְּחִלַּת נִדָּה. וּבוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה מִיָּמֶיהָ נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כָּל לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן: ", + "אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לְנַעֲרָה שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּסֵרוּגִין בּוֹעֵל לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַמְתִּין אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּבוֹעֵל לַיְלָה שֵׁנִי. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה: ", + "וְכֵן קְטַנָּה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה אֲפִלּוּ לֹא חָיְתָה שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה בּוֹעֵל כָּל הַשָּׁנָה בֵּין בְּסֵרוּגִין בֵּין בְּיוֹם אַחַר יוֹם: ", + "קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת וְנַעֲשֵׂית נַעֲרָה תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ וַעֲדַיִן הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה כָּל בְּעִילוֹת שֶׁבָּעַל כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה נֶחְשָׁבוֹת לוֹ כְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד וּמַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ כָּל אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים בִּימֵי הַנַּעֲרוּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ בִּימֵי הַנַּעֲרוּת בְּסֵרוּגִין וּבָעַל בְּכָל שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים לַיְלָה אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה: ", + "כֵּיצַד יוֹדְעִין אִם חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה אוֹ לֹא חָיְתָה. הָיְתָה רוֹאָה הַדָּם בְּעֵת שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד וּכְשֶׁתֵּשֵׁב לֹא תִּרְאֶה וּבְעֵת שֶׁתֵּשֵׁב עַל הַקַּרְקַע תִּרְאֶה וְאִם תֵּשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת לֹא תִּרְאֶה עֲדַיִן לֹא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. פָּסַק הַדָּם וְלֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלָל בֵּין עוֹמֶדֶת בֵּין יוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכַּר כְּבָר חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. וְכֵן אִם לֹא פָּסַק כְּלָל אֶלָּא תִּרְאֶה הַדָּם וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּשֶׁהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכָּרִים וְהַכְּסָתוֹת אֵין זֶה דַּם מַכָּה אֶלָּא דַּם נִדָּה: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה בְּעֵת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה. שִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם נִדָּה: ", + "הַבּוֹעֵל בְּתוּלָה וְלֹא יָצָא מִמֶּנָּה דָּם וְחָזַר וּבְעָלָהּ וְיָצָא דָּם אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם נִדָּה שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה דַּם בְּתוּלִים הָיָה בָּא בַּתְּחִלָּה. הַבּוֹעֵל פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ וְיָצָא דָּם הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם בְּתוּלִים: " + ], + [ + "דַם הַנִּדָּה וְדַם הַזָּבָה וְדַם הַקֹּשִׁי וְדַם יוֹלֶדֶת וְדַם טֹהַר שֶׁל יוֹלֶדֶת כֻּלּוֹ דָּם אֶחָד הוּא וּמִן הַמָּקוֹר הוּא בָּא. וּמַעֲיָן אֶחָד הוּא. וּבִזְמַנִּים בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּנֶּה דִּינוֹ וְתִהְיֶה רוֹאָה דָּם זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְזוֹ נִדָּה. וְזוֹ זָבָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד. כְּשֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה דָּם תְּחִלָּה אוֹ כְּשֶׁתִּרְאֶה בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ וְהוּא הָעֵת שֶׁקָּבְעָה לְנִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים. בֵּין רָאֲתָה כָּל שִׁבְעָה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא טִפָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּלְבַד. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם זִיבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא עֵת נִדָּתָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּמִים שֶׁבֵּין וֶסֶת נִדָּה לְוֶסֶת נִדָּה הֲרֵי הוּא דַּם זִיבָה. וַהֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין בֵּין זְמַן נִדָּה לִזְמַן נִדָּה אֶלָּא אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם בִּלְבַד: ", + "כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים שֶׁנִּקְבְּעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת בִּתְחִלָּתָן הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. בֵּין רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִקְרָאִין יְמֵי נִדָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְנִדָּה. וְכָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בָּהֶם דַּם נִדָּה יֵחָשֵׁב: ", + "וְכָל אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. בֵּין רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָאִין יְמֵי זִיבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְזִיבָה. וְכָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בָּהֶן דַּם זִיבָה יֵחָשֵׁב. וְהִזָּהֵר בִּשְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ: ", + "כָּל יְמֵי הָאִשָּׁה מִיּוֹם שֶׁיִּקָּבַע לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּעָקֵר הַוֶּסֶת לְיוֹם אַחֵר תִּסְפֹּר לְעוֹלָם שִׁבְעָה מִתְּחִלַּת יוֹם הַוֶּסֶת וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן אַחַד עָשָׂר [וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן] שִׁבְעָה וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן אַחַד עָשָׂר. וְתִזָּהֵר בַּמִּנְיָן כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּדַע בְּעֵת שֶׁתִּרְאֶה דָּם אִם בִּימֵי נִדָּה רָאֲתָה אוֹ בִּימֵי זִיבָה. שֶׁכָּל יָמֶיהָ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה כָּךְ הֵן שִׁבְעָה יְמֵי נִדָּה וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יְמֵי זִיבָה. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִפְסִיקָה הַלֵּדָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: ", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד אוֹ שְׁנֵי יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה נִקְרֵאת זָבָה קְטַנָּה וְנִקְרֵאת שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם. וְאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה גְּמוּרָה וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וְנִקְרֵאת זָבָה סְתָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כה) \"וְאִשָּׁה כִּי יָזוּב זוֹב דָּמָהּ יָמִים רַבִּים\" מִעוּט יָמִים שְׁנַיִם רַבִּים שְׁלֹשָׁה: ", + "אֵין בֵּין זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה לְזָבָה קְטַנָּה אֶלָּא סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה וַהֲבָאַת קָרְבָּן. שֶׁזָּבָה גְּדוֹלָה צְרִיכָה לִסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְזָבָה קְטַנָּה אֵינָהּ סוֹפֶרֶת אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. וְזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן כְּשֶׁתִּטְהַר [וְזָבָה קְטַנָּה אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן כְּשֶׁתִּטְהַר]. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְאִסּוּר בִּיאָה שְׁתֵּיהֶן שָׁווֹת: ", + "כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה דָּם בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה בִּתְחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם. הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ טָמֵא וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא פָּסַק הַדָּם מֵעֵת שֶׁרָאֲתָה עַד שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה הַחַמָּה וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל הַלַּיְלָה. וְאִם לֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלוּם בַּלַּיְלָה מַשְׁכֶּמֶת לְמָחָר וְטוֹבֶלֶת אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל הַיּוֹם. אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד טָהוֹר כְּנֶגֶד הַיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא וַהֲרֵי הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב: ", + "רָאֲתָה דָּם גַּם בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי בֵּין בְּלֵילוֹ בֵּין בְּיוֹמוֹ אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה הֲרֵי הַיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי טָמֵא וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל לֵיל שְׁלִישִׁי. אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה מַשְׁכֶּמֶת לְמָחָר וְטוֹבֶלֶת אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה וּמְשַׁמֶּרֶת כָּל הַיּוֹם. אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹם אֶחָד טָהוֹר כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵי יָמִים הַטְּמֵאִים וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב: ", + "רָאֲתָה דָּם גַּם בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בֵּין בְּיוֹמוֹ בֵּין בְּלֵילוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וּצְרִיכָה לִסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִים בְּלֹא דָּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כח) \"וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים\" וְגוֹ' וְטוֹבֶלֶת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַחַר הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ לָעֶרֶב. וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּנָהּ שְׁנֵי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה: ", + "זָבָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁטָּבְלָה בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁל יוֹם הַשִּׁמּוּר אוֹ זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁטָּבְלָה בְּלֵיל שְׁבִיעִי כְּאִלּוּ לֹא טָבְלָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּנִדָּה שֶׁטָּבְלָה בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעָה: ", + "הַבָּא עַל זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה בְּיוֹם שְׁבִיעִי שֶׁל סְפִירָה אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה אוֹ עַל זָבָה קְטַנָּה בְּיוֹם הַשִּׁמּוּר אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה פָּטוּר מִן הַכָּרֵת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּבְלָה בַּזְּמַן הָרָאוּי לִטְבִילָתָהּ טְהוֹרָה. וּלְאִשָּׁה זוֹ יִהְיֶה לָהּ תַּרְבּוּת רָעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּעִילָתָהּ וּמַגָּעָהּ תְּלוּיִין: ", + "כֵּיצַד הֵן תְּלוּיִין. אִם נִשְׁלַם הַיּוֹם אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם הֲרֵי כָּל שֶׁנָּגְעָה בּוֹ אַחַר טְבִילָתָהּ טָהוֹר וּבְעִילָתָהּ אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ כְּלוּם. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּיוֹם זֶה אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלָה נִמְצֵאת זָבָה לְמַפְרֵעַ וְכָל שֶׁנָּגְעָה בּוֹ לְמַפְרֵעַ טָמֵא. וְהִיא וּבוֹעֲלָהּ חַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן. וּלְפִיכָךְ הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לָעֶרֶב שֶׁלֹּא תָּבִיא עַצְמָהּ לִידֵי סָפֵק: ", + "זָבָה שֶׁסָּפְרָה שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים נְקִיִּים. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי רָאֲתָה דָּם אֲפִלּוּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה סוֹתֶרֶת הַכּל וְחוֹזֶרֶת לִמְנוֹת מֵאַחַר הַיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים: ", + "פָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה סוֹתֶרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּזָב שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי שֶׁסּוֹתֵר יוֹם אֶחָד. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּעֲשִׂירִי מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וּבְאַחַד עָשָׂר וּבִשְׁתֵּים עָשָׂר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה אֵינָהּ זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה. אֶלָּא יָצָאת מִזִּיבוּת קְטַנָּה לְנִדָּה שֶׁיּוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מַתְחֶלֶת נִדָּתָהּ וְהָרוֹאָה בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ אֵינָהּ זָבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וּמַה הוּא זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (ויקרא טו כה) \"אוֹ כִּי תָזוּב עַל נִדָּתָהּ\". שֶׁאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁרָאֲתָה בַּשְּׁמִינִי לְנִדָּתָהּ וּבַתְּשִׁיעִי וּבָעֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהֵן רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי מֵהָאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁהֵן יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּי\"א מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְטָבְלָה לָעֶרֶב שֶׁהוּא לֵיל י\"ב וְשִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה וּבוֹעֲלָהּ טָמֵא וְעוֹשִׂין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב אֵינָם חַיָּבִים כָּרֵת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין יוֹם י\"ב מִצְטָרֵף לְיוֹם י\"א לַעֲשׂוֹת זָבָה. הוֹעִילָה לָהּ טְבִילַת לֵיל זֶה לְהַצִּילָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן: ", + "טָבְלָה בְּיוֹם י\"ב אַחַר שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לָעֶרֶב כְּדִין כָּל זָבָה קְטַנָּה. וְאִם עָבַר וּבְעָלָהּ שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין מִכְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּיוֹם י\"ב אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם שֶׁזֶּה דַּם נִדָּה הוּא וְאֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לַיּוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו: ", + "רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּסוֹף שְׁבִיעִי לְנִדָּתָהּ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְרָאֲתָה בַּתְּשִׁיעִי וּבַעֲשִׂירִי הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. שֶׁמָּא רְאִיָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי הָיְתָה וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה מִתְּחִלַּת יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בַּתְּשִׁיעִי וּבַעֲשִׂירִי מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְרָאֲתָה בְּסוֹף יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. שֶׁמָּא רְאִיָּה אַחֲרוֹנָה בְּיוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר הָיְתָה וַהֲרֵי רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ: ", + "נִדָּה שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וּמָצְאָה שֶׁפָּסַק הַדָּם וַאֲפִלּוּ פָּסַק בְּשֵׁנִי לְנִדָּתָהּ וְשָׁגְגָה אוֹ הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה עַד לְאַחַר נִדָּתָהּ יָמִים רַבִּים וּכְשֶׁבָּדְקָה מָצְאָה טֻמְאָה. אֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא כָּל אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים הָיְתָה טְמֵאָה וְתִהְיֶה זָבָה אֶלָּא כָּל אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה. אֲפִלּוּ בָּדְקָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי לְנִדָּתָהּ וּבֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת לֹא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּדֵי לִפְרשׁ מִטֻּמְאַת נִדָּה אֶלָּא הִמְתִּינָה יָמִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּדְקָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. וְאִם מָצְאָה טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה וַדָּאִית שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה מָצְאָה טְמֵאָה וּלְבַסּוֹף טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק. וְיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל נִדָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּצְאָה בּוֹ טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁמָּצְאָה טְמֵאָה. שֶׁיּוֹם רִאשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ הֻחְזַק הַמַּעֲיָן פָּתוּחַ: ", + "זָבָה שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בָּרִאשׁוֹן מִימֵי הַסְּפִירָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וְלֹא בָּדְקָה עַד יוֹם שְׁבִיעִי וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה וּכְאִלּוּ בָּדְקָה כָּל שִׁבְעָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר: ", + "וְכֵן אִם בָּדְקָה בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מִימֵי הַסְּפִירָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. בָּדְקָה בְּיוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי לְזִיבָתָהּ וּמָצְאָה שֶׁפָּסַק הַדָּם וְלֹא בָּדְקָה בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מִימֵי הַסְּפִירָה וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְזָב בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַבְּדִיקוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר וְעָלוּ לוֹ יְמֵי סְפִירָה: ", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק נִדָּה סְפֵק זָבָה צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים מִסָּפֵק וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וּמְבִיאָה קָרְבַּן זָבָה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: " + ], + [ + "מְעֻבֶרֶת שֶׁהִתְחִילָה לְהִצְטַעֵר וַאֲחָזוּהָ חֶבְלֵי לֵדָה וְהִתְחִיל הַדָּם לָצֵאת קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד אוֹתוֹ הַדָּם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא דַּם הַקֹּשִׁי. וְהֵיאַךְ דִּינוֹ. אִם בָּא בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי הוּא דַּם נִדָּה וַהֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה נִדָּה. וְאִם בָּא בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּזָבָה (ויקרא טו יט) \"דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ\". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ זוֹבָהּ מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת וָלָד. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד וָלָד חַי. אֲבָל אִם הִפִּילָה אֵין קֹשִׁי לִנְפָלִים. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד עִם הַחֲבָלִים וְהַצַּעַר י\"ד יוֹם קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּלֵד הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם קֹשִׁי וְטָהוֹר. אֲבָל אִם הִתְחִיל הַדָּם קֹדֶם הַלֵּדָה בְּט\"ו יוֹם אוֹ יֶתֶר הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם זִיבָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא פָּסְקוּ הַצִּירִים וְהַחֲבָלִים וְהַצַּעַר אֶלָּא מִתְקַשָּׁה וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד שֶׁיָּלְדָה. אֲבָל אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ בְּצַעַר וַחֲבָלִים וּפָסַק לָהּ הַצַּעַר וְרָוַח לָהּ מִן הַחֲבָלִים אַחַר הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וְעָמְדָה בְּנַחַת כ\"ד שָׁעוֹת אוֹ יֶתֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק הַדָּם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר הַצַּעַר וְהַחֲבָלִים אַחַר כ\"ד שָׁעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה. שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה הַדָּם מֵחֲמַת הַוָּלָד לֹא פָּסַק הַצַּעַר וְלֹא הַחֲבָלִים. וְאִם יָלְדָה אַחֲרֵי כֵן הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב: ", + "רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד בְּלֹא צַעַר וּשְׁנַיִם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ שְׁנַיִם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּקֹשִׁי וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ יוֹם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיוֹם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיוֹם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיָלְדָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. אֲבָל אִם רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד בְּקֹשִׁי וּשְׁנַיִם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ שְׁנַיִם בְּקֹשִׁי וְאֶחָד בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיָלְדָה. אוֹ יוֹם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיוֹם בְּקֹשִׁי וְיוֹם בְּלֹא צַעַר וְיָלְדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. זֶה הַכְּלָל קֹשִׁי סָמוּךְ לַלֵּדָה אֵין זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. שֹׁפִי סָמוּךְ לַלֵּדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב: ", + "חָל שְׁלִישִׁי לִרְאִיָּתָהּ לִהְיוֹת בְּיוֹם הַלֵּדָה אֲפִלּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ בְּשֹׁפִי אֵין זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹם הַלֵּדָה סָמוּךְ לַקֹּשִׁי. רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁי הִפִּילָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה הִפִּילָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וּסְפֵק זָבָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד דִּין יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב. צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטוֹבֶלֶת לָעֶרֶב. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיֶה לָהּ דַּם טֹהַר וּמְבִיאָה קָרְבַּן זָבָה וְקָרְבַּן יוֹלֶדֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָלְדָה זָכָר אֲפִלּוּ פָּסַק הַדָּם בְּיוֹם הַלֵּדָה סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטוֹבֶלֶת. וְאִם יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה וְסָפְרָה שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים וְשָׁלְמוּ עִם י\"ד שֶׁל לֵדָה אוֹ לְאַחֲרֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ טוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְאִם שָׁלְמוּ יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה בְּתוֹךְ י\"ד הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לֵיל ט\"ו: ", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְסָפְרָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים הֲרֵי עֲשָׂרָה. וַעֲדַיִן הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לֵיל ט\"ו. שֶׁכָּל י\"ד הִיא כְּנִדָּה. וְלָמָּה אֵין מַצְרִיכִין אֶת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב לִסְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה אַחַר שִׁבְעָה שֶׁל זָכָר וְאַחַר י\"ד שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּמֵי לֵדָתָהּ וִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה בָּהֶן עוֹלִין לָהּ לִסְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: ", + "יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק דָּמָהּ אֵין לָהּ דַּם טֹהַר. אֶלָּא כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה כְּדַם זִיבָה הוּא. אֲבָל אִם סָפְרָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְשָׁלְמוּ י\"ד שֶׁל נְקֵבָה וְטָבְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים שֶׁל זָכָר וּשְׁמוֹנִים שֶׁל נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי זֶה דַּם טֹהַר: ", + "סָפְרָה שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְלֹא טָבְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ מִיָּד. שֶׁכָּל יְמֵי טֹהַר אֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לֹא לְנִדָּה וְלֹא לְזִיבָה. אֲבָל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל דָּם טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא כְּדִין דַּם הַנִּדָּה עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל: ", + "הַיּוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה וְאַחַר י\"ד שֶׁלָּהּ נִתְעַבְּרָה וְהִתְחִיל דַּם הַקֹּשִׁי לָבֹא לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים הֲרֵי הוּא דַּם טֹהַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קֹשִׁי לִנְפָלִים שֶׁכָּל דָּמִים שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי טֹהַר טָהוֹר הוּא עַד שֶׁתַּפִּיל הַוָּלָד. וּכְשֶׁתַּפִּיל תִּהְיֶה טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. אִם הִפִּילָה זָכָר טֻמְאַת זָכָר וְאִם הִפִּילָה נְקֵבָה טֻמְאַת נְקֵבָה. וּמוֹנָה יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי מְלֹאת מִוָּלָד שֵׁנִי. אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ תְּאוֹמִים וְהִפִּילָה הַיּוֹם אֶחָד וְהִפִּילָה הָאַחֵר אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים מוֹנָה לַשֵּׁנִי יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי מְלֹאת: ", + "זָבָה שֶׁפָּסַק זוֹבָהּ וְהִתְחִילָה לִמְנוֹת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וּבָא לָהּ דַּם קֹשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. וִימֵי הַקֹּשִׁי עוֹלִים לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה. וְכֵן אִם יָלְדָה בְּשִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵין הַלֵּדָה סוֹתֶרֶת. וִימֵי הַלֵּדָה עוֹלִין לָהּ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה בָּהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כח) \"וְאִם טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה טֻמְאָה אַחֶרֶת כְּגוֹן טֻמְאַת לֵדָה אוֹ טֻמְאַת נִדָּה אוֹ טֻמְאַת צָרַעַת הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶרֶת בָּהֶן. וְאֵין טֻמְאוֹת אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן סוֹתְרִין הַסְּפִירָה: ", + "יְמֵי לֵדָתָהּ וִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ אִם לֹא רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִסְפִירַת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְאִם רָאֲתָה בָּהֶן דָּם אֵין עוֹלִין לָהּ יְמֵי הָרְאִיָּה וְלֹא סוֹתְרִין כָּל הַיָּמִים. אֶלָּא מַשְׁלֶמֶת עַל הַיָּמִים שֶׁסָּפְרָה כְּשֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם. שֶׁאֵין סוֹתֵר הַכּל אֶלָּא רְאִיָּה שֶׁל זוֹב אֲבָל אֵלּוּ סוֹתְרִין יוֹמָן בִּלְבַד: ", + "מֵאַחַר שֶׁתָּבִין כָּל הָעִקָּרִים שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. יִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה דָּם מִן הַמָּקוֹר יוֹם אַחַר יוֹם מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה זָבָה. כֵּיצַד. שְׁנַיִם לִפְנֵי נִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁבְעָה יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר קֹשִׁי. וּשְׁמוֹנִים שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. וְשִׁבְעָה יְמֵי נִדָּה. וּשְׁנַיִם אַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה אַחַר יוֹם מְלֹאת הוּא תְּחִלַּת נִדָּתָהּ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל וְסָתוֹת שֶׁמִּקֹּדֶם. לְפִיכָךְ הָרוֹאָה דָּם בְּסוֹף יוֹם מְלֹאת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה שֶׁמָּא בַּלַּיְלָה רָאֲתָה הַדָּם שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ: ", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַנִּדָּה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם כָּל שִׁבְעָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי אַחַר שֶׁתִּטְבּל. וְזָבָה קְטַנָּה מְשַׁמֶּרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד טָהוֹר וְטוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ לָעֶרֶב. וְזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטוֹבֶלֶת וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי. וְאֵין בֵּין זְמַן נִדָּה לְנִדָּה אֶלָּא אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם בִּלְבַד. וּבְאוֹתָן הָאַחַד עָשָׂר תִּהְיֶה זָבָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְּדוֹלָה: ", + "וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זוֹכֵר כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעִקָּרִים יִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ זֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֻחְזְקָה כָּל יָמֶיהָ יוֹם תִּרְאֶה דָּם וְיוֹם לֹא תִּרְאֶה בַּתְּחִלָּה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וּבְיוֹם שְׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם אֶחָד אַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּכָל י\"ח יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת בִּלְבַד. וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיָּמִים הַטְּהוֹרִים שֶׁהַיּוֹם הַטָּהוֹר הוּא שׁוֹמֵר לַיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה רוֹאָה הַדָּם בְּכָל יוֹם טָמֵא מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת אֶלָּא בַּשְּׁמִינִי בִּלְבַד שֶׁהוּא יוֹם אֶחָד אַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים טְמֵאִין וּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טְהוֹרִים מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בַּשְּׁמִינִי וּבַשְּׁנֵים עָשָׂר וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וּבַעֶשְׂרִים: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים טְמֵאִין וּשְׁלֹשָׁה טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁנֵי יָמִים מֵהַשְּׁלֹשָׁה הַטְּהוֹרִין שֶׁאַחַר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. שֶׁהָאֶחָד מֵהֶן שָׁמוּר לַשְּׁנַיִם הַטְּמֵאִין הַסְּמוּכִין לְנִדָּתָהּ. וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם שֶׁהֲרֵי הֻחְזְקָה זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאֵין לָהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה אַרְבָּעָה יָמִים טְמֵאִים וְאַרְבָּעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁאַחַר נִדָּתָהּ וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים טְמֵאִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים טְהוֹרִים. מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה הַסְּמוּכִים לְנִדָּתָהּ וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שִׁשָּׁה יָמִים טְמֵאִין וְשִׁשָּׁה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בַּחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים הַסְּמוּכִים לְנִדָּתָהּ תְּחִלָּה וְשׁוּב אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שִׁבְעָה טְמֵאִין וְשִׁבְעָה טְהוֹרִין. מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת הַשָּׁבוּעַ הָרִאשׁוֹן הַטָּהוֹר הַסָּמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ וְיָבוֹא אַחֲרָיו שָׁבוּעַ טָמֵא תִּקָּבַע בּוֹ זָבָה וְהַשָּׁבוּעַ הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁיָּבוֹא אַחֲרָיו לִסְפִירָה וַאֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בּוֹ. נִמְצֵאת שֶׁלֹּא שִׁמְּשָׁה מִטָּתָהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה שָׁבוּעוֹת אֶלָּא שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד. וְכָל יָמֶיהָ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר יוֹם בְּכָל שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר שָׁבוּעוֹת. כֵּיצַד. שָׁבוּעַ חֲמִישִׁי הֲרֵי הִיא זָבָה. שָׁבוּעַ שִׁשִּׁי שֶׁהִיא בּוֹ טְהוֹרָה לִסְפִירָה. שָׁבוּעַ שְׁבִיעִי זָבָה. שָׁבוּעַ שְׁמִינִי לִסְפִירָה. שָׁבוּעַ תְּשִׁיעִי שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה בּוֹ. חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים מִמֶּנּוּ מִימֵי נִדָּה. וּשְׁנַיִם מִתְּחִלַּת יְמֵי זִיבָה. מְשַׁמֶּרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַשָּׁבוּעַ הַעֲשִׂירִי הַטָּהוֹר וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שִׁשָּׁה. שָׁבוּעַ אַחַד עָשָׂר שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם מִסּוֹף יְמֵי זוֹבָהּ. וַחֲמִשָּׁה מִתְּחִלַּת יְמֵי נִדָּה. וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים מִשָּׁבוּעַ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר הַטָּהוֹר. שָׁבוּעַ י\"ג זָבָה וְשָׁבוּעַ י\"ד לִסְפִירָה. וְכֵן שָׁבוּעַ ט\"ו זָבָה. שָׁבוּעַ ט\"ז לִסְפִירָה. וְשָׁבוּעַ י\"ז זָבָה. וְשָׁבוּעַ י\"ח לִסְפִירָה. וְסוֹפֶרֶת עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ לְעוֹלָם. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר שֶׁבְּכָל י\"ח שָׁבוּעוֹת מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת י\"ח יוֹם. וְאִלּוּ לֹא אֵרַע לָהּ חלִי זֶה וְהָיְתָה שָׁבוּעַ נִדָּה וְי\"א יוֹם טְהוֹרָה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּכָל הַי\"ח שָׁבוּעוֹת י\"א שָׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁהֵן שִׁבְעָה וְשִׁבְעִים יוֹם: ", + "וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהִיא רוֹאָה שָׁבוּעַ טָמֵא וְשָׁבוּעַ טָהוֹר מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת י\"ח יוֹם שֶׁהֵם כְּמוֹ רְבִיעַ הַיָּמִים. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת רְבִיעַ יָמֶיהָ: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה שְׁמֹנָה יָמִים טָמֵא וּשְׁמֹנָה יָמִים טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת ט\"ו יוֹם מִתּוֹךְ מ\"ח יָמִים. כֵּיצַד. שְׁמוֹנָה טָמֵא שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְיוֹם אֶחָד זִיבוּת סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ מְשַׁמֶּרֶת לוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁמוֹנָה הַטְּהוֹרִין וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שִׁבְעָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָבוֹאוּ לָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה טְמֵאִין. מֵהֶן שְׁנַיִם תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. וְשִׁשָּׁה מִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְיָבוֹאוּ שְׁמֹנָה טְהוֹרִין יוֹם אֶחָד מֵהֶן תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שִׁבְעָה שְׁנִיּוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָבוֹאוּ לָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה טְמֵאִים. מֵהֶן אַרְבָּעָה תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. וְאַרְבָּעָה מִימֵי נִדָּתָהּ. נִמְצֵאת זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וּצְרִיכָה סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה. יָבוֹאוּ לָהּ שְׁמֹנָה טְהוֹרִים. סוֹפֶרֶת מֵהֶן שִׁבְעָה וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת יוֹם אֶחָד. נִמְצֵאת מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת ט\"ו יוֹם בְּכָל מ\"ח: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים טְמֵאִים וְתִּשְׁעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמֹנָה יָמִים בְּכָל י\"ח יוֹם לְעוֹלָם. כֵּיצַד תִּשְׁעָה הַטְּמֵאִים. שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן נִדָּתָהּ וּשְׁנַיִם זִיבוּת סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ מְשַׁמֶּרֶת לָהֶן יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַתִּשְׁעָה הַטְּהוֹרִין וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמוֹנָה וְכֵן לְעוֹלָם: ", + "הָיְתָה רוֹאָה עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים טָמֵא וַעֲשָׂרָה טָהוֹר. וּמֵעֲשָׂרָה וּלְמַעְלָה אֲפִלּוּ אֶלֶף יוֹם טָמֵא וְאֶלֶף יוֹם טָהוֹר יִהְיֶה יְמֵי שִׁמּוּשָׁהּ כְּמִנְיַן זִיבָתָהּ. כֵּיצַד עֲשָׂרָה הַטְּמֵאִים. מֵהֶם שִׁבְעָה נִדָּה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה זִיבָה. עֲשָׂרָה הַטְּהוֹרִים סוֹפֶרֶת מֵהֶן שִׁבְעָה וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁלֹשָׁה. נִמְצְאוּ יְמֵי הַשִּׁמּוּשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה וִימֵי הַזָּבוּת שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכֵן מֵאָה יוֹם טְמֵאִין וּמֵאָה טְהוֹרִין. וּמֵאָה הַטְּמֵאִין שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן לְנִדָּה וְצ\"ג זִיבוּת. הַמֵּאָה הַטְּהוֹרִין שִׁבְעָה מֵהֶן לִסְפִירָה צ\"ג לְשִׁמּוּשׁ. וְכֵן אֶלֶף וְכֵן כָּל מִנְיָן וּמִנְיָן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ: " + ], + [ + "יֵשׁ אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת וְיֵשׁ אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֶלָּא לֹא תַּרְגִּישׁ בְּעַצְמָהּ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַדָּם וְאֵין לָהּ יוֹם קָבוּעַ לִרְאִיָּתָהּ. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת הִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ יוֹם קָבוּעַ. אוֹ מֵעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם. אוֹ מִכ\"ד יוֹם לְכ\"ד יוֹם. אוֹ פָּחוֹת אוֹ יוֹתֵר: \n", + "וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבוֹא הַדָּם תַּרְגִּישׁ בְּעַצְמָהּ. מְפַהֶקֶת וּמִתְעַטֶּשֶׁת וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת פִּי כְּרֵסָהּ וְשִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעֶיהָ וְיִסְתַּמֵּר שַׂעֲרַת בְּשָׂרָהּ אוֹ יֵחַם בְּשָׂרָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּמְאֹרָעוֹת אֵלּוּ. וְיָבוֹאוּ לָהּ וְסָתוֹת אֵלּוּ אוֹ אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּשָׁעָה הַקְּבוּעָה לָהּ מִיּוֹם וֶסְתָּהּ: \n", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק עַצְמָהּ תְּחִלָּה. וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּכָל עוֹנַת הַוֶּסֶת. אִם וֶסְתָּהּ בַּיּוֹם אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וְאִם וֶסְתָּהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה. וּמִתְּחִלַּת יוֹם הַוֶּסֶת תִּסְפֹּר יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ וִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכוֹת הַנָּשִׁים לְהִזָּהֵר בִּוְסָתוֹת עַד שֶׁתֵּדַע הַיּוֹם וְהַשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּקְבְּעָה בָּהּ וֶסְתָּהּ. הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וּבָא יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה וּבָא יוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְרָאֲתָה הֲרֵי יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְיוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה בְּיוֹם כ\"ג וְלֹא רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים עֲדַיִן שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. רָאֲתָה פַּעַם שְׁלִישִׁית בְּיוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים טָהַר יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְנֶעֱקָר הַוֶּסֶת לְיוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים. שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְאֵינָהּ מִטַּהֶרֶת מִן הַוֶּסֶת עַד שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר מִמֶּנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n", + "כָּל וֶסֶת שֶׁנִּקְבַּע מֵחֲמַת אֹנֶס אֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה בּוֹ כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים אֵינוֹ וֶסֶת שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס רָאֲתָה. קָפְצָה וְרָאֲתָה קָפְצָה וְרָאֲתָה קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת לְיָמִים בְּלֹא קְפִיצוֹת. כֵּיצַד. קָפְצָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. וּלְאַחַר עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם קָפְצָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְרָאֲתָה דָּם. וּלְאַחַר י\"ט קָפְצָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם וּלְאַחַר שַׁבָּת רָאֲתָה בְּלֹא קְפִיצָה. הֲרֵי נִקְבָּע אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אַחַר עֶשְׂרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי נוֹדַע שֶׁהַיּוֹם גָּרַם לָהּ לִרְאוֹת וְלֹא הַקְּפִיצָה. וּכְבָר נִקְבַּע יוֹם זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "רָאֲתָה יוֹם ט\"ו בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה וְיוֹם ט\"ז בְּחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו וְיוֹם י\"ז בְּחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו וְיוֹם י\"ח לְחֹדֶשׁ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו הֲרֵי קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת לְדִלּוּג. בָּא חֹדֶשׁ רְבִיעִי וְרָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם י\"ז עֲדַיִן לֹא נִקְבָּע לָהּ וֶסֶת. וְכָל יוֹם שֶׁרָאֲתָה בּוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לוֹ לְהַבָּא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְלֹא תִּרְאֶה טָהַר אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם מִן הַוֶּסֶת שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ עֲקִירַת שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים אֶלָּא יוֹם שֶׁנִּקְבַּע שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n", + "הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם ט\"ו וְשִׁנְּתָה לְט\"ז שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין. שִׁנְּתָה לְי\"ז הֻתַּר ט\"ז וְנֶאֱסַר י\"ז וְט\"ו בְּאִסּוּרוֹ עוֹמֵד. שִׁנְּתָה לְי\"ח נֶאֱסַר י\"ח וְהֻתְּרוּ כֻּלָּם: \n", + "הָיָה דַּרְכָּהּ לִרְאוֹת יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁנְּתָה לְיוֹם כ\"ב שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין. הִגִּיעַ עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה כ\"ב וְרָאֲתָה עֲדַיִן שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְרָאֲתָה טָהַר יוֹם כ\"ב. שֶׁהֲרֵי חָזְרָה לְוֶסְתָּהּ הַקָּבוּעַ וְנֶעֱקַר כ\"ב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבַּע שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n", + "אֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ שֶׁרָאֲתָה בָּהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּכָל הַשִּׁבְעָה. וְכֵן אֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת וֶסֶת בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ שֶׁהֵן אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם. אֲבָל קוֹבַעַת הִיא וֶסֶת בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה בָּהֶן. וְאִם נִקְבָּע לָהּ וֶסֶת בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוֶסְתָּהּ. וְכָל וֶסֶת שֶׁקָּבְעָה בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ אִם נֶעֶקְרָה אֲפִלּוּ פַּעַם אַחַת נֶעֶקְרָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהֵעָקֵר שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים שֶׁחֶזְקַת דָּמִים מְסֻלָּקִין הֵן לְיָמִים אֵלּוּ: \n", + "כֵּיצַד חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוֶסֶת. אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּוֶסֶת זוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד תֵּשֵׁב לְנִדָּתָהּ מִסָּפֵק וַאֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא רָאֲתָה בִּשְׁאָר יְמֵי הַוְּסָתוֹת. וְאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁמַּרְבָּה לִבְדֹּק עַצְמָהּ תָּמִיד הֲרֵי זוֹ מְשֻׁבַּחַת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת קְבוּעָה. שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיָּבוֹא דָּם בְּלֹא שְׁעַת הַוֶּסֶת. וְכָל י\"א יוֹם שֶׁל יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא בָּהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. אֲבָל אַחַר יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ צְרִיכָה לִבְדֹּק: \n", + "שָׁכְחָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה עַד שֶׁתִּבְדֹּק וְתִמָּצֵא טְמֵאָה: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ וּלְאַחַר יָמִים בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טָמֵא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד שְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם. וְאִם מָצְאָה עַצְמָהּ טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת טְהוֹרָה: \n", + "וְכֵן אִשָּׁה שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בַּמָּקוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ הִיא טְהוֹרָה וְהַדָּם טָהוֹר. שֶׁהַוְּסָתוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מְטַמְּאֵי מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב: \n", + "הַסּוּמָא בּוֹדֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ וּמַרְאָה לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ. אֲבָל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְהַשּׁוֹטָה צְרִיכוֹת פִּקְחוֹת לִבְדֹּק אוֹתָן וְלִקְבֹּעַ לָהֶן וְסָתוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁטָּעֲתָה וְלֹא יָדְעָה עֵת וֶסְתָּהּ וְרָאֲתָה דָּם חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּשְׁלוּם שִׁבְעָה שֶׁמָּא דָּם זֶה בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הִיא. וְאִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים שֶׁמָּא בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הִיא עוֹמֶדֶת: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד הִיא עוֹשָׂה לְתַקֵּן וֶסְתָּהּ וְלֵידַע אִם הִיא זָבָה וַדָּאִית אוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה וְלֵידַע יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. הַכּל לְפִי יָמִים שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בָּהֶן. כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מַשְׁלֶמֶת עֲלֵיהֶן הַשִּׁבְעָה וְתַתְחִיל לִמְנוֹת הָאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם מֵאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה: \n", + "רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁמָּא יוֹם אֶחָד מֵהֶן קֹדֶם נִדָּתָהּ וּשְׁנַיִם בִּתְחִלַּת הַנִּדָּה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם קֹדֶם הַנִּדָּה וּשְׁנַיִם מִתְּחִלַּת הַנִּדָּה וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת חֲמִשָּׁה תַּשְׁלוּם יְמֵי נִדָּה וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יְמֵי זִיבָה אַחַר הַחֲמִשָּׁה: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם קֹדֶם יְמֵי נִדָּה וְשִׁבְעָה שֶׁל נִדָּה וּמַתְחֶלֶת לִמְנוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם מֵאַחַר הַתִּשְׁעָה שֶׁפָּסַק הַדָּם. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה. שֶׁמָּא שְׁנַיִם קֹדֶם הַנִּדָּה וְשִׁבְעָה שֶׁל נִדָּה וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁל אַחַר הַנִּדָּה וְנִשְׁאַר לָהּ מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ תִּשְׁעָה: \n", + "רָאֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר יוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ זָבָה וַדָּאִית. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֵהֶן שְׁנַיִם לִפְנֵי הַנִּדָּה וְשִׁבְעָה שֶׁל נִדָּה הֲרֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה לְאַחַר הַנִּדָּה וְיִשָּׁאֵר לָהּ מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם יִשָּׁאֵר לָהּ מִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ שִׁבְעָה וְהֵן יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה: \n", + "מָשְׁכָה בִּרְאִיַּת הַדָּם אֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה אֶלֶף יוֹם כְּשֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים. וְאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה יַתְחִילוּ יְמֵי הַנִּדָּה לְזוֹ שֶׁטָּעֲתָה: \n", + "הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל הַטּוֹעָה אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה מִשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁבְעָה וְלֹא יוֹתֵר עַל י\"ז וְיָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד וּפָסַק הַדָּם מוֹנָה י\"ז שִׁשָּׁה לְתַשְׁלוּם נִדָּתָהּ וְי\"א יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְיָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ. וְאִם רָאֲתָה י\"ג אוֹ יֶתֶר מוֹנָה שִׁבְעָה מִשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם וְיָבוֹאוּ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִתְטַמְּאָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּנִדָּה אוֹ בְּזִיבָה עַד שֶׁתַּרְגִּישׁ וְתִרְאֶה דָּם וְיֵצֵא בִּבְשָׂרָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְתִהְיֶה טְמֵאָה מֵעֵת שֶׁתִּרְאֶה וּלְהַבָּא בִּלְבַד. וְאִם לֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה וּבָדְקָה וּמָצְאָה הַדָּם לְפָנִים בַּפְּרוֹזְדוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁבָּא בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אוֹ עַל בְּגָדֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִרְגִּישָׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא מָצְאָה דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה וּכְאִלּוּ מָצְאָה דָּם לְפָנִים בִּבְשָׂרָהּ. וְטֻמְאָה זוֹ בְּסָפֵק שֶׁמָּא כֶּתֶם זֶה מִדַּם הַחֶדֶר בָּא: ", + "וְכֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹאָה דָּם בְּלֹא עֵת וֶסְתָּהּ וְכָל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד כ\"ד שָׁעוֹת. וְאִם בָּדְקָה בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד זְמַן בְּדִיקָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה לְנִדָּתָהּ אוֹ לְכִתְמָהּ אֶלָּא מֵעֵת שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הַדָּם אוֹ שֶׁמָּצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם. וְכָל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻלְקֶלֶת (לְמִנְיָנָהּ) שֶׁמָּא מִן הַחֶדֶר בָּא וְנִתְקַלְקְלָה וֶסְתָּהּ: ", + "הָרוֹאָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעָתָהּ בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמֵינִיקָה בְּתוּלָה וּזְקֵנָה דַּיָּן שְׁעָתָן וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מְעֻבֶּרֶת. מִשֶּׁיֻּכַּר עֻבָּרָהּ. וְהוּא שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים. מֵינִיקָה כָּל כ\"ד חֹדֶשׁ אֲפִלּוּ מֵת בְּנָהּ אוֹ גְּמָלַתּוּ אוֹ נְתָנַתּוּ לְמֵינִיקָה: ", + "בְּתוּלָה כָּל שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה מֵחֲמַת נִשּׂוּאִין אוֹ מֵחֲמַת לֵדָה. זְקֵנָה כָּל שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם סָמוּךְ לְזִקְנָתָהּ. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא זְקֵנָה כָּל שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין לָהּ זְקֵנָה וְאֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת. מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמֵינִיקָה וּזְקֵנָה כִּתְמָן כִּרְאִיָּתָן וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ. בְּתוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ וַעֲדַיִן הִיא קְטַנָּה כִּתְמָהּ טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁתִּרְאֶה דָּם שָׁלֹשׁ וְסָתוֹת: ", + "מַה בֵּין כֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ לְכֶתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בִּגְדָהּ. שֶׁהַכֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר. וְהַנִּמְצָא עַל הַבֶּגֶד אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כִּגְרִיס הַקִּלְקִי שֶׁהוּא מְרֻבָּע שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי תֵּשַׁע עֲדָשׁוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁעוּר זֶה טָהוֹר. נִמְצָא טִפִּין טִפִּין אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. הָיָה אָרֹךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מִצְטָרֵף: ", + "כֶּתֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה טָהוֹר וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לוֹ. כֵּיצַד. יָשְׁבָה עַל כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה וּכְלֵי גְּלָלִים אוֹ עַל עוֹר הַדָּג אוֹ עַל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ מִגַּבּוֹ אוֹ עַל בֶּגֶד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת עַל שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת וְנִמְצָא עֲלֵיהֶן דָּם טְהוֹרָה. אֲפִלּוּ בָּדְקָה הַקַּרְקַע וְיָשְׁבָה עָלֶיהָ וְנִמְצָא כֶּתֶם עַל הַקַּרְקַע כְּשֶׁעָמְדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל כֶּתֶם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בּוֹ. וְלֹא בִּמְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לָבָן. אֲבָל כְּלֵי צִבְעוֹנִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְכֶתֶם הַנִּמְצָא בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּלְבַּשׁ הָאִשָּׁה בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין כְּדֵי לְהַצִּילָהּ מִדִּין הַכְּתָמִים: ", + "לֹא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַדָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ תִּטְמָא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם עַד שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה. כֵּיצַד. נִמְצָא עַל עֲקֵבָהּ טְמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בְּבֵית תֻּרְפָּה בְּעֵת יְשִׁיבָתָהּ. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא עַל שׁוֹקָהּ אוֹ עַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִבִּפְנִים וְהֵם הַמְּקוֹמוֹת הַנִּדְבָּקוֹת זוֹ בְּזוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד וְתִדְבֹּק רֶגֶל לְרֶגֶל וְשׁוֹק לְשׁוֹק הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. נִמְצָא עַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדַל רַגְלָהּ טְמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נָטַף מִן הַחֶדֶר עַל רַגְלָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁהָלְכָה. וְכֵן כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּנָּתֵז עָלָיו דַּם נִדָּתָהּ כְּשֶׁתְּהַלֵּךְ וְנִמְצָא שָׁם דָּם טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא הַדָּם עַל יָדֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ עַל קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹת יָדֶיהָ טְמֵאָה שֶׁהַיָּדַיִם עַסְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא הַדָּם עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ מִבַּחוּץ אוֹ מִן הַצְּדָדִין וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם נִמְצָא מִן הַיְרֵכַיִם וּלְמַעְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֶלָּא דָּם שֶׁנִּתַּז עָלֶיהָ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר: ", + "הַכֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ שֶׁהוּא אָרֹךְ כִּרְצוּעָה אוֹ עָגל. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ טִפִּין טִפִּין. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֹרֶךְ הַכֶּתֶם עַל רֹחַב יְרֵכָהּ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה נִרְאֶה כְּאִלּוּ הוּא מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית תֻּרְפָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים אִלּוּ נָטַף מִן הַגּוּף לֹא הָיָה כָּזֶה. שֶׁכָּל דָּם הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ מַחֲמִירִין בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק: ", + "הַכֶּתֶם הַנִּמְצָא עַל הֶחָלוּק שֶׁלָּהּ מֵחֲגוֹרָהּ וּלְמַטָּה טְמֵאָה מֵחֲגוֹרָהּ וּלְמַעְלָה טְהוֹרָה. נִמְצָא עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁלָּהּ אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית תֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה: ", + "הָיְתָה פּוֹשַׁטְתוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בּוֹ דָּם טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן הָאֵזוֹר שֶׁלָּהּ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בּוֹ הַדָּם טְמֵאָה: ", + "הָיְתָה לוֹבֶשֶׁת חָלוּק אֶחָד וְשָׁהָה עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר בְּלֹא עֵת נִדָּתָהּ וּבָדְקָה וּמָצְאָה עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים אוֹ כֶּתֶם אֶחָד גָּדוֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שִׁעוּר שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁמָּא כֶּתֶם נָטַף מִמֶּנָּה בְּכָל יוֹם. וְכֵן אִם לָבְשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּגָדִים בְּדוּקִים וְשָׁהוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וּמָצְאָה כֶּתֶם בְּכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה: ", + "מָצְאָה כֶּתֶם אֶחָד שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים אִם בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁל יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וְלֹא בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי מָצְאָה זֶה הַכֶּתֶם שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וְשָׁהָה עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּתֶם כְּדֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתָמִים: ", + "מָצְאָה כֶּתֶם עַל חֲלוּקָהּ הַיּוֹם וְרָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר כָּךְ שְׁנֵי יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה. אוֹ שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי רָאֲתָה כֶּתֶם. הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה: ", + "הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה דָּם תּוֹלָה כִּתְמָהּ בִּרְאִיָּתָהּ כָּל מֵעֵת לְעֵת. בֵּין שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁמָּצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם וּמְצָאתָהּ טָהוֹר. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה. אֲבָל הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם אַחַר כֶּתֶם בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה כֶּתֶם בַּכֶּתֶם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בָּדְקָה בֵּינֵיהֶם. שֶׁאִם הִפְסִיקָה טָהֳרָה בֵּין הַכְּתָמִים אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְמִנְיַן זִיבוּת: ", + "כֵּיצַד. רָאֲתָה כֶּתֶם עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַיּוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וְלֹא יָדְעָה אִם טְהוֹרָה הִיא אִם טְמֵאָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר כָּךְ עַד שָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִיּוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה לַכֶּתֶם. אֶלָּא תּוֹלָה הַכֶּתֶם בִּרְאִיָּה. וְאִם רָאֲתָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְשֵׁנִי בְּשַׁבָּת תִּהְיֶה זָבָה. רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּיוֹם שַׁבָּת בְּשָׁעָה שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת שֶׁמָּצְאָה בּוֹ הַכֶּתֶם וּבְשַׁבָּת שֶׁרָאֲתָה הַדָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם רָאֲתָה הַדָּם בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזִיבוּת: ", + "לֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּשַׁבָּת אֲבָל רָאֲתָה כֶּתֶם אַחֵר בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִיּוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת. אִם בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא לְכֶתֶם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת הוֹאִיל וּשְׁנֵיהֶם בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקָה וְלֹא יָדְעָה אִם הִפְסִיקָה טָהֳרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אִם לֹא הִפְסִיקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מוֹנָה לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאִם רָאֲתָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת: ", + "רָאֲתָה הַכֶּתֶם הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשָׁעָה שְׁנִיָּה מִיּוֹם שַׁבָּת בֵּין בָּדְקָה בֵּין לֹא בָּדְקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם רָאֲתָה בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אַחַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. רָאֲתָה בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִיּוֹם אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת כֶּתֶם שְׁלִישִׁי אִם הִפְסִיקָה טָהֳרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת. וְאִם לֹא בָּדְקָה חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְזִיבוּת: ", + "כָּל כֶּתֶם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה בִּגְלָלוֹ אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ וְלוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא כֶּתֶם זֶה מִדָּבָר פְּלוֹנִי הוּא אִם נִמְצָא עַל הַבֶּגֶד הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר לְהַחֲמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל. וְאִם נִמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא וְאֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה לָהּ לִתְלוֹת בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יֶתֶר מֵחֲלוּקָהּ אַף עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ תּוֹלָה וּסְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר: ", + "כֵּיצַד. שָׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקָה בִּכְתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְּצַד הָעוֹסְקִין בָּהֶן אוֹ שֶׁעָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל חֲלוּקָהּ טְהוֹרָה וְתוֹלָה בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁמֵּהֶן בָּא הַכֶּתֶם: ", + "נִמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ בִּלְבַד אִם הַכֶּתֶם מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה טְמֵאָה. וְאִם נִתְהַפְּכָה וְקָפְצָה אֲפִלּוּ מֵחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה דָּם זֶה מִן הַשְּׁחִיטָה אוֹ מִן הַשּׁוּק הָיָה לָהּ שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא גַּם עַל בְּגָדֶיהָ וְהוֹאִיל וְנִמְצָא עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ וְלֹא בְּבִגְדָּהּ טְמֵאָה:", + "הָיְתָה בָּהּ מַכָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָיְתָה אִם יְכוֹלָה לְהִתְגַּלַּע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָּם וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ תּוֹלָה בַּמַּכָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: ", + "נִמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם עַל בְּגָדֶיהָ וּבְשָׂרָהּ כְּאֶחָד תּוֹלָה בְּכָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ לִתְלוֹת. וְתוֹלָה בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת שֶׁמָּא בְּעֵת שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה נֶהֶרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת וְדָם זֶה דַּם מַאֲכֹלֶת הוּא. וְעַד כַּמָּה עַד כִּגְרִיס. אֲבָל אִם מָצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם יֶתֶר מִכִּגְרִיס אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מַאֲכֹלֶת רְצוּצָה בַּכֶּתֶם הוֹאִיל וְהוּא יֶתֶר מִכִּגְרִיס אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת: ", + "וְכֵן תּוֹלָה בִּבְנָהּ וּבְבַעְלָהּ אִם הָיוּ עֲסוּקִין בְּדָם אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ יְדֵיהֶן מְלֻכְלָכוֹת אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּהֶן מַכָּה תּוֹלָה בָּהֶן וְאוֹמֶרֶת הֵן נָגְעוּ בָּהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה וְדָם זֶה מֵחֲמָתָן הוּא: ", + "אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין דָּם מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה לָהּ מַכָּה בִּכְתֵפָהּ וְנִמְצָא כֶּתֶם עַל שׁוֹקָהּ. אֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא בְּיָדֶיהָ נָגְעָה בַּמַּכָּה וְנָגְעָה בְּמָקוֹם זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה אֵין תּוֹלִין בּוֹ בֵּין בְּגוּפָהּ בֵּין בַּחֲלוּקָהּ: ", + "שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקוּ בְּצִפּוֹר אֶחָד וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּסֶלַע דָּם וְנִמְצָא עַל כָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן כֶּתֶם כְּסֶלַע שְׁתֵּיהֶן טְמֵאוֹת. נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּדָם שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִמֶּנּוּ כֶּתֶם אֶלָּא כִּגְרִיס וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ כֶּתֶם כִּשְׁנֵי גְּרִיסִין הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה כִּגְרִיס בַּדָּם שֶׁנִּתְעַסְּקָה בּוֹ וְכִגְרִיס בְּמַאֲכֹלֶת. נִמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם יֶתֶר מִכִּשְׁנֵי גְּרִיסִין טְמֵאָה: ", + "נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּאָדֹם אֵין תּוֹלָה בּוֹ שָׁחוֹר. נִתְעַסְּקָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִינֵי דָּם הַרְבֵּה וְנִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ מַרְאֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן תּוֹלָה בּוֹ. הָיְתָה לוֹבֶשֶׁת שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת אִם יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת תּוֹלָה אַף בַּתַּחְתּוֹן. וְאִם אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה אַף בָּעֶלְיוֹן. כֵּיצַד. עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְבַדּוֹ תּוֹלָה בְּדַם הַטַּבָּחִים. לֹא עָבְרָה בְּשׁוּק הַטַּבָּחִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַכֶּתֶם בָּעֶלְיוֹן לְבַדּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה סָפֵק עָבְרָה סָפֵק לֹא עָבְרָה סָפֵק נִתְעַסְּקָה סָפֵק לֹא נִתְעַסְּקָה אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה: ", + "עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲזִירִים אוֹ שֶׁהֵם בָּאִין לָהּ תָּמִיד אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִכְתָמֶיהָ הַנִּמְצָאִין בַּחֲלוּקָהּ: ", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁאִילָה חֲלוּקָהּ לְנִדָּה בֵּין עַכּוּ\"ם בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית וְחָזְרָה וְלָבְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם בְּדִיקָה וּמָצְאָה עָלָיו כֶּתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בַּנִּדָּה שֶׁלָּבְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ. הִשְׁאִילָה אוֹתוֹ לְזָבָה קְטַנָּה בַּיּוֹם הַטָּמֵא שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ לַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טֹהַר אוֹ לִבְתוּלָה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ טְהוֹרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם הִשְׁאִילָה אוֹתוֹ לְזָבָה קְטַנָּה בַּיּוֹם הַשָּׁמוּר אוֹ לְזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה בְּשִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְחָזְרָה וְלָבְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם בְּדִיקָה וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו כֶּתֶם שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְקֻלְקָלוֹת הַשּׁוֹאֶלֶת וְהַמַּשְׁאֶלֶת אוֹתָהּ שֶׁמָּא מִזּוֹ שֶׁמָּא מִזּוֹ. הִשְׁאִילָה אוֹתוֹ לְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל הַכֶּתֶם אֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בָּהּ שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין כֶּתֶם בְּכֶתֶם: ", + "בָּדְקָה חֲלוּקָהּ וּבָדְקָה עַצְמָהּ וּמָצְאָה טָהוֹר וְהִשְׁאִילָה הֶחָלוּק לַחֲבֵרְתָהּ וּלְבָשַׁתּוּ וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו כֶּתֶם כְּשֶׁהֶחֱזִירָתוֹ לָהּ הַשּׁוֹאֶלֶת טְמֵאָה. וְאֵינָהּ תּוֹלָה בְּבַעֲלַת הֶחָלוּק שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּדְקָה אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּשְׁאִילֵהוּ לָהּ: ", + "אֲרֻכָּה שֶׁלָּבְשָׁה חֲלוּקָהּ שֶׁל קְצָרָה וְנִמְצָא בּוֹ כֶּתֶם אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה וְאִם לָאו טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁכֶּתֶם זֶה שֶׁל קְצָרָה הוּא: ", + "שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁלָּבְשׁוּ חָלוּק אֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא עָלָיו כֶּתֶם. וְכֵן אִם יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת כְּאַחַת וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. וְאִם בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן עַצְמָהּ מִיָּד וּמָצְאָה עַצְמָהּ טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי הַשְּׁתַּיִם טְהוֹרוֹת: ", + "בָּדְקוּ כֻּלָּן וּמָצְאוּ עַצְמָן טְהוֹרוֹת תּוֹלָה מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בְּמִי שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה. וְתִהְיֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה טְהוֹרָה וְהָרְאוּיָה טְמֵאָה. כֵּיצַד. הָיְתָה אַחַת מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאַחַת אֵינָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת טְהוֹרָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת טְמֵאָה. מֵינִיקָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מֵינִיקָה הַמֵּינִיקָה טְהוֹרָה. זְקֵנָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ זְקֵנָה הַזְּקֵנָה טְהוֹרָה. בְּתוּלָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּתוּלָה הַבְּתוּלָה טְהוֹרָה. הָיוּ כֻּלָּן מְעֻבָּרוֹת כֻּלָּן זְקֵנוֹת כֻּלָּן מֵינִיקוֹת כֻּלָּן בְּתוּלוֹת הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת: ", + "שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁעָלוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּטָּה וְיָשְׁנוּ כֻּלָּן וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת הָאֶמְצָעִית שְׁלָשְׁתָּן טְמֵאוֹת. תַּחַת הַפְּנִימִית הִיא וְשֶׁבְּצִדָּהּ טְמֵאוֹת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה טְהוֹרָה. תַּחַת הַחִיצוֹנָה הִיא וְשֶׁבְּצִדָּהּ טְמֵאוֹת וְהַפְּנִימִית טְהוֹרָה. וְאִם לֹא עָלוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּטָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָהֶם סֵדֶר וְנִמְצָא דָּם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת: ", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּדְקוּ כֻּלָּן וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר וְלֹא תּוּכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן לִתְלוֹת בַּחֲבֵרְתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אִם בָּדְקָה אַחַת וּמָצְאָה עַצְמָהּ טְהוֹרָה וַחֲבֵרְתָהּ לֹא בָּדְקָה תּוֹלָה הַטְּהוֹרָה בְּזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה וַהֲרֵי זוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה טְמֵאָה: ", + "כָּל כֶּתֶם שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בְּמַה יִּתְלֶה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁהוּא דָּם. וְאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא הוּא דָּם אוֹ צֶבַע אָדֹם מַעֲבִירִין עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין אֵלּוּ עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אִם עָבַר אוֹ כֵּהָה עֵינוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כֶּתֶם דָּם וּטְמֵאָה וְאִם עָמַד כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע וּטְהוֹרָה: ", + "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַשִּׁבְעָה סַמָּנִים עַל סִדְרָן. רֹק תָּפֵל. וּלְעִיסַת גְּרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל. וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֶחֱמִיצוּ. וּבֹרִית. וְנֶתֶר. וְקִימוֹנְיָא. וְאַשְׁלָג. וְצָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים עַל כָּל סַם וְסַם וּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בְּכָל כִּסְכּוּס. הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱבִירָן כְּאֶחָד לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. הִקְדִּים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים לָרִאשׁוֹנִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁהֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וּמַעֲבִיר אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁהִקְדִּים עַד שֶׁיַּעַבְרוּ הַשִּׁבְעָה עַל הַסֵּדֶר: ", + "אֵי זֶהוּ רֹק תָּפֵל שֶׁלֹּא טָעַם כְּלוּם מִתְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה וְהָיָה יָשֵׁן מֵחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה הָאַחֲרוֹן לְמָחָר קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאכַל נִקְרָא רֹק תָּפֵל. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא רֹב דִּבּוּרוֹ עַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם. וְאִם הִשְׁכִּים וְשָׁנָה פִּרְקוֹ קֹדֶם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת אֵין זֶה רֹק תָּפֵל שֶׁהַדִּבּוּר מְבַטֵּל חֹזֶק הָרֹק וּמַחֲזִירוֹ כְּמַיִם. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא לְעִיסַת גְּרִיסִין הוּא שֶׁיִּלְעֹס הַגְּרִיסִין עַד שֶׁיִּתְעָרֵב עִם הַפּוֹל רֹק הַרְבֵּה מִפִּיו. וְאֵי זֶהוּ מֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֶחֱמִיצוּ אַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר: ", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם אִם מָצְאָה הַכֶּתֶם בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה יָמִים וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ. וְאִם מָצְאָה אוֹתוֹ בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ קְטַנָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּפֶרֶק זֶה. וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת יוֹם אֶחָד אִם הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אִם הָיְתָה גְּדוֹלָה מִסָּפֵק. וְהַכּל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּזָדוֹן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּפְטוּרִין מִקָּרְבָּן: " + ], + [ + "כָּל יוֹלֶדֶת טְמֵאָה כְּנִדָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם. וְאֶחָד הַיּוֹלֶדֶת חַי אוֹ מֵת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נֵפֶל. אִם זָכָר יוֹשֶׁבֶת לְזָכָר וְאִם נְקֵבָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת לִנְקֵבָה וְהוּא שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר צוּרָתוֹ. וְאֵין צוּרַת הַוָּלָד נִגְמֶרֶת לְפָחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אֶחָד הַזָּכָר וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבָה: \n", + "וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אֵינָהּ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים. הִפִּילָה בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד מֵאַחַר הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וְתֵשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה. הָיְתָה צוּרַת הָאָדָם דַּקָּה בְּיוֹתֵר וְאֵינָהּ נִכֶּרֶת בַּעֲלִיל הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא שַׁפִּיר מְרֻקָּם: \n", + "אֵי זֶה הוּא שַׁפִּיר מְרֻקָּם. תְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם גּוּפוֹ כַּעֲדָשָׁה. שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כִּשְׁתֵּי טִפֵּי זְבוּב מְרֻחָקוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. שְׁנֵי חֳטָמָיו כִּשְׁתֵּי טִפֵּי זְבוּב מְקֹרָבוֹת זֶה לָזֶה. פִּיו פָּתוּחַ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה. וְחִתּוּךְ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם אֵין לוֹ. נִתְבָּאֲרָה צוּרָתוֹ יֶתֶר מִזֶּה וַעֲדַיִן אֵינוֹ נִכָּר בֵּין זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמַיִם אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶן מְצַחְצְחוֹ. וּמֵבִיא קֵיסָם שֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ חָלָק וּמְנַעְנֵעַ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה אִם מְסַכְסֵךְ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא זָכָר. וְאִם רָאָה אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה סְדוּקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְקֵבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הָרְקִימוֹת שֶׁל נְפָלִים אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן יְמֵי טֹהַר עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂעִיר הַוָּלָד: \n", + "הִפִּילָה חֲתִיכָה לְבָנָה אִם נִקְרְעָה וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ עֶצֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. הִפִּילָה שַׁפִּיר מָלֵא מַיִם מָלֵא דָּם מָלֵא גִּנּוּנִים מָלֵא בָּשָׂר הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ מְרֻקָּם אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוָלָד: \n", + "יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן אֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה וְאֵין לָהּ יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי טָהֳרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ב) \"אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר\" עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁמַּזְרַעַת. הַמַּקְשָׁה וְיָלְדָה וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ הַדֹּפֶן הֲרֵי דַּם הַקֹּשִׁי הַבָּא דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶחֶם זִיבוּת אוֹ נִדָּה וְדָם הַיּוֹצֵא דֶּרֶךְ הַדֹּפֶן טָמֵא. וְאִם לֹא יָצָא דָּם דֶּרֶךְ הָרֶחֶם הֲרֵי הָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁיָּצָא מִדָּפְנָהּ טָמֵא. שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה טְמֵאָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַדְוֶהָ דֶּרֶךְ עֶרְוָתָהּ: \n", + "נֶחְתַּךְ הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וְיָצָא אֵיבָר אֵיבָר. בֵּין שֶׁיָּצָא עַל סֵדֶר הָאֵיבָרִים כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצְאָה הָרֶגֶל וְאַחֲרֶיהָ הַשּׁוֹק וְאַחֲרֶיהָ הַיָּרֵךְ. בֵּין שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אֵינָהּ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא רֻבּוֹ. וְאִם יָצָא רֹאשׁוֹ כֻּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרֻבּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נֶחְתַּךְ וְיָצָא כְּדַרְכּוֹ מִשֶּׁתֵּצֵא רֹב פַּדַּחְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ אַחַר כָּךְ: \n", + "הוֹצִיא הָעֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְאֵין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד כֻּלּוֹ אוֹ רֻבּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ: \n", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אִם הָיוּ פָּנָיו כִּפְנֵי אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד. אִם זָכָר תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְאִם נְקֵבָה תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִכָּר בֵּין זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁאָר הַגּוּף דּוֹמֶה לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ לְחַיָּה אוֹ לְעוֹף. וְאִם אֵין פָּנָיו כְּצוּרַת פְּנֵי הָאָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁאָר הַגּוּף גּוּף אָדָם שָׁלֵם וְיָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו יְדֵי וְרַגְלֵי אָדָם וַהֲרֵי הוּא זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה אֵינוֹ וָלָד וְאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה: \n", + "אֵי זוֹ הִיא צוּרַת פְּנֵי הָאָדָם. שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמֶּצַח וְהַגְּבִינִין וְהָעֵינַיִם וְהַלְּסָתוֹת וְגַבּוֹת הַזָּקָן כְּצוּרַת הָאָדָם. אֲבָל הַפֶּה וְהָאָזְנַיִם וְהָאַף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן כְּשֶׁל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה וָלָד: \n", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת נָחָשׁ אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגַּלְגַּל עֵינָיו עָגל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּנָפַיִם שֶׁל בָּשָׂר אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. נִבְרָא בְּעַיִן אַחַת וְיָרֵךְ אַחַת אִם הָיוּ מִן הַצַּד הֲרֵי הוּא כַּחֲצִי אָדָם וְאִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. וְאִם הָיוּ בָּאֶמְצַע אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי זוֹ בְּרִיָּה אַחֶרֶת: \n", + "נִבְרָא וֵשֶׁט שֶׁלּוֹ אָטוּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חָסֵר מִטִּבּוּרוֹ וּלְמַטָּה וַהֲרֵי הוּא אָטוּם. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה גֻּלְגָּלְתּוֹ אֲטוּמָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ פָּנָיו טוּחוֹת וְאֵין בָּהֶן הֶכֵּר פָּנִים. אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁדֵרוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה בְּרִיַּת רֹאשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָתוּךְ. אוֹ יָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָתוּךְ. כָּל נֵפֶל מֵאֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ וָלָד וְאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. אֲבָל אִם הִפִּילָה יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה הֲרֵי חֶזְקָתָהּ מִוָּלָד שָׁלֵם וּמִצְטָרְפִין לְרֹב אֵיבָרָיו: \n", + "פְּעָמִים יִקְפֶּה מִשְּׁאָר הַדָּמִים שֶׁנּוֹצַר מֵהֶם הָאָדָם חֲתִיכָה כְּמוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַשּׁוֹר וְתִהְיֶה כְּרוּכָה עַל מִקְצָת הַוָּלָד וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת סַנְדָּל. וּלְעוֹלָם לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה סַנְדָּל זֶה אֶלָּא עִם וָלָד. אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁנּוֹצְרָה לְבַדָּהּ בְּלֹא וָלָד אֵינָהּ נִקְרֵאת סַנְדָּל. וְרֹב הָעֵבָּרִים לֹא יִהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם סַנְדָּל. וּפְעָמִים יַכֶּה הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת דָּבָר עַל בִּטְנָהּ וְיִפָּסֵד הָעֻבָּר וְיֵעָשֶׂה כְּסַנְדָּל זֶה. וּפְעָמִים יִשָּׁאֵר בּוֹ הֶכֵּר פָּנִים וּפְעָמִים יִיבַשׁ הַוָּלָד וְיִשְׁתַּנֶּה וְיִקְפְּאוּ עָלָיו הַדָּמִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר בּוֹ הֶכֵּר פָּנִים. לְפִיכָךְ הַמַּפֶּלֶת זָכָר וְסַנְדָּל עִמּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶכֵּר פָּנִים לַסַּנְדָּל הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה שֶׁמָּא סַנְדָּל זֶה נְקֵבָה הָיָה. וְחֻמְרָא הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ לְטַמְּאָהּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם וָלָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ צוּרַת פָּנִים הוֹאִיל וְהִיא טְמֵאָה לֵדָה מִפְּנֵי הַוָּלָד שֶׁעִמּוֹ: \n", + "הַחוֹתֶלֶת הֶעָבָה שֶׁהִיא כְּמוֹ חֵמֶת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ נוֹצָר הַוָּלָד וְהִיא מַקֶּפֶת אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת הַסַּנְדָּל אִם הָיָה עִמּוֹ סַנְדָּל וּכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת קוֹרֵעַ אוֹתָהּ וְיוֹצֵא הִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת שִׁלְיָא. וּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ דּוֹמָה לְחוּט שֶׁל עֵרֶב וַחֲלוּלָה כַּחֲצוֹצֶרֶת וְעָבָה כְּקֻרְקְבָן הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים. וְאֵין שִׁלְיָא פְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח: \n", + "הַמַּפֶּלֶת שִׁלְיָא תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד. הִפִּילָה נֵפֶל וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לַשִּׁלְיָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּוָלָד אַחֵר וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין זוֹ שִׁלְיַת הַנֵּפֶל. שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָלְדָה וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא וְהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כ\"ג יוֹם תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ בַּוָּלָד וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. שֶׁהַוָּלָד קָרַע הַשִּׁלְיָא וְיָצָא: \n", + "הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה וָלָד שֶׁל קַיָּמָא חוֹשְׁשִׁין לַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁהִיא וָלָד אַחֵר וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בַּוָּלָד הַבָּא אַחֲרֶיהָ. שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל שִׁלְיָא לָצֵאת לִפְנֵי הַוָּלָד. יָצָאת מִקְצָת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמִקְצָתָהּ בַּשֵּׁנִי מוֹנִין לָהּ מִיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טָהֳרָה אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֵׁנִי לְהַחֲמִיר: \n", + "הִפִּילָה דְּמוּת בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְשִׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד. וְאִם אֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ מְטִילִין עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶר שְׁתֵּי וְלָדוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא נִמּוֹחַ שַׁפִּיר מְרֻקָּם שֶׁהָיָה בְּשִׁלְיָא זוֹ וְשֶׁמָּא נִמּוֹחָה הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁל שַׁפִּיר זֶה שֶׁהוּא דְּמוּת בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה: \n", + "כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְשִׁלְיָא אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן יְמֵי טֹהַר. וְכָל מִי שֶׁהִפִּילָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ וָלָד אוֹ שַׁפִּיר בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרָה צוּרָתוֹ אִם יָצָא עִמּוֹ דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה אוֹ זָבָה. וְאִם יָצָא יָבֵשׁ בְּלֹא דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁיָּלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה תְּאוֹמִים תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה. יָלְדָה טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. יָלְדָה תְּאוֹמִים אֶחָד זָכָר וְהַשֵּׁנִי טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. הָאַחַת נְקֵבָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה בִּלְבַד. שֶׁהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס סָפֵק הֵן שֶׁמָּא זָכָר הֵן שֶׁמָּא נְקֵבָה: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֻחְזְקָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה יָּלְדָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרָה לַנָּהָר וְהִפִּילָה שָׁם אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה לְבוֹר אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה וּגְרָרַתּוּ חַיָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִפִּילָה וָלָד וְתֵשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֻחְזְקָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְהִפִּילָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה הִפִּילָה הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וְתֵשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ד) \"תֵּשֵׁב\" לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה כֵּיצַד דִּינָה. תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ י\"ד יוֹם כְּיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה. שִׁבְעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וַדַּאי. וְהַשִּׁבְעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנִים סָפֵק. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר אֶלָּא עַד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם כְּיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם אַחַר הָאַרְבָּעִים עַד שְׁמוֹנִים אֵינוֹ דַּם טֹהַר אֶלָּא סְפֵק דַּם נִדָּה אוֹ סְפֵק דַּם זִיבוּת אִם בָּא מִימֵי הַזִּיבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה דָּם יוֹם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹנִים בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה וְתֵשֵׁב שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַנִּדָּה שֶׁמָּא נְקֵבָה יָלְדָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת נִדּוּת עַד אַחַר מְלֹאת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יב ד) \"תֵּשֵׁב\" לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה כֵּיצַד דִּינָה. תִּהְיֶה אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ י\"ד יוֹם כְּיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה. וְאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם ע\"ד וּבְיוֹם פ\"א הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם ל\"ד הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה וַאֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד לֵיל אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה כְּיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר כְּלָל כְּנִדָּה. וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה. וְכָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה עַד שְׁמֹנִים יוֹם אִם בָּא בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נִדָּה מֵאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה. וְאִם בָּא בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זָבָה שֶׁכָּל יְמֵי מְלֹאת אֵין בָּהֶן וֶסֶת. וְכֵן אִם רָאֲתָה בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹנִים עֲדַיִן הִיא מְקֻלְקֶלֶת וְתִהְיֶה סְפֵק נִדָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד וּכְשֶׁיִּקָּבַע לָהּ הַוֶּסֶת אַחַר הַשְּׁמוֹנִים יָסוּר קִלְקוּלָהּ וְתַחֲזֹר לִהְיוֹת נִדָּה וַדָּאִית אוֹ זָבָה וַדָּאִית. וְכֵן מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה עַד שִׁבְעָה יָמִים וְתִהְיֶה נִדָּה וַדָּאִית אִם הִפִּילָה בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּנִדָּה וְזָבָה וְיוֹלֶדֶת הוּא דִּין תּוֹרָה. וּכְמִשְׁפָּטִים אֵלּוּ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל מְצוּיִין וְהָיוּ שָׁם חֲכָמִים גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁמַּכִּירִים הַדָּמִים וְאִם נוֹלַד לָהֶם סָפֵק בִּרְאִיּוֹת אוֹ בִּימֵי נִדָּה וְזִיבָה יַעֲלוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז ח) \"כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָּבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין\", בֵּין דַּם נִדָּה לְדַם זִיבָה. וּבְאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים הָיוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִזְהָרוֹת מִדָּבָר זֶה וּמְשַׁמְּרוֹת וִסְתוֹתֵיהֶן וְסוֹפְרוֹת תָּמִיד יְמֵי הַנִּדָּה וִימֵי הַזִּיבָה: ", + "וְטֹרַח גָּדוֹל יֵשׁ בְּמִנְיַן הַיָּמִים וּפְעָמִים רַבּוֹת יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי סָפֵק. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה הַבַּת דָּם בְּיוֹם הַלֵּדָה מֵאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם מַתְחִילִין לִמְנוֹת לָהּ יְמֵי נִדָּה וִימֵי זִיבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּטָּמֵא הַבַּת בְּזִיבָה אֶלָּא בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁאִם רָאֲתָה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נִדָּה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים סָמוּךְ לְנִדָּתָהּ הֲרֵי עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁמִּתְּחִלַּת רְאִיָּה מַתְחֶלֶת לִמְנוֹת יְמֵי נִדָּה וִימֵי זִיבָה כָּל יָמֶיהָ וַאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה וְהִיא קְטַנָּה: ", + "וּבִימֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא נִסְתַּפֵּק הַדָּבָר הַרְבֵּה בִּרְאִיַּת הַדָּמִים וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַוְּסָתוֹת. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה כֹּחַ בְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים לִמְנוֹת יְמֵי נִדָּה וִימֵי זִיבָה. לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ חֲכָמִים בְּדָבָר זֶה וְגָזְרוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ כָּל יְמֵי הָאִשָּׁה כִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ וְיִהְיֶה כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה סְפֵק דַּם זִיבוּת: ", + "וְעוֹד הֶחֱמִירוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל עַצְמָן חֻמְרָא יְתֵרָה עַל זֶה. וְנָהֲגוּ כֻּלָּם בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁכָּל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁרוֹאָה דָּם אֲפִלּוּ לֹא רָאֲתָה אֶלָּא טִפָּה כְּחַרְדָּל בִּלְבַד וּפָסַק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת לָהּ שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים וַאֲפִלּוּ רָאֲתָה בְּעֵת נִדָּתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁרָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ הַשִּׁבְעָה כֻּלָּן אוֹ יֶתֶר מִשֶּׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים כְּזָבָה גְּדוֹלָה וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זָבָה, אוֹ בְּיוֹם שְׁמִינִי אִם הָיָה שָׁם דֹּחַק כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן כָּל הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב וּצְרִיכָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמִנְהָג פָּשׁוּט בְּשִׁנְעָר וּבְאֶרֶץ הַצְּבִי וּבִסְפָרַד וּבַמַּעֲרָב שֶׁאִם רָאֲתָה דָּם בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי מְלֹאת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָאֲתָה אַחַר שֶׁסָּפְרָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים וְטָבְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אַחַר שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהּ יְמֵי טֹהַר כְּלָל. אֶלָּא כָּל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הָאִשָּׁה בֵּין דַּם קֹשִׁי בֵּין דַּם טֹהַר הַכּל טָמֵא וְסוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אַחַר שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם: ", + "וְדִין זֶה בִּימֵי הַגְּאוֹנִים נִתְחַדֵּשׁ וְהֵם גָּזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה שָׁם דַּם טֹהַר כְּלָל. שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁהֶחְמִירוּ עַל עַצְמָן בִּימֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּרוֹאָה דָּם שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים. אֲבָל דָּם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה בִּימֵי טֹהַר אַחַר סְפִירָה וּטְבִילָה אֵין לָחוּשׁ לוֹ שֶׁאֵין יְמֵי טֹהַר רְאוּיִין לֹא לְנִדָּה וְלֹא לְזִיבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "וְשָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁבְּצָרְפַת בּוֹעֲלִים עַל דַּם טֹהַר כְּדִין הַגְּמָרָא עַד הַיּוֹם אַחַר סְפִירָה וּטְבִילָה מִטֻּמְאַת יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב וְדָבָר זֶה תָּלוּי בַּמִּנְהָג: ", + "וְכֵן דִּין דַּם בְּתוּלִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּה לִרְאוֹת וְלֹא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ בּוֹעֵל בְּעִילַת מִצְוָה וּפוֹרֵשׁ. וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁתִּרְאֶה הַדָּם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה הֲרֵי הִיא טְמֵאָה. וְאַחַר שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הַדָּם סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים: ", + "יֶתֶר עַל זֶה כָּל בַּת שֶׁתְּבָעוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא וְרָצְתָה שׁוֹהָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים מֵאַחַר שֶׁרָצְתָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִבָּעֵל. שֶׁמָּא מֵחִמּוּדָהּ לְאִישׁ רָאֲתָה דָּם טִפָּה אַחַת וְלֹא הִרְגִּישָׁה בָּהּ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים מֵאַחַר שֶׁרָצְתָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּטְבּל וְתִבָּעֵל: ", + "וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ חֻמְרָא יְתֵרָה שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בָּהּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִימֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא וְאֵין לָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה לְעוֹלָם. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁרָצְתָה כְּשֶׁתְּבָעוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתִּסְפֹּר וְתִטְבּל וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא מִיָּד וְתִסְפֹּר מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּשָׂאַתּוּ וְתִטְבּל. שֶׁתַּלְמִיד חָכָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה וְנִזְהָר מִזֶּה וְלֹא יִקְרַב לָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל: ", + "דִּין הַכְּתָמִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאֵין בַּדָּבָר חִדּוּשׁ וְלֹא מִנְהָג אֶלָּא כָּל כֶּתֶם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי הִיא טְהוֹרָה וְכָל כֶּתֶם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ טְמֵאָה (אִם אֵין בַּכֶּתֶם שִׁעוּר כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לְזִיבוּת) סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַכֶּתֶם. וְאִם הָיָה שִׁעוּר הַכֶּתֶם כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לְזִיבוּת סוֹפֶרֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מֵאַחַר יוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַכֶּתֶם. שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹאָה דָּם כְּרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם: ", + "וְכֵן כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁאִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי הִיא טְהוֹרָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁרָאֲתָה לֹבֶן אוֹ דָּם יָרֹק אוֹ שֶׁהִשְׁלִיכָה חֲתִיכָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ דָּם הֲרֵי הִיא טְהוֹרָה אַף בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִירוּ אֶלָּא בְּרוֹאָה דָּם טָמֵא [וְאֵין זֶה דָּם טָמֵא]: ", + "וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה בָּהּ מַכָּה וְהָיָה הַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת מִמֶּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁבָּא הַדָּם עִם מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְלֹא נִתְחַדֵּשׁ דָּבָר אֶלָּא סְפִירַת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים לְכָל רוֹאָה דָּם טָמֵא כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ וְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל מַרְאֵה דָּמִים טְמֵאִים: ", + "זֶה שֶׁתִּמְצָא בְּמִקְצָת הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁהַנִּדָּה יוֹשֶׁבֶת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בְּנִדָּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד וְאַחַר הַשִּׁבְעָה תֵּשֵׁב שִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵין זֶה מִנְהָג אֶלָּא טָעוּת הוּא מִמִּי שֶׁהוֹרָה לָהֶם כָּךְ וְאֵין רָאוּי לִפְנוֹת לְדָבָר זֶה כְּלָל אֶלָּא אִם רָאֲתָה יוֹם אֶחָד סוֹפֶרֶת אַחֲרָיו שִׁבְעָה (נְקִיִּים) וְטוֹבֶלֶת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁהוּא לַיִל שֵׁנִי שֶׁלְּאַחַר נִדָּתָהּ וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ: ", + "וְכֵן זֶה שֶׁתִּמְצָא בְּמִקְצָת מְקוֹמוֹת וְתִמְצָא תְּשׁוּבוֹת לְמִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁיּוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר לֹא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתָהּ עַד סוֹף אַרְבָּעִים. וְיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה אַחַר שְׁמוֹנִים. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ הַשִּׁבְעָה. אֵין זֶה מִנְהָג אֶלָּא טָעוּת הוּא בְּאוֹתָן הַתְּשׁוּבוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹסוּת בְּאוֹתָן הַמְּקוֹמוֹת וּמִן הַצְּדוֹקִין לָמְדוּ דָּבָר זֶה. וּמִצְוָה לְכוֹפָן כְּדֵי לְהוֹצִיא מִלִּבָּן וּלְהַחֲזִירָן לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹלָה מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת מִידֵי עֶרְוָה עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּין בְּשָׂרָהּ וּבֵין הַמַּיִם. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מִקְוָאוֹת יִתְבָּאֵר הַמִּקְוֶה הַכָּשֵׁר וְהַפָּסוּל וְדֶרֶךְ הַטְּבִילָה וּמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַחֲצִיצָה. אֲבָל אִם רָחֲצָה בַּמֶּרְחָץ אֲפִלּוּ נָפְלוּ עָלֶיהָ כָּל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הֲרֵי הִיא אַחַר הָרְחִיצָה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה קֹדֶם הָרְחִיצָה בְּכָרֵת. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמַּעֲלֶה מִטֻּמְאָה לְטָהֳרָה אֶלָּא טְבִילָה בְּמֵי מִקְוֵה אוֹ בְּמַעֲיָן אוֹ בַּיַּמִּים שֶׁהֵם כְּמַעֲיָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מִקְוָאוֹת: ", + "כָּל שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים שֶׁבַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן סָפֵק אִם טָבְלָה בָּהֶן כְּאִלּוּ לֹא טָבְלָה. וְאִם טָבְלָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִבְעֹל בַּשְּׁבִיעִי אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה. הוֹאִיל וְטָבְלָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה זָבָה וַדָּאִית הֲרֵי זוֹ עָלְתָה לָהּ טְבִילָה: ", + "וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ בְּשִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים אֵלּוּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּכְסוּתָהּ וְהוּא בִּכְסוּתוֹ. וְלֹא יִקְרַב לָהּ וְלֹא יִגַּע בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה. וְלֹא יֹאכַל עִמָּהּ בִּקְעָרָה אַחַת. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר יִנְהֹג עִמָּהּ בִּימֵי סְפִירָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּנְהֹג בִּימֵי נִדָּה שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא בְּכָרֵת עַד שֶׁתִּטְבּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "כָּל מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ נִדָּה עוֹשָׂה לְבַעְלָהּ חוּץ מֵהַרְחָצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס וְהַצָּעַת הַמִּטָּה בְּפָנָיו. גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה לֹא תֹּאכַל עִמּוֹ בִּקְעָרָה אַחַת וְלֹא יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה. וְכֵן בְּשִׁבְעַת יָמִים נְקִיִּים לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ. וּמֻתָּר לְאִשָּׁה לְהִתְקַשֵּׁט בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְגַּנֶּה עַל בַּעְלָהּ: " + ], + [ + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּעַל עַכּוּ\"ם מִשְּׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אִישׁוּת. אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְעַכּוּ\"ם דֶּרֶךְ אִישׁוּת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לוֹקִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ג) \"לֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם בִּתְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לִבְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ לֹא תִקַּח לִבְנֶךָ\". אֶחָד שִׁבְעָה עֲמָמִין וְאֶחָד כָּל אֻמּוֹת בְּאִסּוּר זֶה. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא (נחמיה י לא) \"וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא נִתֵּן בְּנֹתֵינוּ לְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיהֶם לֹא נִקַּח לְבָנֵינוּ\": \n", + "וְלֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לְהִתְחַתֵּן. וְאִם יִחֲדָהּ לוֹ בִּזְנוּת חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה וּמִשּׁוּם שִׁפְחָה וּמִשּׁוּם כּוּתִית וּמִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאִם לֹא יִחֲדָהּ לוֹ אֶלָּא נִקְרֵאת מִקְרֶה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם כּוּתִית [ג.] וְכָל חִיּוּבִין אֵלּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַבּוֹעֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה כּוּתִית וְאֶחָד זוֹנָה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. וּבִבְעִילָה בִּלְבַד לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין: \n", + "כָּל הַבּוֹעֵל כּוּתִית בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אִם בְּעָלָהּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא וְהוּא שֶׁיִּבְעל לְעֵינֵי עֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יֶתֶר אִם פָּגְעוּ בּוֹ קַנָּאִין וַהֲרָגוּהוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשֻׁבָּחִין וּזְרִיזִין [ו.] וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הוּא. רְאָיָה לְדָבָר זֶה מַעֲשֶׂה פִּינְחָס בְּזִמְרִי: \n", + "וְאֵין הַקַּנַּאי רַשַּׁאי לִפְגֹּעַ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה כְּזִמְרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כה ח) \"וְאֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶל קֳבָתָהּ\". אֲבָל אִם פֵּרַשׁ אֵין הוֹרְגִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם הֲרָגוֹ נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו. וְאִם בָּא הַקַּנַּאי לִטּל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין לְהָרְגוֹ אֵין מוֹרִין לוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אִם בָּא הַקַּנַּאי לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבּוֹעֵל וְנִשְׁמַט הַבּוֹעֵל וְהָרַג הַקַּנַּאי כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ מִיָּדוֹ אֵין הַבּוֹעֵל נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו. וְהַבָּא עַל בַּת גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֵין הַקַּנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִים בּוֹ אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "לֹא פָּגְעוּ בּוֹ קַנָּאִים וְלֹא הִלְקוּהוּ בַּיִת דִּין הֲרֵי עָנְשׁוֹ מְפֹרָשׁ בְּדִבְרֵי קַבָּלָה שֶׁהוּא בְּכָרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ב יא) \"כִּי חִלֵּל יְהוּדָה קֹדֶשׁ ה' אֲשֶׁר אָהֵב וּבָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר\" (מלאכי ב יב) \"יַכְרֵת ה' לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה עֵר וְעֹנֶה\". אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא לֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ עֵר בַּחֲכָמִים וְלֹא עוֹנֶה בַּתַּלְמִידִים וְאִם כֹּהֵן הוּא לֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ מַגִּישׁ מִנְחָה לַה' צְבָאוֹת. הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַבּוֹעֵל כּוּתִית כְּאִלּוּ נִתְחַתֵּן לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר \"בָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר וְנִקְרָא מְחַלֵּל קֹדֶשׁ ה':\" \n", + "עָוֹן זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אַל יְהִי קַל בְּעֵינֶיךָ. אֶלָּא יֵשׁ בּוֹ הֶפְסֵד שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל הָעֲרָיוֹת כְּמוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהַבֵּן מִן הָעֶרְוָה בְּנוֹ הוּא לְכָל דָּבָר וּבִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶחְשָׁב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מַמְזֵר וְהַבֵּן מִן הַכּוּתִית אֵינוֹ בְּנוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ד) \"כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי\" מֵסִיר אוֹתוֹ מִלִּהְיוֹת אַחֲרֵי ה': \n", + "וְדָבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְהִדָּבֵק בְּעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁהִבְדִּילָנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵהֶם וְלָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרֵי ה' וְלִמְעל בּוֹ: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הִיא נֶהֱרַג עָלֶיהָ וְאִם פְּנוּיָה הִיא אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרַג: \n", + "אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בֵּין קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין פְּנוּיָה בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בְּזָדוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶהֱרֶגֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ כִּבְהֵמָה. וְדָבָר זֶה מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לא טז) \"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם\" (במדבר לא יז) \"וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ\": \n", + "הָעֲבָדִים שֶׁהִטְבִּילוּ אוֹתָם לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת וְקִבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם מִצְוֹת שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים חַיָּבִים בָּהֶם יָצְאוּ מִכְּלַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְלִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא בָּאוּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲסוּרָה לְבֶן חוֹרִין. אֶחָד שִׁפְחָתוֹ וְאֶחָד שִׁפְחַת חֲבֵרוֹ. וְהַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהָאָדוֹן נוֹתֵן שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית לְעַבְדּוֹ הָעִבְרִי וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא ד) \"אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה\": \n", + "וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּדָבָר זֶה וְלֹא חִיְּבָה תּוֹרָה מַלְקוֹת בְּשִׁפְחָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אַל יְהִי עָוֹן זֶה קַל בְּעֵינֶיךָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַלְקוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁגַּם זֶה גּוֹרֵם לַבֵּן לָסוּר מֵאַחֲרֵי ה'. שֶׁהַבֵּן מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה הוּא עֶבֶד וְאֵינוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְנִמְצָא גּוֹרֵם לְזֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְהִתְחַלֵּל וְלִהְיוֹתָם עֲבָדִים. הֲרֵי אֻנְקְלוֹס הַמְתַרְגֵּם כָּלַל בְּעִילַת עֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה בִּכְלַל (דברים כג יח) \"לֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ\" (דברים כג יח) \"וְלֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה\": \n", + "הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא וּבִשְׁעַת עֲבֵרָה אֵין הַקַּנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח שִׁפְחָה דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁמֵּעֵת שֶׁטָּבְלָה וְקִבְּלָה מִצְוֹת יָצְתָה מִכְּלַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "נִתְעָרֵב וְלַד יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בִּוְלַד שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן סָפֵק וְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן סְפֵק עֶבֶד וְכוֹפִין בַּעַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמְשַׁחְרֵר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם הָיָה הַבֵּן הַהוּא (בֶּן) הָאָדוֹן שֶׁל עֶבֶד כְּשֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ יְשַׁחְרְרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה וְיִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל: \n", + "הָיוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת בָּנוֹת הֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן סְפֵק שְׁפָחוֹת וְהַבָּא עַל כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן הַוָּלָד סְפֵק עֶבֶד. וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרֵב וְלַד עַכּוּ\"ם בִּוְלַד יִשְׂרְאֵלִית מַטְבִּילִים אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּת וְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן סְפֵק גִּיֹּרֶת: \n", + "כָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם כֻּלָּם כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיְּרוּ וִיקַבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה וְהָעֲבָדִים כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו טו) \"הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם\". וּמֻתָּרִין לְהִכָּנֵס בִּקְהַל ה' מִיָּד. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשָּׂא הַגֵּר אוֹ הַמְשֻׁחְרָר בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשָּׂא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. חוּץ מֵאַרְבָּעָה עֲמָמִין בִּלְבַד וְהֵם עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב וּמִצְרַיִם וֶאֱדוֹם שֶׁהָאֻמּוֹת הָאֵלּוּ כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיֵּר אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן בִּיאָה בַּקָּהָל: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד דִּינָן. עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם זְכָרִים וְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ד) \"לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה'\" וְגוֹ'. הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁהָעַמּוֹנִי הַזָּכָר וְהַמּוֹאָבִי הַזָּכָר הוּא שֶׁאָסוּר לְעוֹלָם לִשָּׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִלּוּ בֶּן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל עַמּוֹנִית וּמוֹאָבִית מֻתֶּרֶת מִיָּד כִּשְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת: \n", + "מִצְרִי וֶאֱדוֹמִי אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת דּוֹר רִאשׁוֹן וְדוֹר שֵׁנִי אֲסוּרִין לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְדוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי מֻתָּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ט) \"בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם\" וְגוֹ': \n", + "מִצְרִית מְעֻבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה בְּנָהּ שֵׁנִי. מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה הַוָּלָד שֵׁנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ט) \"בָּנִים אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם\" הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאָן בְּלֵדָה: \n", + "גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מִצְרִית הַוָּלָד עַמּוֹנִי. גֵּר מִצְרִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא עַמּוֹנִית הַוָּלָד מִצְרִי. זֶה הַכְּלָל. בָּאֻמּוֹת הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. נִתְגַּיְּרוּ הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַפָּחוּת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר מִשִּׁבְעָה עֲמָמִין אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל. וְהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיְּרוּ מֵהֶן אֶלָּא הַגִּבְעוֹנִים וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ גָּזַר עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲסוּרִים לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. וְלֹא אָסַר אוֹתָם אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יהושע ט כג) \"וְחֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְשֹׁאֲבֵי מַיִם לְבֵית אֱלֹהָי\". תָּלָה הַרְחָקָתָם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: \n", + "וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים נְתִינִים לְפִי שֶׁנְּתָנָם לַעֲבוֹדַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. בָּא דָּוִד וְגָזַר עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ בַּקָּהָל לְעוֹלָם וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין מִקְדָּשׁ. וְכֵן מְפֹרָשׁ בְּעֶזְרָא (עזרא ח כ) \"וּמִן הַנְּתִינִים שֶׁנָּתַן דָּוִיד וְהַשָּׂרִים לַעֲבֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם\". הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁלֹּא תָּלָה אוֹתָם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: \n", + "וְלָמָּה גָּזַר עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא וּבֵית דִּינוֹ לְפִי שֶׁרָאָה עַזּוּת וְאַכְזָרִיּוּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּהֶם בְּעֵת שֶׁבִּקְּשׁוּ שִׁבְעַת בְּנֵי שָׁאוּל בְּחִיר ה' לִתְלוֹתָם וַהֲרָגוּם וְלֹא רִחֲמוּ עֲלֵיהֶם: \n", + "כְּשֶׁעָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר בִּלְבֵּל כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת וְעֵרְבָם זֶה בָּזֶה וְהִגְלָה אוֹתָם מִמְּקוֹמָם. וְאֵלּוּ הַמִּצְרִים שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַתָּה אֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים הֵם. וְכֵן הָאֱדוֹמִים שֶׁבִּשְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם. וְהוֹאִיל וְנִתְעָרְבוּ אַרְבַּע אֻמּוֹת הָאֲסוּרִים בְּכָל אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִים הֻתַּר הַכּל. שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן לְהִתְגַּיֵּר חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ מִן הָרֹב. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיִּתְגַּיֵּר הַגֵּר בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה בְּכָל מָקוֹם בֵּין אֱדוֹמִי בֵּין מִצְרִי בֵּין עַמּוֹנִי בֵּין מוֹאָבִי בֵּין כּוּשִׁי בֵּין שְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת אֶחָד הַזְּכָרִים וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבוֹת מֻתָּרִין לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל מִיָּד: \n" + ], + [ + "בִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים נִכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִבְרִית. בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְקָרְבָּן: \n", + "מִילָה הָיְתָה בְּמִצְרַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב מח) \"וְכָל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ\". מָל אוֹתָם משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ שֶׁכֻּלָּם בִּטְּלוּ בְּרִית מִילָה בְּמִצְרַיִם חוּץ מִשֵּׁבֶט לֵוִי וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (דברים לג ט) \"וּבְרִיתְךָ יִנְצֹרוּ\": \n", + "וּטְבִילָה הָיְתָה בַּמִּדְבָּר קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יט י) \"וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם\". וְקָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד ה) \"וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עלֹת\", עַל יְדֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל הִקְרִיבוּם: \n", + "וְכֵן לְדוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְהִכָּנֵס לִבְרִית וּלְהִסְתּוֹפֵף תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וִיקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן. וְאִם נְקֵבָה הִיא טְבִילָה וְקָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו טו) \"כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר\". מָה אַתֶּם בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן אַף הַגֵּר לְדוֹרוֹת בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן: \n", + "וּמַהוּ קָרְבַּן הַגֵּר. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה אוֹ שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵיהֶם עוֹלָה. וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם קָרְבָּן צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וּכְשֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ יָבִיא קָרְבָּן: \n", + "גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל אוֹ טָבַל וְלֹא מָל אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיָּמוּל וְיִטְבּל. וְצָרִיךְ לִטְבּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְהוֹאִיל וְהַדָּבָר צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין אֵין מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְּיוֹם טוֹב וְלֹא בַּלַּיְלָה. וְאִם הִטְבִּילוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר: \n", + "גֵּר קָטָן מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל דַּעַת בֵּית דִּין שֶׁזְּכוּת הִיא לוֹ. מְעֻבֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה וְטָבְלָה אֵין בְּנָהּ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. טָבַל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּר בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֵינוֹ גֵּר. בָּא וְאָמַר נִתְגַּיַּרְתִּי בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי וְהִטְבִּילוּנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדִים: \n", + "הָיָה נָשׂוּי לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית אוֹ לְגִיֹּרֶת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאָמַר נִתְגַּיַּרְתִּי בֵּינִי לְבֵין עַצְמִי נֶאֱמָן לִפְסל אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לִפְסל אֶת הַבָּנִים. וְחוֹזֵר וְטוֹבֵל בְּבֵית דִּין: \n", + "גִּיֹּרֶת שֶׁרְאִינוּהָ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תָּמִיד כְּגוֹן שֶׁתִּטְבּל לְנִדָּתָהּ וְתַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה מֵעִסָּתָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטּוֹבֵל לְקִרְיוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת גֵּרֵי צֶדֶק. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁמְּעִידִין לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם בָּאוּ לְהִתְעָרֵב בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אוֹתָם עַד שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ עֵדִים אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹאִיל וְהֻחְזְקוּ עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "אֲבָל מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר שֶׁהָיָה עַכּוּ\"ם וְנִתְגַּיֵּר בְּבֵית דִּין נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים שֶׁחֶזְקַת הַכּל שָׁם בְּחֶזְקַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁזּוֹ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין: \n", + "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמָּלִין וּמַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַגֵּרִים כָּךְ מָלִין וּמַטְבִּילִין אֶת הָעֲבָדִים הַנִּלְקָחִים מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת. הַלּוֹקֵחַ עֶבֶד מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְקָדַם הָעֶבֶד וְטָבַל לְשֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין קָנָה עַצְמוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּעֵת טְבִילָה הֲרֵינִי טוֹבֵל בִּפְנֵיכֶם לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּת. וְאִם טָבַל בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּבַל נִשְׁתַּחְרֵר. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ רַבּוֹ לְתָקְפּוֹ בַּמַּיִם עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה וְהוּא תַּחַת שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ וּמוֹדִיעוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁלְּשֵׁם עַבְדוּת מַטְבִּילוֹ. וְאֵין הָעֶבֶד טוֹבֵל אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּבַיּוֹם כְּגֵר, שֶׁמִּקְצָת גֵּרוּת הוּא: \n", + "כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר הָעֶבֶד צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה אַחֶרֶת בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּיּוֹם שֶׁבּוֹ תִּגָּמֵר גֵּרוּתוֹ וְיִהְיֶה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל עָלָיו מִצְוֹת וּלְהוֹדִיעוֹ עִקְּרֵי הַדָּת שֶׁכְּבָר הוֹדִיעוּהוּ כְּשֶׁטָּבַל לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת: \n", + "וּבְמִקְוֶה הַכָּשֵׁר לִטְבִילַת נִדָּה שָׁם מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַגֵּרִים וְאֶת הָעֲבָדִים וְאֶת הַמְשֻׁחְרָרִים. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹצֵץ בְּנִדָּה חוֹצֵץ בְּגֵרִים וּבַעֲבָדִים וּבִמְשֻׁחְרָרִים: \n", + "אַל יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁשִּׁמְשׁוֹן הַמּוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ שְׁלֹמֹה מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּקְרָא יְדִיד ה' נָשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת בְּגֵיוּתָן. אֶלָּא סוֹד הַדָּבָר כָּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהַמִּצְוָה הַנְּכוֹנָה כְּשֶׁיָּבֹא הַגֵּר אוֹ הַגִּיֹּרֶת לְהִתְגַּיֵּר בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא בִּגְלַל מָמוֹן שֶׁיִּטּל אוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שְׂרָרָה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לָהּ אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַפַּחַד בָּא לְהִכָּנֵס לַדָּת. וְאִם אִישׁ הוּא בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בְּאִשָּׁה יְהוּדִית. וְאִם אִשָּׁה הִיא בּוֹדְקִין שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָתְנָה בְּבָחוּר מִבַּחוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִם לֹא נִמְצָא לָהֶם עִלָּה מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָן כֹּבֶד עֹל הַתּוֹרָה וְטֹרַח שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּעֲשִׂיָּתָהּ עַל עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרשׁוּ. אִם קִבְּלוּ וְלֹא פֵּרְשׁוּ וְרָאוּ אוֹתָן שֶׁחָזְרוּ מֵאַהֲבָה מְקַבְּלִים אוֹתָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (רות א יח) \"וַתֵּרֶא כִּי מִתְאַמֶּצֶת הִיא לָלֶכֶת אִתָּהּ וַתֶּחְדַּל לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ\": \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ לֹא קִבְּלוּ בֵּית דִּין גֵּרִים כָּל יְמֵי דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה. בִּימֵי דָּוִד שֶׁמָּא מִן הַפַּחַד חָזְרוּ. וּבִימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁמָּא בִּשְׁבִיל הַמַּלְכוּת וְהַטּוֹבָה וְהַגְּדֻלָּה שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל חָזְרוּ. שֶׁכָּל הַחוֹזֵר מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר מֵהַבְלֵי הָעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מִגֵּרֵי הַצֶּדֶק. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הָיוּ גֵּרִים הַרְבֵּה מִתְגַּיְּרִים בִּימֵי דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה בִּפְנֵי הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. וְהָיוּ בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם לֹא דּוֹחִין אוֹתָן אַחַר שֶׁטָּבְלוּ מִכָּל מָקוֹם וְלֹא מְקָרְבִין אוֹתָן עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה אַחֲרִיתָם: \n", + "וּלְפִי שֶׁגִּיֵּר שְׁלֹמֹה נָשִׁים וּנְשָׂאָן. וְכֵן שִׁמְשׁוֹן גִּיֵּר וְנָשָׂא. וְהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא חָזְרוּ אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר וְלֹא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין גִּיְּרוּם חֲשָׁבָן הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הֵן עַכּוּ\"ם וּבְאִסּוּרָן עוֹמְדִין. וְעוֹד שֶׁהוֹכִיחַ סוֹפָן עַל תְּחִלָּתָן שֶׁהֵן עוֹבְדוֹת כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן וּבָנוּ לָהֶן בָּמוֹת וְהֶעֱלָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הוּא בְּנָאָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א יא ז) \"אָז יִבְנֶה שְׁלֹמֹה בָּמָה\": \n", + "גֵּר שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקוּ אַחֲרָיו אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדִיעוּהוּ הַמִּצְוֹת וְעָנְשָׁן וּמָל וְטָבַל בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּר. אֲפִלּוּ נוֹדַע שֶׁבִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר הוּא מִתְגַּיֵּר הוֹאִיל וּמָל וְטָבַל יָצָא מִכְּלַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר צִדְקוּתוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ חָזַר וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר שֶׁקִּדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין. וּמִצְוָה לְהַחֲזִיר אֲבֵדָתוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁטָּבַל נַעֲשָׂה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּלְפִיכָךְ קִיְּמוּ שִׁמְשׁוֹן וּשְׁלֹמֹה נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּגְלָה סוֹדָן: \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים קָשִׁים לָהֶם גֵּרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּנֶגַע צָרַעַת שֶׁרֻבָּן חוֹזְרִין בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר וּמַטְעִין אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְקָשֶׁה הַדָּבָר לִפְרשׁ מֵהֶם אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. צֵא וּלְמַד מָה אֵרַע בַּמִּדְבָּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל וּבְקִבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה וְכֵן רֹב הַנִּסְיוֹנוֹת הָאֲסַפְסוּף הָיוּ בָּהֶן תְּחִלָּה: \n" + ], + [ + "כֵּיצַד מְקַבְּלִין גֵּרֵי הַצֶּדֶק. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא אֶחָד לִהִתְגַּיֵּר מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְיִבְדְּקוּ אַחֲרָיו וְלֹא יִמְצְאוּ עִלָּה. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁבָּאתָ לְהִתְגַּיֵּר. אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּווּיִים וּדְחוּפִים וּמְסֻחָפִין וּמְטֹרָפִין וְיִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עֲלֵיהֶן. אִם אָמַר אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ וְאֵינִי כְּדַאי מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד: ", + "וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עִקְּרֵי הַדָּת שֶׁהוּא יִחוּד הַשֵּׁם וְאִסּוּר עַכּוּ\"ם. וּמַאֲרִיכִין בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת. וְאֵין מַאֲרִיכִין בְּדָבָר זֶה. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עֲוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עָנְשָׁן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתָ לְדָת זוֹ אִם אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב אִי אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אִם חִלַּלְתָּ שַׁבָּת אִי אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ סְקִילָה. וְעַכְשָׁיו אַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגַּיֵּר אִם אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אִם חִלַּלְתָּ שַׁבָּת אַתָּה עָנוּשׁ סְקִילָה. וְאֵין מַרְבִּין עָלָיו. וְאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין עָלָיו. שֶׁמָּא יִגְרֹם לְטָרְדוֹ וּלְהַטּוֹתוֹ מִדֶּרֶךְ טוֹבָה לְדֶרֶךְ רָעָה. שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה אֵין מוֹשְׁכִין אֶת הָאָדָם אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי רָצוֹן וְרַכִּים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (הושע יא ד) \"בְּחַבְלֵי אָדָם אֶמְשְׁכֵם\" וְאַחַר כָּךְ (הושע יא ד) \"בַּעֲבֹתוֹת אַהֲבָה\": ", + "וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ עָנְשָׁן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת כָּךְ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁבַּעֲשִׂיַּת מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ יִזְכֶּה לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְשֶׁאֵין שׁוּם צַדִּיק גָּמוּר אֶלָּא בַּעַל הַחָכְמָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ וְיוֹדְעָן: ", + "וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֱוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵינוֹ צָפוּן אֶלָּא לַצַּדִּיקִים וְהֵם יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְזֶה שֶׁתִּרְאֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַעַר בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה טוֹבָה הִיא צְפוּנָה לָהֶם שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְקַבֵּל רֹב טוֹבָה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה כָּאֻמּוֹת. שֶׁמָּא יָרוּם לִבָּם וְיִתְעוּ וְיַפְסִידוּ שְׂכַר הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לב טו) \"וַיִּשְׁמַן יְשֻׁרוּן וַיִּבְעָט\": ", + "וְאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רֹב פֻּרְעָנוּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאבְדוּ אֶלָּא כָּל הָעַכּוּ\"ם כָּלִין וְהֵן עוֹמְדִין. וּמַאֲרִיכִין בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה כְּדֵי לְחַבְּבָן. אִם חָזַר בּוֹ וְלֹא רָצָה לְקַבֵּל הוֹלֵךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ. וְאִם קִבֵּל אֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מָלִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם הָיָה מָהוּל מַטִּיפִין מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית וּמַשְׁהִים אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא רְפוּאָה שְׁלֵמָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ: ", + "וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹמְדִין עַל גַּבָּיו וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּמַּיִם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִשָּׁה נָשִׁים מוֹשִׁיבוֹת אוֹתָהּ בַּמַּיִם עַד צַוָּארָהּ וְהַדַּיָּנִין מִבַּחוּץ וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָהּ מִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וַחֲמוּרוֹת. וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּמַּיִם וְאַחַר כָּךְ טוֹבֶלֶת בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְהֵן מַחְזִירִין פְּנֵיהֶן וְיוֹצְאִין כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁתַּעֲלֶה מִן הַמַּיִם: ", + "אֵי זֶה הוּא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב זֶה עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עִם שְׁאָר הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְלֹא מָל וְלֹא טָבַל הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ וְהוּא מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ תּוֹשָׁב לְפִי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לָנוּ לְהוֹשִׁיבוֹ בֵּינֵינוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת עַכּוּ\"ם: ", + "וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. אֲבָל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֲפִלּוּ קִבֵּל עָלָיו כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ חוּץ מִדִּקְדּוּק אֶחָד אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ: ", + "הָעֶבֶד הַנִּלְקָח מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין אוֹמְרִין לוֹ מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁבָּאתָ. אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לִכְלַל עַבְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתִהְיֶה מִן הַכְּשֵׁרִים אוֹ לֹא. אִם רָצָה מוֹדִיעִין לוֹ עִקְּרֵי הַדָּת וּמִקְצָת מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת וַחֲמוּרוֹת וְעָנְשָׁן וּשְׂכָרָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹדִיעִין אֶת הַגֵּר וּמַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ כְּגֵר. וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא בַּמַּיִם. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְקַבֵּל מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וּמוֹכְרוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְאָסוּר לְקַיְּמוֹ יוֹתֵר עַל כֵּן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּל וְלֹא יִטְבּל אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. וְאֵין מְקַיְּמִין עֶבֶד כָּזֶה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן הַיּוֹבֵל: ", + "הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֵין אֲסוּרִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וַאֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְזָכָר וּבְהֵמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מְלָכִים וּמִלְחֲמוֹתֵיהֶן. אֲבָל שְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת מֻתָּרִין לָהֶן: ", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְעֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד. וְכָל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד אֵינָן שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. וְאִם נִתְגַּיֵּר הוּא וְהֵם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל אַחַת מֵהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה כְּלָל: ", + "דִּין תּוֹרָה שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁיִּשָּׂא אִמּוֹ אוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָסְרוּ דָּבָר זֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ בָּאנוּ מִקְּדֻשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדֻשָּׁה קַלָּה. שֶׁאֶמֶשׁ הָיְתָה לוֹ זוֹ אֲסוּרָה וְהַיּוֹם מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ אוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ וְהִיא בְּגֵיוּתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּבָא עַל הַנָּכְרִית: ", + "כֵּיצַד דִּין הַגֵּרִים בַּעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. אִם הָיָה נָשׂוּי כְּשֶׁהוּא עַכּוּ\"ם לְאִמּוֹ אוֹ לַאֲחוֹתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיְּרוּ מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם הָיָה נָשׂוּי לִשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת וְנִתְגַּיֵּר הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵין מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן. גֵּר אָסוּר בִּשְׁאֵר הָאֵם אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וּמֻתָּר בִּשְׁאֵר הָאָב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה שְׁאֵרוֹ מֵאָבִיו. כְּגוֹן תְּאוֹמִים שֶׁדָּבָר בָּרוּר שֶׁאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה הוּא אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל שְׁאֵר אָבִיו. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹשֵׂא הַגֵּר אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אוֹ לְאָבִיו אוֹ לַאֲחִי אָבִיו אוֹ לִבְנוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ. וְכֵן אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאָבִיהָ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. וּבִתּוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא לֹא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ וְלֹא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאִמָּהּ וְלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׂאָהּ אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר. אֲבָל אִם נְשָׂאָהּ אָחִיו כְּשֶׁהוּא עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ: ", + "שְׁנֵי אַחִים תְּאוֹמִים שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתָן שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָן בִּקְדֻשָּׁה חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח: ", + "הַנּוֹשֵׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּבִתָּהּ הַגִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת מִן הָאֵם יוֹשֵׁב עִם אַחַת מֵהֶן וּמְגָרֵשׁ הַשְּׁנִיָּה. נָשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּמֵתָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִמָּהּ אוֹ בִּתָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּחַיֵּיהֶן. וּמֻתָּר לְאָדָם לִשָּׂא שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת גִּיּוֹרוֹת מִן הָאָב שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ בִּשְׁאֵר הָאָב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת כֻּלָּן לֹא גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּגֵרִים. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר הַגֵּר לִשָּׂא אֵם אִמּוֹ. וְנוֹשֵׂא אָדָם גִּיֹּרֶת וְאֵם אִמָּהּ אוֹ בַּת בַּת בִּתָּהּ. וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת: ", + "הָעֶבֶד מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִמּוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁכְּבָר יָצָא מִכְּלַל עַכּוּ\"ם. וְאֵין הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲסוּרוֹת עָלָיו וְלֹא בָּא לִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּאָסְרוּ עָלָיו עֲרָיוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת עַל הַגֵּרִים: ", + "וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם בָּא הָעֶבֶד עַל הַזָּכוּר וּבְהֵמָה יֵהָרֵגוּ. שֶׁאִסּוּר שְׁתֵּי עֲרָיוֹת אֵלּוּ שָׁוֶה בְּכָל הָאָדָם: ", + "עֲבָדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּגֵרִים. כָּל שֶׁאָסוּר לְגֵרִים אָסוּר לָהֶן וְכָל הַמֻּתָּר לְגֵרִים מֻתָּר לָהֶן. נוֹתֵן אָדָם שִׁפְחָתוֹ לְעַבְדּוֹ אוֹ לְעֶבֶד חֲבֵרוֹ. וּמוֹסֵר שִׁפְחָה אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין שׁוּם דָּבָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְהֵמוֹת. וְשִׁפְחָה שֶׁהִיא מְיֻחֶדֶת לְעֶבֶד אוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְיֻחֶדֶת אַחַת הִיא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אִישׁוּת אֶלָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲבָל לֹא לַעֲבָדִים עַל הָעֲבָדִים וְלֹא לַעֲבָדִים עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל: " + ], + [ + "אֵי זֶהוּ (דברים כג ג) \"מַמְזֵר\" הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. זֶה הַבָּא מֵעֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת. חוּץ מִן הַנִּדָּה שֶׁהַבֵּן מִמֶּנָּה פָּגוּם וְאֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שְׁאָר הָעֲרָיוֹת בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וְאֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת אֲסוּרִין לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) \"גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי\" כְּלוֹמַר לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "אֶחָד מַמְזֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא יִשְׂרְאֵלִית אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא מַמְזֶרֶת כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּעֲלוּ אַחַר הַקִּדּוּשִׁין לוֹקִין. קִדֵּשׁ וְלֹא בָּעַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. בָּעַל וְלֹא קִדֵּשׁ אֵינָן לוֹקִין מִשּׁוּם מַמְזֵרוּת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְּכָל חַיָּבֵי לָאוִין מִי שֶׁלּוֹקֶה עַל בְּעִילָה בְּלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּאַלְמָנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. הַמַּחֲזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ עֶרְוָה: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר בֵּין פְּנוּיָה בֵּין בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן. עַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד הַבָּאִים עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּמַמְזֵר הַבָּא עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם הַוָּלָד עַכּוּ\"ם. נִתְגַּיֵּר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּשֵׁר כִּשְׁאָר גֵּרִים. וְאִם בָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה הַוָּלָד עֶבֶד. שִׁחְרְרוֹ הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר כִּשְׁאָר עֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִין וּמֻתָּר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "זֶה הַכְּלָל בֵּן הַבָּא מִן הָעֶבֶד אוֹ מִן הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה אוֹ מִן בַּת עַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאִמּוֹ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הָאָב. לְפִי דָּבָר זֶה הִתִּירוּ לְמַמְזֵר לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה כְּדֵי לְטַהֵר אֶת בָּנָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מְשַׁחְרֵר אוֹתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה לְמַמְזֵר מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַבָּנִים: \n", + "מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצַּד מַמְזֵרוּת וְצַד כַּשְׁרוּת מְעֹרָבִין בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אָסוּר בְּשִׁפְחָה וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּנָיו כְּמוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלָם: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁטָּבְלָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד וְעֶבֶד שֶׁטָּבַל שֶׁבָּא עַל עַכּוּ\"ם הַוָּלָד עַכּוּ\"ם הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָאֵם אֲבָל עַכּוּ\"ם הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ עֶבֶד עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁבָּא עַל עַכּוּ\"ם בַּת חוֹרִין הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר: \n", + "מַמְזֵר מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא גִּיֹּרֶת. וְכֵן הַמַּמְזֶרֶת מֻתֶּרֶת לְגֵר. וְהַבָּנִים מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם מַמְזֵרִים שֶׁהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) \"בִּקְהַל ה'\" וּקְהַל גֵּרִים אֵינוֹ קָרוּי (דברים כג ג) \"קְהַל ה'\": \n", + "גִּיֹּרֶת שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְגֵר וְהוֹלִידוּ בֵּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵדָתוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְכֵן בֶּן בֶּן בְּנוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּקַּע שֵׁם גֵּרוּתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא יִוָּדַע שֶׁהוּא גֵּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאָסֵר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְאֶחָד הַגֵּרִים וְאֶחָד הָעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִין דִּין אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן: \n", + "גֵּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת הַוָּלָד יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת: \n", + "שְׁלֹשָׁה מַמְזֵרִים הֵם. מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי וּמַמְזֵר סָפֵק וּמַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אֵי זֶהוּ מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי זֶה שֶׁבָּא מִן הָעֶרְוָה הַוַּדָּאִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמַמְזֵר סָפֵק זֶה שֶׁבָּא מִסְּפֵק עֶרְוָה כְּגוֹן הַבָּא עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה סְפֵק קִדּוּשִׁין אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. כְּגוֹן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ וְנִשֵּׂאת וַהֲרֵי בַּעְלָהּ קַיָּם וּבָא בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן עָלֶיהָ וְהִיא תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי הַבֵּן מַמְזֵר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", + "פְּנוּיָה שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִזְּנוּת אָמְרוּ לָהּ מַהוּ הָעֻבָּר הַזֶּה אוֹ הַיָּלוּד הַזֶּה אִם אָמְרָה בֵּן כָּשֵׁר הוּא וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִבְעַלְתִּי הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְהַבֵּן כָּשֵׁר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הָעִיר שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בָּהּ פְּסוּלִים: \n", + "וְאִם לֹא נִבְדְּקָה אִמּוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ אִלֶּמֶת אוֹ שׁוֹטָה אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה לִפְלוֹנִי הַמַּמְזֵר נִבְעַלְתִּי אוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי הַנָּתִין אֲפִלּוּ אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מוֹדֶה שֶׁהוּא מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה הַיָּלוּד סְפֵק מַמְזֵר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁזִּנְּתָה עִם זֶה שֶׁהוֹדָה לָהּ כָּךְ זִנְּתָה עִם אַחֵר. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא שְׁתוּקִי שֶׁמַּכִּיר אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אֶת אָבִיו וַדַּאי: \n", + "וְכֵן הַבֵּן הַנִּמְצָא בַּשּׁוּק וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אֲסוּפִי הֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק מַמְזֵר שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים מַה הוּא: \n", + "פְּנוּיָה שֶׁזִּנְּתָה וְאָמְרָה בֵּן זֶה בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי הוּא. אִם אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי הַבֵּן כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לִהְיוֹת זֶה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לִדְבָרֶיהָ וְיִהְיֶה הַבֵּן אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מִסָּפֵק. וְאִם אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לִהְיוֹת הַבֵּן מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי עַל פִּיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה סְפֵק מַמְזֵר: \n", + "אֲבָל הָאָב שֶׁהֻחְזַק שֶׁזֶּה בְּנוֹ וְאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר הוּא נֶאֱמָן. וְאִם יֵשׁ לַבֵּן בָּנִים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה אוֹתוֹ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא עַל בְּנוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא יז) \"כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר\" יַכִּירֶנּוּ לַאֲחֵרִים: \n", + "וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמָן לוֹמַר בְּנִי זֶה בְּכוֹר כָּךְ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר אוֹ בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעֻבֶּרֶת נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר עֻבָּר זֶה אֵינוֹ בְּנִי וּמַמְזֵר הוּא וְיִהְיֶה מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי. וְהָאוֹמֵר עַל עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַמְזֵר נֶאֱמָן לֶאֱסֹר עַצְמוֹ בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע וַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא מַמְזֵר. וּבְנוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּנֵי בָּנִים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לִפְסל בְּנֵי בָּנָיו וְלֹא יִפְסל אֶלָּא עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "אֲרוּסָה שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד בְּחֶזְקַת מַמְזֵר וְאָסוּר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת. וְאִם נִבְדְּקָה אִמּוֹ וְאָמְרָה מֵאֲרוּסִי נִתְעַבַּרְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם הִכְחִישָׁהּ הָאָרוּס וְאָמַר מֵעוֹלָם לֹא בָּאתִי עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בְּחֶזְקַת בְּנוֹ וְאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה מַמְזֵר נֶאֱמָן. וְהָאִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת זוֹנָה אֶלָּא נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר לָאָרוּס נִבְעַלְתִּי וְאֵינָהּ זוֹנָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן לֹא תֵּצֵא וּוְלָדָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "הָיוּ הָעָם מְרַנְּנִים אַחֲרֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה עִם אֲרוּסָהּ וְעִם אֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ אֲרוּסָהּ בְּבֵית חָמִיו הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק מַמְזֵר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ לַאֲרוּסָהּ הִפְקִירָה לַאֲחֵרִים. וְאִם נִבְדְּקָה וְאָמְרָה עֻבָּר זֶה מֵאֲרוּסִי הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמְרָה עֻבָּר זֶה אֵינוֹ מִבַּעֲלִי אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לְפָסְלוֹ. וַהֲרֵי הַבֵּן בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא הָאָב. אָמַר הָאָב אֵינוֹ בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת מַמְזֵר. וְאִם אָמְרָה מֵעַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד נִתְעַבַּרְתִּי הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל יָכוֹל לְהַכְחִישָׁהּ בִּדְבָרֶיהָ. וְאֵין הָעֻבָּר מִשְׁתַּהֶה בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ יֶתֶר עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁיָּצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהָיְתָה זוֹנָה תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ וְהַכּל מְרַנְּנִין אַחֲרֶיהָ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְבָנֶיהָ שֶׁמָּא מַמְזֵרִים הֵם שֶׁרֹב בְּעִילוֹת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל. וּמֻתָּר לִשָּׂא בִּתָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל הִיא עַצְמָהּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה פְּרוּצָה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי אַף לְבָנֶיהָ חוֹשְׁשִׁין: \n", + "דִּין תּוֹרָה שֶׁסְּפֵק מַמְזֵר מֻתָּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ג) \"לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה'\" מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי אָסוּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל וְלֹא סָפֵק. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין וְאָסְרוּ גַּם הַסְּפֵקוֹת לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל. לְפִיכָךְ מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וַדָּאִית אֲבָל מַמְזֵר סָפֵק אוֹ שְׁתוּקִי אוֹ אֲסוּפִי אָסוּר לִשָּׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ מַמְזֶרֶת מִסָּפֵק אֲסוּרָה לוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר וְהַשֵּׁנִי מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי. וּמַמְזֵר שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַסְּפֵקוֹת אֲסוּרִין לִשָּׂא זֶה מִזֶּה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. שְׁתוּקִים וַאֲסוּפִים וּסְפֵק מַמְזֵרִים אֲסוּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה עִם זֶה וְאִם נָשְׂאוּ לֹא יְקַיְּמוּ אֶלָּא יוֹצִיאוּ בְּגֵט וְהַוָּלָד סָפֵק כַּאֲבוֹתָיו. וְאֵין לִסְפֵקוֹת אֵלּוּ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּשְּׂאוּ מִן הַגֵּרִים וְהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. שְׁתוּקִי אוֹ אֲסוּפִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אוֹ גֵּר וּמְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁנָּשָׂא שְׁתוּקִית אוֹ אֲסוּפִית. הַוָּלָד שְׁתוּקִי אוֹ אֲסוּפִי: \n", + "הָאֲסוּפִי שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה רֹב עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ רֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק עַכּוּ\"ם לְעִנְיַן יוּחֲסִין. קִדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִסָּפֵק. מִי שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לֹא הָיָה נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו: \n", + "הִטְבִּילוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּת אוֹ שֶׁטָּבַל מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר אֲסוּפִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. הָיָה רֹב הָעִיר עַכּוּ\"ם מֻתָּר לְהַאֲכִילוֹ נְבֵלוֹת. הָיָה רֻבָּן יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְזִירִין לוֹ אֲבֵדָתוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה מִצְוָה לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל בְּשַׁבָּת וַהֲרֵי הוּא לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין כְּכָל סְפֵק מָמוֹן הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה: \n", + "יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל מְדִינָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם הָרְאוּיָה לֵילֵד הוֹאִיל וְהָאֲסוּפִי הַנִּמְצָא שָׁם סְפֵק עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ סְפֵק עֶבֶד כְּשֶׁיִּשָּׂא הַגִּיֹּרֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵין הוֹרְגִין עַל סָפֵק. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַשְּׁתוּקִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו וַהֲרֵי הִיא סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בַּעֲרָיוֹת: \n", + "וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיהָ אוֹ אָחִיהָ קַיָּם כְּשֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה בּוֹ אִמּוֹ. וְכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה אוֹ נִתְאַלְמְנָה שֶׁמָּא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו הִיא אוֹ אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו: \n", + "וּמִנַּיִן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁתוּקִי וְהָאֲסוּפִי אָסוּר בְּכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכָּשֵׁר שֶׁנִּבְדְּקָה אִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ אָסוּר בְּכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. וַהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (ויקרא יט כט) \"אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ\". וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁאִם יַעֲשֶׂה זֶה נִמְצָא אָב נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ וְאָח נוֹשֵׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה הַדִּין שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אָבִיו בְּוַדַּאי אָסוּר בְּכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. לֹא הָיִינוּ בָּאִים לַמִּדָּה הַזֹּאת לְעוֹלָם וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה הָאָרֶץ מְלֵאָה זִמָּה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין אוֹסְרִין עֲרָיוֹת וּמַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתָן בִּשְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר בְּסָפֵק עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזּוֹ עֶרְוָה עָלָיו. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן כָּל הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּירוּ אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם הָיוּ אֲסוּרִין לְהִנָּשֵׂא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁמָּא יִפְגְּעוּ בְּעֶרְוָה: \n", + "הַוָּלָד שֶׁהָיָה מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבָא אֶחָד וְאָמַר בְּנִי הוּא וַאֲנִי הִשְׁלַכְתִּיו נֶאֱמָן. וְכֵן אִמּוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. נֶאֱסַף מִן הַשּׁוּק וּבָאוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אַחַר כֵּן וְאָמְרוּ בְּנֵנוּ הוּא אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם אֲסוּפִי. וּבִשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן נֶאֱמָנִין שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי רָעָב הִשְׁלִיכוּהוּ וְהֵן רוֹצִין שֶׁיָּזוּנוּ אוֹתוֹ אֲחֵרִים וּלְפִיכָךְ שָׁתְקוּ עַד שֶׁנֶּאֱסַף: \n", + "נִמְצָא הַוָּלָד מָהוּל אוֹ שֶׁהֻחְתַּל אוֹ שֶׁהֻמְלַח אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַכֹּחַל בְּעֵינָיו אוֹ הַקְּמֵעִין בְּצַוָּארוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא תַּחַת אִילָן מְסֻבָּךְ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּה נִכְנֶסֶת לוֹ וְהָיָה סָמוּךְ לָעִיר אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת הַסָּמוּךְ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְּצִדֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵין כָּאן מִשּׁוּם אֲסוּפִי. מֵאַחֵר שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת בְּחֶזְקַת כָּשֵׁר הוּא. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא מֻשְׁלָךְ בְּאֶמְצַע הַדֶּרֶךְ אוֹ רָחוֹק מִן הָעִיר אֲפִלּוּ תַּחַת אִילָן אוֹ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא תָּלוּי בָּאִילָן מָקוֹם שֶׁחַיָּה מַגַּעַת לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אֲסוּפִי: \n", + "נֶאֱמֶנֶת חַיָּה לוֹמַר זֶה הַבֵּן כֹּהֵן הוּא אוֹ לֵוִי אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ מַמְזֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין יִחוּסָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהֻחְזְקָה בְּנֶאֱמָנוּת וְלֹא עִרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ אָדָם. אֲבָל אִם עִרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד וְאָמַר בְּשֶׁקֶר מְעִידָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וַהֲרֵי הַבֵּן בְּחֶזְקַת כָּשֵׁר וְאֵין לוֹ יִחוּס: \n", + "דָּבָר בָּרוּר שֶׁהַשְּׁתוּקִי אָסוּר לִשָּׂא שְׁתוּקִית. וַאֲסוּפִי אָסוּר בַּאֲסוּפִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן סְפֵקוֹת. אֲבָל מַמְזֵרִים וַדָּאִים וּנְתִינִים מֻתָּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וּשְׁתוּקִי וַאֲסוּפִי מֻתָּרִין בִּנְתִינִים וּבִשְׁאָר הַגֵּרִים וְהַוָּלָד סָפֵק: \n" + ], + [ + "פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ בַּת יִשִׂרָאֵל וּבָעֲלוּ לוֹקִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג ב) \"לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה בִּקְהַל ה'\". וּמֻתָּרִין לִשָּׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. וַאֲפִלּוּ כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא גִּיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁתוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נְתִינָה אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַסְּפֵקוֹת מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ: \n", + "הוֹאִיל וּפְצוּעַ דַּכָּא אָסוּר לָבוֹא בַּקָּהָל לֹא גָּזְרוּ בּוֹ עַל הַנְּתִינִים וְלֹא עַל הַסְּפֵקוֹת. אֲבָל פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה אָסוּר בְּמַמְזֶרֶת וַדָּאִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "ואֵי זֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא. כָּל שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ. וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה כָּל שֶׁנִּכְרַת הַגִּיד שֶׁלּוֹ. וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה אֵיבָרִין אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּפָּסֵל הַזָּכָר בַּגִּיד וּבַבֵּיצִים וּבַשְּׁבִילִין שֶׁבָּהֶן תִּתְבַּשֵּׁל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּפְצַע אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה אֵיבָרִין אֵלּוּ אוֹ נִדָּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. נִפְצַע הַגִּיד אוֹ נִדָּךְ אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְרַת הָעֲטָרָה אוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲטָרָה פָּסוּל. וְאִם נִכְרַת מֵרֹאשׁ הָעֲטָרָה וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִלּוּ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה מֻקָּף לְכָל הַגִּיד כָּשֵׁר. נִכְרַת הַגִּיד לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲטָרָה כְּקֻלְמוֹס אוֹ כְּמַרְזֵב כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "נִקַּב לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה כָּשֵׁר. נִקְּבָה הָעֲטָרָה עַצְמָהּ אִם כְּשֶׁיִּרְאֶה קֶרִי תֵּצֵא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִן הַנֶּקֶב פָּסוּל. נִסְתַּם הַנֶּקֶב חָזַר לְהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ. נִקַּב לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ לְמַעְלָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֲטָרָה פָּסוּל שֶׁהָעֲטָרָה כֻּלָּהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת: \n", + "נִסְתַּם שְׁבִיל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְחָזַר לִרְאוֹת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִשְּׁבִיל שֶׁמַּשְׁתִּין בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל: \n", + "נִכְרְתוּ הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְצְעָה אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנִּדּוֹכָה אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְּבָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. נִכְרְתוּ חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים אוֹ אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁנִּדָּךְ אוֹ נִפְצַע הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל: \n", + "נִקַּב חוּט מִחוּטֵי הַבֵּיצִים לִשְׁבִיל מֵי רַגְלַיִם וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַטִּיל מַיִם מִשְּׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת מִשְּׁבִיל הַמַּיִם וּמִשְּׁבִיל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר: \n", + "כָּל פָּסוּל שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם כְּגוֹן שֶׁכְּרָתוֹ אָדָם אוֹ כֶּלֶב אוֹ הִכָּהוּ קוֹץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אֲבָל אִם נוֹלַד כְּרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא אוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּלֹא בֵּיצִים אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה מֵחֲמַת גּוּפוֹ וּבָטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵיבָרִים אֵלּוּ אוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהֶם שְׁחִין וְהֵמֵסָּה אוֹתָן אוֹ כְּרָתָן הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהַפְסִיד אֵיבְרֵי זֶרַע בֵּין בְּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף. אֶחָד טְמֵאִים וְאֶחָד טְהוֹרִים. בֵּין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כד) \"וּבְאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ\" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה נוֹהֵג בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְעִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה זֹאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּגוּפָן בֵּין בְּגוּף אֲחֵרִים. וְכָל הַמְסָרֵס לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וַאֲפִלּוּ מְסָרֵס אַחַר מְסָרֵס לוֹקֶה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא אֶחָד וְכָרַת אֶת הַגִּיד וּבָא אַחֵר וְכָרַת אֶת הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ נִתְּקָן וּבָא אַחֵר וְכָרַת חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים. אוֹ שֶׁבָּא אֶחָד וּמָעַךְ אֶת הַגִּיד וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְּקוֹ וּבָא אַחֵר וּכְרָתוֹ כֻּלָּן לוֹקִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא סֵרֵס הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶלָּא מְסֹרָס. בֵּין בָּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְהַמְסָרֵס אֶת הַנְּקֵבָה בֵּין בְּאָדָם בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר מִינִים פָּטוּר: \n", + "הַמַּשְׁקֶה עִקָּרִין לְאָדָם אוֹ לִשְׁאָר מִינִים כְּדֵי לְסָרְסוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עִקָּרִין כְּדֵי לְסָרְסָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד. הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּפָה אֶת הָאָדָם וְשִׁסָּה בּוֹ כֶּלֶב אוֹ שְׁאָר חַיּוֹת עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוֹ בַּמַּיִם אוֹ בַּשֶּׁלֶג עַד שֶׁבִּטֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ אֵיבְרֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיְּסָרֵס בְּיָדוֹ. וְרָאוּי לְהַכּוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "אָסוּר לוֹמַר לְעַכּוּ\"ם לְסָרֵס בְּהֵמָה שֶׁלָּנוּ. וְאִם לְקָחָהּ הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ וְסֵרְסָהּ מֻתָּר. וְאִם הֶעֱרִים יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדָבָר זֶה קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹכְרָהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִבְנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל מֻתָּר לְמָכְרָהּ. אֲבָל לִבְנוֹ הַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָהּ לוֹ וְלֹא נוֹתְנָה לוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים נֶאֶסְרוּ עַל כָּל הַכֹּהֲנִים. גְּרוּשָׁה זוֹנָה וַחְללָה. וִעַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַרְבַּע. אֵלּוּ הַשָּׁלֹשׁ וְהָאַלְמָנָה. אֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה אוֹ הַמְרֻבֶּה בְּגָדִים. וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן הָעוֹבֵד וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמִּנּוּהוּ וְעָבַר. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. כֻּלָּן מְצֻוִּין עַל הַבְּתוּלָה וַאֲסוּרִין בְּאַלְמָנָה: \n", + "כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַחַת מֵהַשָּׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים אֵלּוּ בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט וּבָעַל לוֹקֶה. וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה אוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ חֲלָלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא ז) \"לֹא יִקָּחוּ\" עַד שֶׁיִּקַּח וְיִבְעל: \n", + "אֲבָל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל אַלְמָנָה לוֹקֶה אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִדֵּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא טו) \"לֹא יְחַלֵּל\" כֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּעָלָהּ חִלְּלָהּ וּפְסָלָהּ לִכְהֻנָּה. אֲבָל זוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה וּגְרוּשָׁה הֲרֵי הֵן מְחֻלָּלוֹת וְעוֹמְדוֹת קֹדֶם בְּעִילָתוֹ. וּלְפִיכָךְ לוֹקֶה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְבַדּוֹ עַל בְּעִילַת אַלְמָנָה לְבַדָּהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁהֲרֵי חִלְּלָהּ וְהוּא מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹּא יְחַלֵּל כְּשֵׁרִים לֹא אִשָּׁה וְלֹא זַרְעוֹ: \n", + "קִדֵּשׁ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַלְמָנָה וּבְעָלָהּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא כא יד) \"אַלְמָנָה לֹא יִקָּח\". וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא כא טו) \"לֹא יְחַלֵּל\". וּבֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּבֵין כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה מִן הָאַרְבַּע וְלֹא בָּעַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה הִיא לוֹקָה. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה הִיא אֵינָהּ לוֹקָה. שֶׁאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה לָעֳנָשִׁין זוּלָתִי בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "כָּל כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ בַּת קִדּוּשִׁין וְהוּא אָסוּר בִּבְעִילַת זוֹנָה בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בֵּין כּוּתִית: \n", + "הַחֲלוּצָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּגְרוּשָׁה וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא סְפֵק חֲלוּצָה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִתַּחְתָּיו וְהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה וּוְלָדָהּ כָּשֵׁר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵק חֲלוּצָה אֶלָּא עַל חֲלוּצָה וַדָּאִית. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה סְפֵק גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ סְפֵק אַלְמָנָה אוֹ סְפֵק זוֹנָה וּסְפֵק חֲלָלָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּמוֹצִיא בְּגֵט: \n", + "כְּלָל גָּדוֹל הוּא בְּכָל אִסּוּרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר חָל עַל אִסּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ שְׁנֵי אִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הָאִסּוּר הָאֶחָד מוֹסִיף דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים עַל אוֹתוֹ הָאִסּוּר. אוֹ אִם הָיָה כּוֹלֵל דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים עִם אִסּוּר זֶה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה אַלְמָנָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית גְּרוּשָׁה וְנַעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַחַר כָּךְ לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת עַל בִּיאָה אַחַת. לְפִי שֶׁהָאַלְמָנָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לְהֶדְיוֹט. \n", + "חָזְרָה לִהְיוֹת גְּרוּשָׁה נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר וְנֶאֱסֶרֶת לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר אַחֵר עַל אִסּוּר הָאַלְמָנָה וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה. נַעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱסֶרֶת בִּתְרוּמָה וַעֲדַיִן הִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ שֵׁם זְנוּת שֶׁאוֹסְרָהּ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם זִנְּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּרָצוֹן נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר אַחֵר. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ זוֹנָה שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ עַל בִּיאָה אַחַת. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה סֵדֶר זֶה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה מֵאֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מֵאֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אַחַת עַל כָּל בִּיאָה. אַלְמָנָה בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִן הָאֵרוּסִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְיַבֵּם אֶלָּא חוֹלֵץ. נָפְלָה לוֹ יְבָמָה וְהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר כְּשֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְיַבֵּם אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה. אֲבָל אִם אֵרֵס אֶת הָאַלְמָנָה וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְנֹס אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה. הָיְתָה מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת סְפֵק קִדּוּשִׁין וּמֵת אֲרוּסָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק אַלְמָנָה: \n", + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁיִּשָּׂא נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה. וּמִשֶּׁתִּבְגֹּר תֵּאָסֵר עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא יג) \"וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח\". אִשָּׁה לֹא קְטַנָּה. בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ וְלֹא בּוֹגֶרֶת. הָא כֵּיצַד. יָצָאת מִכְּלַל קַטְנוּת וְלִכְלַל בַּגְרוּת לֹא בָּאָה זוֹ נַעֲרָה. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים לְעוֹלָם כְּאַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם: \n", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא יִשָּׂא מֻכַּת עֵץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה. [נִבְעֲלָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּנִבְעֲלָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ. נִבְעֲלָה לִבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת]: \n", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּעוּלָה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֲבָל מוֹצִיא בְּגֵט. נָשָׂא בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ מֻכַּת עֵץ הֲרֵי זֶה יְקַיֵּם. אֵרֵס בְּעוּלָה וְנִתְמַנָּה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְנֹס אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה: \n", + "אָנַס נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ אֲנָסָהּ אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט וְנִתְמַנָּה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְנֹס הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנֹס. וְאִם כָּנַס מוֹצִיא: \n", + "אֵרֵס אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה וּבָגְרָה תַּחְתָּיו קֹדֶם נִשּׂוּאִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנֹס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה גּוּפָהּ. וְאִם כָּנַס לֹא יוֹצִיא: \n", + "אַחַת גְּרוּשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין אוֹ מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל הַמְמָאֶנֶת אֲפִלּוּ גֵּרְשָׁהּ בְּגֵט וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וּמֵאֲנָה בּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַחֲלִיצָה אִם נֶחְלְצָה לֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה: \n", + "יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן כָּתַב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ נָתַן גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִתַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר תֵּצֵא מִן הַשֵּׁנִי: \n", + "יָצָא שְׁמָהּ בָּעִיר שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַקִּדּוּשִׁין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין. אֲבָל אִם יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהִיא חֲלוּצָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "יָצָא קוֹל עַל הַבְּתוּלָה שֶׁהִיא בְּעוּלָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וְתִנָּשֵׂא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁהִיא שִׁפְחָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וְתִנָּשֵׂא אֲפִלּוּ לְכֹהֵן. יָצָא לָהּ שֵׁם מְזַנָּה בָּעִיר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוֹצִיאָהּ בַּעְלָהּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁעָבְרָה עַל דַּת יְהוּדִית אוֹ בְּעֵדֵי דָּבָר מְכֹעָר וּמֵת קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ גֵּט הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן. שֶׁאֵין אוֹסְרִין אִשָּׁה מֵאֵלּוּ אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה אוֹ בִּהוֹדָאַת פִּיהָ: \n" + ], + [ + "מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַ (ויקרא כא ז יד) \"זּוֹנָה\" הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא כָּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאָדָם שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ אִסּוּר הַשָּׁוֶה לַכּל. אוֹ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְחָלָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַנִּרְבַּעַת לִבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בִּסְקִילָה לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִבְעֲלָה לְאָדָם. וְהַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ: \n", + "וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קְדֵשָׁה שֶׁהִפְקִירָה עַצְמָהּ לַכּל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּמַלְקוֹת לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ. אֲבָל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי לָאוִין הַשָּׁוִין בַּכּל וְאֵין מְיֻחָדִין בְּכֹהֲנִים. אוֹ מֵאִסּוּרֵי עֲשֵׂה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְמִי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם וְעֶבֶד. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה: \n", + "וְכֵן הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְהַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת אֲפִלּוּ נִתְגַּיְּרָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ זוֹנָה וַאֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אוֹ מִצְרִי וֶאֱדוֹמִי רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אוֹ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה אוֹ חָלָל שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל הַיְּהוּדִית עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה וְנִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה וְאִם הָיְתָה כֹּהֶנֶת פְּסָלוּהָ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְכֵן יְבָמָה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ זָר עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה. וְהָאַיְלוֹנִית מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן וְאֵינָהּ זוֹנָה: \n", + "הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כְּגוֹן הַבָּא עַל קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ אוֹ עַל חֲלוּצָתוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה לְהִנָּשֵׂא לוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת יִבּוּם: \n", + "הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין הֱיוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה תּוֹלֶה בִּבְעִילָה שֶׁל אִסּוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה וְעַל הַקְּדֵשָׁה וְהַנִּרְבַּעַת לַבְּהֵמָה נִבְעֲלָה בְּעִילָה שֶׁל אִסּוּר וְלֹא נַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה. וּמִי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְחָלָל נִבְעֲלָה בְּעִילָה שֶׁל הֶתֵּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וְאֵין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בִּפְגִימָה וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ פְּגוּמָה אֶלָּא מֵאָדָם הָאָסוּר לָהּ אוֹ מֵחָלָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ: \n", + "כָּל הַנִּבְעֶלֶת לְאָדָם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] מִשֶּׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ נִפְסְלָה מִשּׁוּם זוֹנָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְיִהְיֶה הַבּוֹעֵל בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאַחֵר בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן נִפְסְלָה לִכְהֻנָּה: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד ד) \"לֹא יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַמָּאָה\". הַכּל בִּכְלָל שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלוּ אֲסוּרִין עַל בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. פֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה יג) \"וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה\" אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן בְּאִסּוּרָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא זוֹנָה: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ נֶאֱנַסְתִּי אוֹ שָׁגַגְתִּי וּבָא עָלַי אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד לוֹ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו. שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָתְנָה בְּאַחֵר. וְאִם הִיא נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹ אוֹ הָעֵד נֶאֱמָן לוֹ וְסָמַךְ דַּעְתּוֹ לְדִבְרֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצִיא כְּדֵי לָצֵאת יְדֵי סָפֵק: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ נֶאֱנַסְתִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַעְלָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלָהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדֵית שֶׁהִיא זוֹנָה וְאָסְרָה עַצְמָהּ וְנַעֲשֵׂית כַּחֲתִיכָה הָאֲסוּרָה: \n", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ קְטַנָּה וְאַחַר זְמַן בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְטָעַן שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא קֹדֶם קִדּוּשִׁין נִבְעֲלָה אוֹ אַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁטָּעַן טַעֲנָה זוֹ לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן שְׁנֵי סְפֵקוֹת שֶׁמָּא קֹדֶם קִדּוּשִׁין וְשֶׁמָּא אַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין. וַאֲפִלּוּ נֹאמַר לְאַחַר קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בְּאֹנֶס שֶׁמָּא בְּרָצוֹן. שֶׁהָאֲנוּסָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִיא פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְטָעַן שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִסָּפֵק שֶׁאֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא סָפֵק אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא בְּאֹנֶס שֶׁמָּא בְּרָצוֹן וְסָפֵק אִסּוּר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה לְחֻמְרָא: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁקִּנֵּא לָהּ בַּעְלָהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְלֹא שָׁתָת מֵי סוֹטָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָת הִיא לִשְׁתּוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם עֵדוּת שֶׁמּוֹנְעָהּ מִלִּשְׁתּוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁקִּנְּאוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה מִן הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיוֹת לִשְׁתּוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא שָׁתָת מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה מִסָּפֵק: \n", + "פְּנוּיָה שֶׁרָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאֶחָד וְהָלַךְ לוֹ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלַיִךְ וְאָמְרָה אָדָם כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ רָאוּהָ מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מִמִּי נִתְעַבַּרְתְּ וְאָמְרָה מֵאָדָם כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת לְכֹהֵן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בּוֹ פָּרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים אוֹ בִּקְרָנוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת שֶׁהַכּל עוֹבְרִין שָׁם. וְהָיוּ רֹב הָעוֹבְרִים שָׁם כְּשֵׁרִים וְרֹב הָעִיר שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ אֵלּוּ הָעוֹבְרִין מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁהַחֲכָמִים עָשׂוּ מַעֲלָה בְּיוּחֲסִין וְהִצְרִיכוּ שְׁנֵי רֻבּוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ רֹב הָעוֹבְרִים פּוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ כְּגוֹן עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ מַמְזֵרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאוּ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רֹב אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם פְּסוּלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב הָעוֹבְרִין שָׁם כְּשֵׁרִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא לְמִי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אוֹתָהּ נִבְעֲלָה וְלֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכֹהֵן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת (לֹא) תֵּצֵא: \n", + "רָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בָּעִיר אוֹ נִתְעַבְּרָה בָּעִיר אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה שׁוֹכֵן שָׁם אֶלָּא עַכּוּ\"ם אֶחָד אוֹ חָלָל אֶחָד וְעֶבֶד וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְכֹהֵן. שֶׁכָּל הַקָּבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה הוּא. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא הוֹאִיל וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לְכָשֵׁר נִבְעַלְתִּי: \n", + "הָיְתָה אִלֶּמֶת אוֹ חֵרֶשֶׁת אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה אֵינִי יוֹדַעַת לְמִי נִבְעַלְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַכֶּרֶת בֵּין כָּשֵׁר לְפָסוּל הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זוֹנָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן תֵּצֵא אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הָרֻבִּין הַמְּצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ כְּשֵׁרִים: \n", + "הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית וְהִיא בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ יֶתֶר אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלָה לְעַכּוּ\"ם. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיַחֵד הָעַכּוּ\"ם עִמָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהֻנָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד אוֹ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ קָרוֹב נֶאֱמָן לְעֵדוּת זוֹ. וּשְׁתֵּי שְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁהֵעִידָה כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְאִסּוּר כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת כֻּלָּן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְפִיכָךְ הֵקֵלּוּ בִּשְׁבוּיָה: \n", + "וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מַעֲשֵׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הוּא וְאִמּוֹ וּבְנָהּ מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְאָמַר נִשְׁבֵּינוּ לְבֵין הָעַכּוּ\"ם אֲנִי וְאִמִּי יָצָאתִי לִשְׁאֹב מַיִם וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי לִלְקֹט עֵצִים וְדַעְתִּי עַל אִמִּי. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָהּ חֲכָמִים לְכֹהֵן עַל פִּיו: \n", + "אֵין הַבַּעַל נֶאֱמָן לְהָעִיד בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ הַשְּׁבוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאָה. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד לְעַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן שִׁפְחָתָהּ לֹא תָּעִיד לָהּ. אֲבָל שִׁפְחַת בַּעְלָהּ מְעִידָה לָהּ. וְשִׁפְחָתָהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסִיחָה לְפִי תֻּמָּהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת: \n", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵעִיד לִשְׁבוּיָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה שֶׁמָּא עֵינָיו נָתַן בָּהּ. וְאִם פְּדָאָהּ וְהֵעִיד בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה לֹא נָתַן בָּהּ מְעוֹתָיו: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁהִיא שְׁבוּיָה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמֶנֶת עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד לָהּ אֶחָד שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת וְאֶחָד מַכְחִישׁ אוֹתוֹ וּמֵעִיד לָהּ שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ עַכּוּ\"ם עַד שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית. אֲפִלּוּ זֶה שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה אִשָּׁה אוֹ שִׁפְחָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְהִתִּירוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְהִנָּשֵׂא וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁבֵּית הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּרָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ שַׁבַּאי וַהֲרֵי הִיא שְׁבוּיָה לְפָנֵינוּ בְּיַד אֲדוֹנֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא מֵהֶתֵּרָהּ שֶׁהִתִּירוּהָ. וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתָהּ מֵעַתָּה עַד שֶׁתִּפָּדֶה: \n", + "בָּאוּ לָהּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת אֲפִלּוּ נִשֵּׂאת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּצֵא. וְאִם בָּא עֵד אֶחָד אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. אָמְרָה נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי וְיֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲנִי טְהוֹרָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין נַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ עֵדֵי טֻמְאָה מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ. שֶׁבִּשְׁבוּיָה הֵקֵלּוּ: \n", + "הָאָב שֶׁאָמַר קִדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת בִּתִּי וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא קְטַנָּה נֶאֱמָן. קִדַּשְׁתִּיהָ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיהָ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה קְטַנָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא גְּדוֹלָה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲזִיקָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה. נִשְׁבֵּית וּפְדִיתִיהָ בֵּין שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינָה אוֹתוֹ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְאָסְרָהּ מִשּׁוּם אִישׁוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב טז) \"אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה\". אֲבָל לֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּיָה הוֹאִיל וְהַדָּבָר סָפֵק הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לָדוּר עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר אֶחָד וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עִמּוֹ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ תָּמִיד לְשָׁמְרוֹ: \n", + "עִיר שֶׁבָּאָה בְּמָצוֹר וְנִכְבְּשָׁה אִם הָיוּ הָעַכּוּ\"ם מַקִּיפִין אֶת הָעִיר מִכָּל רוּחוֹתֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּמָּלֵט אִשָּׁה אַחַת עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ וְתֵעָשֶׂה בִּרְשׁוּתָן הֲרֵי כָּל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ פְּסוּלוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה כִּשְׁבוּיוֹת שֶׁמָּא נִבְעֲלוּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם. אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּלְמַטָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּמָּלֵט אִשָּׁה אַחַת וְלֹא יֵדְעוּ בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בָּעִיר מַחֲבוֹאָה אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ אֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה אַחַת הֲרֵי זוֹ מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַכּל: \n", + "כֵּיצַד מַצֶּלֶת. שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עֵד מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לוֹמַר נִמְלַטְתִּי כְּשֶׁנִּכְבְּשָׁה הָעִיר אוֹ בְּמַחֲבוֹאָה הָיִיתִי וְנִצַּלְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר לֹא נִמְלַטְתִּי וְלֹא נֶחְבֵּאתִי וְלֹא נִטְמֵאתִי: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּגְדוּד שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת שֶׁהֵם מִתְיַשְּׁבִין בָּעִיר וְאֵין יְרֵאִין לְפִיכָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא בָּעֲלוּ. אֲבָל גְּדוּד שֶׁל מַלְכוּת אַחֶרֶת שֶׁפָּשַׁט וְשָׁטַף וְעָבַר לֹא נֶאֶסְרוּ הַנָּשִׁים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם פְּנַאי לִבְעל שֶׁהֵן עוֹסְקִים בַּשָּׁלָל וּבוֹרְחִין לָהֶם. וְאִם שָׁבוּ נָשִׁים וְנַעֲשׂוּ בִּרְשׁוּתָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִצִּילוּ אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶחְבְּשָׁה בְּיַד עַכּוּ\"ם עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן מֻתֶּרֶת. עַל יְדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרָה לִכְהֻנָּה וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקִּיפָה עַל הָעַכּוּ\"ם וְהֵם יְרֵאִין מֵהֶם. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁיַּד הָעַכּוּ\"ם תַּקִּיפָה אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי מָמוֹן כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית בִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ\"ם נֶאֶסְרָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵעִיד לָהּ אֶחָד כִּשְׁבוּיָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "אֵי זוֹ הִיא חֲלָלָה זוֹ שֶׁנּוֹלִדָה מֵאִסּוּר כְּהֻנָּה. וְכֵן אַחַת מִן הַנָּשִׁים הָאֲסוּרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְכֹהֵן נִתְחַלְּלָה. אֲבָל הַכֹּהֵן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁעָבַר הָעֲבֵרָה לֹא נִתְחַלֵּל: ", + "וּבֵין שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה בְּאֹנֶס אוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה [בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ] מִשֶּׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ נִתְחַלְּלָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כֹּהֵן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה וְתִהְיֶה זוֹ הָאֲסוּרָה לוֹ בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וָמַעְלָה: ", + "כֵּיצַד. כֹּהֵן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ עַל הַזּוֹנָה. וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ עַל הָאַלְמָנָה אוֹ שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּעוּלָה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִתְחַלְּלוּ לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם הוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֶּן בֵּין זֶה שֶׁחִלְּלָהּ בֵּין כֹּהֵן אַחַר הַוָּלָד חָלָל. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה מֵאִסּוּרֵי כְּהֻנָּה וְנִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין לֹא נִתְחַלְּלָה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה נִתְחַלְּלָה שֶׁכָּל נְשׂוּאָה בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה הִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּתוּלָה: ", + "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנָּשָׂא בּוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ מֻכַּת עֵץ לֹא חִלְּלָהּ. וְכֵן אִם בַּעַל בְּעוּלָה בְּלֹא נִשּׂוּאִין לֹא חִלְּלָהּ: ", + "כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת חוּץ מִנִּדָּה אוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין הַשָּׁוִין בְּכָל עֲשֵׂה אוֹתָהּ זוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. חָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה בֵּין הוּא בֵּין כֹּהֵן אַחֵר נַעֲשֵׂית חֲלָלָה וְזַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חֲלָלִים. לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם וְנִתְעַבְּרָה מִבִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מֵאִסּוּרֵי כְּהֻנָּה וְנַעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה. חָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה וְנִתְעַבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה הִיא חֲלָלָה וּוְלָדָהּ חָלָל לְפִי שֶׁהוּא מֵאִסּוּרֵי כְּהֻנָּה: ", + "וְכֵן כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְהַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת חֲלָלָה וְזַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חֲלָלִים. כֹּהֵן הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ חָלָל שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר הַנִּדָּה מְיֻחָד בְּכֹהֲנִים אֶלָּא שָׁוֶה בַּכּל: ", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁה מְעֻבֶּרֶת בֵּין מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּין מֵאַחֵר וְיָלְדָה כְּשֶׁהִיא חֲלָלָה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא בָּא מִטִּפַּת עֲבֵרָה: ", + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַחֲלוּצָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַחֲלוּצָה הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲלָלָה וְזַרְעָהּ מִכֹּהֵן חֲלָלִים וְהַכּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל אַחַת מֵהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת הִיא כְּשֵׁרָה וְזַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁאִסּוּר הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת אִסּוּר הַשָּׁוֶה בַּכּל הוּא וְאֵינוֹ מְיֻחָד בְּכֹהֲנִים: ", + "כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל סְפֵק זוֹנָה כְּגוֹן סְפֵק גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עַל סְפֵק גְּרוּשָׁה. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל סְפֵק אַלְמָנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק חֲלָלָה וּוְלָדָהּ סְפֵק חָלָל: ", + "נִמְצְאוּ הַחֲלָלִים שְׁלֹשָׁה. חָלָל מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְחָלָל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וּסְפֵק חָלָל. וְכָל סְפֵק חָלָל נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חֻמְרֵי כֹּהֲנִים וְחֻמְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְלֹא מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים וְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן. וְאִם אָכַל אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ נָשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּחָלָל שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל חָלָל שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הַוַּדַּאי הֲרֵי הוּא כְּזָר וְנוֹשֵׂא גְּרוּשָׁה וּמִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא א) \"אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן\". אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּכִהוּנָם: ", + "כֹּהֵן זָכָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לִשָּׂא זוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה אָסוּר בְּגִיֹּרֶת וּמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא כְּזוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל הַכֹּהֶנֶת מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְחָלָל וּלְגֵר וְלִמְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא א) \"בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן\" וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן. נִמְצָא הַגֵּר מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מַמְזֶרֶת וְלִשָּׂא כֹּהֶנֶת: ", + "גֵּרִים וּמְשֻׁחְרָרִים שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ אֵלּוּ מֵאֵלּוּ וְהוֹלִידוּ בַּת אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי אוֹתָהּ הַבַּת אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא הוֹאִיל וְהוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה. אֲבָל גֵּר אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לִכְהֻנָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה: ", + "גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכֵן מִצְרִי שֵׁנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּיאָתָם בַּעֲבֵרָה וַהֲרֵי נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן זוֹנוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּנוֹתֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה: ", + "חָלָל שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֵׁרָה זַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חֲלָלִים. וְכֵן בֶּן בֶּן בְּנוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַר אֶלֶף דּוֹר. שֶׁבֶּן הֶחָלָל הַזָּכָר הוּא חָלָל לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם הָיְתָה בַּת אֲסוּרָה הִיא לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא חֲלָלָה. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֲלָלָה הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה בַּת הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לִכְהֻנָּה לְכַתְּחִלָּה: ", + "כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים מֻתָּרִין לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. (לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וַחֲלָלִים מֻתָּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה וְהַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר). שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר א יח) \"וַיִּתְיַלְדוּ עַל מִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם\". בֵּית אָבִיו הִיא מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֵין בֵּית אִמּוֹ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ: ", + "לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וַחֲלָלִים גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים מֻתָּרִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה. וְהַגֵּר וְהַמְשֻׁחְרָר שֶׁנָּשָׂא לְוִיָּה אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית אוֹ חֲלָלָה הֲרֵי הַבֵּן יִשְׂרְאֵלִי. וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי אוֹ לֵוִי אוֹ חָלָל שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ גִּיֹּרֶת אוֹ מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר: ", + "כָּל מִשְׁפָּחוֹת בְּחֶזְקַת כְּשֵׁרוֹת וּמֻתָּר לִשָּׂא מֵהֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִם רָאִיתָ שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת שֶׁמִּתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ תָּמִיד אוֹ רָאִיתָ מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מַצָּה וּמְרִיבָה תָּמִיד. אוֹ רָאִיתָ אִישׁ שֶׁהוּא מַרְבֶּה מְרִיבָה עִם הַכּל וְעַז פָּנִים בְּיוֹתֵר. חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן וְרָאוּי לְהִתְרַחֵק מֵהֶן שֶׁאֵלּוּ סִימָנֵי פַּסְלוּת הֵם. וְכֵן הַפּוֹסֵל אֶת אֲחֵרִים תָּמִיד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנּוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶץ בְּמִשְׁפָּחוֹת אוֹ בִּיחִידִים וְאוֹמֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים. חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא מַמְזֵר הוּא. וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶן שֶׁהֵם עֲבָדִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֶבֶד הוּא. שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹסֵל בְּמוּמוֹ פּוֹסֵל. וְכֵן כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עַזּוּת פָּנִים אוֹ אַכְזָרִיּוּת וְשׂוֹנֵא אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹמֵל לָהֶם חֶסֶד חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁמָּא גִּבְעוֹנִי הוּא. שֶׁסִּימָנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאֻמָּה הַקְּדוֹשָׁה בַּיְשָׁנִין רַחֲמָנִים וְגוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים. וּבַגִּבְעוֹנִים הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמואל ב כא ב) \"וְהַגִּבְעֹנִים לֹא מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה\" לְפִי שֶׁהֵעֵזּוּ פְּנֵיהֶם וְלֹא נִתְפַּיְּסוּ וְלֹא רִחֲמוּ עַל בְּנֵי שָׁאוּל וְלֹא גָּמְלוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֶסֶד לִמְחל לִבְנֵי מַלְכָּם וְהֵם עָשׂוּ עִמָּהֶם חֶסֶד וְהֶחֱיוּם בַּתְּחִלָּה: ", + "מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעַר וְהוּא שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן מַמְזֵר אוֹ חָלָל אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַבְדוּת הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. וְאִם מִשְׁפַּחַת כֹּהֲנִים הִיא לֹא יִשָּׂא מִמֶּנָּה אִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע אִמָּהוֹת שֶׁהֵן שְׁמוֹנֶה. אִמָּהּ. וְאֵם אִמָּהּ. וְאֵם אֲבִי אִמָּהּ. וְאֵם אֵם אֲבִי אִמָּהּ. וְכֵן הוּא בּוֹדֵק עַל אֵם אָבִיהָ. וְאֵם אֵם אָבִיהָ. וְאֵם אֲבִי אָבִיהָ. וְאֵם אֵם אֲבִי אָבִיהָ: ", + "וְאִם הָיְתָה מִשְׁפָּחָה זוֹ שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ עַרְעַר לְוִיִּם אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִים. מוֹסִיף לִבְדֹּק לָהֶם זוּג אֶחָד. וְנִמְצָא בּוֹדֵק עֶשֶׂר אִמָּהוֹת. שֶׁהָעֵרוּב בַּלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים יֶתֶר מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים: ", + "וְלָמָּה בּוֹדֵק בַּנָּשִׁים בִּלְבַד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאֲנָשִׁים כָּל עֵת שֶׁיָּרִיבוּ זֶה עִם זֶה יְחָרֵף אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְסוּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיִחוּסוֹ. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם פָּסוּל הָיָה נִשְׁמָע. אֲבָל הַנָּשִׁים אֵין מְחָרְפוֹת בְּיוּחֲסִין: ", + "וְלָמָּה יִבְדֹּק הָאִישׁ כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה לִשָּׂא מִמִּשְׁפָּחָה זוֹ שֶׁהֻרְעָה חֶזְקָתָהּ וְלֹא תִּבְדֹּק אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְהֲרוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִפְסוּלִין: ", + "כָּל שֶׁקּוֹרִין לוֹ מַמְזֵר וְשׁוֹתֵק. אוֹ נָתִין וְשׁוֹתֵק. אוֹ חָלָל וְשׁוֹתֵק. אוֹ עֶבֶד וְשׁוֹתֵק. חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וּלְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין מֵהֶן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בּוֹדְקִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: ", + "מִשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהּ סְפֵק חָלָל כָּל אַלְמָנָה מֵאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי סְפֵקוֹת. שֶׁמָּא זוֹ אַלְמְנַת אוֹתוֹ חָלָל שֶׁמָּא אֵינָהּ אַלְמְנָתוֹ. וְאִם נֹאמַר שֶׁהִיא אַלְמְנָתוֹ שֶׁמָּא חָלָל הוּא שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חָלָל. אֲבָל אִם נִתְעָרֵב בָּהּ חָלָל וַדַּאי כָּל אִשָּׁה מֵהֶן אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֵן עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת תֵּצֵא. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם נִתְעָרֵב בָּהּ סְפֵק מַמְזֵר אוֹ מַמְזֵר וַדַּאי. שֶׁאֵשֶׁת מַמְזֵר וְאֵשֶׁת חָלָל לִכְהֻנָּה אִסּוּר אֶחָד הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: " + ], + [ + "כָּל כֹּהֲנִים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה בַּחֲזָקָה הֵם כֹּהֲנִים וְאֵין אוֹכְלִין אֶלָּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְחַלָּה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֵין אוֹכֵל אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס: \n", + "אֵי זֶהוּ כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס כָּל שֶׁהֵעִידוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי הַכֹּהֵן וּפְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי הַכֹּהֵן עַד אִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה וְהוּא הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא בָּדְקוּ בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל אַחֲרָיו לֹא הָיוּ מְנִיחִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲבֹד. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין בּוֹדְקִין מֵהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וָמַעְלָה וְלֹא מִן הַסַּנְהֶדְרִין וָמַעְלָה. שֶׁאֵין מְמַנִּין בַּסַּנְהֶדְרִין אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים מְיֻחָסִין: \n", + "חַלָּה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו יח) \"בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל הָאָרֶץ\" בִּיאַת כֻּלְּכֶם וְלֹא בִּיאַת מִקְצַתְכֶם. וּכְשֶׁעָלוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא לֹא עָלוּ כֻּלָּם. וְכֵן תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּלְפִיכָךְ אוֹכְלִים אוֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁבִּזְמַנֵּינוּ שֶׁהֵן בַּחֲזָקָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו [שְׁנֵי] עֵדִים שֶׁרָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְיֻחָס. וְאֵין מַעֲלִין לְיוּחֲסִין לֹא מִנְּשִׂיאַת כַּפַּיִם וְלֹא מִקְּרִיאָה בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מֵחִלּוּק תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת וְלֹא עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד: \n", + "כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה כֹּהֵן הוּא אֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לְיוּחֲסִין עַל פִּיו עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹ: \n", + "כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס שֶׁיָּצָא הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁיָּדַעְנוּ שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וּבָא הוּא וְהִיא וּבָנִים כְּרוּכִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאָמַר אִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצָאת עִמִּי הִיא זוֹ וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא עֵדִים לֹא עַל הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא עַל הַבָּנִים. מֵתָה וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֵלּוּ בָּנָיו. וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא עֵדִים עַל אִמָּן שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּבָר הֻחְזַק שֶׁיָּצְאָה מֵעִמָּנוּ כְּאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "יָצָא כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת וּבָא הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו וְאָמַר אִשָּׁה זוֹ נָשָׂאתִי וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁאִשָּׁה זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כְּרוּכִין אַחֲרֶיהָ. וְאִם בָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְהֵבִיא רְאָיָה עַל הָאַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבָּנִים קְטַנִּים וּכְרוּכִין אַחֲרֶיהָ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁמָּא בָּנָיו מִן הָאַחֶרֶת הֵם וְנִכְרְכוּ אַחַר זוֹ הַמְיֻחֶסֶת: \n", + "בָּא הוּא וּבָנָיו וְאָמַר אִשָּׁה נָשָׂאתִי וָמֵתָה וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ מֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאוֹתָהּ הָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה הָיְתָה וְאֵלּוּ בָּנֶיהָ. וְכַדִּין הַזֶּה דָּנִין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְיֻחָס וּבְלֵוִי מְיֻחָס. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָעִיד עַל בְּנוֹ זֶה שֶׁהוּא מְיֻחָס כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רָאוּי לְסַנְהֶדְרִין: \n", + "אֵין מַעֲלִין מִשְּׁטָרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה כָּתוּב בִּשְׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן לָוָה מִפְּלוֹנִי וְהִלְוָהוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בָּהֶם כֹּהֵן זֶה שֶׁהוּא מְיֻחָס שֶׁמָּא לֹא הֵעִידוּ אֶלָּא עַל הַמִּלְוֶה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים לְעִנְיַן יִחוּס. אֲבָל לַחֲזָקָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כֹּהֵן כְּכֹהֲנֵי זְמַן זֶה וְיֹאכַל תְּרוּמָה וְחַלָּה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּבִשְׁאָר קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל מַעֲלִין מִן הַשְּׁטָרוֹת וְעַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד וּמִנְּשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וּמִקְּרִיאָה בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן: \n", + "וְכֵן כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמַר בְּנִי זֶה כֹּהֵן נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה וְלִהְיוֹתוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת כֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה לֹא עַל הַבָּנִים וְלֹא עַל הָאִשָּׁה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאוּ לִמְדִינָה זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי וַחֲבֵרִי כֹּהֵן וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי וַחֲבֵרִי כֹּהֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּרְאִין כְּגוֹמְלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין וּשְׁנֵיהֶם בְּחֶזְקַת כֹּהֲנִים. וְכֵן עֵד שֶׁאָמַר רָאִיתִי זֶה שֶׁנָּשָׂא כַּפָּיו אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל בִּתְרוּמָה אוֹ שֶׁחָלַק עַל הַגֹּרֶן אוֹ שֶׁקָּרָא בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וְקָרָא אַחֲרָיו לֵוִי מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּיו. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִיד שֶׁזֶּה קָרָא שֵׁנִי בַּתּוֹרָה אַחַר כֹּהֵן מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּלְוִיָּה: \n", + "הֵעִיד שֶׁרָאָה זֶה שֶׁחָלַק עִם אָחִיו בְּבֵית דִּין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן הַכֹּהֵן אֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ. שֶׁמָּא חָלָל הוּא וְלָקַח חֵלֶק יְרֻשָּׁתוֹ מִתְּרוּמָה לְמָכְרָהּ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁבָּא בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְאָמַר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְאֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא בַּתּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו וְלֹא יֹאכַל בְּקָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד. אֲבָל אוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ בִּגְרוּשָׁה וְזוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים. וְאִם נָשָׂא אוֹ נִטְמָא לוֹקֶה. וְהַנִּבְעֶלֶת לוֹ סְפֵק חֲלָלָה: \n", + "וְאִם הָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ נֶאֱמָן. כֵּיצַד. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תֻּמּוֹ וְאָמַר זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי תִּינוֹק וְהָיִיתִי מֻרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵפוֹ שֶׁל אָבִי הוֹצִיאוּנִי מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר וְהִפְשִׁיטוּנִי כֻּתָּנְתִּי וְהִטְבִּילוּנִי לֶאֱכל תְּרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב וַחֲבֵרַי בּוֹדְלִין מִמֶּנִּי וְהָיוּ קוֹרְאִין אוֹתִי יוֹחָנָן אוֹכֵל חַלּוֹת וְהֶעֱלָהוּ רַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ לִכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ: \n", + "נֶאֱמָן גָּדוֹל לוֹמַר זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי תִּינוֹק וְרָאִיתִי פְּלוֹנִי טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב וּמַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְהֻנָּה בְּעֵדוּתוֹ. מִי שֶׁבָּא בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְאָמַר כֹּהֵן אֲנִי וְעֵד אֶחָד מֵעִיד לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה כֹּהֵן אֵין מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה בְּעֵדוּת זֶה שֶׁמָּא חָלָל הוּא עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד שֶׁזֶּה כֹּהֵן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם הֻחְזַק אָבִיו כֹּהֵן אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ שֶׁאָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה כֹּהֵן הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת אָבִיו: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק אָבִיו כֹּהֵן וְיָצָא עָלָיו קוֹל שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ חֲלוּצָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ. בָּא עֵד אֶחָד אַחַר כָּךְ וְהֵעִיד שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה עַל פִּיו. בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אַחַר כָּךְ וְהָעִידוּ שֶׁהוּא חָלָל מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. בָּא עֵד אֶחָד וְהֵעִיד שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לִכְהֻנָּה שֶׁזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן מִצְטָרֵף לְעֵד רִאשׁוֹן וַהֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל יִדָּחוּ אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ וְיִדָּחֶה הַקּוֹל שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם כְּמֵאָה וְיִשָּׁאֵר כֹּהֵן בְּחֶזְקַת אָבִיו: \n", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ וְיָלְדָה. וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לְרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לְאַחֲרוֹן וְהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק כֹּהֵן. וְכָךְ אִם נִתְעָרֵב וְלַד כֹּהֵן בִּוְלַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן סְפֵק כֹּהֵן. וְנוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחֻמְרֵי כֹּהֲנִים. נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים הָרְאוּיוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה וְאֵין מִטַּמְּאִים לְמֵתִים וְלֹא אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה. וְאִם נָשְׂאוּ גְּרוּשָׁה מוֹצִיאִין וְאֵינָן לוֹקִין: \n", + "שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶם. אוֹ אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ עַל הַוָּלָד חֻמְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם. הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם וְהֵן אוֹנְנִין עָלָיו. הוּא אֵין מְטַמֵּא לָהֶם וְהֵם אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין לוֹ. וְעוֹלֶה בְּמִשְׁמָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה. וְאֵין חוֹלֵק. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמִשְׁמָר אֶחָד וּבֵית אָב אֶחָד נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק אֶחָד: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין מִכֹּחַ נִשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל בִּזְנוּת גָּזְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהֻנָּה כְּלָל הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אָבִיו הַוַּדַּאי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כה יג) \"וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זַרְעוֹ מְיֻחָס אַחֲרָיו: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם וּבָעַל שֶׁהֲרֵי הַוָּלָד כֹּהֵן וַדַּאי וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אָבִיו שֶׁיִּתְיַחֵס לוֹ מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִדִּין כְּהֻנָּה. וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד וְלֹא אוֹכֵל וְלֹא חוֹלֵק. וְאִם נִטְמָא לְמֵתִים אוֹ נָשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁה לוֹקֶה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן סְפֵק הֶתֵּר: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אֵיבָרִים אוֹ שֶׁחִבֵּק וְנִשֵּׁק דֶּרֶךְ תַּאֲוָה וְנֶהֱנָה בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ל) \"לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת\" וְגוֹ'. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ו) \"לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה\". כְּלוֹמַר לֹא תִּקְרְבוּ לִדְבָרִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה: \n", + "הָעוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר מֵחֻקּוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הוּא חָשׁוּד עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת. וְאָסוּר לָאָדָם לִקְרֹץ בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו אוֹ לִרְמֹז בְּעֵינָיו לְאַחַת מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת אוֹ לִשְׂחֹק עִמָּהּ אוֹ לְהָקֵל רֹאשׁ. וַאֲפִלּוּ לְהָרִיחַ בְּשָׂמִים שֶׁעָלֶיהָ אוֹ לְהַבִּיט בְּיָפְיָהּ אָסוּר. וּמַכִּין לַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְדָבָר זֶה מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְהַמִּסְתַּכֵּל אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לֵהָנוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁנִּסְתַּכֵּל בִּמְקוֹם הַתֹּרֶף. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹל הָעֶרְוָה אוֹ לִרְאוֹת שְׂעָרָהּ אָסוּר: \n", + "וְהַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין. וּמֻתָּר לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בִּפְנֵי הַפְּנוּיָה וּלְבָדְקָהּ בֵּין בְּתוּלָה בֵּין בְּעוּלָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אִם הִיא נָאָה בְּעֵינָיו יִשָּׂאֶנָּה וְאֵין בָּזֶה צַד אִסּוּר וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁרָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. אֲבָל לֹא יִסְתַּכֵּל דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (איוב לא א) \"בְּרִית כָּרַתִּי לְעֵינַי וּמָה אֶתְבּוֹנֵן עַל בְּתוּלָה\": \n", + "וּמֻתָּר לָאָדָם לְהַבִּיט בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נִדָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲנָאַת לֵב מִמֶּנָּה בִּרְאִיָּה הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן אֵינוֹ בָּא בָּזֶה לִדְבַר מִכְשׁוֹל. אֲבָל לֹא יִשְׂחֹק וְלֹא יָקֵל רֹאשׁ עִמָּהּ שֶׁמָּא יַרְגִּיל לַעֲבֵרָה: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵשׁ בְּאִשָּׁה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. בְּאֵי זֶה שִׁמּוּשׁ אָמְרוּ רְחִיצַת פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וְהַצָּעַת מִטָּה לְפָנָיו וּמְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשָׂה לְאִישׁ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם אִשָּׁה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ: \n", + "הַמְחַבֵּק אַחַת מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם נוֹקְפוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ שֶׁנִּשֵּׁק לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּגוֹן אֲחוֹתוֹ הַגְּדוֹלָה וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם תַּאֲוָה וְלֹא הֲנָאָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זֶה מְגֻנֶּה בְּיוֹתֵר וְדָבָר אָסוּר הוּא וּמַעֲשֵׂה טִפְּשִׁים הוּא. שֶׁאֵין קְרֵבִין לְעֶרְוָה כְּלָל בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה חוּץ מֵהָאֵם לִבְנָהּ וְהָאָב לְבִתּוֹ: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. מֻתָּר הָאָב לְחַבֵּק בִּתּוֹ וּלְנַשְּׁקָהּ וְתִישַׁן עִמּוֹ בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר. וְכֵן הָאֵם עִם בְּנָהּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵם קְטַנִּים. הִגְדִּילוּ וְנַעֲשָׂה הַבֵּן גָּדוֹל וְהַבַּת גְּדוֹלָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁדַיִם נָכֹנוּ וּשְׂעָרֵךְ צָמַח זֶה יָשֵׁן בִּכְסוּתוֹ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה בִּכְסוּתָהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַבַּת בּוֹשָׁה לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אָבִיהָ עֲרֻמָּה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת. וְכֵן אִם הָאֵם בּוֹשָׁה לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנֵי בְּנָהּ עֲרֻמָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִכָּלֵם מֵהֶן אֵין יְשֵׁנִים עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא בִּכְסוּתָן: \n", + "נָשִׁים הַמְסוֹלָלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ אָסוּר וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂה מִצְרַיִם הוּא שֶׁהֻזְהַרְנוּ עָלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ג) \"כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ\". אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים אִישׁ נוֹשֵׂא אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה אָסוּר אֵין מַלְקִין עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לָאו מְיֻחָד וַהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם בִּיאָה כְּלָל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין נֶאֱסָרוֹת לִכְהֻנָּה מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת וְלֹא תֵּאָסֵר אִשָּׁה עַל בַּעְלָהּ בָּזֶה שֶׁאֵין כָּאן זְנוּת. וְרָאוּי לְהַכּוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת הוֹאִיל וְעָשׂוּ אִסּוּר. וְיֵשׁ לָאִישׁ לְהַקְפִּיד עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ מִדָּבָר זֶה וּמוֹנֵעַ הַנָּשִׁים הַיְדוּעוֹת בְּכָךְ מִלְּהִכָּנֵס לָהּ וּמִלָּצֵאת הִיא אֲלֵיהֶן: \n", + "אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֻתֶּרֶת הִיא לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ עוֹשֶׂה. בּוֹעֵל בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וּמְנַשֵּׁק בְּכָל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. [וּבָא עָלֶיהָ כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ ] וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שֶׁלֹּא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לְכָךְ וְשֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת. וְלֹא יָסוּר מִדֶּרֶךְ הָעוֹלָם וּמִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁאֵין דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לִפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת: \n", + "אָסוּר לָאָדָם לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר וְהָיָה הַנֵּר דָּלוּק הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּלָל. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּיּוֹם. שֶׁעַזּוּת פָּנִים הִיא לוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ בְּכָךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מַאֲפִיל בְּטַלִּיתוֹ וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ. וְאֵין נִזְקָקִין לְדָבָר זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי צֹרֶךְ גָּדוֹל. וְדֶרֶךְ קְדֻשָּׁה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאֶמְצַע הַלַּיְלָה: \n", + "אֵין דַּעַת חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה לְמִי שֶׁהוּא מַרְבֶּה בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה וְיִהְיֶה מָצוּי אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּתַרְנְגוֹל. וּפָגוּם הוּא עַד מְאֹד וּמַעֲשֵׂה בּוּרִים הוּא. אֶלָּא כָּל הַמְמַעֵט בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְבַטֵּל עוֹנָה [אֶלָּא] מִדַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא תִּקְּנוּ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְאוּ בַּתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְמַעֵט בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה: \n", + "וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אָדָם מִטָּתוֹ וְלִבּוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב בְּאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת. וְלֹא יִבְעל מִתּוֹךְ שִׁכְרוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂנְאָה וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ עַל כָּרְחָהּ וְהִיא יְרֵאָה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְנֻדֶּה. וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן הַבָּנִים אֵינָן הֲגוּנִים אֶלָּא מֵהֶן עַזֵּי פָּנִים וּמֵהֶן מוֹרְדִים וּפוֹשְׁעִים: \n", + "וְכֵן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה חֲצוּפָה שֶׁהִיא תּוֹבַעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה בְּפִיהָ. אוֹ הַמְפַתֶּה אִשָּׁהּ לְשֵׁם נִשּׂוּאִין. אוֹ הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לָבוֹא עַל רָחֵל אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָא עַל לֵאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וַהֲרֵי הַבֵּן סָפֵק. כָּל אֵלּוּ הַבָּנִים הַיִּלּוֹדִים מֵהֶם הֵם הַמּוֹרְדִים וְהַפּוֹשְׁעִים שֶׁיִּסּוּרֵי הַגָּלוּת בּוֹרְרִין אוֹתָן: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם לָבֹא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ בַּשְּׁוָקִים וּבָרְחוֹבוֹת אוֹ בַּגַּנּוֹת וּבַפַּרְדֵּסִין אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּירָה. שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָאֶה כִּזְנוּת וְיַרְגִּילוּ עַצְמָם לִידֵי זְנוּת. וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְכֵן הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה וְהַמְקַדֵּשׁ בַּשּׁוּק וְהַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלֹא שִׁדּוּךְ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "וְאַכְסְנַאי אָסוּר בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה עַד שֶׁיַּחְזֹר לְבֵיתוֹ. וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַל הָאִישׁ שֶׁיָּדוּר בְּבֵית חָמִיו שֶׁזּוֹ עַזּוּת פָּנִים הִיא. וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ לְמֶרְחָץ: \n", + "וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס אָדָם עִם אָבִיו לַמֶּרְחָץ. וְלֹא עִם בַּעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ. וְלֹא עִם תַּלְמִידוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְתַלְמִידוֹ מֻתָּר. וְיֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים כְּאֶחָד לַמֶּרְחָץ: \n", + "לֹא יְהַלְּכוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ בַּשּׁוּק. אַחַת פְּנוּיָה וְאַחַת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וְלֹא תֵּלֵךְ אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק וּבְנָהּ אַחֲרֶיהָ גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִתְפְּשׂוּ בְּנָהּ וְתֵלֵךְ אַחֲרָיו לְהַחֲזִירוֹ וְיִתְעַלְּלוּ בָּהּ הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁתְּפָסוּהוּ דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק: \n", + "אָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה אָדָם דָּשׁ מִבִּפְנִים וְזוֹרֶה מִבַּחוּץ. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא קְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד. אֲבָל אֵלּוּ שֶׁמְּנָאֲפִין בַּיָּד וּמוֹצִיאִין שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לֹא דַּי לָהֶם שֶׁאִסּוּר גָּדוֹל הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה זֶה בְּנִדּוּי הוּא יוֹשֵׁב וַעֲלֵיהֶם נֶאֱמַר (ישעיה א טו) \"יְדֵיכֶם דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ\" וּכְאִלּוּ הָרַג הַנֶּפֶשׁ: \n", + "וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּקְשֶׁה עַצְמוֹ לְדַעַת אוֹ יָבִיא עַצְמוֹ לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. אֶלָּא אִם יָבוֹא לוֹ הִרְהוּר יַסִּיעַ לִבּוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי (וְהַשְׁחָתָה) לְדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה. שֶׁהִיא (משלי ה יט) \"אַיֶּלֶת אֲהָבִים וְיַעֲלַת חֵן\". לְפִיכָךְ אָסוּר לְאָדָם לִישֹׁן עַל עָרְפּוֹ וּפָנָיו לְמַעְלָה עַד שֶׁיִּטֶּה מְעַט כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי קִשּׁוּי: \n", + "וְלֹא יִסְתַּכֵּל בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמִּזְדַּקְקִין זָכָר לִנְקֵבָה. ומֻתָּר לְמַרְבִּיעֵי בְּהֵמָה לְהַכְנִיס כְּמִכְחוֹל בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן עֲסוּקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּן לֹא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי הִרְהוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בְּנָשִׁים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַכְּבִיסָה. אֲפִלּוּ לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בְּבִגְדֵי צֶמֶר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהוּא מַכִּירָהּ אָסוּר. שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר: \n", + "מִי שֶׁפָּגַע בְּאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק אָסוּר לוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא רָץ וּמְסַלְּקָהּ לַצְּדָדִין אוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו. וְכָל הַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק אַחֲרֵי אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה מִקַּלֵּי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ. וְאָסוּר לַעֲבֹר עַל פֶּתַח אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיַּרְחִיק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ה ח) \"וְאַל תִּקְרַב אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ\": \n", + "וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָשׂוּי לִשְׁלֹחַ יָדוֹ בִּמְבוּשָׁיו שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ מִתַּחַת טִבּוּרוֹ לֹא יַכְנִיס יָדוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וְאִם הִשְׁתִּין מַיִם לֹא יֶאֱחֹז בָּאַמָּה וְיַשְׁתִּין. וְאִם הָיָה נָשׂוּי מֻתָּר. וּבֵין נָשׂוּי וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָשׂוּי לֹא יוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לָאַמָּה כְּלָל אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִנְקָבָיו: \n", + "חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וּגְדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הִתְפָּאֵר אֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁמֵּעוֹלָם לֹא נִסְתַּכֵּל בַּמִּילָה שֶׁלּוֹ. וּמֵהֶן מִי שֶּׁהִתְפָּאֵר שֶׁלֹּא הִתְבּוֹנֵן מֵעוֹלָם בְּצוּרַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ פּוֹנֶה מִדִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי לְדִבְרֵי הָאֱמֶת שֶׁהֵן אוֹחֲזוֹת לְבַב הַקְּדוֹשִׁים: \n", + "מִצְוַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁיַּשִּׂיא אָדָם בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו סָמוּךְ לְפִרְקָן. שֶׁאִם יַנִּיחָן יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי זְנוּת אוֹ לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (איוב ה כד) \"וּפָקַדְתָּ נָוְךָ וְלֹא תֶחֱטָא\". וְאָסוּר לְהַשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לְקָטָן שֶׁזֶּה כְּמוֹ זְנוּת הִיא: \n", + "וְאֵין הָאִישׁ רַשַּׁאי לֵישֵׁב בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא עֲקָרָה וּזְקֵנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד. וּרְשׁוּת לָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְעוֹלָם אוֹ תִּנָּשֵׂא לְסָרִיס. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא בָּחוּר זְקֵנָה וְלֹא יִשָּׂא זָקֵן יַלְדָּה שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לִזְנוּת: \n", + "וְכֵן מִי שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין לֹא תָּדוּר עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי זְנוּת. וְאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן לֹא תָּדוּר עִמּוֹ בְּמָבוֹי. וּכְפָר קָטָן נִדּוֹן כְּמָבוֹי. הָיָה לָהּ מִלְוֶה אֶצְלוֹ עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְתָבְעוֹ. וּגְרוּשָׁה שֶׁבָּאָה עִם הַמְגָרֵשׁ לַדִּין מְנַדִּין אוֹתָן אוֹ מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְאִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין מֻתֶּרֶת לְתָבְעוֹ בַּדִּין וְלָדוּר עִמּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ אַף מִן הָאֵרוּסִין אָסוּר. וּמִי נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי מִי הִיא נִדְּחֵת מִפָּנָיו. וְאִם הָיְתָה הֶחָצֵר שֶׁלָּהּ הוּא יִדָּחֶה מִפָּנֶיהָ: \n", + "אָסוּר לְאָדָם לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה וְדַעְתּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג כט) \"אַל תַּחֲרשׁ עַל רֵעֲךָ רָעָה וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לָבֶטַח אִתָּךְ\". וְאִם הוֹדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָהּ לְיָמִים מֻתָּר: \n", + "וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ וְאִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁמָּא יַאֲרִיכוּ הַיָּמִים וְנִמְצָא אָח נוֹשֵׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ. וְאִם הָיָה אָדָם גָּדוֹל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ יָדוּעַ וַהֲרֵי זַרְעוֹ מְפֻרְסָמִין וִידוּעִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת מְצֹרָעִים וְלֹא מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת נִכְפִּין. וְהוּא שֶׁהֻחְזְקוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ בְּנֵיהֶם כָּךְ: \n", + "אִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לִשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים וָמֵתוּ. לִשְׁלִישִׁי לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְקַדְּשָׁה יִכְנֹס. וְלֹא יִשָּׂא יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁזֶּה כְּמוֹ חִלּוּל לְזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. וְאִם נָשָׂא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין זִוּוּגָן עוֹלֶה יָפֶה אֶלָּא מֵת בְּלֹא בָּנִים אוֹ מֵת הוּא אוֹ הִיא בִּמְהֵרָה אוֹ קְטָטָה תִּהְיֶה בֵּינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁנָּשָׂא כֹּהֶנֶת הֲרֵי זֶה נָאֶה וּמְשֻׁבָּח. הֲרֵי תּוֹרָה וּכְהֻנָּה כְּאֶחָד: \n", + "לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם בַּת עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאִם מֵת אוֹ גּוֹלֶה בָּנָיו עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיוּ שֶׁאֵין אִמָּן יוֹדַעַת כֶּתֶר הַתּוֹרָה. וְלֹא יַשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹתֵן בִּתּוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ כְּמִיִ שֶׁכְּפָתָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לִפְנֵי הָאֲרִי מַכֶּה וּבוֹעֵל וְאֵין לוֹ בּשֶׁת פָּנִים. וּלְעוֹלָם יִמְכֹּר אָדָם כָּל מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְיִשָּׂא בַּת תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאִם מֵת אוֹ גּוֹלֶה בָּנָיו תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. וְכֵן יַשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאֵין דָּבָר מְגֻנֶּה וְלֹא מְרִיבָה בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם: \n" + ], + [ + "אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת בֵּין זְקֵנָה בֵּין יַלְדָּה שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה. חוּץ מֵהָאֵם עִם בְּנָהּ וְהָאָב עִם בִּתּוֹ וְהַבַּעַל עִם אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה. וְחָתָן שֶׁפֵּרְסָה אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְעל אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אֶלָּא הִיא יְשֵׁנָה בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים וְהוּא יָשֵׁן בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים. וְאִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמֵאת מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ: \n", + "לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם נִתְרַחֵק אֲפִלּוּ מִיִּחוּד זָכוּר וּבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וּגְדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הָיוּ מַרְחִיקִין הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְיַחֲדוּ עִמָּהּ. וְאִסּוּר יִחוּד הָעֲרָיוֹת מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה: \n", + "כְּשֶׁאֵרַע מַעֲשֶׂה אַמְנוֹן וְתָמָר גָּזַר דָּוִד וּבֵית דִּינוֹ עַל יִחוּד פְּנוּיָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֶרְוָה בִּכְלַל יִחוּד עֲרָיוֹת הִיא. וְשַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל גָּזְרוּ עַל יִחוּד כּוּתִית. נִמְצָא כָּל הַמִּתְיַחֵד עִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית בֵּין כּוּתִית מַכִּין אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת הָאִישׁ וְהָאִשָּׁה. וּמַכְרִיזִין עֲלֵיהֶן. חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אִם נִתְיַחֵד אֵין לוֹקִין. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לַעַז עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה וְנִמְצְאוּ מוֹצִיאִין לַעַז עַל הַבָּנִים שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים: \n", + "כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִתְיַחֵד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ. אֲבָל לֹא תִּתְיַחֵד יִשְׂרְאֵלִית עִם הַכּוּתִי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל כּוּתִי מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ וְאֵין לָהֶן בּוּשָׁה: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵין מוֹסְרִין תִּינוֹק יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכוּתִי לְלַמְּדוֹ סֵפֶר וּלְלַמְּדוֹ אָמָּנוּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּן חֲשׁוּדִין עַל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר. וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפֻנְדָּקִיּוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים וַאֲפִלּוּ זְכָרִים אֵצֶל זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת: \n", + "וְאֵין מוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף לְרוֹעֶה כּוּתִי אֲפִלּוּ זְכָרִים לְכוּתִים וּנְקֵבוֹת לְכוּתִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּן חֲשׁוּדִין עַל הַרְבָּעַת בְּהֵמָה וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין בְּזָכוּר וּבִבְהֵמָה וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יד) \"וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל\": \n", + "וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה נְקֵבָה לְכוּתִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכֻּלָּן בְּחֶזְקַת נוֹאֲפִים וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַנּוֹאֵף לִשְׁכַּב עִם הַכּוּתִית זוֹ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָאֶנָּה וְיִשְׁכַּב עִם הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יִמְצָאֶנָּה יִשְׁכַּב עִם הַבְּהֵמָה: \n", + "לֹא תִּתְיַחֵד אִשָּׁה אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ עִם אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם שָׁם. וְכֵן לֹא יִתְיַחֵד אִישׁ אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ עִם נָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה. נָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה עִם אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְיִחוּד. הָיוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִבַּחוּץ וְהַנָּשִׁים מִבִּפְנִים אוֹ הָאֲנָשִׁים מִבִּפְנִים וְהַנָּשִׁים מִבַּחוּץ וּפֵרְשָׁה אִשָּׁה אַחַת לְבֵין הָאֲנָשִׁים אוֹ אִישׁ לְבֵין הַנָּשִׁים אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד. אֲפִלּוּ אִישׁ שֶׁעִסְקוֹ וּמְלַאכְתּוֹ עִם הַנָּשִׁים אָסוּר לוֹ לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם הַנָּשִׁים. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִתְעַסֵּק עִמָּהֶן וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ אוֹ יִפְנֶה לִמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת: \n", + "מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. אוֹ עִם שְׁתֵּי צָרוֹת. אוֹ עִם אִשָּׁה וַחֲמוֹתָהּ. אוֹ עִם אִשָּׁה וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. אוֹ עִם אִשָּׁה וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשּׂוֹנְאוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ וְאֵין מְחַפּוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ. וְכֵן מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ תִּינֹקֶת קְטַנָּה שֶׁיּוֹדַעַת טַעַם בִּיאָה וְאֵינָהּ מוֹסֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ לְבִיאָה. שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְזַנָּה בְּפָנֶיהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי זוֹ מְגַלָּה אֶת סוֹדָהּ: \n", + "תִּינֹקֶת מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ וּלְמַטָּה וְתִינוֹק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע וּלְמַטָּה מֻתָּר לְהִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהֶן. שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל יִחוּד אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לְבִיאָה וְאִישׁ הָרָאוּי לְבִיאָה: \n", + "אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵינוֹ מִתְיַחֵד עִם הַנָּשִׁים. וְאִם נִתְיַחֵד אֵין מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. אֲבָל הָאִישׁ מִתְיַחֵד עִם הָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְעִם הַטֻּמְטוּם: \n", + "אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ בָּעִיר אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְיִחוּד. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵימַת בַּעְלָהּ עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיָה זֶה גַּס בָּהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּדְלָה עִמּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְרוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבַּעְלָהּ בָּעִיר. וְכֵן כָּל הַמִּתְיַחֵד עִם אִשָּׁה וְהָיָה הַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה לֹא יְלַמֵּד תִּינוֹקוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִמּוֹת הַבָּנִים בָּאוֹת לְבֵית הַסֵּפֶר לִבְנֵיהֶם וְנִמְצָא מִתְגָּרֶה בְּנָשִׁים. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה לֹא תְּלַמֵּד קְטַנִּים מִפְּנֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בִּגְלַל בְּנֵיהֶם וְנִמְצְאוּ מִתְיַחֲדִים עִמָּהּ. וְאֵין הַמְלַמֵּד צָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁרוּיָה עִמּוֹ בְּבֵית הַסֵּפֶר אֶלָּא הִיא בְּבֵיתָהּ וְהוּא מְלַמֵּד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", + "תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּהְיֶינָה הַנָּשִׁים מְסַפְּרוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס שָׁם אִישׁ מִשּׁוּם יִחוּד: \n", + "אֵין מְמַנִּין אֲפִלּוּ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן וְכָשֵׁר לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹמֵר חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם נָשִׁים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ שֶׁאֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת. וְאָסוּר לְאָדָם לְמַנּוֹת אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַנְהִיג אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה: \n", + "אָסוּר לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם לִשְׁכֹּן בְּחָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אַלְמָנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן אַלְמָנָה אֲסוּרָה לְגַדֵּל כֶּלֶב מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד. וְלֹא תִּקְנֶה אִשָּׁה עֲבָדִים זְכָרִים אֲפִלּוּ קְטַנִּים מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד: \n", + "אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּסִתְרֵי עֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאֶחָד טָרוּד בִּשְׁאֵלַת הָרַב וְהַשְּׁנַיִם נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְאֵין דַּעְתָּם פְּנוּיָה לִשְׁמֹעַ. שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְרוֹבָה אֵצֶל עֲרָיוֹת. אִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁמַע מוֹרֶה לְהָקֵל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לִשְׁנַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מְפַנֶּה דַּעְתּוֹ וְיוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׁמַע מִן הָרַב: \n", + "אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁהוּא קָשֶׁה לְרֹב הָעָם לִפְרשׁ אֶלָּא מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת וְהַבִּיאוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת בָּכוּ וְקִבְּלוּ מִצְוָה זוֹ בְּתַרְעוֹמוֹת וּבְכִיָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא י) \"בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו\" עַל עִסְקֵי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת: \n", + "וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים גֵּזֶל וַעֲרָיוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמְּדָתָן. וְאֵין אַתָּה מוֹצֵא קָהָל בְּכָל זְמַן וּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן פְּרוּצִין בַּעֲרָיוֹת וּבִיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. [וְעוֹד] אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים רֹב בְּגֵזֶל מִעוּט בַּעֲרָיוֹת וְהַכּל בַּאֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי לוֹ לְאָדָם לָכֹף יִצְרוֹ בְּדָבָר זֶה וּלְהַרְגִּיל עַצְמוֹ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה יְתֵרָה וּבְמַחֲשָׁבָה טְהוֹרָה וּבְדֵעָה נְכוֹנָה כְּדֵי לְהִנָּצֵל מֵהֶן. וְיִזָּהֵר מִן הַיִּחוּד שֶׁהוּא הַגּוֹרֵם הַגָּדוֹל. גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים לְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּי מִפְּנֵי בִּתִּי הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּי מִפְּנֵי כַּלָּתִי. כְּדֵי לְלַמֵּד לְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִתְבַּיְּשׁוּ מִדָּבָר זֶה וְיִתְרַחֲקוּ מִן הַיִּחוּד: \n", + "וְכֵן יִנְהֹג לְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הַשְּׂחוֹק וּמִן הַשִּׁכְרוּת וּמִדִּבְרֵי עֲגָבִים שֶׁאֵלּוּ גּוֹרְמִין גְּדוֹלִים וְהֵם מַעֲלוֹת שֶׁל עֲרָיוֹת. וְלֹא יֵשֵׁב בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה שֶׁמִּנְהָג זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְטָהֳרָה יְתֵרָה. גְּדוֹלָה מִכָּל זֹאת אָמְרוּ יַפְנֶה עַצְמוֹ וּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ לְדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה וְיַרְחִיב דַּעְתּוֹ בַּחָכְמָה שֶׁאֵין מַחְשֶׁבֶת עֲרָיוֹת מִתְגַּבֶּרֶת אֶלָּא בְּלֵב פָּנוּי מִן הַחָכְמָה. וּבַחָכְמָה הוּא אוֹמֵר (משלי ה יט) \"אַיֶּלֶת אֲהָבִים וְיַעֲלַת חֵן דַּדֶּיהָ יְרַוֵּךָ בְכָל עֵת בְּאַהֲבָתָהּ תִּשְׁגֶּה תָמִיד\": \n" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bf17e6847ddd48fe15bfd5b0ed0a590f51d9f5a --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967.json @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108864", + "versionTitle": "Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, edited by Philip Birnbaum, New York, 1967", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "digitizedBySefaria": true, + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה להרמב״ם, נערך בידי פיליפ בירנבאום, ניו יורק 1967", + "shortVersionTitle": "Philip Birnbaum, 1967", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/5461d96b1450aa174505915af1fb03d5.png", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "The biblical positive command is that if anyone wishes to eat the meat of cattle, beasts or birds, he must first perform the rite of sheḥitah; only thereafter he may eat it, as it is written: \"You shall slaughter any of your cattle or sheep\" (Deuteronomy 12:21).— —", + "", + "", + "This mode of slaughtering, which is spoken of in the Torah indefinitely, must be explained, so as to know on what organ of the animal sheḥitah is performed; what is the extent of sheḥitah; with what instrument, when, where and how sheḥitah is executed; what things invalidate sheḥitah; and who may serve as a shoḥet. All these details are implied in the biblical command, which states: \"You shall slaughter any of your cattle or sheep … as I have instructed you, and you may eat to your heart's content in your settlements.\" All these details were commanded orally, like the rest of the Oral Torah which is referred to as Mitzvah (commandment), as we have explained in the introduction to this work.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "With what is sheḥitah performed? With any instrument, whether it is a metal knife or a flint, a piece of glass or a shell of reed, and similar things that cut, provided that the edge is sharp and without a notch. If, however, there was something like a ridge on the edge of the sheḥitah instrument, even the smallest perceptible ridge, the sheḥitah is defective.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "The shoḥet must examine the edge of the knife and both sides. How should he examine it? He should first pass the finger and then the finger-nail along its three sides, namely the edge and both sides, to make sure that it is without any notch whatever. After that, he may use it for sheḥitah.", + "The shoḥet must again examine the knife after sheḥitah in a like manner, because if he should discover a notch in it after sheḥitah, it would be a doubtful case of nevelah: the knife may have become notched inside the hide, so that when he cut the windpipe and the gullet he did so with a defective knife. Accordingly, the person who slaughters several animals or several birds must examine the knife after each of them. If he failed to do so, and upon examining the knife at the end of the sheḥitah it was discovered to be defective, all the animals are regarded as doubtful cases of nevelah, even the first.", + "", + "", + "", + "When may sheḥitah be performed? At any time, day or night, as long as the shoḥet has a torch with him, so that he can see what he is doing. If he performed sheḥitah in the dark, it is valid nevertheless." + ], + [], + [ + "There are five things that spoil the sheḥitah act, and the essential sheḥitah requirement is to be cautious about each. They are: delay, pressing, digging, slipping, and tearing.", + "What is meant by delay? If a man began the sheḥitah act and before finishing it he raised his hand and paused, whether unintentionally or intentionally, or under compulsion, and then he or another person completed it, his sheḥitah is defective if he delayed as much time as would be required to raise the animal and make it lie down and slaughter it; but if he delayed less than that, his sheḥitah act is valid.", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "What is meant by digging? If, for example, he inserted the knife between the windpipe and the gullet, it is immaterial whether he cut through the upper tube upward or the lower tube downward, which is the mode of sheḥitah, it is defective.", + "", + "What is meant by pressing? If, for example, he struck the neck with a knife, as it is done with a sword, and cut the tubes with a single stroke, without passing the knife forward and backward, or if he placed the knife on the neck and pressed it downward and cut through the tubes as one would cut radish or cucumber, it is defective.", + "What is meant by slipping? If the shoḥet cut in a slanting direction, upward the windpipe, a place which is improper for sheḥitah.— —", + "", + "What is meant by tearing? If, for instance, the windpipe or the gullet was torn out or removed from its regular position before the completion of the sheḥitah act. If, however, he cut through one tube of a bird, or most of it, and then the second tube became detached, his sheḥitah is valid." + ], + [ + "", + "", + "If a Jewish person already knows the sheḥitah laws, he should nevertheless refrain from performing the sheḥitah act when all by himself, but should perform it in the presence of an expert many times until he becomes experienced and skillful. If, however, he did perform it all by himself, his sheḥitah is valid.", + "If a person who is familiar with the sheḥitah laws has performed the act of sheḥitah in the presence of an expert till he has gained experience, he is called expert. All experts may perform sheḥitah by themselves from the start. Even women and slaves, if they are experts, may perform sheḥitah from the start (that is, their sheḥitah performance is absolutely legitimate).", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "", + "Those Sadducees and Boethusians, their disciples and all who go astray after them, who do not believe in the Oral Torah, the sheḥitah they perform is invalid. If, however, they perform it in our presence, it is legitimate; their sheḥitah is prohibited only because they are likely to perform it wrongly. Since they do not believe in the sheḥitah regulations, they cannot be trusted when they say \"we have not acted wrongly.\"" + ], + [ + "We have already explained, among the laws concerning forbidden foods, that the biblical term terefah refers to an animal on the verge of death; the word terefah is used only because Scripture speaks of ordinary experience, as when a lion or some other beast has mauled an animal, and it is not yet dead.", + "There are other diseases, if they occur to an animal, it is to be regarded as terefah. These rules were handed down to Moses at Sinai.— —" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3386818fc5965c8785643132038a050ad67b0079 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007.json @@ -0,0 +1,337 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI", + "versionTitle": "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 2.0, + "license": "CC-BY-NC", + "versionNotes": "\n Dedicated in memory of Irving Montak, z\"l

© Published and Copyright by Moznaim Publications.
Must obtain written permission from Moznaim Publications for any commercial use. Any use must cite Copyright by Moznaim Publications. Released into the commons with a CC-BY-NC license.\n ", + "digitizedBySefaria": false, + "shortVersionTitle": "Trans. by Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing", + "purchaseInformationImage": "https://storage.googleapis.com/sefaria-physical-editions/touger-mishneh-torah-hilkhot-teshuvah-purchase-img.png", + "purchaseInformationURL": "https://moznaim.com/products/mishneh-torah-rambam", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment1Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 451) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As mentioned at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah, the Ra'avad differs and does not consider this a mitzvah. for one who desires to partake of the meat of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl to slaughter [it] and then partake of it,2The Rambam's wording echo his statements in Hilchot Berachot 11:2: \"There are other mitzvot that are not obligations, but resemble voluntary activities, for example, the mitzvah of mezuzah.... A person is not obligated to dwell in a house that requires a mezuzah in order to fulfill this mitzvah.\" Similarly, in the instance at hand, a person is not obligated to slaughter. If, however, he desires to eat meat, he must fulfill this mitzvah. as [Deuteronomy 12:21] states: \"And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your sheep.\" And with regard to a firstborn animal with a blemish,3Note the Kessef Mishneh who elaborates, explaining that although Rashi does not interpret the verse in the same manner the Rambam does, there is support for the Rambam's interpretation. [ibid.:22] states: \"As one would partake of a deer and a gazelle.\" From this, we learn that a wild beast is [governed by] the same [laws] as a domesticated animal with regard to ritual slaughter.
And with regard to a fowl, [Leviticus 17:13] states: \"that will snare a beast or a fowl as prey... and shed its blood.\" This teaches that shedding the blood of a fowl is analogous to shedding the blood of a wild beast.4I.e., in both instances, ritual slaughter is required. The Kessef Mishneh notes that Chulin 27b derives this equivalence from another source and explains why the Rambam cites this verse instead.", + "The laws governing ritual slaughter are the same in all instances.5See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who explains that there are some differences between the laws governing the slaughter of each of these types of animals. Therefore one who slaughters a domesticated animal, beast, or fowl should first6For the blessings for all mitzvot must be recited before their observance (Pesachim 7b). recite the blessing: \"[Blessed...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning7We do not, however, say \"to slaughter,\" for, as above, the mitzvah to slaughter is not obligatory. It is dependent on the person's desire (Hilchot Berachot 11:15). ritual slaughter.\" If he did not recite a blessing, either consciously or inadvertently, the meat is permitted.8For after the fact, the recitation of the blessings is not essential (Kessef Mishneh).
It is forbidden to partake of a slaughtered animal throughout the time it is in its death throes.9Partaking of the meat at this time does not, however, represent a transgression of the prohibitions against eating a limb or flesh from a living animal (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 5). For once the animal has been slaughtered, these prohibitions no longer apply. When a person partakes of it before it dies, he transgresses a negative commandment. [This act] is included in the prohibition [Leviticus 19:26]: \"Do not eat upon the blood.\" He does not, however, receive lashes.10This prohibition is considered as a prohibition of a general nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3), i.e., prohibitions that include several diverse and unrelated acts, and lashes are not given for the violation of such prohibitions.
It is permitted to cut meat from it after it has been ritually slaughtered, but before it dies. That meat should be salted thoroughly, washed thoroughly,11The Rambam's words provoke a question: Of course, this meat must be salted thoroughly as must all meat so that its blood will be removed (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:10). Why would one think that this meat is different?
It would appear that the explanation is that other meat may be eaten if it is roasted or its blood sealed by being cast into vinegar (ibid.:12) and these options do not apply with regard to the meat in question. and left until the animal dies. Afterwards, it may be eaten.", + "Fish and locusts need not be slaughtered. Instead, gathering them causes them to be permitted to be eaten. [This is indicated by Numbers 11:22]: \"Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them that will suffice them? If all the fish of the sea would be gathered for them....\" This indicates that gathering fish is like slaughtering cattle and sheep. And with regard to locusts, [Isaiah 33:4] states: \"the gathering of the locusts,\" i.e., gathering alone [is sufficient]. Therefore if fish die naturally in the water, they are permitted.12One might think that man would have to gather them alive for them to be permitted. Hence the Rambam emphasizes that this is not so (Kessef Mishneh). The general principle is: Whenever the mitzvah of ritual slaughter does not apply, the prohibitions against eating flesh from a living animal and eating a dead animal do not apply. And it is permitted to eat them while they are alive.13The commentaries note that Shabbat 90b states that one who eats a live locust violates the prohibition: \"Do not make your souls detestable.\" [See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:1) who issues a similar warning with regard to partaking of live fish.) How then can the Rambam say that it is permitted?
Among the resolutions of this question are:
a) The passage in Shabbat refers only to a non-kosher locust, not a kosher one.
b) The Rambam, here, is saying that one may cut off part of a living locust and eat it, but not that one may eat an entire locust alive.
c) Here the Rambam is speaking with regard to the laws regarding ritual slaughter. He is not focusing on those involving other prohibitions.", + "The slaughter which the Torah mentions without elaboration must be explained so that we know: a) which place in the animal is [appropriate] for ritual slaughter?, b) what is the measure of the slaughtering process?, c) with what do we slaughter?, d) when do we slaughter?, e) in which place [on the animal's neck] do we slaughter? f) how do we slaughter, g) what factors disqualify the slaughter? h) who can slaughter?14In the following chapters, the Rambam proceeds to answer all of these questions.
We were commanded concerning all of these factors in the Torah with the verse [Deuteronomy 12:21]: \"And you shall slaughter from your cattle... as I commanded you.\" All of these factors were commanded to us orally as is true with regard to the remainder of the Oral Law which is called \"the mitzvah,\" as we explained in the beginning of this text.15I.e., in the Introduction that precedes Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. There the Rambam explains that the Oral Law is called \"the mitzvah,\" because it gives us instruction concerning the observance of the mitzvot. Without it, we would not know how to fulfill them.", + "The place where an animal should be slaughtered is the neck. The entire neck is acceptable for slaughtering.
What is implied? With regard to the gullet,16As will be explained in Halachah 9, ritual slaughter involves cutting the gullet and the windpipe. In this halachah, the Rambam defines where the gullet may be cut. from the beginning of the place where when it is cut, it contracts until the place where hair grows17In contrast to the surface of the gullet which is smooth. and it begins appearing fissured like the stomach, this is the place of slaughter with regard to the gullet.", + "If one slaughters above this place - in the area called the entrance to the gullet18I.e., the end of the throat, where it is attached to the jaw.. - or below this place - i.e., the beginning of the digestive system, the slaughter is unacceptable.19The animal is considered a nevelah and it is forbidden to partake of it. See Chapter 3, Halachah 18 (Kessef Mishneh, note Siftei Cohen 20:5).
The measure of the entrance to the gullet above which is unfit for slaughter in an animal or a beast is so one can grab it with two fingers.20This is the Rambam's interpretation of Chulin 44a. Rashi interprets that passage as referring to a space the size of four fingers. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 20:2) follows the Rambam's understanding, while the Rama cites that of Rashi. With regard to a fowl, it depends on its size. The lower limit extends until the crop.21The first of the fowl's stomachs. The crop is not considered part of the gullet and it is forbidden to slaughter there.", + "Where is the place of slaughter with regard to the windpipe? From the slant of its cap22The windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Above the top ring, there is a slanted covering that is called the cap. downward until the beginning of the flank of the lung when the animal extends its neck to pasture,23When the animal extends its neck, the flanks of its lungs rise upward. this is the place of slaughter with regard to the windpipe. The area opposite this place on the outside is called the neck.", + "When the animal strained itself and extended its neck exceedingly or the slaughterer applied exertion to the signs and extended them upward, but slaughtered in the neck at the place of slaughter, there is an unresolved doubt24See Chulin 45a which discusses these questions but leaves them unresolved. whether [the animal] is a nevelah. For the place where the gullet and windpipe were cut is not the place where [the animal] is [usually] slaughtered.25I.e., the place of slaughter on the neck should be aligned with the place of slaughter on the windpipe and the gullet in their natural position. In this instance, the external place of slaughter - the position on the neck - was correct, but the signs were not cut in the usual place.", + "The slaughterer must slaughter in the center of the neck. If he slaughters to the side, it is acceptable.26This applies only after the fact. At the outset, one must slaughter in the center of the neck.
What is the measure of slaughter? That one [cut] the two identifying marks, the windpipe and the gullet.27Since the acceptability of the slaughter is dependent on them, they are referred to as the simanim, \"signs,\" i.e., indications that the slaughter is acceptable. Superior slaughter involves cutting both of them, whether for an animal or a fowl and a slaughterer should have this intent. [After the fact,] if one cut the majority of one of them for a fowl and the majority of both of them for an animal or a beast, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "When one cut one sign entirely and half28But not the majority. of the other sign when slaughtering an animal, his slaughter is unacceptable. If he cut the majority of both signs, even though in each instance he cuts only a hair's breadth more than half, it is acceptable. Since he cut even the slightest amount more than half,29See the Turei Zahav 21:2 who emphasizes that the difference in size need not be significant. As long as more than half is cut, the slaughter is acceptable. he has cut the majority.", + "If he cut half30But no more than half. of one and half of the other - even in a fowl - the slaughter is unacceptable. When a windpipe is half slit31This is speaking about a situation where the animal is alive. The fact that an animal's windpipe is slit slightly does not cause it to be considered as a trefe. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 21:5) adds that we must be careful that the gullet has not been punctured, for that would render the animal trefe. See the Turei Zahav 21:4 and the Siftei Cohen 21:5 who debate whether it is possible to rely on this leniency at present. See also Chapter 3, Halchot 6-7. and one cut a little more on the place of the slit, making the cut a majority, the slaughter is acceptable. [This applies] whether one begins [on a portion of the windpipe] that is intact and reaches the slit or one inserts the knife into the slit and [increases its size until it] reaches the majority.", + "Every slaughterer must check the signs after he slaughters.32To make sure that the minimal measure for slaughter was slit. If he did not check and the animal's head was cut off before he could check,33Obviously, once the head is cut off, it is no longer possible to check. [the animal] is [considered] a nevelah.34Because of the doubt involved. See the following halachah. [This applies even] if the slaughterer was adroit and expert.", + "During its lifetime, every animal is considered to be forbidden until it is definitely known that it was slaughtered in an acceptable manner.35This is the rationale for the stringency stated in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).", + "With what can we slaughter? With any entity, with a metal knife, a flint, glass, the edge of a bulrush,36The Kessef Mishneh notes that many marsh plants splinter easily and they are unacceptable for they will perforate the gullet. or the like among the entities that cut. [This applies] provided its edge is sharp and does not have a barb. If, however, there was a spike at the edge of the entity with which one slaughters, even if the spike is very small,37Generally, it is accepted that a spike that can be detected by a fingernail disqualifies an animal. Nevertheless, the Rambam appears to be referring to an even smaller measure. His approach is followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:2) which speaks of a spike that is even the size of a hairsbreadth being sufficient to disqualify a knife.
Alternatively, it can be understood that the two are synanomous. This understanding is reflected by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14 which speaks about \"a stone being blemished so that a fingernail would become caught in it like a knife used for ritual slaughter.\" the slaughter is unacceptable.38For the spike will perforate the gullet, rendering the animal trefe before the slaughter was completed (Maggid Mishneh).", + "If the spike was on only one side of the knife, one should not slaughter with it [at the outset]. [After the fact,] if one slaughtered with it using the side on which the blemish was not detectable, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "What is implied? There was a knife that was checked by passing it [over one's finger] and no blemish was felt on it, but when one drew it back, one felt that it had a blemish. If one slaughtered with it by passing it forwards and did not draw it back, the slaughter is acceptable. If one drew it back, the slaughter is unacceptable.39The commentaries offer two explanations for this ruling. The Rambam's position is that when the spike is felt only on one side of the knife, one may slaughter with that side. Others add that the blemish must be positioned to the very far end of the knife, either near its point or near its handle. In such an instance, it is possible that the blemish never actually touched the signs and thus did not disqualify the ritual slaughter. See Shulchan Aruch [Yoreh De'ah and Rama (18:4)].", + "When a knife ascends and descends [in a curve] like a snake40Who raises his head and tail, creating a curve for its body (Kessef Mishneh). but does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option. When the edge of a knife is smooth, but is not sharp, one may slaughter with it, since it does not have a blemish.41Since it does not have a blemish, it will not disqualify the signs. Even though one passes it back and forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed], the slaughter is acceptable.42Provided one does not interrupt the slaughter in the middle as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.", + "When a sharp knife has been whetted, but its [blade] is not smooth, instead, touching it is like touching the tip of an ear of grain which becomes snarled on one's finger, [nevertheless,] since it does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it.43The Rama (Yoreh De'ah18:6) writes that since it is difficult to understand what exactly is meant by such a knife, we do not permit this leniency.", + "When a person uproots a reed or a tooth or cuts off a flint or a nail, if they are sharp and do not have a blemish, one may slaughter with them.44As apparent from Halachah 14. If one stuck them into the ground, one should not slaughter with them while they are stuck into the ground. [After the fact,] if one slaughtered [in such a situation],45For example, by passing the animal's neck back and forth below the knife [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 6:4)]. one's slaughter is acceptable.46As indicated by the following halachah, an entity may not be used for ritual slaughter if it is connected to its source. When an entity is stuck into the ground, it is not connected to its source and hence, after the fact, the slaughter is acceptable. Nevertheless, because of the similarity to the forbidden situation, initially, one should not use such an entity for slaughter.", + "When one slaughtered with these entities when they were connected from the beginning of their existence, before they were uprooted, the slaughter is unacceptable47Chulin 16a states that it is a Scriptural decree that the cutting edge used for slaughter must be a separate entity, something that one could take in his hand. even if they do not have a blemish.", + "If one took the jawbone of an animal that had sharp teeth and slaughtered with it, it is unacceptable, for they are like a sickle.48I.e., a blade with a jagged edge which is unacceptable as stated above. When, however, only one tooth is fixed in a jaw, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option, even though it is set in the jaw.49Since the jaw as a whole is moveable, we are not concerned with the fact that the tooth is in a fixed position (Kessef Mishneh).", + "When one made a knife white-hot in fire and slaughtered with it, the slaughter is acceptable.50We do not say that rather than cut the signs, the knife burnt them. The latter would disqualify the slaughter.
It must be noted that the Tur (see also the gloss of the Radbaz) quotes the Rambam as ruling that the slaughter is unacceptable for the above reason. This approach is also followed by many other Rishonim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam rules that the slaughter is acceptable. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 9:1), however, he quotes both views without stating which should be followed. All authorities agree that such a knife should not be used as an initial and preferred option. If one side of a knife is [jagged-edge like] a sickle and the other side is desirable, [i.e., smooth,] one should not slaughter with the desirable side as an initial and preferred measure. [This is] a decree lest one slaughter with the other side. If one slaughtered [with it], since one slaughtered with the desirable side, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "A slaughterer must check the knife at its tip and at both of its sides [before slaughtering]. How must he check it? He must pass it over and draw it back over the flesh of his finger and pass it over and draw it back51Using the same motions as he would use to slaughter an animal. over his fingernail on three edges, i.e., its tip and both of its sides so that it will not have a blemish at all. [Only] afterwards, should he slaughter with it.", + "It must [also] be inspected in this manner after slaughter.52The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that after ritual slaughter, no inspection is necessary unless the person desires to use the knife to slaughter another animal immeidately. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro justifies the Rambam's ruling and he cites it in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:3). For if a blemish is discovered on it afterwards, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.53This ruling also depends on the principle stated in Halachah 13, that during its lifetime, an animal is forbidden. Hence it is not permitted unless we are certain that it was slaughtered in a proper manner (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen 18:2). For perhaps [the knife] became blemished [when cutting] the skin and when he cut the signs, he cut them with a blemished knife.54And this would cause the slaughter to be unacceptable as mentioned above.
For this reason, when a person slaughters many animals or many fowl,55The Kessef Mishneh notes that since the skin of a fowl is soft, it is not very probable that this caused the blemish on the knife. Nevertheless, our Sages adopted this stringency. he must inspect [the knife] between each [slaughter]. For if he did not check, and then checked [after slaughtering] the last one and discovered [the knife] to be blemished, there is an unresolved doubt whether all of them - even the first - are nevelot56See Chapter 3, Halachah 18, for the ramifications of this ruling. or not.57I.e., it is possible that the knife could have become blemished when cutting the skin of the first animal. Hence, that animal - and all the subsequent ones - were slaughtered with an unacceptable knife.", + "When one inspected a knife, slaughtered with it, but did not inspect it after slaughtering, and then used it to break a bone, a piece of wood, or the like, and afterwards, inspected it and discovered it to be unacceptable, his slaughter is acceptable. [The rationale is that] the prevailing assumption is that the knife became blemished on the hard entity which it was used to break.58Since he checked the knife at the outset and it was acceptable, we rely on probability. As long as we have a way of explaining how the knife was blemished, we do not say it was blemished on the animal's skin, for the likelihood of that happening is very low. Similarly, if one was negligent and did not check his knife [after slaughtering] or the knife was lost before it could be checked, the slaughter is acceptable.59Here also, since the knife was inspected initially, there is no reason to suspect that the slaughter was unacceptable, we do not disqualify it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:12)] .", + "Whenever a slaughterer60This is referring to a slaughterer who slaughters on behalf of people at large, not only for his own private purposes. does not have the knife with which he slaughters inspected by a wise man61The Radbaz notes that the Rambam's words appear to differ slightly from the simple meaning of Chullin 18a, his source. From Chullin, it appears that the necessity to show the knife to the wise man is a mere token of respect, while from the Rambam it appears that it is a necessary safeguard to check that the slaughter is kosher.
The difference between these approaches can lead to a variance in practice. If we say that this inspection is merely for the sake of respect, then the sages may forgo the respect due them and allow an expert to slaughter even though he does not present his knife. If, however, it is a necessary precaution to insure that the slaughter is performed correctly, an inspection is always necessary.
Both of these perspectives have continued to be given emphasis throughout the Rabbinic literature, although the halachah as prescribed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:17) is that a sage may forgo the honor due him. The present custom in many slaughtering houses today is for the slaughterers to work in pairs and for one to check the knife of the other. At times, a visiting Rabbinic authority comes and he inspects the knives of all of the slaughterers. and uses it to slaughter for himself, we inspect it. If it is discovered to be desirable [and passes] the examination, we, nevertheless, place him under a ban of ostracism [lest] he rely on himself on another occasion and then the knife will be blemished, but he will still slaughter with it. If [upon examination] the knife is discovered to be blemished, he is removed from his position and placed under a ban of ostracism. We pronounce all the meat that he slaughtered to be unacceptable.62I.e., we assume that not only on this occasion, but on others, he slaughtered using an unacceptable knife, thus disqualifying the meat.", + "How long must the knife with which one slaughters be? Even the slightest length, provided it is not [overly] thin to the extent that it pierces and does not slit63As will be explained, ritual slaughter is accomplished by drawing the knife back and forth across the neck. If a knife is two small to enable this, it should not be used [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 8:1)]. like the head of a blade or the like.64See the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 24:2) who quotes opinions that require a knife used to slaughter a animal to be twice the length of the animal's neck. The custom is also to use a knife of such measure for a fowl.", + "When can one slaughter? Any time, whether during the day or during the night, provided that [at night] he has a torch65Two candles are considered a torch [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 11:1)]. with him so that he sees what he is doing.66Otherwise, it is possible that the animal will be slaughtered incorrectly without him realizing. If a person slaughters in darkness, his slaughter is acceptable.67Nevertheless, it is forbidden to do so as an initial and preferred option [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 11:1)].", + "When a person inadvertently slaughters on Yom Kippur or the Sabbath,68I.e., he was not aware that the day was either the Sabbath or Yom Kippur; alternatively, he did not know that it was forbidden to slaughter on these holy days. his slaughter is acceptable,69The Turei Zahav 11:2 states that one must, nevertheless, wait until the conclusion of the Sabbath or Yom Kippur before partaking of the meat, as is the law when one cooks on the Sabbath. even though were he to have been acting willfully he would be liable for his life70For slaughtering on the Sabbath. or for lashes [for slaughtering] on Yom Kippur.71If he does so intentionally, he is considered as an apostate who desecrates the Sabbath and his slaughter is disqualified (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chullin 1:1; see Chapter 4, Halachah 14). The Siftei Cohen 11:3 states that in certain instances the leniency would also apply if he slaughters intentionally." + ], + [ + "It is permitted to slaughter an animal in any place except the Temple courtyard. For only animals consecrated for [sacrifice on the altar] may be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Ordinary animals, by contrast, whether domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl, are forbidden to be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Similarly, [Deuteronomy 12:21] states with regard to meat [which man] desires [to eat]:1This is the term the Sifri to the above verse and other Rabbinic texts use to describe ordinary meat in contrast to animals offered as sacrifices. \"When the place that God will choose will be distant from you... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep... and you shall eat in your gates.\" One may infer that meat [which man] desires [to eat] may be slaughtered only outside \"the place that God will choose.\"", + "[Meat from animals] slaughtered outside this [holy] place is permitted to be eaten everywhere. If, however, one slaughters an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, that meat is ritually pure,2Since the slaughter was acceptable, the animal is not considered as a nevelah. Hence it does not impart ritual impurity. but it is forbidden to benefit from it like meat mixed with milk and the like. It must be buried; [if it is burnt,] its ashes are forbidden [to be used].3See Hilchot Pesulei HaMekudashim 19:13-14.
[The above applies] even if one slaughters for healing purposes,4Without intending to partake of the meat. I.e., using the meat for this or the following purposes is forbidden. to feed a gentile, or to feed dogs. If, however, one cuts off an animal's head in the Temple courtyard, one rips the signs from their place, a gentile slaughters, [a Jew] slaughters, but the animal was discovered to be trefe, or one slaughters a non-kosher domesticated animal, beast, or fowl in the Temple courtyard, it is permitted to benefit from all of the above.5For the prohibition is only against slaughtering ordinary animals in the Temple courtyard, for this resembles the slaughter of the sacrifices (Kessef Mishneh). Since none of the above actions are considered as ritual slaughter, they do not cause the animal to become forbidden.", + "This does not apply only to domesticated animals or beasts. Instead, it is forbidden to bring all ordinary food into the Temple courtyard. [This includes] even meat from a slaughtered [animal], fruit, or bread.6The Rashba (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh) questions the Rambam's ruling, stating that the prohibition applies only to fruit that resemble the first fruits and bread that resembles the loaves of the Thanksgiving offering. If one transgresses and brings in such food, it is permitted to partake of this food as it was beforehand.
All of the above concepts are part of the Oral Tradition. Whenever anyone slaughters in the Temple courtyard or eats an olive-sized portion of the meat of ordinary [animals that were] slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.7Since the prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, he is not liable for lashes - as appropriate for the violation of an explicit Scriptural prohibition (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, since the source for the prohibition is a Scriptural verse, it has the weight of a Scriptural commandment. Others, however, interpret the Rambam as implying that the prohibition is entirely Rabbinic. The verse cited previously is merely an asmachta.
The above applies to the prohibition against slaughetring in the Temple Courtyard. With regard to partaking of the meat, all authorities agree that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:6.", + "[The following rule applies when] a person says: \"This animal is [consecrated as] a peace offering, but [the fetus it is carrying] remains of ordinary status.\" If it is slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, it is permitted to partake of its offspring, because it is forbidden to slaughter [the mother] outside [the Temple courtyard].8As stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:13-14, when a pregnant animal is slaughtered, the fetus it is carrying is considered as one of its limbs. Even if it lives, it does not have to be slaughtered again; the slaughter of its mother causes it to be permitted.
In this instance, the mother may not be slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard. Since there is no other way for the fetus to be permitted, the slaughter of the mother inside the Temple courtyard does not cause it to be forbidden.", + "One should not slaughter into9I.e., pour the blood directly into. seas or rivers, lest [an onlooker] say: \"He is worshipping the water,\"10In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 2:9), the Rambam writes that we suspect that the person worships \"the element of water,\" water in its pure elemental state and not the water before us. and it would appear as if he is offering a sacrifice to the water. Nor should one slaughter into a utensil filled with water, lest one say: \"He is slaughtering into the form that appears in the water.\"11In this context also, the Rambam (ibid.) explains that we fear he is worshipping the power that controls the image seen in the water. Nor should he slaughter into utensils12Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 11:3) writes that we fear that onlookers will say that he is collecting blood to offer it to false deities. or into a pit for this is the way of idolaters. If one slaughters in the above manner, his slaughter is acceptable.", + "One may slaughter into murky water in which an image may not be seen. Similarly, one may slaughter outside a pit and allow the blood to flow and descend into a pit. One should not do this in the marketplace so as not to mimic the gentiles. [Indeed,] if one slaughters into a pit in the marketplace, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter until his [character] is examined, lest he be a heretic.13Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 12:2) mentions this ruling, but also the ruling of the Rashba that, after the fact, the slaughter is permitted. The Rama rules that, in the present age, when pagan rites are uncommonly practiced, one may rely on the more lenient view.
It is permitted to slaughter on the wall of a ship, [although] the blood will flow down the wall and descend into the water.14As long as he is not slaughtering directly into the water, it does not appear that he is worshipping it. [Similarly,] it is permitted to slaughter above [the outer surface of] utensils.", + "How does one slaughter? One extends the neck and passes the knife back and forth until [the animal] is slaughtered. Whether the animal was lying down15And thus the knife was above its neck. or it was standing and one held the back of its neck, held the knife in his hand below, and slaughtered, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "If one implanted a knife in the wall and brought the neck [of an animal back and forth] over it until it was slaughtered, the slaughter is acceptable, provided the neck of the animal is below and the knife is above.16See Chapter 1, Halachah 19. For if the neck of the animal will be above the knife, it is possible that the animal will descend with the weight of its body [on the knife] and cut [its throat] without [it being brought back and forth].17The Turand the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 6:4) rule that slaughtering an animal in such a manner is unacceptable even if the slaughterer states that he is certain the animal's throat was not pierced in this manner. The rationale is that an animal's head is heavy and its weight will most likely cause its throat to be pierced. This is not ritual slaughter, as will be explained.18Chapter 3, Halachah 11. Even though the throat of the animal is cut, it is not considered ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter involves bringing the knife back and forth across the neck or bringing the neck back and forth across the knife. Any other act that cuts its throat is not acceptable. Therefore, if we are speaking about a fowl, whether its neck is above the knife that is implanted or below it, the slaughter is acceptable.19Since a fowl is light, the slaughterer can hold it securely and maneuver it back and forth over the knife without difficulty. See Chullin 16b.", + "When a person slaughters and draws the knife forward, but does not draw it back, draws it back, but does not draw it forward, his slaughter is acceptable.20Provided the slaughter of the animal is accomplished in that one action. If the slaughterer lifts the knife, that disqualifies the slaughter.
If he drew the knife back and forth until he cut off the head entirely, his slaughter is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] he drew the knife forward, but did not draw it back, drew it back, but did not draw it forward, and cut off the head while drawing it forward alone or drawing it back alone. If the knife is twice as long21The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:2) requires that a knife be of this length even if one does not cut off the animal's head. as the width of the neck of the animal being slaughtered, his slaughter is acceptable. If not, his slaughter is not acceptable.22For it is not feasible that passing a knife the length of the animal's neck alone will be sufficient to slice off its head in one motion [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. Hence, we must assume that the animal's head was severed by pressing the knife against the neck. This disqualifies the slaughter as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 11.
If one slaughters the heads [of two animals] together, his slaughter is acceptable.", + "When two people hold unto a knife together - even when one is holding from one side and the other from the other side - and they slaughter together, the slaughter is acceptable. Similarly, if two people hold two knives and both slaughter simultaneously in two places in the neck, their slaughter is acceptable. This applies even if one slit the gullet alone or its majority and the other cut the windpipe or its majority in another place, this slaughter is acceptable even though the slaughter was not entirely in the same place.
Similarly, slaughter in the form of a reed23He cut in a slant, cutting the windpipe at an angle and continuing to descend at that angle and cutting the gullet. and slaughter in the form of a comb24The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the person cut in several places on the signs. Others interpret it as meaning a cut that slants back and forth (Turei Zahav 21:3). are acceptable.", + "The slaughter of ordinary animals25In contrast to the slaughter of sacrificial animals (see Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:3). does not require focused attention.26Here, we are not speaking about refined spiritual intentions; the Rambam is stating that even if the person slaughters the animal without paying attention to what he is doing or even if he had no intent to slaughter it, the slaughter is acceptable. Even if one slaughtered when [wielding a knife] aimlessly, in jest, or [even] if he threw a knife to implant it in the wall and it slaughtered an animal as it was passing, since it slaughtered properly in the appropriate place and with the appropriate measure, it is acceptable.", + "Accordingly,27Since the deed is significant and not the intent. when a deafmute, an emotional or an intellectual unstable individual, a minor, a drunk whose mind is befuddled,28While he is intoxicated, he may reach the point where he is no longer able to control his conduct. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8). a person who became overtaken by an evil spirit slaughters and others observe that he slaughters in the correct manner,29The others must watch. Otherwise, there is no way that we can insure that the slaughter is acceptable. Indeed, if such a person slaughters in private, the slaughter is disqualified [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:5)]. [the slaughter] is acceptable.30This applies only after the fact [Radbaz; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5)]. At the outset, only a person fully in control of his intellect and emotions should be entrusted with ritual slaughter.
If, by contrast, a knife falls31On its own accord or because of the wind. If, however, a person pushed the knife, since it was set in motion by human action, the slaughter is acceptable (Chullin 31a). and slaughters [an animal] on its way, it is not acceptable even if it slaughtered it in [the appropriate] manner. For [Deuteronomy, loc. cit.] states: \"You shall slaughter,\" implying that a man must slaughter. [His actions are acceptable,] even if he does not intend to slaughter.", + "[The following laws apply if there is] a stone or wooden wheel with a knife affixed to it. If a person turned the wheel and placed the neck of a fowl or an animal opposite it and slaughtered by turning the wheel, [the slaughter] is acceptable. If water is turning the wheel and he placed the neck of [the animal] opposite it while it was turning causing it to be slaughtered, it is unacceptable.32For the animal was slaughtered by the power of the water and not by human power. If a person caused the water to flow until they turned the wheel and caused it to slaughter by turning it, [the slaughter] is acceptable.33Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 7:1) rules that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. At the outset, one should not slaughter in this manner. The Siftei Cohen 7:1 states that this is the Rambam's opinion with regard to the first clause of the halachah as well. For [the activity] came as a result of man's actions.
When does the above apply? With regard to the first turn, for that comes from man's power. The second and subsequent turns, however, do not come from man's power, but from the power of the flowing water.", + "When a person slaughters for the sake of mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, his slaughter is unacceptable even when he does not intend to worship these entities, but merely for curative purposes or the like according to the empty words related by the gentiles, the slaughter is unacceptable.34It is forbidden to partake of the animal, because this resembles bringing a sacrifice to a false deity. Nevertheless, since one is bringing the offering for a particular purpose and not in actual worship of the false deity, it is not forbidden to benefit from the animal (Kessef Mishneh). If, however, one slaughtered for the sake of the spiritual source35This is the translation of the Hebrew term mazal; i.e., the person is not worshipping the material entity but the spiritual source from which its existence emanates. of the sea, the mountain, the stars, the constellations, or the like, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal36For this is considered as worshipping a false deity. like all offerings brought to false deities.37See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 11:1; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.", + "When a person slaughters an animal [with the intent of] sprinkling its blood for the sake of false deities or burning its fats for the sake of false deities,38He is not slaughtering the animal itself for the sake of the false deity - in which instance, there would be no question that it is forbidden - but, nevertheless, at the time of slaughter, he does intend to offer its blood or fats to the false deity. it is forbidden. For we derive [the laws governing] one's intent outside [the Temple] with regard to [slaughtering] ordinary animals from those pertaining to the intent with regard to [slaughtering] consecrated animals within [the Temple]. For such an intent disqualifies them, as will be explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.39In Chapter 15, Halachah 10, of those halachot, the Rambam writes that one who slaughters a sacrificial animal with the proper intent for the sake of sprinkling its blood or burning its fats for an improper intent, the slaughter is unacceptable.", + "When a person slaughtered [an animal] and afterwards, thought to sprinkle its blood for the sake of false deities or to burn its fats for the sake of false deities, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved.40The Turei Zahav 4:2 writes that according to the Rambam, because of the doubt, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal. Others (see also Siftei Cohen 4:2) rule that it is forbidden to partake of the animal's meat, but one may benefit from it. Perhaps the ultimate result showed what his initial intent was and it was with this intent that he slaughtered.", + "When a person slaughters [an animal] for the sake of [a type of] sacrifice for which one could consecrate an animal through a vow or through a pledge,41As indicated in the following halachah, there are certain sacrifices that a person may offer on his own initiative. Since he has not actually consecrated the animal, the prohibition against sacrificing consecrated animals outside the Temple does not apply according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, because of the impression created, our Sages forbade the slaughter of an animal for that intent (Maggid Mishneh). The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 5), however, states that we fear that he might have consecrated it, implying that there is a question of a Scriptural prohibition involved.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 5:1) rules that this law applies even when the slaughtered animal has a blemish which would disqualify it as a sacrifice, for there are times when a person will conceal the blemish. the slaughter is unacceptable.42From the fact that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, sec. 7) quotes this and the following halachot, we see that these laws also apply in the present age although the Temple is destroyed. See the conclusion of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Halachah 20 which mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter. For this is comparable to slaughtering consecrated animals outside [the Temple courtyard]. If he slaughters [an animal] for the sake of [a type of] sacrifice for which one could not designate an animal through a vow or through a pledge,43As indicated in the following halachah, there are other sacrifices for which a person may consecrate an animal only when he is required to bring that offering. He may not pledge such a sacrifice on his own initiative. the slaughter is acceptable.44Since he cannot consecrate animals for such offerings, we do not worry about the impression that may be created. On the contrary, an onlooker will consider the person's statements facetious (Siftei Cohen 5:4)", + "What is implied? When one slaughters [an animal] for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a thanksgiving offering, or for the sake of a Paschal offering, the slaughter is unacceptable.45For these are sacrifices that a person can consecrate on his own initiative. Hence slaughtering an animal for this purpose is forbidden as stated in the previous halachah. Since a Paschal offering may be designated every year at any time one desires, it resembles a sacrifice that can be consecrated through a vow or through a pledge.46Seemingly, the Paschal offering does not resemble the others for it is an obligation incumbent on a person and can be brought only on the fourteenth of Nisan (Chullin 41b). Nevertheless, it is placed in this category for the reason explained by the Rambam.
If one slaughters [an animal] for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a certain guilt offering, for the sake of a doubtful guilt offering,47The instance of a doubtful guilt offering is debated in Chullin, loc. cit., without the Talmud reaching a definite conclusion concerning the matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view. The Tur and the Rama, however, follow the view that a person can consecrate a doubtful guilt offering on his own initiative and hence, forbid ritual slaughter for this intent. for the sake of a firstborn offering,48For a firstborn animal is consecrated by birth; a person cannot consecrate it through his statements. for the sake of a tithe offering,49For the tithe offerings are consecrated through the tithing rite; a person cannot consecrate it through his statements. or for the sake of a substitute [for any offering],50For unless a person has a consecrated animal at home, there is no reason that an onlooker might think that the substitution is of consequence (Chullin, loc. cit.). the slaughter is acceptable.51For these are sacrifices that a person cannot consecrate unless he is required to.", + "When a person is liable for a sin offering and he slaughters, saying: \"For the sake of my sin offering,\" his slaughter is unacceptable.52Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) explains that when a person is liable to bring a sin offering, he makes the matter known so that he will be embarrassed and thus further his atonement. Therefore the onlookers will know of his obligation and will not regard his statements as facetious. If he had a sacrificial animal in his home and he slaughters, saying: \"For the sake of a substitution for my sacrifice,\" his slaughter is unacceptable, for he substituted the animal [for the consecrated one].53From the Rambam's words, it would appear that this is not merely a Rabbinical safeguard, but that his statements bring about a substitution (temurah) of the animal and he is liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple courtyard.", + "When a woman slaughters54As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4, a woman may slaughter animals. And since she may slaughter ordinary animals, her slaughter of sacrificial animals would be acceptable. Note, however, the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 2:10) which speaks about a man slaughtering an animal on behalf of a woman. for the sake of the burnt offering brought by a woman who gave birth, saying: \"This is for the sake of my burnt offering,\" her slaughter is acceptable.55Since this offering cannot be brought on a person's own initiative, her statements are considered facetious. [The rationale is that the obligation to bring] the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth cannot be initiated through a vow or through a pledge and this woman has not given birth and thus is not obligated to bring a burnt offering. We do not suspect that she had a miscarriage.56A woman who miscarries is also obligated to bring such a burnt offering. For it will become public knowledge if a woman miscarries.57The word here matches the Rambam's statements in the revised text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) as published by Rav Kappach. The Rambam's original text - and the version of his Commentary to the Mishnah commonly circulated - present an entirely different conception of this halachah.
When, by contrast, a person slaughters for the sake of a burnt offering brought by a Nazarite, his slaughter is unacceptable even if he is not a Nazarite. [The rationale is that] the fundamental dimension of being a Nazarite is a vow like other vows.58Hence we suspect that perhaps he took a Nazarite vow in private and the matter has not become known (Kessef Mishneh, Lechem Mishneh).", + "When two people hold a knife and slaughter, one has in mind an intent that would disqualify the slaughter and the other has nothing at all in mind - or even if he had in mind an intent that is permitted - the slaughter is unacceptable.59Since his activity in slaughtering the animal was significant, his intent is also of consequence. Similarly, if they slaughtered one after the other60I.e., without waiting; thus the slaughter is not disqualified. and one had an intent that disqualifies the slaughter, it is disqualified.
When does the above apply? When [the person with the undesirable intent] has a share in the animal. If, however, he does not have a share in the animal, it does not become forbidden. For a Jewish person does not cause something that does not belong to him to become forbidden. He is acting only to cause his colleague anguish.61He makes such statements to make it appear that the slaughter is unacceptable so that his colleague will suffer anguish. Nevertheless, his statements have no effect. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 5:3). The Tur and the Rama states that there are opinions which forbid the slaughter regardless of whether the other person has a share in the animal or not because of the impression that is created.", + "When a Jew slaughters for a gentile, the slaughter is acceptable regardless of the thoughts the gentile has in mind.62I.e., even if the gentile considers it as a sacrifice to a false deity. For we are concerned only with the thoughts of the person slaughtering and not the thoughts of the owner of the animal.63See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1. Therefore when a gentile - even a minor64Who is to young to be involved in the worship of false deities. - slaughters for the sake of a Jew, the animal he slaughters is a nevelah, as will be explained.65As stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 11-12, the gentile's slaughter is not considered halachicly significant and it is as if the animal died without being slaughtered." + ], + [ + "There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are: shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.1The Rambam describes each of these terms in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.", + "What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.", + "With regard to a small domesticated animal:2I.e., a sheep or a goat., the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal,3I.e., a cow. the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.4I.e., each animal is considered according to its category. It will take more time to deal with a large animal than a smaller one and the time factor is adjusted accordingly. With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.5The Rambam's ruling favors the opinion of Shmuel over Rav. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that generally, we follow the principle that the halachah follows Rav's approach with regard to the Torah prohibitions. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there are other Sages who support Shmuel's view, the Rambam favors his opinion. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:2), in addition to the Rambam's view, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Rashi's position which rules much more stringently with regard to shehiyah for a fowl. The Rama states that the common custom is to disqualify any ritual slaughter involving shehiyah of the slightest time for both animals and fowl.", + "When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.6Although the Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen dispute the Rambam's ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:3). The Rama reiterates the stringency stated above.
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.", + "If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs.7In addition to the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:5) quotes the view of Rashi cited by the Tur that as long as the cutting of the signs is not completed, shehiyah can disqualify an animal. Hence, as an initial and preferred option, one should show respect for this view. The Rama rules even more stringently, stating that even after the fact, the slaughter is disqualified. For that reason, he continues, if the majority of the signs are cut, but the animal is lingering alive, rather than cut the signs further, one should hit it on its head to kill it. For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.", + "If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence.8For until half of the windpipe is cut, the animal is not considered as trefe. If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.9He cannot return and correct the slaughter, for the animal is already considered as a nevelah. [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.10Halachah 19.", + "It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat.11As stated in Halachah 5. If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires,12As stated in Halachah 6. for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.", + "[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not.13If the gullet was perforated, the slaughter is unacceptable. If not, it is acceptable. He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place,14Theoretically, he could also cut the windpipe in the same place and complete the slaughter in that manner. Nevertheless, our Sages advised against doing so, for in this way, it is much easier to perforate the gullet when cutting the windpipe and thus he might disqualify the slaughter unnecessarily (Kessef Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 23:6 who offers another rationale. As mentioned above, the Rama rules that whenever one waits during the slaughter of a fowl or an animal, the slaughter is disqualified.
A parallel law - slaughtering the animal in a different place - does not apply with regard to an animal. For to slaughter the animal, he must slit the gullet and we fear that he will cut at a place where it had been perforated previously (Kessef Mishneh). let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside.15I.e., he should cut the gullet off at its top and/or bottom and turn it inside out. If he is able to find a drop of blood, he can assume that it is perforated and it is unacceptable. An external examination of the gullet is not sufficient for the surface of the gullet is red and a drop of blood will not be noticeable. Its inner surface, however, is skin-colored and the blood will be noticed (Kessef Mishneh). If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.", + "What is meant by chaladah?16Chullin 20b states that this term is derived from the word chuldah meaning \"weasel,\" i.e., an animal that hides in the foundation of homes. Similarly, chaladah involves \"hiding\" the knife when slaughtering; i.e., inserting it in a way that the blade is not open to the eye. Implied is that the proper way to slaughter is for the slaughterer to hold the animal or fowl with its neck upward and to draw the knife back and forth across the neck. For example, one inserted the knife between one sign and another.17Certainly, this applies when he inserted the knife below both signs and slaughtered the animal by moving the knife back and forth while pointed upward (Siftei Cohen 24:6). Whether one then slits the upper sign above or cuts the lower sign below in the manner of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.", + "If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck18In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes other authorities who explain that this is referring to a situation where the person tied the cloth around the animal's neck, attached it with wax, or the like. If, however, he merely loosely spread the cloth over the animal, the slaughter is acceptable. He concludes, however, that the Rambam's opinion should be respected. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:8), he rules according to the other views, but states: \"One should show concern for his (the Rambam's) opinion at the outset.\" and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs with chaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.", + "What is meant by dirasah?19The term doreis means \"prey\" or \"strike,\" i.e., killing with a blow, rather than drawing back and forth as is required for ritual slaughter. For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.", + "What is meant by hagramah?20The Maggid Mishneh gives two interpretations of the term hagramah:
a) \"lift up,\" as in II Kings 9:13; i.e., he lifted the knife above its proper place; and
b) \"tip,\" as in Bava Batra 88b; i.e., he tipped the knife upward. This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe21The Rambam speaks only with regard to the windpipe, because he defines hagramah as slaughtering the animal in an improper place. If one would slit the gullet above the proper place, the animal would become disqualified as a trefe immediately (Kessef Mishneh). where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring.22The Maggid Mishneh states that the windpipe is made up of many rings. Over the top ring, there is a flap (cap) of flesh which is slanted. (This is the area of the larynx. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.) At the top of this flap, there are two kernel-like buttons of flesh. As long as the slaughterer leaves some portion of these kernels intact, the slaughter is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.", + "If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.23The Rambam derived this concept from a comparison to the laws of shehiyah mentioned in Halachah 5. The same concept applies if one slaughters more than half the signs appropriately and then completes the slaughter through chaladah. Indeed, it can be explained that the Rambam does not mention this law with regard to chaladah, because it is obvious. For in chaladah, the slaughter is essentially correct; it is only the manner in which one inserts the knife that is unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, there are opinions who differ and disqualify the slaughter. Similarly, with regard to the laws at hand, there are opinions that are more stringent, except with regard to hagramah. In that instance, they accept the leniency mentioned by the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:12) quotes both of the views without stating which should be followed. The Rama goes further and states that it is customary to rule stringently even with regard to hagramah, and even with regard to fowl.
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe]24This addition is necessary, for as stated above, if the gullet is perforated, the slaughter is disqualified. through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.25For the majority of the windpipe was cut in an acceptable manner and the preliminary cutting did not cause the animal to be considered as a trefe. If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.26Here also, the majority of the windpipe is cut in an acceptable manner. The fact that the two thirds were not cut directly after each other is not significant. If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable.27For the majority of the windpipe has not been slit in an acceptable manner. If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.28The rationale for the Rambam's words has been discussed at length by the commentaries, because with regard to chaladah, in Halachah 10, he writes that there is an unresolved question whether the slaughter is disqualified, while here he appears to say that it is definitely unacceptable. The Rivosh (Responsum 187), the Kessef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, and the Siftei Cohen 24:18 all offer lengthy - and somewhat forced - explanations to attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. The core of the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh is that since the majority of the windpipe was slit in the proper place, it is not disqualified because a portion was not.
Needless to say, if one cuts the last third in either of these fashions, according to the Rambam, the slaughter is not disqualified, for it has already been completed (through slitting more than half of the sign[s] in an acceptable manner). The Rama, however, would disqualify the slaughter as stated above.", + "What is meant by ikur? That the gullet and/or the windpipe were displaced29The term ikur means \"uproot.\" The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the signs have slipped from their place does not cause the animal to be deemed a trefe (see, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 21, and notes). Nevertheless, such a condition disqualifies the animal, for it is impossible for the ritual slaughter to be carried out in the proper manner. and slid [from their place] before the conclusion of the slaughter. If, however, one slit an entire sign or its majority in a fowl, and then the second sign slipped, the slaughter is acceptable.30For the slaughter was already completed in an acceptable manner. Compare to the following halachah.", + "If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable.31This applies even with regard to a fowl. Although it is only necessary for one of the signs of a fowl to be cut in the appropriate manner, the other one must be fit to be slit in an appropriate manner (Kessef Mishneh). If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter32In which instance it would disqualify it. or after slaughter,33In which instance, it would be acceptable. there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.", + "If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal]34With regard to a fowl, the sign in question is the only sign slit. With regard to an animal, the other sign must have been slaughtered effectively. is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].35The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:18) rule more stringently and maintain that it is necessary to slaughter another animal, displace its signs afterwards, and compare the two. Only if they are similar is the slaughter accepted. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues stating that, at present, we are not expert at making this comparison and hence, forbid an animal whenever such a condition arises.", + "When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced.36Because the slaughterer will hold the signs in the proper position by hand. Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered,37And we do not know whether the slaughterer held it by hand or not. there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.", + "Whenever we have used the term \"unacceptable,\" the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained.38See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 4. Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.39Since an animal is forbidden during its lifetime, its meat is permitted only when we are certain that the slaughter was acceptable (Radbaz). A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "When the thigh of an animal and [the meat40The addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah.41I.e., even though the animal still has a certain vestige of vitality, it is considered as if it has died already and it imparts ritual impurity as a nevelah does (Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1). [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed,42In this and the following instance, the Siftei Cohen 33:4 rules that the animal is a trefe and not a nevelah. or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter,43If, however, the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah. it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.", + "The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white.44I.e., skin-colored. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.45For the one that is not perforated is sufficient to protect the animal sufficiently for it to survive.
This leniency applies when the inner membrane is perforated due to sickness. If, however, it is perforated due to a thorn, we fear that the outer membrane may also be perforated, but that perforation cannot be detected [see Halachah 22; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)]. If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah.46As above, if the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah (Kessef Mishneh). [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah47With regard to other organs which have two membranes, e.g., the brain and the lungs, the animal is not considered as trefe unless the holes correspond to each other. In this instance, however, the ruling is much more severe because the gullet is stretched and becomes extended. Thus even if the place of the holes do not correspond, they can match each other at times [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)]..", + "When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand.48For as the gullet expands, it is possible that the scab will open (Rashi, Chullin 42a). If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible.49The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules more leniently, stating that unless a trace of blood is detected on the outer side, we do not disqualify an animal because a thorn was implanted in the gullet. If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise50The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules that this applies even if the thorn is lying widthwise, as long as it is not implanted in the membrane. [Indeed, some versions of the Mishneh Torah substitute widthwise for lengthwise.] in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.51And yet do not suffer any internal damage.", + "The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside.52Because, as stated above (see Halachot 8, 19), since its outer membrane is red, a trace of blood will not be obvious. What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.", + "When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe53I.e., the slit goes from side to side in a manner in which the majority of the cavity is slit. The Rambam (based on Chullin 44a,b) is emphasizing that this measure disqualifies an animal even if when including the thickness of the flesh of the windpipe, the slit would not cover the majority of the windpipe. has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering,54See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes. [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.55An Italian coin, frequently used in the Talmudic era. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that an isar is the weight of four barley corns.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) states that we are unfamiliar with the measure of an isar. Therefore, the laws applying to an animal should resemble those applying to a fowl and if the slit covers the majority of the cavity of the windpipe, it is disqualified. The Rama states that, for an animal, an isar is smaller than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe. Therefore he states that perhaps the intent of the Shulchan Aruch, is the majority of the cavity of a fowl. He cautions anyone who has a doubt to rule stringently and disqualify the animal.
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes.56When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:3) speaks of perforating the windpipe \"like a sifter.\" If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar.57In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:3), Rav Yosef Caro writes that as long as the flesh between the holes is not larger than the holes themselves, it is included together with them in this measure. Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]:58For the entire windpipe of a fowl may not be the size of an isar (Rashi, Chullin 45a). Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity],59The addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. For each particular fowl, this measure is calculated individually (Maggid Mishneh). it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.", + "If the windpipe was perforated on both sides with a hole large enough for the thickness of isar60Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who quotes the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 34) who explains that in contrast to the previous halachah which speaks of a hole the area of an isar, this halachah is speaking about a hole through which an isar can be slipped through on its side.
It must be emphasized that the Rambam's ruling depends on the interpretation of Chullin 54a advanced by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Rashi advances a different interpretation of that passage on which basis, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:5-6) quotes both opinions without stating which is favored. to be inserted into it, it is a nevelah. If it is slit lengthwise, even if only the slightest portion of the place fit to slaughter [an animal] remains above and below, it is acceptable.61The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that if the windpipe is slit across we rule more stringently, for the stress of breathing will extend the windpipe and cause the slit to expand. This does not apply when it is split lengthwise.", + "When a windpipe has been perforated62In a manner that would disqualify the animal. and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards,63Were it to have been perforated afterwards, the perforation would not be significant. we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.64For it is apparent that the first hole was also made after the animal's death. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 34:9) states that we are not proficient in inspecting the animal in this way and should disqualify it in all situations.
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring." + ], + [ + "When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained1The five factors mentioned in the previous chapter and how to prepare a knife [Kessef Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:2)]. slaughters [an animal] in private,2If, however, a wise man supervises his actions, the slaughter is acceptable, as indicated by Halachah 5. The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as ruling that such a person may slaughter in the presence of a wise man even as an initial and preferred option. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:3) accepts this ruling, but the Rama does not. it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved.3There is no factor that we see that would cause us to disqualify the slaughter. Nevertheless, since it is highly probable that he slaughtered the animal in a way that disqualified it and rendered it a nevelah, the animal is prohibited and placed in this category. When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly.4Moreover, even if afterwards, he is taught the laws of ritual slaughter and states that he observed them when he slaughtered the animal, the ruling is not revised. Since he did not know the laws at that time, we fear that he did not observe them (Kessef Mishneh). For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.", + "[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent.5This training process is still observed in the present age. Even though a person is familiar with the laws of ritual slaughter, he must first undergo apprenticeship under the guidance of a master and receive authorization to slaughter [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1). If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.6I.e., after the fact, since he knows the laws, we do not disqualify the slaughter.", + "When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women7The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1) states that woman should not be allowed to slaughter as an initial and preferred option. and servants8This refers to Canaanite servants whose Halachic status is the same as women. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 1) rules that in general servants may not serve as ritual slaughterers. See Siftei Cohen 1:2. may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.", + "When a deaf-mute,9See Halachah 9 which grants a person with only one of these handicaps to slaughter. an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child,10The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5) states that this refers to a child who does not know how to maneuver his hands for ritual slaughter. If he knows how to maneuver his hands he may be given an animal to slaughter at the outset. The Rama emphasizes that even so, the child may only slaughter in the presence of others. He may not slaughter alone. Furthermore, the Rama states that it is not customary for a person to receive authorization to slaughter until he is eighteen. The Siftei Cohen 1:25, however, rules more stringently. or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled11The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8) states that one who becomes as drunk as Lot (see Genesis, ch. 19) may not slaughter. One who has not reached this stage of inebriation may slaughter at the outset. The Rama rules more stringently, stating that a person should never slaughter when drunk, for it is likely that he will disqualify the slaughter. slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.", + "When a person whose reputation12With regard to his proficiency in the laws of ritual slaughter. has not been established among us slaughters in private, we question him. If it is discovered that he knows the fundamental principles of ritual slaughter,13Those mentioned in the previous chapter and how to check a knife; there is no need for him to be knowledgeable with regard to all the particulars of the laws of ritual slaughter. his slaughter is acceptable.14The Kessef Mishneh explains that when there is no alternative (see the following halachah), we rely on the principle that most of those who slaughter are knowledgeable regarding its laws. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we have the opportunity to clarify the matter, we do so.", + "When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: \"Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf,\" and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted.15With regard to questions of business law, we rely on the presumption that an agent will perform the mission with which he was charged. We do not, however, accept this principle with regard to questions involving the Torah's prohibitions (Hilchot Terumot 4:6). Nevertheless, even if we know for certain that the agent did not slaughter the animal, we consider it as permitted because of the reason stated by the Rambam. [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.16And when there is no alternative we can rely on this presumption.
From the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1), it appears that there is a slight difference between the present age and the Talmudic period. In the Talmudic era, most people were proficient in both the laws and practice of ritual slaughter. In the present age, this applies only to those who are occupied professionally in this field. Nevertheless, the laws remain the same, for we assume that only a person who is knowledgeable will actually slaughter animals.", + "[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place.17We are not speaking about a waste dump in the market place. In such an instance, all opinions would agree that the animal is forbidden. Instead, we are speaking about a situation where it was found in the marketplace at large. Chullin 12b records a dispute between two Sages concerning this matter and the Rambam chooses the more stringent ruling. Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.18For the circumstances indicate that it was discarded.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud regarding this issue. Most Rishonim follow the more lenient view and rule that if the slaughtered animal is found in an ordinary place in the marketplace or in a waste dump at home, it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:4) also follows this view.", + "When an expert [slaughterer] loses his power of speech, but he is [still] capable of understanding, he can hear and he is of sound mind, he may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.19Another person should recite the blessing for him [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:7)]. Similarly, a person who does not hear,20As long as he has the ability to speak, he is not considered to be intellectually underdeveloped.
Rabbenu Asher explains that such a person should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option, because there is a difficulty with his recitation of the blessing. For a person must recite a blessing in a manner that enables him to hear it and that is impossible for such an individual. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 1:6) rules that a person who is dumb should not separate terumah at the outset for that reason [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:6)]. may slaughter.", + "A blind man should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option unless others supervise him.21For we fear that he will err and not detect his error. The Siftei Cohen 1:35 quotes opinions that rule that a blind person should not slaughter even when others are watching him. If he slaughters, his slaughter is acceptable.22In this instance as well, the Siftei Cohen 1:36 mentions views that maintain that a person who was never able to see should not slaughter. Even after the fact, one should not partake of his slaughter.", + "When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife,23And is well-versed in the laws of ritual slaughter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:1)]. and even if he was a minor,24One might think that the slaughter of a minor has an advantage, because a minor's worship of idols is not significant. his slaughter is a nevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it,25Thus a gentile's slaughter is not recognized by Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that the reason the animal is forbidden is that, in general, when a gentile slaughters, his intent is that the animal is an offering to his false deity, it is, however, permissible to benefit from the animal. We do not consider it as a sacrifice to idols (Chullin 13b; see Chapter 2, Halachah 2), because we assume the gentile is not really sincere in his worship, he is merely mimicking his ancestors.
Rabbeinu Asher differs and explains that the Scriptural command for ritual slaughter states: \"And you shall slaughter,\" implying that the slaughtering must be a Jew. Hence, a gentile is inherently disqualified; his thoughts are of no consequence. See the Siftei Cohen 2:2 and the Turei Zahav 2:1 who discuss this issue. as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: \"[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter.\" Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.", + "[Our Sages] established a great safeguard concerning this matter, [decreeing] that even [an animal] slaughtered by a gentile who does not serve false deities26E.g., a resident alien who accepts the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and his descendants (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7). is a nevelah.27According to the Rambam, if he does not serve false deities and knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable according to Scriptural Law.
One might ask: If so, why is an animal slaughtered by a child a nevelah? A child is not liable for the service of false deities. The Lechem Mishneh answers that ultimately, the child will grow up and worship false deities.", + "If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it,28See the Siftei Cohen 2:27 maintains that if the Jew slit the majority of the gullet and windpipe, the slaughter is acceptable even if the gentile completed it. it is invalid.29Thus if a gentile slit the majority of the windpipe or any portion of the gullet, the slaughter is disqualified [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:10)]. [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.30See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18 for another application of this principle. If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.31For, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, even if the windpipe is half slit because of other factors, it can be slaughtered acceptably.", + "A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression32As the Rambam states in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, there is a concept of an apostate with regard to one transgression, i.e., \"a person who has made a fixed practice of willfully violating a certain transgression [to the extent that] he is accustomed to transgressing and his deeds are public knowledge... provided he does so with the intent of angering God.\" who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.33Although he repeatedly violates that particular transgression, we do not assume that he will not slaughter correctly.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites Chullin 4a which states that as long as if given a choice whether to eat kosher meat or non-kosher meat, the person would choose the kosher meat - even if he would partake of the non-kosher meat if kosher meat was not available - it is permitted to partake of an animal he slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh continues, explaining that as long as one does not transgress with the intent of angering God, one may partake of an animal he slaughtered. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:5), he rules that an apostate who transgresses with the intent of angering God resembles a gentile and his slaughter is inherently unacceptable.
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is some difficulty with the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation, because Hilchot Teshuvah specifically states that a person is deemed an apostate only when his transgression is performed with the intent of angering God. A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].34Although we do not assume that he will definitely transgress, it is logical to presume that he will not be careful in his observance.
Although it also cites the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:6) mentions the opinion of the Tur and others who rule that if the person is not an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, it is not even necessary to check his knife. He may slaughter in private. If, however, he is an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, his knife must be checked. Moreover, if he shows no concern for kashrut at all, his slaughter is not acceptable [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:5].
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public,35See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat. or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah,36Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8. he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.", + "[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition,37See Hilchot Edut 10:1-3. he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert.38In this instance, the Rambam does not even require him to have another person observe him. Since his disregard for Jewish observance is not as severe as that of an apostate, he is allowed to slaughter on his own. For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden.39I.e., he would not slaughter the animal in an invalid way when it would be just as easy for him to slaughter it in an acceptable way. This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.", + "These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, 40Tzadok and Beotus were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: \"Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward,\" they forsook Jewish practice, saying: \"Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?\"
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah. their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, \"We did not blunder.\"41The Rambam appears to be saying that there is no inherent difficulty with these individuals slaughtering an animal. The only question is whether or not they slaughtered correctly. Hence, when it is possible to verify that the slaughter was performed correctly, the animal is permitted. They are not placed in the same category as apostates. Kin'at Eliyahu adds that, based on the previous halachah, these Tzadukim must also be Sabbath observant.", + "When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals.42There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages (Chullin 17a). The Rambam follows Rabbi Akiva's perspective. Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: \"When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings.\" If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.", + "This mitzvah43The obligation to offer as a sacrifice an animal which one desires to ritually slaughter. is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard,44See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: \"When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you.\" This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat." + ], + [ + "We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot1Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:8-9. that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means \"torn apart\" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.", + "There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefe were transmitted to Moses at Sinai.2All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories. They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.3These terms are defined in this and the following chapters.", + "Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai,4And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law. since only derusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah,5Exodus 22:30 speaks of \"meat torn apart in the field.\" [our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah [causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.6The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 29) questions the Rambam's statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29:1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek seifkah, a condition of multiple doubt. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.", + "Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl.7As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim's organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker's claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker's claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that \"the poison\" of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal8An ox. or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion.9If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal. [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal10A sheep or a goat. or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens,11We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator. and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.12See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.", + "When a hawk attacks, the laws of derisah apply even with regard to a larger fowl.13For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones. With regard to other birds of prey the laws of derisah apply only with regard to fowl their size and not with regard to fowl which are larger than they are.14Here also, the Tur and the Rama (loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisah apply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.", + "[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of] derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] a hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.15Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the \"poison\" of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.", + "[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs,16This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57:10; Siftei Cohen 57:19). we show no concern.17Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about \"poisoning\" an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:6)]. [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity.18With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, \"they are no different than a thorn,\" i.e., there is no question of \"poison.\" We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply.19For then it will not release its poison. [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.20For it releases its \"poison\" only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:8)].", + "What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that \"we show concern,\" the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefe and there is no sign that it was attacked,21As explained in the following halachah. it is permitted.22The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden. If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.", + "What is meant by \"a sign that it was attacked\"? That the flesh above the intestines turns red.23In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal's flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam's intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam's wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur's ruling. If the flesh above the intestines decays to the extent it becomes like flesh which a doctor would scrape from a wound, we consider that flesh as if it were lacking and [rule that the animal is] trefe.24Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).", + "If [the predator] attacked the \"signs\" [which must be cut for ritual slaughter, the animal is] trefe if they turn red.25Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered trefe. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh). The slightest wound [is significant]. If even the smallest portion of them becomes red because of an attack, [the animal is] trefe.26This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).", + "When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.27As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as trefe.
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them,28An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the animal. We, nevertheless, disqualify it, for in this instance, we say that the animal released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that it was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm). we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: \"Maybe it scratched itself on a wall.\"29And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enters among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked.30And that is why they are clamoring. If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them,31The Rama 57:9 states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided. we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.", + "When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.33For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: \"Perhaps it was wounded among the trees.\"34I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding." + ], + [ + "What is meant by nekuvah?1The term literally means \"perforated.\" There are eleven organs that if there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches their inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe. They are:2The Rambam explains the particular laws regarding the perforation of these organs in this chapter with the exception of those concerning the lung. The latter, because they are many and are of more common application, are given greater focus and an entire chapter, Chapter 7, is devoted to them. the entrance to the gullet,3If the gullet itself is perforated, the animal is considered a nevelah as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 13. the membrane of the brain in the skull, the heart and its large arteries, the gall-bladder, the arteries leading to the liver, the maw,4A kosher domesticated animal has four stomachs. If any one of them is perforated, the animal is trefe. This and the following three terms refer to those stomachs. the stomach, the abdomen, the gut, the intestines, and the lung and the bronchia.", + "We have already mentioned the definition of the entrance to the gullet.5See Chapter 1, Halachah 6. It refers to a portion of the esophagus above the gullet which is not fit for ritual slaughter. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.", + "The brain in the skull has two membranes. If the outer one near the skull bone alone is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.6The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 31:1) quotes authorities who maintain that even if the upper membrane alone is perforated, the animal is trefe. He states that unless a significant loss is involved, this perspective should be followed. The Turei Zahav 31:1 and the Siftei Cohen 31:1 quote views that advocate stringency even if a significant loss is involved. If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe.7There is a question among the commentaries with regard to the law if only the bottom membrane is perforated. Many Rishonim - and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:10) - rule that the animal is considered trefe in such a situation, for that membrane is the primary protection for the brain.
There are those who maintain that this is alluded to in the Rambam's wording: \"If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe,\" i.e., its perforation alone causes the animal to be considered trefe. Others maintain that this is not the Rambam's intent and some even maintain that the proper version of the text is \"If also the lower one...,\" which would imply that both membranes must be perforated.
[The more stringent ruling is also stated in the popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:1). However, Rav Kappach - while not disputing the ruling - maintains that the translation there is in error.] With regard to the portion where the brain extends to the spinal cord, i.e., the portion below the glands where the neck begins, the laws governing [the perforation of] its membranes change.8Instead, it is governed by the laws pertaining to the breach of the spinal cord, as described in Chapter 9, Law 1. If they are perforated beyond the glands, [the animal] is permitted.", + "When the brain itself is perforated9In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes a different version substituting nirkav (\"decayed\") for nikeiv (\"perforated\"). He also quotes this version in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:2). or crushed, [the animal] is acceptable if its membrane is intact.10For the animal will still be able to function. If, however, [it has degenerated to the extent that] it can be poured like water or melts like wax, [the animal] is trefe.11In Chapter 10, the Kessef Mishneh includes this - as the implication from the Rambam's order here - in the category of nekuvah. For in such a situation, ultimately, the brain's membrane will become perforated.", + "When there is a perforation of the heart to its inner cavity - whether to the larger cavity on the left or the smaller cavity to the right - [the animal] is trefe. If, however, the flesh of the heart is perforated, but the perforation does not reach the inner cavity, [the animal] is permitted.12The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:2) follows the opinion of the Tur who accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a perforation stemming from sickness, but rules more stringently with regard to a perforation caused by a thorn or a needle. In such an instance, even if the perforation does not extend to the cavity of the heart, the animal is trefe. The arteries leading from the heart to the lung is considered as the heart itself. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.", + "When the gall-bladder is perforated and the liver seals it, [the animal] is permitted.13For flesh will cling to flesh . If, however, the perforation is not sealed, it is trefe even if the perforation is located close to the liver.", + "[The following rules apply when] a kernel14Needless to say, these laws apply when a needle or a thorn is found in the gall-bladder [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 42:9)]. is found in the gall-bladder. If it was shaped like a date seed, i.e., its head is not pointed, [the animal] is permitted.15We assume that instead of perforating the gall bladder from the outside, it entered through the blood vessels and became lodged there. If, however, its head is pointed like an olive seed, it is forbidden, for we can assume that it perforated [the gall bladder] when it entered. [The reason that] the perforation cannot be seen is that a scab developed over the opening of the wound.16And as indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 21, the sealing of a perforation by a scab is not significant in these contexts.", + "When there is a perforation of the slightest size in one of the arteries of the liver where the blood develops, [the animal] is trefe.17The Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that this ruling applies only with regard to the arteries leading to the liver, but not with regard to those within the liver itself. The Rivosh (Responsum 189) supports the challenge to the Rambam by citing the ruling (Chapter 8, Halachah 21) that if the liver is removed entirely except for a small portion, the animal is not trefe.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains the Rambam's position as follows: Even when the liver is removed, its blood vessels must remain intact. A parallel to that concept exists with regard to the lungs (see Chapter 7, Halachah 9). Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, he follows the position of the other Rishonim and does not mention a perforation in the liver as a factor that disqualifies an animal. Accordingly, [the following rules apply] if a needle is found in the lobes of the liver. If it was a large needle and its pointed edge was facing inward, it can be assumed that it perforated [the liver] when it entered. If its rounded edge was facing inward, we say that it entered through the blood vessels and [the animal] is permitted.18Here also the Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that his understanding of Chullin 45b, the source for this halachah, is in error. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 41:6) follow their understanding.", + "If it was a small needle, [the animal] is trefe, because both of its heads are sharp and it certainly perforated [the liver].19I.e., regardless of the direction it entered. If it is found in the large blood vessel, the wide artery through which food enters the liver,20I.e., blood from the stomach; for food does not enter the liver. it is permitted.21Since this blood vessel is large, it cannot be taken for granted that the needle perforated the blood vessel. If the flesh of the liver became wormridden, [the animal] is permitted.22We do not suspect that the blood vessels of the liver were perforated.", + "When the maw is perforated and kosher fat23See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 7, for an explanation which fat is kosher and which is forbidden. Halachah 6, of that chapter speaks explicitly of the fat on the maw. seals [the perforation], [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, whenever a perforation is sealed by flesh or fat that is permitted to be eaten, [the animal] is permitted. The [only] exceptions are the fat of the heart,24Concerning this point, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:1) follows the lenient view and permits the animal in such a situation, while the Rama follows the more stringent perspective. the membrane that is above the entire heart, the diaphragm in the midst of the belly that separates between the digestive organs and the respiratory organs, i.e., the one that when it is cut open, the lungs could be seen and which is called the membrane [above] the liver, the white place in the center [of the liver], and the fat of the colon. In these organs, we do not say that they shield [the perforation] because they are firm.25And thus they will not bend in a manner that will seal the perforation. Kosher fat and flesh, by contrast, are pliable and will seal any perforation over which they are located. A perforation that is sealed with one of these is not considered as sealed.
A portion of fat from a beast that corresponds to a portion of forbidden fat in a domesticated animal does not seal [a perforation] even though it is permitted to be eaten.26All fat in a wild beast is permitted to be eaten. Hence, in this instance, the general principle stated above is not followed and we determine which fat can seal a perforation by comparing it to the corresponding situation in a domesticated animal.
With regard to a fowl, all its kosher fat will seal a perforation beneath it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1)].", + "When the stomach is perforated, [the animal] is trefe. There is nothing that can seal it for the fat upon it is forbidden.27The Turei Zahav 48:2 questions: Seemingly, the spleen should be able to seal it, for the spleen may be eaten and lies on the stomach. He explains that since the membrane covering the spleen is forbidden, it is not an effective seal. Similarly, when there is a perforation of the abdomen or gut that extends to its outer periphery, [the animal] is trefe. If one of them was perforated and the perforation leads to the cavity of the other,28This is possible for some of these stomachs are located within each other. [the animal] is permitted.29For the perforation will not reach beyond the digestive system.", + "[The following rules apply when] a needle is found in the folds of the gut: If it was from one side,30From the following clause, it appears that according to the Rambam, this refers to a needle lodged in the outer side of the gut. See the following note. [the animal] is permitted.31There are other authorities (their perspective is reflected in the objections of the Ra'avad) who maintain that even in this instance, an examination is required. Moreover, they explain that we are speaking about a needle lodged in the inner side of the gut. If a needle is lodged in the outer side of the gut, according to this view, the animal is trefe.
According to the Rambam, as mentioned above, we are speaking about a needle that comes from the outside. As the Rambam states in Chapter 11, Halachah 4, in such an instance, all of the inner organs of the body must be checked (Kessef Mishneh). Thus this halachah is speaking only with regard to the gut. Since the perforation does not breach the digestive system, the animal is not considered trefe.
Both perspectives are based on a comparison of two Talmudic passages (Chullin 50b and 51a) that are difficult to reconcile. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 48:8,10) follows the perspective of the other authorities. The Rama cites the Rambam's perspective with regard to a hole made on the inside that does not pass from one side to the other and states we may rely on it in a situation where a severe financial loss is involved. If it caused a complete perforation extending [from the outer side] to the cavity of the gut and a drop of blood was found at the place of the perforation, [the animal] is trefe. For we are certain that the perforation occurred before the slaughter. If there is no blood at the place of the perforation,32The Ra'avad and the other authorities state that the drop of blood must be found on the outer side of the gut. [the animal] is permitted. For we are certain that after the slaughter, under pressure the needle caused the perforation.33Since the animal was slaughtered, its blood was not flowing and it is unlikely that there will be sufficient pressure to force it outside the gut.", + "When an animal swallowed a substance that will perforate the intestines, e.g., the root of the asafetida34A yellow-brown, bitter, offensive-smelling resinous material used for medicinal purposes in the ancient Middle East. plant or the like, it is trefe, for we can be certain that it perforated them. If there is a question whether or not a perforation was made,35The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 51), and others quote a different version of the Mishneh Torah concerning which questions are raised. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the version translated here and the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah states that it is followed by most of the authoritative manuscripts. [the animal] must be inspected.36The Ra'avad states that the inspection of the intestines is difficult. That position is reflected in the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 51:4) who rules that in such a situation, because of its questionable status, the animal is considered as trefe.
When one of the organs of the digestive system through which the food waste passes, i.e., the intestines, are perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Among them are those which are curved and surrounded by each other like a snake that is coiled, they are referred to as the small intestines. If one of them was perforated [on the side where] another [is located], the animal is permitted, for the other [intestine] will shield [the perforation].", + "When the digestive organs were perforated and viscous body fluids seal them, [the animal] is trefe for this seal will not endure.37When the digestive system is under pressure, the vicious fluids will not seal effectively. The Siftei Cohen 46:1 states that the same ruling applies even if a scab has developed over the wound.
When a wolf, a dog, or the like, snatched [an animal's] intestines38I.e., after the animal was slaughtered. and they were perforated after they were abandoned, we surmise that [the predator caused the perforation and the slaughtered animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps [the predator] made a perforation in a place where one already existed.39Chullin 9a explains that, unless there is a known factor that certainly indicates otherwise, we assume that an animal that has been slaughtered is acceptable. In this instance, the perforation would lead us to rule stringently. Nevertheless, since the fact that it was snatched by a predator can serve as an explanation, we rely on the original assumption. Accordingly, for this ruling to apply, we must know that the animal was slaughtered properly [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 25:3)].
If [an intestine] was discovered to be perforated40As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, in this instance, we do not know how it was perforated. and it was not known whether it was perforated before [the animal's] slaughter41In which instance, the animal would be considered as trefe. or afterwards, we perforate it again and compare the two. If the first perforation resembles this one, [the animal] is kosher.42The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 50:1) rules that in the present generation, we are not knowledgeable regarding the making of such a comparison and hence, forbid the animal because of the doubt. If there was a difference between them, [we presume that the first] occurred before the slaughter and [the animal] is trefe. If the perforation in doubt was handled, the perforation to which it is being compared must also be handled before the comparison is made.", + "When [an animal's] digestive organs protrude outside [its body] without having been perforated,43I.e., the animal's belly was cut open while it was alive. It could no longer support the digestive organs and they protruded beyond the skin. Nevertheless, the digestive organs themselves were not blemished. [the animal] is permitted. If they were turned upside down,44As might happen if a person was trying to reinsert them into the animal's belly. [the animal] is trefe even if they were not perforated. [The rationale is that] once [the digestive organs] have been turned upside down,45The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:2) rules that if an animal's digestive organs are discovered to have turned upside down, the animal is trefe, even if the organs did not fall out of its belly. they will never return to their ordinary functioning and [the animal] will not live.", + "The final digestive organ that is straight and not curved from which feces are excreted in the genital area and is joined [to the body] between the thighs is called the colon. If it is perforated even slightly, [the animal] is trefe,46Even though the fat upon it is kosher, it does not seal it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1); see also Halachah 10]. as applies with regard to the other digestive organs.
When does the above apply? When the perforation faced the cavity of the belly. When, however, it was perforated at the point where it is joined between the thighs, [the animal] is permitted.47For the thighs will support it (Chullin 50a). [Indeed,] even if the entire place where it is joined between the thighs is removed, [the animal] is permitted, provided a length of at least four fingerbreadths48The Rambam (based on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi) considers this the meaning of the term \"in order to grasp it\" used by Chullin, loc. cit. Although there are more lenient views, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:5) follows the Rambam's ruling.
According to Shiurei Torah , a fingerbreadth is 2 cm, according to Chazon Ish 2.48 cm. remains in an ox.49For other animals, the minimum measure is calculated proportionately (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).", + "A fowl does not have a stomach, an abdomen, or a gut. Instead of them, it has a crop and a craw.50Unlike a domesticated animal that has four stomachs, a kosher fowl has two.
All the factors that render an animal trefe apply equally to a domesticated animal, a wild beast, and a fowl.51I.e., though the laws above were stated with regard to a domesticated animal, they apply equally to a beast and to a fowl if they possess the same organs.
When the roof of the crop receives even the slightest perforation, [the animal] is trefe. What is meant by the roof of the crop? That which becomes extended with the gullet when the fowl extends its neck.52Hence just as the perforation of the gullet disqualifies a fowl; so, too, the perforation of this portion of the crop (see Chullin 58b). If, however, the remainder of the crop becomes perforated, [the fowl] is permitted.", + "The craw has two [membranes] covering it. The outer one is red like meat; the inner one is white like skin. If one was perforated and not the other, [the fowl] is permitted unless they are both perforated, even slightly. If they are both perforated, but in places that do not correspond, [the fowl] is permitted.53Compare this entire halachah to Chapter 3, Halachah 20, concerning the gullet, noting the similarities and differences.", + "The spleen is not one of the limbs which is disqualified because of a perforation of even the slightest size. Therefore our Sages did not include it in that category. Instead, a perforation that disqualifies it has a measure which is not uniform throughout it.
What is implied? One of the ends of the spleen is thick and the other thin, like the shape of the tongue. If the thick end was perforated by a hole that extends from side to side, [the animal] is trefe. If the hole does not extend from side to side, [more lenient rules apply]: If a portion the thickness of a golden dinar remains,54This is less than half the thickness of the spleen (Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh). [the animal] is permitted. If less than that remains, [the perforation] is considered as if it extends from side to side and [the animal] is trefe. If the thin side is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.55This applies with regard to an animal and a beast. More lenient rules apply with regard to a fowl and the perforation of its spleen never causes it to be considered as trefe, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 10.", + "[The following principle applies with regard to] all of the organs concerning which our Sages said that even the slightest perforation [causes the animal to be considered] trefe. If [that organ] was removed entirely, [the animal] is trefe.56Since the perforation of an organ impairs its functioning to the point that the animal is trefe, the implication is that the organ must function excellently for the body to be maintained. Hence, we can certainly assume that an animal will be considered trefe when the organ does not exist at all. This applies whether it was eliminated through sickness, removed by hand, or [the animal] was created lacking the organ.
The same laws also apply if it was created with two of that organ, for any extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking.57The commentaries explain that since the organ is duplicated, neither one of the two organs will be able to function satisfactorily. Thus it is as the animal is lacking that organ entirely.
What is implied? If one of an animal's or fowl's digestive organs, its gall-bladder,58The Radbaz states that if we do not see a gall-bladder, we have the liver tasted. If its taste is bitter, we assume that the gall-bladder was absorbed by the liver. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3). or the like was removed, it is trefe. Similarly if it was discovered to have two gall-bladders or two of a [particular digestive] organ, it is trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If, however, the spleen was removed or two spleens were found, [the animal] is permitted, for [that organ] is not among those listed [by our Sages in this category].", + "[The statement that] an extra digestive organ causes an animal to be considered trefe applies only when there is an entire extra organ from its beginning to its end and thus two digestive organs are found next to each other as is [sometimes found in] the digestive organs of a fowl59Thus this phenomenon does not render a fowl trefe, only an animal (Chullin 58b). or the extra organ projects outward like a branch from a bough and it is a separate entity.60The Siftei Cohen 47:1 rules that this applies only when the extra organ branches off from the stomach. If it branches off from the intestines, it is acceptable. [The latter applies] whether in a fowl or in an animal. If, however, the extra organ returns and becomes combined with the main organ and they are fused at the two ends61If, however, each of the organs branches off from a different place in the animal's digestive system, the animal is trefe even if the organs merge at their end (Maggid Mishneh). even though they are separate in the middle, [the animal] is permitted and the organ is not considered as extra." + ], + [ + "The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.1For the other will protect the lung (Chullin 46a). If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe.2If both membranes are perforated, but the perforations do not correspond, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:1) rules that the animal is kosher, but the Rama considers it trefe. Even if the entire upper membrane3The Radbaz states that if, by contrast, the lower membrane alone is peeled off, the animal is trefe, for certainly, part of the lung will be lacking. is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest4I.e., from the beginning of the ribcage. or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower portion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.5Chapter 1, Halachah 7 defines the portion of the windpipe acceptable for ritual slaughter. If, however, the windpipe is perforated in a such a place, the animal is kosher.", + "If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] is trefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter.6Although the functioning of the lung is dependent on the windpipe, since a perforation in the lung causes an animal to be considered trefe, it is given that status (Chullin 32b). Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If one of the bronchioles7The small extensions of the windpipe that convey air within the lungs itself. was perforated, even if the perforation is covered by another bronchiole, [the animal] is trefe.8Because the walls of the bronchioles are firm and not pliant. Hence, they will not serve as effective seals (Rashi, Chullin 48b).
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:6), Rav Yosef Caro rules that if a perforation in a bronchiole is sealed by flesh, the animal is acceptable. See also the comments of Siftei Cohen 36:20. As the Rama states (Yoreh De'ah 39:18), the custom in the Ashkenazic community is to rule that an animal is trefe if its lungs are perforated even if they are sealed closed by other inner organs. If one saw that it was perforated and then it developed a scab, [the scab] is of no consequence.9For ultimately it will open (Rashi, Chullin 47b).
If the mass of the lung is perforated, [the animal] is trefe, even if one of the ribs seals the perforation.10Since this portion of the lung is located below the ribs, the perforation will never be sealed thoroughly. If it was perforated in a place where the lung breaks into lobes and the lobe lies on [a rib, the animal] is kosher.11For the lobes lie on the ribs themselves and the seal will be maintained.
One of the issues related to the question of whether a lung is perforated or not is sirchaot, adhesions, where the lung becomes attached to the ribs and/or other portions of the body. For a discussion of that matter, see the latter half of Chapter 11.", + "When does the above apply? When the perforation in the lobes is sealed by flesh.12It is not necessary to inspect the lung to see if air escapes (Tur, as quoted by Siftei Cohen 39:44). If, however, the perforation is pressed against the bone, it does not protect it.13For the bone is firm and will not move when the lung expands and contracts. Even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe (ibid.). If, however, the perforation in the lobes was clinging both to the bone and the flesh, [the animal] is permitted.", + "When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths14Boils or carbuncles filled with pus. This heightens the probability that it could have been perforated. appeared on it.
What do we do [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise.15And we postulate that the animal was bruised after its slaughter. Hence it is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that we are talking about a situation where the perforation is opposite the bruise. If they do not correspond, the animal is trefe. If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it is trefe.16Here, also, even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:22)]. The Ra'avad states there is an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's ruling here and that in Chapter 11, Halachah 6. See the notes to that halachah for a discussion of this issue.", + "When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] is trefe.17I.e., unless it is checked as the Rambam continues to explain.
How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung]18According to the Rambam, the portion of the lung itself is cut off and we inspect it. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:9) offers a different interpretation. PAGE 239 that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it,19I.e., the feather is placed on the portion of the lung that was cut off. One blows throw the brochia. If the air passes through the bronchioles, the feather should flutter. it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher.20The movement indicates that air flows through it. If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].", + "[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm21Chullin 47b states that hot water will cause the lung to contract and cold water will cause it to become firmer. If it was put in either hot or cold water first, it may not be checked in lukewarm water afterwards [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:4)]. water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] is trefe.22For obviously the lung has been perforated and the air is flowing out from it. If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.", + "Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.23This principle is significant with regard to the discussion concerning sirchaot, adhesions, in Chapter 11. The Ra'avad (whose interpretation is paralleled by that of Rashi and other Rishonim) maintain that inflating the lung represents a stringency: If air escapes, an animal is considered trefe even though there is reason to permit it. The same principle cannot be applied as a leniency. The Rambam - and his approach is shared by Rabbenu Tam, Rashba, Rabbenu Nissim, and others - maintains that this principle was instituted as a leniency.", + "[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung24The Siftei Cohen 36:21 states that this leniency applies even if the entire lung has degenerated and can be poured out like water. can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.25As stated in Halachah 3, if one of the bronchioles is perforated, the animal is trefe. Certainly, that ruling applies if it has degenerated.
What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead26Because it is glazed, one will be able to see the white strands clearly if they exist [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 36)]. or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degenerated27And the white strands are the remnants of the bronchioles. and it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.28When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:7) adds a concept stated in the following halachah: that the fluid poured out may not be putrid. (The commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch maintain that the Rambam would follow this stringency.) The Rama, however, rules leniently, maintaining that as long as the bronchioles are not visible, the animal is acceptable.", + "[The following rules apply when] boils29Based on Chullin 48a, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:1) states that even if boils are very large, the animal may still be kosher. are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe.30The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch. The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of many other Rishonim who permit the animal even if the fluid in the boils is putrid. When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.31The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on his decision in the previous halachah. The Rambam maintains that the fluid indicates that there is a strong possibilility that a perforation exists. Other opinions maintain that the animal is permitted, for the fluid is not necessarily a sign that a perforation exists. According to those views (and they are accpeted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), there is no need for the inspection the Rambam requires.", + "When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] is trefe,32The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:3) state that even if the boils are filled with clear fluid, the animal is trefe. If, however, they are hard, it is acceptable. for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them33Rashi (Chullin 47a) explains that most likely the membrane was perforated and therefore the boils developed. Rabbenu Nissim explains that since the two boils are next to each other, it is likely that one perforated the other. and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted.34The Maharil requires a further check: to see whether they share the same pocket (Turei Zahav 37:5; Siftei Cohen 37:7). If not, [the animal] is trefe.", + "If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces.
When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: \"It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter.\"35The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) suggests that the shape of the perforations must indicate that they were made by the butcher.
If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.36See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.", + "We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.37This represents the Rambam's understanding of Chullin 50a. Rashi interprets the passage slightly differently. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) follows Rashi's understanding and states that we do not compare a lung from one animal to that of another one at all. And even within one animal, we do not compare a perforation in a large lobe to one in a small lobe.
If a perforation is found in one of the boils of a lung, [the animal] is trefe. We do not say: \"Perforate another boil and compare them,\"38With the intent of seeing whether the perforation was made before or after the slaughter. because the matter is not clearly apparent.39I.e., in this instance, it is not easy to differentiate based on the comparison.", + "When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them].40In contrast to the liver where some authorities make a distinction in the ruling depending on the direction it is facing (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8), no such contrast is made with regard to a needle found in the lung. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:16-17) which states that if a drop of blood is found on the exterior of the lung, the animal is considered trefe. the Rama rules that unles a significant loss is involved, whenever a needle is found in the lungs, the animal is considered trefe. If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it,41And thus it is impossible to check it by blowing air into it, for the air will be released through the portion cut off. [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.", + "When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughter42For while the animal was alive, the lung was continually expanding and contracting and it would be very hard for the worm to perforate it (Turei Zahav 36:8). and emerged [then].
There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ].43The remaining halachot in this chapter are expressions of this principle. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 48:5) rules that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the correct appearance of the lung. Hence, if its appearance changes and one might think it became unacceptable, we rule stringently. For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated.44And as stated above, the perforation of a lung disqualifies it. For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [Leviticus 13:10] states: \"And there is a spot of living45We have translated the verses literally to convey the meaning mentioned by the Rambam. In its ordinary context, the terms would be translated as \"healthy flesh.\" flesh in the blemish...,\" and [ibid. 13:10] states: \"On the day when he will present living flesh....\" Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not \"alive.\"", + "[The following principles apply if] the color46Our translation is dependent on the following halachah. of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].47And even the slightest perforation of the lung disqualifies the animal.", + "There are five forbidden hues for the lung: black like ink, greenish-yellow48This represents the translation the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 38:1) offers for the Talmudic term yerok quoted by the Rambam. like hops, [yellow] like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower,49Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2). Rashi (Chullin 47b) renders the term as saffron. There is little difference between the two colors. or like the color of meat.50Which is reddish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].
Safflower is a color which clothes are dyed. It is comparable to hairs that are slightly red, leaning towards gold.", + "If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted.51For during the animal's lifetime, the lung is repeatedly inflated. If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.", + "There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.", + "When a fowl52These laws do not apply with regard to an animal because its skin is tough and its ribs protect it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:7]. The Rama, however, does not accept this leniency. The Ra'avad (Chapter 10, Halachah 11) also accepts the Rama's view. fell into a fire and its heart, its liver,53In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:1), Rav Yosef Caro qualifies the ruling with regard to the liver, stating that to disqualify a fowl, it must change color at its thin end, the portion next to the gall-bladder, or at the place where it derives its nurture. or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe.54Significantly, if the lungs change color, the fowl is not disqualified, because its ribs protect it [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.55For it is possible that the cooking and/or the massage will restore the organ's natural color.", + "Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire,56I.e., even though we do not know that the fowl fell into a fire, the fact that these organs changed color serves as evidence of such [Kessef Mishneh; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 3:3)]. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:6) quotes this ruling, but the Rama rules leniently and states that we must see that the fowl actually fell into a fire. its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.57The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3) does not accept this stringency, following the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that we do not disqualify an animal unless we definitely know that it fell into a fire.
Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the term chasairah?1Chasairah means \"lacking.\" This category disqualifies an animal if it lacks one of its fundamental organs. There are two organs that render [an animal] trefe if it is lacking the proper number. They are the lungs and the feet.2It is true that there are more organs that render an animal trefe if they are lacking. Nevertheless, the lack of these organs is not placed in this category. Instead, the organ is considered as nekuvah, \"perforated.\" As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, if the perforation of these organs will disqualify an animal, surely, it will be disqualified when the organs are lacking entirely.
The lungs have five lobes. When a person will drape them over his hand with the inner portion of the lung facing his face,3I.e., he will be holding the animal from behind. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:2). there will be three [lobes] on the right and two on the left. In addition, at the right of [the lung], there is a small ear-like attachment. It is not in the row of the lobes. It has a pocket of its own and it is located in the pocket. This [attachment] is called a rose, because that is what it looks like.4I.e., it is small and red. It is not counted as one of the number of lobes.
Accordingly, if [an animal] does not possess this \"rose,\" it is permitted.5The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 35:2 states that it is customary within the Ashkenazic community to declare an animal trefe, if it lacks this \"rose\" or if there is an extra \"rose.\" For this is the pattern with regard to [this organ], there are some animals in which it is found and some in which it is not found. If it is perforated, [the animal] is trefe even though its pocket seals it.6For it does not seal it thoroughly.", + "If the number of lobes was lacking and one was discovered on the left side or two on the right side, [the animal] is trefe. If, however, there were two on the right side and this \"rose,\" [the animal] is permitted.7For the \"rose\" functions in place of the missing lobe. If, however, the \"rose\" is found on the left and there is only one lobe, the animal is not acceptable. Since it is not in its proper place, it cannot replace a lobe (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:7) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but the Rama differs.", + "If the position of the lobes was switched and three were found on the left and two on the right without a \"rose\" or the \"rose\" was found together with three on the left side, it is trefe, for it is lacking on the right side.8In this instance, the \"rose\" does not compensate for the lack of the lobe, because it is not on the right side.", + "[The following rules apply if] the number of lobes was increased. If the extra lobe was on the side of the [other] lobes9\"In the row of the lungs\" to borrow the expression used by Chullin 47b. Generally, we follow the principle that every addition is considered as if it was lacking. In this instance, however, since the extra lobe is found in the row of the lobes, it will not disturb the lungs' ordinary functioning. or in front of the lungs10In this instance as well, the Rambam maintains that the position of the extra lobe prevents it from disturbing the lungs' ordinary functioning. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:3) accepts the Rambam's ruling.The Rama quotes more stringent views that state that any extra lobe that is not found in the row of the lungs is trefe. Nevertheless, the custom is to rule leniently. on the side of the heart, [the animal] is permitted. If [the extra lobe] is on its back, near the ribs, [the animal] is trefe for an extra [organ] is considered equivalent to one that is lacking. [This applies] provided it is [at least] the size of a myrtle leaf.11I.e., even when inflated. If it is smaller than this, it is not considered as a lobe and [the animal] is permitted.", + "When one lobe is found clinging to the one next to it, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, [the lobes] became attached out of the ordinary order, e.g., the first lobe became attached to the third, [the animal] is trefe.12If the portions of the lungs that follow their natural pattern become attached to each other, all authorities agree that the animal is acceptable, for this attachment will not create any difficulties. And if the third lobe becomes attached to the first, all agree that it is unacceptable, because as the lungs inflate, the attached portions will separate, cause the attachment to tear, and in doing so, perforate the lobe.
The commentaries question - and the Maggid Mishneh actually maintains that the text of the Mishneh Torah reads in this manner - whether if the back of one lobe is attached to the back of the lobe next to it, the animal is also trefe. For in this instance as well, since the lobes are attached in an unnatural order, the attachment will tear and perforate the lungs. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro maintains that the Rambam's wording implies that as long as the attached lobes are next to each other, the lung is acceptable, even if they are attached back to back. He does note, however, that there are authorities who rule stringently. He concludes in his Kessef Mishneh and also rules accordingly in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:4), that the attachments do not disqualify an animal only when the lobes are attached side to side - and not back to back - in the natural order. If they are attached in such an order, however, the lungs need not be checked. The Rama differs, requiring an examination. He also states that there are authorities who maintain that we are not knowledgable regarding how to make such an examination and therefore such an animal should be considered as trefe. Nevertheless, his ruling also leaves room for leniency if less than half of the body of the lobes are attached. See Siftei Cohen 39:11.", + "[The following laws apply if] there are two lobes [that appear] as one lobe and do not appear as two lobes joined together.13I.e., they appear as one flush mass, without differentiation. If they are distinct, but attached, they are governed by the laws stated in the previous halachah. If there was a space about the size of a myrtle leaf14From Halachah 4, it appears that this is the size of a lobe that is significant. Hence, just as it is significant in disqualifying an animal, it is significant in causing it to be deemed kosher (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:8). The Rama cites authorities that maintain that even if a smaller portion is distinct, the lobes are considered as separate and the animal, kosher. The Rama states that we may rely on these opinions if there is a significant loss involved. between them - whether at their root, in their center, or at their end - so that it is clear that they are two which are attached, [the animal] is permitted. If not, it is lacking [one of the lobes] and is trefe.", + "If the entire lung appears like two rows and it is not divided into lobes, it is trefe. Similarly, if the body of the lung itself15I.e., it is lacking part of its ordinary mass. was lacking, even if it was not perforated, it is considered as if the required number of lobes were missing and [the animal] is trefe.16The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the Rambam rules that if a lung has decayed, it is kosher as long as its bronchioles and outer membrane are intact despite the fact that it has lost a large amount of its substance. He explains that this is not necessarily a contradiction to the ruling here. In that instance, since the lung has decayed significantly and yet, the brochioles have not been perforated, we assume that they will not be perforated. In this instance, by contrast, we suspect that the lack within the lung will cause it to become perforated.
Many other Rishonim, however, do not make such a distinction and maintain that a lung is acceptable if it is lacking some of its inner substance. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:8) quotes both views. The Rama states that certain circumstances call for leniency and others, for stringency. Therefore if a dried portion that could be chipped away with one's nail of even the slightest size was discovered within it, it is considered as lacking17The Kessef Mishneh explains that others explain that it is considered as if the dried portion is perforated and therefore the animal is trefe. and [the animal] is trefe.", + "When a lung was discovered to be inflated like the leaves of a palm tree, we rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. For this is an abnormal addition to its body and perhaps an addition to its body is considered as equivalent to a lack in its body, as stated with regard to the number of lobes.18As stated in law 4, an extra lobe is considered as a missing lobe and disqualifies a lung. Similarly, there is reason to think that an increase in the size of a lung is equivalent to a decrease in its size and disqualifies it in a similar fashion.", + "[The following rules apply when] an animal became frightened and was terrified to the extent that her lung19When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14) speaks of an \"entire lung\" shriveling. shriveled and came closer to becoming dried out: If it became frightened through the hand of heaven, e.g., it heard a thunderclap, saw lightening, or the like, it is permitted.20For in the near future, it will regain its natural size, as indicated by the following halachah. If it became frightened through human activity, e.g., another animal was slaughtered in its presence or the like, it is considered as if it were lacking and it is trefe.", + "How do we inspect it? We place the lung in water for an entire day. In the winter, we place it in lukewarm water, in a container which will not cause the water to condense on its back21Chullin 55b states that earthern-ware utensils made of white clay will have water condense upon them easily. and flow so that they will not become cold rapidly. If the season was hot, we place it in cold water in a container on which the water will condense on its back so that the water will remain cold. If [the lung] returns to its natural state, [we assume that the animal was frightened] by the hand of heaven and it is permitted.22Chullin, loc. cit., also debates what the ruling would be if one animal is frightened by another animal. The Rambam does not discuss the issue for seemingly, it would be able to be resolved by the same test mentioned here. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14 considers being frightened by other animals as equivalent to being frightened by the hand of heaven.
The Radbaz also states that if the lung returns to normal, it is acceptable even if the animal was frightened by human activity. Other authorities differ and maintain that if we know that the animal was frightened by human activity, this examination is not acceptable (Siftei Cohen 36:30).
See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:15) who rules that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the various inspections that our Sages spoke about and hence, should not employ them. If, however, it appears that an animal's lung shrunk due to the hand of heaven, it should not be permitted without undergoing this examination. If it does not return, we [we assume that] it happened due to mortal causes and [the animal] is trefe.", + "An animal that was lacking a foot23The category of chasairah involves two organs: the lungs and the feet. Having discussed the lungs, the Rambam proceeds to discuss the feet. As the Rambam continues to explain, here the intent is the hindlegs. from the time it came into being is trefe. The same ruling applies if it possesses an extra foot, for an extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking. If, however, it has three forefeet or only one forefoot, [the animal] is permitted. Accordingly, if [an animal's] forefoot is cut off, [the animal] is permitted.24The severed foot itself, however, is forbidden.
If its leg is cut off from the joint and above,25There are three segments of an animal's leg between its trunk and its hoofs. We are speaking about the joint between the highest and middle portions of the leg. [the animal] is trefe. From the joint and below, it is permitted.26Note, however, Halachah 15. Which joint are we speaking about? The joint that is at the end of the hip close to the body.", + "When the bone27I.e., the highest of the three bones of the animal's legs. is broken above the joint, if it emerges outward entirely or in its majority, it is considered as if it were cut and fell off,28For it will never heal. and [the animal] is trefe. If the flesh or the skin29Even the covering of the skin alone is sufficient. This represents a revision of the Rambam's thinking. The initial text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:13) stated \"there was flesh and skin covering it\" and he altered it to read \"flesh or skin covering it.\" was covering both the majority of the thickness and the majority of the circumference of the broken bone, [the animal] is permitted.30For the leg will heal. Not only is the animal permitted, the leg itself is permitted. We do not consider it as if it had been severed and removed during the animal's lifetime. This applies even if part of the broken bone fell off and no longer is present. Soft sinews are not considered as flesh.", + "The juncture of the sinews is a place in an animal and in a beast which is above the heel, at the place where the butchers hang the animal.31I.e., it is customary for the butchers to make a hole in the lowest bone of the leg and hang the animal head downwards so that they can skin it and cut off its meat. The definition of \"the juncture of the sinews\" is important, as reflected in Halachot 15-18. There are three white sinews there, one thick and two thin. From the place where they begin and are firm and white until [the place] where the whiteness is removed from them and they begin to become red and soften is considered the juncture of the sinews. It is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths32A fingerbreadth is approximately 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.
Together with the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:5) also quotes Rashi's view that the juncture of the sinews is four fingerbreadths long. [long] in an ox.", + "In a fowl, there are sixteen such sinews. They begin on the lowest bone, from the extra talon and [continue] until the conclusion of the foot which is [covered by a series of] crusted scales.33The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's statements, admitting that the sinews of a fowl - as do those of an animal - begin in its actual feet. Nevertheless, he states, it is only from the joint between the second and third bone of the leg that they are considered halachically significant. For the laws of trefot that govern a fowl parallel those which govern an animal.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites authorities that maintain that the text of the Mishneh Torah is in error and it should be amended to parallel the Ra'avad's comments. He cites a responsum attributed to the Rambam sent to the Sages of Provence which also follows this understanding. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:8), he rules in this manner.", + "When an animal's feet are cut off at the juncture of the sinews, it is trefe. Do not be amazed and say: \"How is it possible that [an animal] will be permitted if its [legs] are cut off above the juncture of the sinews - indeed, it is permitted unless its [legs] are cut off above the highest joint as we explained34Halachah 11.- but forbidden if they are cut off at a lower point, at the juncture of the sinews?
[The resolution is as follows: With regard to the designation of an animal] as trefe, [there are times when] one will cut from this point and it will live, but if [one would cut] from this point, it would die. We have not forbidden this animal, because its feet were cut off at a particular point,35Thus according to the Rambam - and his position is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 55:1) - if an animal's leg is severed in the top bone, it is trefe. If it is severed in the bottom bone, it is kosher, and if it is severed in the middle bone, the ruling depends on whether it was severed above the juncture of the sinews or not.
The Shulchan Aruch also cites a more stringent view - and the Rama states that it should be followed - that if the middle bone was severed, even above the juncture of the sinews, the animal is trefe. Moreover, even if it is severed at the lower joint, above the cartiledge called the irkum, the animal is trefe. but rather because its sinews were severed36The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam is explaining that a severed leg causes an animal to be considered trefe, because it is in the category of chasairah. When the juncture of its sinews is lacking, it is considered trefe, because it is in the category of netulah, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. and this renders it trefe, as will be explained.37See Halachot 16-17.", + "What is meant by the term Netulah?38Netulah is one of the eight types of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"removed.\" There are three limbs and organs which even though they do not [cause an animal to be deemed trefe] when they are perforated or if they are lacking [when the animal is born],39I.e., there are many organs besides these three that cause an animal to be deemed lacking if they are removed. The disqualification of these other organs, however, is not included in the category of netulah, rather that of nekuvah, perforated, or chasairah, lacking, i.e., the organ's removal is the greatest perforation or lack that could be. See Chapter 6, Halachah 20. cause the animal to be deemed trefe. They are: the juncture of the sinews,40The Ra'avad notes that seemingly, the disqualification of an animal because the junction of its sinews was severed would cause it to be placed in the following category, pesukah (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). He and the Kessef Mishneh explan that since our Sages (Chullin 57a, 76a) uses the expression: \"If the juncture of the sinews was removed,\" it should be placed in this category and not in the other. Note the Siftei Cohen 56:1 who interprets the Ra'avad slightly differently. the liver, and the upper jaw-bone.", + "We already explained41Halachah 15. that when an animal or a fowl has had its legs cut off at the place of the juncture of the sinews, it is deemed trefe only because the sinews were cut.42I.e., the fact that this portion of the leg is missing is not significant. Therefore if the sinews alone were severed even though the foot remains intact, the animal is trefe, because the juncture of the sinews has been removed.", + "In an animal, if the thick sinew alone was severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the two [thin] ones remained. If both thin ones were severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the one thick one is larger than both of them. [In both cases,] the entire juncture was not removed, only its smaller portion.43As long as a majority - either a majority in number or the larger portion - remains intact, the animal is permitted (Chullin 76b). If the majority of each of them was severed, [the animal] is trefe. Needless to say, this applies if they were all severed or removed.", + "With regard to a fowl, even if the majority of one of the sixteen were severed, [the animal] is trefe.44The Kessef Mishneh explains this ruling as follows. Since we are stringent with regard to a fowl and require that all sixteen be intact, we extend that stringency and disqualify it if the majority of one is impaired. For when the majority of a sinew is impaired, it is as if the entire sinew is impaired.", + "When a fowl's wings are broken, it is permitted like an animal whose forelegs have been cut off.45As stated in Halachah 11. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:2-3) which explains details about this situation.", + "When the entire liver has been removed, [the animal] is trefe. If an olive-sized portion remains at the place from which it is suspended46I.e., near the kidneys. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin3:1) refers to it as the place attached to the blood vessels from which blood from the liver is dispersed throughout the body. Chullin 46a refers to this as \"the place from which it derives its nurture.\" See the Siftei Cohen 41:1 and the Turei Zahav 41:1 which quote authorities that interpret this as meaning the place to which it is attached on the diaphragm. and there is an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder, it is permitted.47For these are fundamentally necessary for its functioning.
If the liver slipped from its place and it is [in disarray, as long as it is still] connected with the diaphragm, [the animal] is permitted.48Because it - and its two fundamentally necessary portions - are still intact. If the place from which it is suspended and the portion at the place of the gall-bladder were removed, it is trefe49For these two portions are of primary necessity. even if the remainder is intact as it was previously.", + "If there remained an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder and an olive-sized portion at the place from which it was suspended, [the animal] is kosher. If, however, the portions of the liver which remain intact were scattered, some here and some there, flattened, or elongated like a strap, there is a doubt concerning its status. It appears to me that it is forbidden.50Chullin 46a raises questions regarding these situations and does not resolve them. The commentaries question why the Rambam rules definitively that the animal is unacceptable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies even if there is one olive-sized portion that is entirely intact.", + "When the upper jaw-bone is removed, [the animal] is trefe.51The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 33) objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating: \"I am amazed at his prohibition [of the animal] when the upper jaw is removed since this is not explicitly stated. Are we to add to the trefot?\"
To explain: Chullin 54a states that if the lower jaw is removed, the animal is permitted. The Rambam deduces that the implication is that if the upper jaw is removed, the animal is trefe. The Tur claims that this deduction is not explicitly stated and hence, we have no right to make this deduction on our own. The sages of Provence wrote to the Rambam, voicing similar objections and he replied to them, explaining that the upper jaw is necessary for an animal's breathing. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:2) states that it is proper to show respect for the Rambam's ruling.
Based on the gloss of the Rogatchover Gaon, it is possible to explain why this defect is not mentioned by the Sages of the Talmud. This defect is not in and of itself a direct cause for an animal's death, it is only a side factor that will lead to its death. Hence our Sages did not mention it, for they mentioned only those factors whice are direct causes (Yayin Malchut). If, however, the lower jaw-bone is removed,52When quoting this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:1) adds that the animal must be able to continue to survive by being force-fed. i.e., it was cut away until the place of the gullet and the windpipe, but they were not uprooted [from their connection to the throat, the animal] is permitted.", + "Whenever it is said that an animal is trefe if a limb or organ is lacking,53I.e., the lungs and the hindlegs as stated in Halachah 1. so, too, it is trefe if that organ is removed.54As mentioned above (Chapter 6, Halachah 20), all the organs which render an animal trefe if they are perforated, also render it trefe when they are lacking or removed. Nevertheless, the Rambam places them in the category of nekuvah for that is the most inclusive classification. If, however, it is said that an animal is trefe if an organ is removed, [the animal] is not forbidden unless that organ was cut off. If, however, the animal was created lacking that organ, it is permitted. For if not, the categories of chasairah and netulah would be identical.55And our Sages listed them as separate categories, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
The Rashba (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh, Chapter 6, Halachah 20) differs and maintains that an animal is also trefe if it is lacking a liver from the beginning of its existence. Why then did our Sages mention chasairah and netulah as two separate categories? Because if they were not listed so, one might argue that an animal is trefe only when an organ is removed and not when it was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence or vice versa. The Tur follows the Rashba's view. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 50:72 quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rashba's view. The Rama states that we may rely on the Rambam when a significant loss is involved. Whenever it is said that [an animal] is permitted if a limb is removed, it is certainly permitted56For the ruling is more lenient if at the outset, it was not created with this organ, as above. if this organ was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence and was never created.", + "When the uterus of an animal, i.e., its womb, was removed or its kidneys were removed,57I.e., even if both kidneys were removed. Even though according to medical knowledge, there is no way such an animal can live, our Sages did not deem this condition trefe. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12. it is permitted. Therefore if it was created with only one kidney or with three kidneys58For we follow the principle that any extra organ is considered as if it was removed. it is permitted.59It is, however, considered a blemish and the animal may not be offered as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 2:11). Similarly, it is permitted if a kidney was perforated.", + "Although [an animal] is permitted despite the fact that a kidney was removed or it was created without it, if its kidney is extremely undersized, it is trefe.60In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that many Rishonim disqualify an animal only when its kidneys shrank because of illness. If, however, it was born with an undersized kidney, it is acceptable. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:5), he accepts this ruling as law. For a small animal, this means the size of a bean, for a large one, the size of a grape.61The Turei Zahav 44:12 and the Siftei Cohen 44:13 quote authorities who explain that the grapes of Eretz Yisrael were very large during the Talmudic period. At that time, a grape was significantly larger than a bean. Similarly, [an animal could be deemed trefe] if a kidney became afflicted, i.e., its flesh became like the flesh of a dead [animal] that decayed after several days, [degenerating] to the extent that were one to take hold of a portion of it, it would decompose and fall apart. If this condition reached the white portion62The white fat from the loins enters the kidneys, because the different sinews are all interwoven there, causing a split to appear within the kidney. This is located in the midst of the kidney (Rashi, Rabenu Nissim, Chullin 55b). in the kidney, the animal is trefe. Similarly, if moisture - even if it is not putrid - is found in the kidney or murky or putrid fluid is found there, it is trefe. If, however, clear water is found there,63Even if it reached the white portion [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:2)]. [the animal] is permitted." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the term pesukah?1Pesukah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"severed.\" If the skin that covers the marrow2We are using this term to translate the Hebrew term moach. It is a loose term that means the material inside a bone. Chullin 45b states that this marrow is no of significance with regard to the category of pesukah. Therefore the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 32:1) rules that if the skin is severed, even if the marrow is entirely intact, the animal is trefe. of the spinal cord is severed, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided the majority of the circumference [of the skin] is severed. If, however, the skin is split lengthwise or perforated, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if the backbone was broken, but the spinal cord was not split or the marrow within the cord was crushed and it would wobble, [the animal] is permitted because its skin is still intact.", + "If the marrow decomposes and it can be poured like water or like molten wax to the extent that the spinal cord cannot stand when it is lifted up, [the animal] is trefe. If [the reason] it cannot stand is because of its weight, [the animal's] status is doubtful.3And hence, forbidden. This ruling is granted because this question is left unresolved by Chullin 45b. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that this is speaking about a situation where the spine has become thick and heavy, but has not become soft inside. The question is whether this state results from sickness or not.", + "To where does the spinal cord extend? It begins behind the two glands at the beginning of the neck and extends until the second divider.4See the following halachah for a definition of this term. Thus nothing remains after it except the third divider which is close to the beginning of the tail.", + "There are three dividers. They are three bones that cleave to each other below the vertebrae of the backbone. The spinal cord of a fowl extends to in between the wings.5The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 32:5) interprets this as meaning the place where the wings are attached to the body. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosafot who state that the term refers to the place where the wings lie on the body, a point somewhat lower on the fowl's back. Below these places, we are not concerned with the cord that extends there, even if its skin was severed or its marrow decays.6For these portions are not fundamental for the body's functioning.", + "What is meant by the term keru'ah?7Keru'ah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"ripped apart.\" [This concerns] the flesh which covers the majority of [the animal's] belly. If it is ripped open, the belly will [fall] out. If this flesh is ripped open, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if the tear did not reach the belly itself to the extent that it is seen. Instead, since the majority of the thickness of this flesh was ripped open8I.e., but some flesh remained. The animal is deemed trefe, because in such a condition, ultimately, the entire flesh will tear open.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that many others authorities interpret Chullin 50b, the Rambam's source, as implying that if the cut extends over the majority of the animal's belly, the animal is trefe. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rashba as explaining that the Rambam does not accept this approach because if so, there would be no difference between the categories of pesukah and keru'ah. The Rashba himself does not require such a distinction and instead, maintains that these categories overlap. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 48:3), he quotes the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 48:5 and the Siftei Cohen 48:4 mention the other positions. or removed, [the animal] is trefe.
What is the measure of the tear? It must be a handbreadth long. If the animal was small and the majority of the length9The dissenting perspectives also maintain that the same ruling applies with regard to the majority of the breadth of the belly (Siftei Cohen 48:6). of the flesh covering the belly was torn, it is trefe even though the tear is not a handbreadth long. For the majority [of its length] was torn.", + "[The following rules apply if] a circular or oblong portion of this flesh was cut.10The previous halachah was speaking about a slit where the flesh was not necessarily cut away. This halachah speaks about a situation where a portion of flesh was removed (Kessef Mishneh). If it was larger than a sela,11A coin of the Talmudic era with a diameter that is a third of a handbreadth, i.e., 2.6 cm. According to Shiurei Torah. i.e., large enough to fit tightly three date seeds next to each other, [the animal] is trefe. For when this size cut will be extended, it will be a handbreadth in length.12I.e., a sela is a little more than a third of a handbreadth. Hence the circumference of the cut is a handbreadth.", + "When the skin of an animal was removed from it entirely - whether it was torn off by hand or [decomposed due to] sickness - the animal is trefe. This is called geludah. If a [portion of] skin as wide as a sela remained on the entire backbone, one as wide as a sela remained on the navel, and one as wide as a sela remained on the tips of the limbs, [the animal] is permitted.13Chullin 55b mentions a tradition that maintains that if an animal's entire skin is removed except for a portion the size of a sela, the animal is acceptable. [For from this portion, the entire skin will be regenerated (Rashi).] The Talmud continues mentioning three views, concerning where the skin must remain. Since the matter remains unresolved and we do not know which of these views should be followed, the Rambam rules that all of the different views must be respected and a portion of skin the size of a sela must remain in each place (Kessef Mishneh).
(Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2), the Rambam mentions only the view that requires skin on the backbone and not the other opinions.)
If [a portion] as wide as a sela was removed from the entire backbone, from the navel, or from the tips of the limbs, but the remainder of the skin remained intact, there is a doubt [concerning the ruling].14This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence there is a doubt concerning the ruling. It appears to me that we permit [the animal].15Many authorities question the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, if the question was left unresolved by the Talmud, on what basis does the Rambam permit it?
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro offers two explanations for the Rambam's ruling:
a) As the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 3, since all the categories of trefot aside from a derusah are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, we rule leniently concerning doubts.
b) Since the skin was removed from only one of three places mentioned, there is a multiple doubt (sefek s'feikah) involved. Perhaps the place from which the skin was removed was in fact not the vital area (for the halachah could follow one of the other views). Even if it was the vital area, perhaps the fact that the skin on the remainder of the body is intact is enough for the animal to be permitted.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 59:1), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Siftei Cohen 59:2 mentions the opinions that differ with the Rambam. The Rama adds that if the skin is removed from all three places, the animal is trefe.", + "What is meant by the term nefulah?16Nefulah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"one which fell.\" When an animal fell from a high place - at least ten handbreadths high17In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Chullin 50b which states that this refers to a height of four handbreadths above the ground, for there are six handbreadths from the bottom of an animal's belly until the ground. He also cites this view in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:1).
Moreover, in both those sources, Rav Yosef Caro also quotes views that state that this law applies only when the animal fell on its own or knew that it was being pushed by others. If, however, it was pushed suddenly by others, it is considered trefe even if it fell from a lesser height. - and one of its organs was crushed, it is trefe.
To what extent must it be crushed? It must be smashed and become ailing because of the fall to the extent that its form and appearance have been destroyed. Even though [the organ] is not perforated, cracked, or broken, [the animal] is trefe. Similarly, if one struck it with a stone or a staff and crushed one of its organs, it is trefe.18In this instance, the distance of ten handbreadths is not significant. Instead, if it was thrown with enough force to cause mortal damage, it can cause the animal to be rendered trefe.
To which organs are we referring? To those in the body's inner cavity.19Therefore all of those organs must be inspected (Chullin 51a). The Ra'avad states that every organ that would render the animal trefe if crushed must be inspected.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6) writes that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal that falls should be permitted only if it walks, as stated in the next halachah.", + "If an animal walks after falling from a roof, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].20Walking is adequate proof that the animal was not injured by the fall to the extent that it would no longer survive. Since it walks, we assume that it is healthy and do not require an internal examination, as stated in Halachah 17. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only when the animal stood up on its own and then walked. If it was lifted up by others, we harbor suspicions. Similarly, he quotes authorities who maintain that it must walk in an ordinary manner. If it limps as it proceeds, an inspection is required. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6).
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:5), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who writes that even if an obvious change was seen in its organs, as long as it was able to stand and walk, we do not suspect that it has become trefe. If it stood, but did not walk, we harbor such suspicions.21And require an inspection. If it jumped [from the roof] on its own [initiative], we do not harbor suspicions.22For we assume that it prepared itself and jumped in a manner that would not cause injury. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:11) states that this applies even if the animal is not able to walk afterwards. If [a person] left his animal on the roof and found it on the ground, we do not suspect that it fell.23We assume that it jumped intentionally, as explained above.", + "When bulls butt each other, we do not harbor suspicions.24We do not assume that their inner organs were crushed, because this is ordinary behavior. If one falls to the ground, we do harbor suspicions.25Chullin 51a states that we harbor suspicions, not because of the butting, but because the animal fell and we fear that it was injured by the fall. Similarly, [if we see] an animal dragging its feet, we do not suspect that its organs were crushed or that its backbone was severed.26I.e., if we do not know that it fell.", + "When thieves steal lambs and throw them outside the corral, we do not suspect that their organs were crushed, because they throw them only with the intent that they will not be broken.27Otherwise, the stolen animal will not be of any benefit to them. If they returned them and threw them back to the corral because of fear,28I.e., the fear of being caught. we suspect that they [may have become trefe].29For the thieves will not show any care for the animal while throwing it back into the corral. If they returned them out of a desire to repent, we do not harbor suspicions about [the lambs], because [the thieves] have the intent of returning them intact and therefore they will be careful when throwing them back.", + "When an ox was forced to lie down for slaughter, we do not suspect [that its internal organs were crushed]. [This applies] even if it fell considerably to the extent that it made a great noise30Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning that the ox bellowed, but this does not appear to be the Rambam's understanding. when it fell. [The rationale is that] it implants its hooves into it and strengthens itself until it falls to the ground.31I.e., it is aware that they are trying to push it to the ground and it fights against them, thus lessening the impact of its fall. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:10) writes that if the ox's feet are tied when it is pushed to the ground, we do suspect that it may have become trefe. For when its feet are tied, it cannot control its fall.", + "If one struck an animal on its head and the blow extended toward its tail or [one hit it] on its tail and the blow extended toward its head - even if one struck it on the entire backbone - we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If the staff had bulges at different points, we harbor suspicions [concerning the animal].32For the blows dealt by the bulges will be far more severe. Hence the backbone must be inspected to see that it is intact. See Turei Zahav 32:4. If the head of the staff reached a portion of the backbone,33In the previous clauses, the head of the staff did not carry with the brunt of the blow, because the lower portion of the staff struck the animal's body first. Here we are speaking about a situation where the first and primary focus of the blow is delivered to the backbone by the top of the staff. This is a far more dangerous situation. we harbor suspicions. Similarly, we harbor suspicions if he struck the animal across the breadth of the backbone.34For the entire blow is focused on one point of the spinal cord.", + "When a fowl is knocked against a firm article,35Or conversely, if a firm article like a stone falls upon it [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:2)]. e.g., a heap of grain, a mound of almonds, or the like, we suspect that its organs may have been crushed. If, by contrast, it is knocked against something soft, e.g., a folded garment, straw,36I.e., a mound of loose straw. Straw that has been bundled, by contrast, is considered as a firm article (Chullin 51b)., ashes, or the like, we do not harbor such suspicions.", + "[The following rules apply when a fowl's] wings became stuck with glue37One of the techniques with which hunters would trap wild fowl would be to set traps for them which would glue their wings to boards or other articles that prevented them from flying. when it was being captured and it received a blow. If only one wing became stuck, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].38For by flapping the other wing, it will slow its fall and lessen the impact. If both of its wings became stuck and it receive a blow on its body, we harbor suspicions.39For there is nothing to soften the blow.", + "[The following rules apply if] it is knocked against water.40It was snared and fell unto a river. If it swam for its full height upriver, against the current, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].41For this exertion indicates that the animal is fundamentally healthy. It is equivalent to - or exceeds - the walking mentioned in Halachah 9. If, however, it swims downriver, with the current, we harbor suspicions, for perhaps the water is carrying it.42In a still body of water that has no current, any swimming is a sign of health (see Siftei Cohen 58:10). If it advances toward straw or hay that is floating on the river, it is swimming on its own power and we do not harbor suspicions.", + "In all situations where we said: \"We do not harbor suspicions,\" it is permitted to slaughter [the animal] immediately and it is not necessary to check whether an organ was crushed. In all situations where we said: \"We harbor suspicions,\" if one slaughters the animal, one must check its entire internal category from the head to the hind-thigh.43The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:3) quotes the Rambam's ruling. As mentioned above, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6) states that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal is permitted only if it walks after falling or receiving a blow. If any of the factors that render an animal trefe mentioned above were discovered or one of the inner organs was crushed to the extent that its form was destroyed, [the animal] is trefe. Even if one of the organs whose removal does not render the animal trefe,44The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the ruling in this instance. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: Since Chullin 51a states that if the uterus is crushed, it is not significant, we conclude that the crushing of all other internal organs is significant. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to single out the uterus. Moreover, he explains that crushing an organ can be more painful and more injurious to an animal than removing it. e.g., the spleen or the kidneys, is crushed, [the animal] is trefe. [There is] an exception, the uterus; if it is crushed, the animal is permitted.", + "[The gullet and the windpipe] do not require examination in these situations, for a fall will not crush them.", + "When an animal fell from a roof and did not stand [afterwards],45I.e., if it stands - even if it does not walk - it can be slaughtered immediately and deemed acceptable through an examination, as above. it is forbidden to slaughter it until one waits an entire day.46For sometimes the effects of a fall are not immediately evident. It is possible that an animal would be inspected and no difficulty found, but in truth, the effects of the fall would be enough to kill it. To reduce the possibility of such an occurrence, Chullin 51b requires waiting an entire day before slaughtering the animal. See Kessef Mishneh. If one slaughtered it during this time, it is trefe. When one slaughters it after a day has passed, an examination is required, as we explained.47See Halachah 17.", + "Similarly, if a person treaded on a fowl48Chullin 56a describes such a situation with regard to an animal. The Rambam speaks of a fowl instead, for this is a more commonplace possibility. with his feet, an animal trampled it, or it was crushed against a wall and it is in its death throes, we leave it alive for a day. Afterwards, we slaughter it and examine it,49Lest its organs have been crushed. as we stated.", + "When the majority of [the windpipe and the gullet were separated50This addition is made on the basis of the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:10). and] hang loosely, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if [this condition occurs] due to reasons other than a fall.51Nevertheless, the Rambam mentions this condition here in connection with an animal that has fallen, because this is the most frequent situation in which this condition will occur. Similarly, if they became folded over,52They came loose from the place where they are attached within the throat area. See Chapter 3, Halachah 14, and Chapter 8, Halachah 23. [the animal is unacceptable,] because they are no longer fit for ritual slaughter.53The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam rules that the animal is unacceptable, not because it would die because of this condition, but because it is impossible to slaughter it correctly. If, by contrast, [even though] the majority54If, however, the entire throat became loose from the jaw, the animal is trefe. For the gullet and the windpipe themselves, however, must remain taut and this is impossible if the entire throat has become loose (Kessef Mishneh). of the throat55I.e., the area referred to by the halachic term \"the entrance to the gullet.\" was set loose from the jaw-bone, [the animal] is permitted, for the throat area is not fit for ritual slaughter, as we explained.56Chapter 1, Halachah 6." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the term sheburah?1Sheburah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"broken.\" That the majority of [an animal's] ribs are broken. An animal has eleven ribs2An animal also has several smaller ribs, but they're being broken does not impair the animal's functioning. on either side of its body. If six were broken on one side and six on the other, or eleven were broken on one side and one on the other, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided it is the half that faces the backbone3I.e., the portion close to the backbone. If the ribs are broken there, the animal's functioning can be impaired. If they are broken closer to the chest, the impairment will be less severe. and not the half that faces the chest.", + "When six [ribs] were broken on either side, [the animal] is trefe [only] when they are large ribs that have marrow. If not, even though they represent the majority of the animal's ribs and they were broken facing the backbone, [the animal] is permitted.
Similarly, if the majority of the ribs were uprooted, [the animal] is trefe. [Moreover,] if even one rib is uprooted together with half of the vertebra in which it is lodged, it is trefe. Similarly, if even one vertebra was uprooted from the backbone, it is trefe, even if was a vertebra that is below the flanks where there are no ribs.", + "[The following rules apply when] the thigh of an animal has slipped from its place and has left its socket. If its sinews, i.e., the peg-like projections from the bones of the socket which extend toward the bone that enters the socket4Speaking in analogy, the Rambam refers to this as \"the male\" bone. and holds it have degenerated, [the animal] is trefe.5The Ra'avad states that if the thigh is dislocated from its upper socket, the animal is trefe even if the sinews have not degenerated. According to the Ra'avad, the law stated by the Rambam applies when the thigh is dislocated from its lower socket. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 55:2) follows the Rambam's perspective. The Rama mentions that there are opinions that maintain that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the determination of whether the sinews have degenerated and we should rule an animal trefe whenever its thigh has dislocated. He advises following these views whenever there is not a significant loss involved. If they have not degenerated, it is permitted.6Similarly, even if they have degenerated, but the bone has not slipped out of its socket, the animal is permitted. As long as the bone is in its socket, we assume that the sinews will regenerate [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 55:2)].", + "Similarly, with regard to a fowl, if its hip is dislocated,7And the sinews have degenerated (Kessef Mishneh). it is trefe. If its wing is dislocated from its socket, we fear that it perforated the lung.8I.e., the dislocation of the wing is not sufficient to render the fowl trefe in its own right. Nevertheless, we fear that perhaps it perforated the lung and hence require an examination. Therefore we conduct an examination.9And inflate the lung [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:3)]. Afterwards, it may be eaten. When the foreleg of an animal is dislocated from its socket, it is permitted. We do not harbor any suspicions.10For the shoulder socket is substantial and will prevent the arm bone from perforating the lung (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 52:1) quotes views that rule that an animal is trefe if its arm is broken close to its body and there are signs of internal bleeding.", + "When a portion of the skull of a domesticated animal or wild beast the size of a sela11As mentioned above, a sela is one third of a handbreadth wide. Thus its diameter is 2.6 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 3.2 cm according to Chazon Ish. was removed, [the animal] is trefe even though the membrane was not perforated. If a skull was perforated by a number of small holes that [detract from the skull's] substance, they are all added together [to see if their combined size equals] a sela.", + "Similarly, if the majority of the height12I.e., the majority of the portion of the skull from the eyes up (Rashi, Chullin 52b). and the majority of the circumference of a skull was crushed, [the animal] is trefe, even though its membrane is intact and it is not lacking any substance. If the majority of its height was crushed, but the majority of its circumference was intact or the majority of its circumference was crushed, but the majority of its height was intact, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal] is trefe or not.13This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. It appears to me that we forbid it.14The Kessef Mishneh clarifies why it is necessary for the Rambam to make this statement, seemingly, it is obvious. Whenever there is an unresolved question concerning a Torah prohibition, we rule stringently. He explains that it is possible to interpret the Talmud's question is implying that in one circumstance, when the majority of the skull's height alone is crushed or the majority of its circumference alone is crushed, the animal is kosher, but we are unsure of which one. Therefore the Rambam must clarify that because of the doubt, both situations are forbidden.", + "When the bones of the skull of a water fowl, e.g., a goose, is perforated,15Even the smallest perforation can render the fowl trefe (Kessef Mishneh). [the fowl] is trefe even though the membrane has not been perforated. [The rationale is that] the membrane is soft.16If it is not protected by the skull, it will most likely be perforated in the near future (Rashi, Chullin 56a).
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a weasel struck17The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation where the weasel bit the fowl on the skull. If it struck it with its paws, the fowl is trefe, because it is a derusah, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 6. a land fowl on the head or it was struck by a stone or a piece of wood. One places his hand next to the hole and applies pressure or he inserts his hand into the fowl's mouth and applies pressure upward. If [the fowl's] brain emerged from the hole, it can be concluded that the membrane has been perforated and it is trefe. If not, it is permitted.18According to the Rambam, both of these procedures are equally effective (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 30:2) writes that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to this process of examination and should rule that a fowl is trefe whenever its skull is perforated.", + "When an animal's blood pressure causes it to choke,19Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:5). it was affected by a black gall bladder secretion20Here also our translation follows the above source. Rav Kapach draws support for his interpretation from Psalms 74:1. or a white gall bladder secretion,21Which, when not released according to the proper measure causes the animal to become very heavy and to have difficulty moving (ibid.). It must be emphasized that other commentaries offer different interpretations of all three of these conditions. it ate a poison which kills animals, or drank fowl water, it is permitted.22In this context, the commentaries have cited Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:11: \"When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.\" If it ate a poison that could kill a human or it was bitten by a snake or the like, it is permitted with regard to the laws of trefe, but it is forbidden because of the mortal danger [partaking of it could cause].23For the poison or the venom could kill the person who partakes of the animal's meat. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1. 24. The Kessef Mishneh explains the basis for the Rambam's reckoning: Whenever a condition that causes an animal to be deemed trefe is mentioned explicitly by the Talmud, it is considered as being in a separate category even though it is a derivative of another category. For example, the degeneration of the bronchioles is considered a separate category even though it is a derivative of the category of the perforation of the bronchioles.", + "Thus the total number of conditions that cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be deemed trefe when singled out are seventy. They are: 1) an animal that has been attacked;24See Chapter 5, Halachah 4 ff.
2) the perforation of the entrance to the gullet;25See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
3) the perforation of the membrane of the brain;26See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.
4) the degeneration of the brain itself;27See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
5) the perforation of the heart itself to its cavities;28See Chapter 6, Halachah 5.
6) the perforation of the arteries leading from the heart;29See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
7) the perforation of the gall-bladder;30See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
8) the perforation of the arteries of the liver;31See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
9) the perforation of the maw;32See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
10) the perforation of the stomach;33See Chapter 6, Halachah 11.
11) the perforation of the abdomen;34See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
12) the perforation of the gut;35See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
13) the perforation of the digestive organs;36See Chapter 6, Halachot 13-14.
14) the digestive organs protruded outside the animal's body and became overturned;37See Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
15) the perforation of the thick portion of the spleen;38See Chapter 6, Halachah 19.
16) a lack of a gall-bladder;39This - and the instances mentioned in situations 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever the perforation of an organ causes an animal to be deemed trefe, the animal is also deemed trefe if that organ is lacking.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's mentions a lack of only those organs that an animal could exist for a brief time without. If, however, it is impossible for an animal to exist at all without these organs, e.g., the brain and the heart, it is improper to call the animal trefe. Instead a more severe term is appropriate.
17) being born with two gall-bladders;40This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal to be deemed trefe if organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed trefe if it possesses two of that organ.
18) a lack of a maw;
19) being born with two maws;
20) a lack of a stomach;
21) being born with two stomachs;
22) a lack of an abdomen
23) being born with abdomens;
24) a lack of a gut;
25) being born with two guts;
26) a lack of one of the digestive organs;
27) being born with an extra digestive organ;
28) the perforation of the lung;41See Chapter 7, Halachot 1-2.
29) the perforation of the windpipe in a place where it is not fit for ritual slaughter;42This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal to be deemed trefe if organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed trefe if it possesses two of that organ.
30) the perforation of the bronchioles of the lungs, even if it is covered by another one;43See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
31) a portion of the lungs has become closed;44See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.
32) the degeneration of one of the bronchioles of the lungs;45See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
33) the discovery of putrid fluid in the lungs;46See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
34) the discovery of putrid liquid in the lungs;47See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
35) the discovery of murky liquid in [the lungs] even if it has not become putrid;48See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
36)the degeneration of the lung;49See Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
37) a change in the lung's appearance;50See Chapter 7, Halachot 15-19.
38) the reversal of the gullet's appearance;51See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
39) a lack of one of the required number of lobes of the lung;52See Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2.
40) a change in the order of the lobes;53See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
41) the addition of a lobe on the back [of the lung];54See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
42) the attachment of one lobe to another out of the ordinary order;55See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
43) the discovery of a lung without division into lobes:56See Chapter 8, Halachah 7.
44) the lack of a portion of the lung;57See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
45) a portion of the body of the lung is dried out;58See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
46) the discovery of the lung in an inflated state;59See Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
47) a lung became shriveled because of fear of humans;60See Chapter 8, Halachot 9-10.
48) the lack of a hindleg; whether from birth or because it was cut off;61See Chapter 8, Halachot 11-12.
49) the possession of an extra leg;62See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
50) the removal of the junction of the sinews;63See Chapter 8, Halachot 13, 15-18.
51) the removal of the liver;64See Chapter 8, Halachot 21-22.
52) the removal of the upper jaw-bone;65See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
53) a kidney that became extremely undersized;66See Chapter 8, Halachah 26.
54) a kidney that has become afflicted;67See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
55) the discovery of fluid in the kidney;68See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
56) the discovery of murky liquid in the kidney, even if it is not putrid;69See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
57) the discovery of putrid liquid in the kidney;70See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
58) the severance of the spinal cord;71See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
59) the softening and degeneration of the spinal cord;72See Chapter 9, Halachah 2.
60) the ripping open of the majority of the flesh that covers the belly;73See Chapter 9, Halachot 5-6.
61) the removal of [an animal's] skin;74See Chapter 9, Halachah 7.
62) the crushing of [an animal's] organs due to a fall;75See Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.
63) the slippage of the gullet and windpipe;76See Chapter 9, Halachah 21.
64) the breaking of the majority of [the animal's] ribs;77Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
65) the uprooting of the majority of the ribs;78Halachah 2 of the present chapter.
66) the uprooting of one rib together with its vertebra;79Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
67) the uprooting of one vertebra; 80Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
68) the slippage of the thigh from its socket;81Halachah 3 of the present chapter.
69) the lack of a portion of the skull the size of a sela;82Halachah 5 of the present chapter.
70) the crushing and smashing of the majority of the skull;83Halachah 5 of the present chapter.", + "These seventy conditions of infirmity which cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be forbidden as a trefe were each explained together with all the particular laws. All of the possible parallels that can be found with regard to a fowl in the organs that are common to an animal and a fowl are the same with regard to an animal and a fowl. The only exceptions are the conditions that render an animal trefe in the kidneys, the spleen, and the lobes of the lung. For a fowl does not have a division of lobes like an animal does. If there is such a division, there is no fixed number. The spleen of a fowl is round like a grape and is not the same shape as that of an animal.84Therefore the distinction between its thick and thin end that applies with regard to an animal does not apply with regard to a fowl. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 43:6) rules that a perforation of the spleen does not render a fowl trefe. The Siftei Cohen 43:10, however, quotes opinions that rule that a perforation does render it trefe. [The conditions of infirmity] concerning the kidneys and the spleen [that render] an animal trefe were not mentioned in order to find parallels with regard to a fowl. Therefore no set measure was given concerning a fowl with regard to a kidney whose size was reduced. Similar concepts apply in other analogous situations.85I.e., other factors concerning a kidney which render an animal trefe, as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:10) states bluntly: \"There are no factors involving the kidneys of a fowl that render it trefe.\"", + "There are two conditions that render a fowl trefe in addition to those that render an animal [trefe] despite the fact that [an animal] also possesses these organs. They are: a) a fowl whose digestive organs have changed color because of [exposure to] fire;86See Chapter 7, Halachot 20-21. An animal will not be affected in this way, because his ribs will protect him and the skin of his digestive organs are stronger than that of a fowl. The Ra'avad differs and states that if an animal is subjected to heat and it burns its internal organs to this degree, it will surely die immediately. Therefore, our Sages did not mention it as a trefe. The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are two other conditions that render a fowl trefe. They involve perforations in the stomachs. Since parallel - albeit not identical - conditions apply with regard to an animal, the Rambam does not list them as separate categories.
b) a water fowl whose skull bone has been perforated.87See Halachah 7 of this chapter. This stringency applies only to a water fowl, because its membrane is very soft.", + "One should not add to these conditions that render an animal trefe at all.88Chullin 54a makes this statement, implying that in the Talmudic era, these rulings were already established. For any condition that occurs with regard to a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl aside from those listed by the Sages of the early generations and which were agreed upon by the courts of Israel can possibly live. [This applies] even if it is known to us according to medical wisdom that ultimately it will not live.89Kin'at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven truth..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.", + "Similarly, with regard to those [conditions] which [our Sages] listed as [causing an animal to be] deemed trefe even though it appears from the medical knowledge we possess that some of them will not kill and it is possible for the animal to live - we follow only what the Torah says,90The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) states that even if the animal survives for over a year, it is still deemed trefe and it is forbidden to partake of it. as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: \"According to the Torah in which they will instruct you.\"91Kin'at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven truth..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.", + "Whenever a butcher is knowledgeable about these [conditions that cause an animal to be deemed] trefe and he has established a reputation for observance, he may slaughter [animals], inspect them himself, and sell them without any suspicion. [The rationale is the word of] one witness is accepted with regard to the Torah's prohibition whether his testimony will lead to benefit for him or not.
We already explained92Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:7-9. that we do not purchase meat from a butcher who slaughters and inspects [the animal] himself in the Diaspora or [even] in Eretz Yisrael in the present age unless he established a reputation as an expert. If he sold an animal that was trefe, we place him under a ban of ostracism and remove him from his position.93The Maggid Mishneh writes that although he is not permitted to sell meat on his own, he is permitted to sell under the supervision of a trustworthy expert.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:2) rules leniently concerning this manner and allows such a person to continue slaughtering in certain situations. The Siftei Cohen 2:11 questions this leniency. He cannot reestablish his credibility until he goes to a place where his identity is not recognized and he returns a lost article that is very valuable or [slaughters an animal] for himself and declares it trefe even though it involves a significant loss." + ], + [ + "[The following principles apply] whenever a situation arises that creates a doubt that an animal or fowl should be deemed trefe because of one of the above conditions - e.g., an animal that fell and did not walk, it was attacked by a wild beast and we do not know whether the flesh near the intestines turned red or not, its skull was crushed and we do not know if the majority of the skull was crushed or not, or other similar circumstances: If the animal was male and it remained alive for twelve months, we operate on the assumption that it is intact like all other animals. If it was female, [we wait] until it gives birth.1I.e., if it gives birth successfully, that is a sign that it is intact. There is no need for an inspection or waiting twelve months. Even the Rama who maintains that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to inspections will consider an animal acceptable if it lives this amount of time (Yoreh De'ah 57:18).
With regard to a fowl: If it is male, [we wait] twelve months. If it is female, [we wait] until it lays all the eggs that it is carrying, spawns a new load, and lays them.", + "During this course of time, it is forbidden to sell an animal concerning which doubt has arisen whether it is a trefe to a gentile lest he sell it to a Jew.2Without informing him of the doubt involved.
The Rama quotes the Sha'arei Dura who writes that if a condition that renders an animal trefe is obvious, we permit its sale to a gentile. For a Jew who seeks to purchase it will immediately become aware of the difficulty.
The Rama also mentions the ruling of the Terumat HaDeshen that if there is merely a question of whether an animal is trefe, it may be sold to a gentile. The Siftei Cohen 57:51 accepts this leniency only with regard to an animal regarding which there is a question whether or not it was attacked, but not with regard to other conditions.", + "We operate under the presumption that all domesticated animals, wild beasts, or fowl are healthy3Chullin 11b explains that this is based on the principle that we follow the majority. Since most animals are healthy we assume that this is an animal's condition unless there is reason to suspect otherwise. Note, however, Halachah 7. and we do not suspect that they possess conditions that would render them trefe. Therefore when they are slaughtered in the proper manner, they do not require an examination to see whether they possess a condition that would render them trefe. Instead, we operate under the presumption that they are permitted unless a situation arises that arouses suspicion.4Based on Chullin 51a, the Kessef Mishneh goes further and states that even if the animal possesses a condition that is somewhat problematic, if we can find a commonplace explanation for it that will not render an animal trefe and the factor that will render it trefe is uncommon, we do not require an examination. Afterwards, we inspect it with regard to that condition alone.", + "What is implied? For example if the wing of a fowl is displaced, we check the lung to see if it was perforated.5See Chapter 10, Halachah 4. If an animal fell, we check it to see if its organs were crushed.6See Chapter 9, Halachah 17. If the skull was crushed, we check the membrane of the brain to see if it was perforated.7See Chapter 10, Halachah 7. If it was struck by a thorn or shot by an arrow, a javelin, or the like and it entered its inner cavity, our suspicions are aroused and we require an inspection of the entire inner cavity lest it have perforated one of the organs whose perforation renders an animal trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "Therefore when there are growths on a lung or sirchos upon it - i.e., strands or adhesions - hanging from it to the ribcage, the heart, or the diaphragm, we suspect that it was perforated and require an inspection.8I.e., the strands and similarly, the other conditions the Rambam proceeds to mention, are abnormal factors that lead us to the supposition that there was a perforation in the lung. See Chapter 7, Halachot 5-11 that mention several situations of this nature. Similarly, if a swelling was found that contained fluid, we fear that a bronchiole below it was perforated and [the lung] must be inspected.9The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that even if the swelling is an indication that the bronchiole has been perforated, that does not disqualify the animal, for it is possible that it is sealed by flesh. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would also accept that ruling and one of the points that one must inspect is whether there is flesh under the swelling or not.", + "[Following the logic] of this law, [the following rules] would apply if it was discovered that sirchos like strands were hanging from the lung, whether they extended from the body of the lung to the ribcage or to the heart or to the diaphragm. We cut the sirchah, take out the lung, and [place it] in lukewarm water, and blow it up.10See Chapter 7, Halachah 8. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim concerning this issue.
The Ra'avad also mentions that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Chapter 7, Halachah 5. For there, the Rambam differentiates between whether or not there is a bruise on the chest, and there he does not speak of inspecting the lung in warm water. In a lengthy discussion in his gloss to Chapter 7, the Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction between the two rulings. If it is discovered to be perforated,11I.e., if the water bubbles. [the animal] is trefe. If the water does not bubble, it is intact, without any perforations, and [the animal] is permitted. For [the sirchah] was not at the place of a perforation12There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if this situation is possible or not. or perhaps only the outer membrane [of the lung] was perforated. Nevertheless, I never saw anyone who ruled in this manner, nor did I hear of a place that follows such practice.13I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah, the common custom is more stringent.", + "Even though this is what appears [to be the ruling] from the words of the Sages of the Gemara, the widespread custom among the Jewish people is as follows: When a domesticated animal or a wild beast is slaughtered, we tear open the diaphragm and check the lung in its place.14See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) which states that we must check the lungs for sirchot and concludes: \"Whoever breaks ranks and eats without checking [the lung] should be bitten by a snake.\" If a sirchah is not discovered hanging between the one of the lobes and the flesh where it lies, whether on the flesh that is between the ribs or the flesh on the breastbone,15For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachot 3-4, even a perforation found in this place does not render the animal trefe. or a sirchah was found, extending from one lobe to the other in order,16For as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, an adhesion of such a type does not render the animal trefe. or from the body of the lung to the lobe which is next to it,17See the notes to Halachah 9. Depending on the version of that text, the Rambam's ruling concerning this matter may be questioned. we permit [the animal].18The Rama 39:18 writes that it is common custom in the Ashkenazic community to rule that all sirchot in the lung cause an animal to be deemed forbidden except those extending from a lobe to the lobe next to it or those from the body of the lung to the lobe next to it. He does, however, permit leniency if it is possible to rub out the sirchah and then examine it to see that there is no perforation.", + "If a strand is discovered leading from the lung to any place which it is extended, even if it is thin as a hair, we forbid [the animal].19I.e., except to the lobe that is near it (Radbaz).", + "Similarly, if there was a strand extending from the lung to the heart, the diaphragm, the protective covering of the heart, or the rose,20See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, which explains that this is a tiny lobe found on the right side of the lung. we forbid [the animal]. [This applies] whether the strand came from the body of the lung or whether it came from a lobe and [applies regardless of its size], even if it was a hairsbreadth.21For we fear that it will cause a perforation in the lung. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Halachah 6.
Similarly, when the rose is attached to its pocket or a strand extends from it to its pocket, we forbid it. And when a strand extends from lobe to lobe in improper order, we forbid [the animal].22The text of the Mishneh Torah which the Ra'avad had seemed to apply that even a strand extending from the body of the lung to the lobe is unacceptable. The Ra'avad therefore protests and maintains it is acceptable. The Migdal Oz states that he also saw texts of the Mishneh Torah with this version, but that the authoritative manuscripts do not follow that reading. This is also the position of the Kessef Mishneh.", + "There are places where the custom is that if a sirchah is from the lobe to the flesh and the bones of the ribs and the sirchah is attached to both of them, they forbid it.23If the sirchah is attached to the flesh alone, it does not cause an animal to be considered trefe (see Chapter 7, Halachah 4). Here, however, it is attached to both the flesh and the bone and that creates the problem. My father and teacher is from those who forbid it. I, by contrast, am one of those who permit it.24The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:18) cites the Rambam's position.
Parenthetically, the commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements here from the standpoint of kibud av, \"honoring one's father.\" Seemingly, after mentioning his father, he should have stated - as he himself rules in Hilchot Mamrim 6:5 - \"May he be remembered for the life of the world to come.\" Also, that same source (Halachah 3) forbids \"offering an opinion that outweighs [that of his father].\" In a small number of places, they permit it even when it is attached to the bone alone, and I forbid it.25The Ra'avad follows the more lenient view. Here also the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) cites the Rambam's position.", + "There are places where a lung is [always] blown up to see whether or not it is perforated. In most places, however, it is not blown up, because there is no factor that raised a suspicion [concerning it]. In Spain and in the West, we never blew up a lung unless there was a factor that caused suspicion.26The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) mentions both the custom of blowing up the lung in all cases and the Rambam's position that it is not necessary to blow up all lungs. He concludes that the Rambam's position should be given primacy.", + "All of these factors27I.e., the stringencies forbidding an animal because of certain sirchot and requiring the lungs to be blown up. are not dictated by law, but rather are a result of custom, as we explained.28Halachot 6 and 7. I never heard of anyone who had a fowl's lung inspected unless a factor that raised suspicions arose.29At present, there are certain Rabbinic authorities who require that the lungs of a chicken be inspected, because in the present age, since chickens are raised in a manner very different from their natural circumstances, it is common for there to be difficulties with regard to their lungs.", + "If, [after] a person slaughtered an animal and cut open its belly, a dog or a gentile came, took the lung, and departed before [the slaughterer] checked the lung, [the animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps it was perforated or perhaps it was attached [to the bone], for we do not presume that [an animal] was forbidden.30If there is no evidence that a factor existed that caused the animal to become trefe, we do not assume that one existed. Even according to the custom that requires an animal to be checked, we are assuming only the possibility that it might have a disqualifying factor. If there is no way to check it, we assume that the animal is kosher.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that since disqualifying factors involving the lung are common, if a lung was not inspected, we cannot consider the animal as kosher. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:2) quotes the Rambam's view. The Rama mentions the position of the Ra'avad and states that the Rambam's position may be followed only when there is a possibility of severe financial loss. Instead, we operate under the presumption that the animal is kosher unless we know what factor caused it to become trefe. Just like we do not suspect that the membrane of the brain was perforated, the backbone [was severed], or the like, we do not raise suspicions over a lung that has been lost. There are no customs regarding such a situation, because customs are not instituted with regard to factors that are not commonplace.", + "If a gentile or a Jew comes and takes out a lung before the lung was inspected, but the lung [still] exists, we blow it up.31Normally, we would not blow up a lung unless there was a factor that aroused suspicion. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we did not see it in its natural situation - and the possibility exists that there were such factors there - we require an examination. The Turei Zahav 39:2 states that, according to our custom [see Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:4)] that we do not rely on an examination in a situation where there is a clearly problematic situation, we do not rely on an examination in this instance as well. [This applies] even if we do not know whether there were growths or not, because of the widespread custom.", + "There are places who rule that we forbid [an animal] if there are sirchot hanging from the lung, even if they are not attached to the chest or to another place. This practice causes great loss and the forfeit of Jewish money. This was never the custom in France or in Spain and it was never heard in the West. It is not proper to follow this custom. Instead, all that is necessary is to blow up [the lung]. If it is discovered to be intact without a perforation, [the animal] is permitted.32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:8) rules that such an animal is permitted without the lung being inspected. The Turei Zahav 39:12 states that an examination must be conducted to see whether the lung is perforated or not.
This represents the difference between glatt meat and meat that is not glatt. Glatt means \"smooth,\" i.e., i.e., there are no sirchot, adhesions, or growths, extending from the animal's lungs. Thus there is no need to inspect it. When meat is not glatt, there were sirchot and/or the like extending from the lungs. They were inspected and no perforation was discovered. Hence, the meat is kosher. Nevertheless, there are many who follow the stringency of not partaking of it.
(It must be emphasized that, at present, glatt is sometimes used as a general term to connote a higher level of punctilious observance of the details of kashrus in general without specifically referring to questions concerning the lungs.)" + ], + [ + "When a person slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:3) mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter, for some authorities forbid partaking of the meat. The Rama clarifies that the difference of opinion applies only with regard to the second animal. The first animal is permitted. Moreover, even the more stringent authorities maintain that the prohibition applies:
a) only that day, and
b) only for the transgressor himself. It is a penalty imposed upon him by the Sages and not a prohibition of Scriptural Law. See Maggid Mishneh; Turei Zahav 16:23. The slaughterer, however, is punished by lashes,2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 101) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 294) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
See Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, that states that this prohibition was given to us to prevent cruelty. For an animal will be severely aggrieved if its offspring or its mother is slaughtered before its eyes. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 where the Rambam emphasizes that the Torah's mitzvot were not given to us for the sake of any particular rationale. Note, however, the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah which explains that there are two dimensions to every mitzvah: that it is God's decree and that He issued that decree for a particular rationale. (See also Halachah 3 which indicates that the prohibition is a Divine decree, not limited to that rationale.) as [Leviticus 22:28] states: \"Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3The Torah (and the Rambam) use the masculine although the prohibition applies primarily to a mother and its offspring. See Halachah 11. and its offspring on one day.\" He receives lashes only for slaughtering the second animal. Accordingly, if one person slaughtered one of such a pair and another person slaughtered the second, [the one who slaughtered the second alone] receives lashes.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake.4For the prohibition concerns slaughter. Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals,5And it is forbidden to slaughter an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard. they were both sacrificial animals,6And thus may not be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard. or one7I.e., either the one that was sacrificed inside the Temple or the one sacrificed outside. The point of these statements is, as stated in Halachah 6, even though the slaughter is not befitting, within the context of this prohibition, it is considered as ritual slaughter. was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to ritual slaughter, as the verse states: \"Do not slaughter.\" [Implied] is that the prohibition involves the slaughter of both animals. If, however, one chopped off the head of one of them or it became a nevelah in his hand,8I.e., the slaughter was unacceptable. If, however, it was discovered that the animal was trefe, it is considered to have been slaughtered and it is forbidden to slaughter the second animal (Halachah 6, Siftei Cohen 16:18). it is permitted to slaughter [the other]. Similarly, if he slaughtered the first and chopped off the head of the second or it became a nevelah in his hand, he is not liable.", + "When a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor slaughtered the first animal privately,9If, however, they slaughtered under the supervision of a knowledgeable adult, their slaughter is acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 5). Hence, this prohibition applies. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 16:9). it is permitted to slaughter the second animal afterwards because their slaughter is not considered as slaughter.10Hence it is equivalent to cutting off the head of the animal and the previous halachah applies.", + "When one slaughters the first animal, but a question arises whether it is a nevelah or not, it is forbidden to slaughter the second [animal].11For perhaps the animal was kosher and one would be violating the prohibition. If one slaughters it, he is not liable for lashes.12Because there is a doubt involved.", + "Slaughter from which it is not fit to eat is, nevertheless, considered slaughter. Therefore if the first person slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard,13Rambam LeAm questions why this concept is mentioned. It was already stated in Halachah 2. one which is trefe, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, a red heifer, or slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,14In all these instances, it is forbidden to benefit from the slaughtered animal. (See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9; Hilchot Rotzeach 10:6, Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:7; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.) a person who slaughters the second animal is liable. Similarly, if one slaughtered the first animal and another slaughtered the second though it is an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, or a red heifer, [the second person] is liable for lashes.", + "When [the second animal] is slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,15Seemingly, the same principles stated in the previous halachah would apply in this instance. Nevertheless, in this case, there is another factor involved as the Rambam continues to explain. [the slaughterer] is not liable because of [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring, for he is liable for capital punishment.16As befits one who sacrifices to a false deity. One is not liable for both capital punishment and lashes for the same act. Since he is liable for capital punishment, he is not held liable for lashes. (See Ketubot 33b; Chullin 81b.) If, however, he was given a warning for [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring and was not given a warning for the worship of false deities,17I.e., when the witnesses administered the warning, they mentioned the lesser transgression and not the more severe one. he receives lashes.18For in this instance, he is not liable for the more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud concerning whether one is absolved from liability for lashes in such a situation or not and the halachah follows the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that one is liable. See Ketubot 34b-35a, Chullin, loc. cit.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to a kosher domesticated animal. [This is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus, loc. cit.]:19See the Sifra to the verse which states that the first excludes wild beasts and fowl. \"Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day.\"
[This prohibition] does apply with regard to hybrid species. What is implied? When a [male] deer mates with a [female] goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring, one is liable. When, however, a [male] goat mates with a [female] deer and one slaughters the deer and its offspring, it is forbidden to slaughter [the deer and its offspring], if one slaughters them, however, one is not liable for lashes.20See the Turei Zahav 16:11 and the Siftei Cohen 16:16 who debate the rulings of the Rashba and the Maharshal who permit one to slaughter the deer and its offspring even as an initial and preferred option. The Torah forbade slaughtering a cow21I.e., a kosher domesticated animal. and its offspring and not a deer and its offspring.", + "If the offspring of this deer was female and it gave birth to offspring, one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring [on the same day].22Since ultimately, the ancestor of the hybrid deer was a domesticated animal, we hold the slaughterer liable (see Chullin 80a). Although in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who does not hold the slaughtered liable for lashes, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:8), he cites the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 16:12 and the Siftei Cohen 16:17 debate this issue and side with the more lenient views, questioning the Rambam's ruling in light of his position in Halachah 11. Similarly, if a hybrid species is produced by mating a sheep and a goat - regardless of which is male and which is female - [the slaughterer can be held liable for] lashes for [violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring.", + "It is permitted to slaughter a pregnant animal. The fetus is considered as a limb of its mother.23And not a separate entity for whose slaughter one is held liable. If the fetus emerged alive after the slaughter of its mother and stepped on the ground,24If the fetus does not step on the ground, it need not be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:14). Hence, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring would not apply. one should not slaughter it on the same day. If one did, one is not liable for lashes.25The Tosefta states: Since it is not required to slaughter such an animal, one is not liable for slaughtering it together with its mother.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies with regard to a mother, for the offspring is certainly its own. If one knows with certainty that a male fathered offspring, the two should not be slaughtered on the same day. If one slaughtered [them together, however,] he is not liable for lashes, for there is a doubt whether or not the prohibition applies with regard to males.26This issue was apparently a matter of uncertainty for the Rambam, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 5:6) he revised his interpretation several times. His final text (see Rav Kapach's version which differs from the standard published text) parallels the text here. Note, however, Bechorot 7:7 which appears to refer to this prohibition with regard to males.", + "When a person slaughters a cow and afterwards slaughters two of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.27For he violated the prohibition twice. If he slaughters [several of] its offspring and then it, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.28For he performed one forbidden act. If he slaughtered it, its female offspring and the offspring of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.29For in this instance as well, he violated the prohibition twice. If he slaughtered it, the offspring of its offspring and its female offspring, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.30Although the same act caused two violations of the prohibition, since it was only one deed, the majority opinion in Chullin 82a only holds the person liable for set of lashes. As Rashi explains: There is one prohibition, one deed, and one warning.", + "When two people [each] purchased an animal: one the mother and one the offspring and they brought the matter for judgment,31I.e., they both desired to slaughter their animal that day. the one who purchased [the animal] first is allowed to slaughter it first,32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) states that this law applies only when the two purchased the animals from the same person. If they purchased them from different individuals, neither has precedence over the other. the other one should wait until the next day. If the second purchaser slaughtered [his animal] first, he gains and the first must wait until the next day.", + "Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day.33In other situations, it is not necessary to notify him, for it is not certain that either purchaser will slaughter the animal on that day. They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot,34This is the holiday of Shemini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, a day of great rejoicing. Hence it is appropriate that meat be part of the festive meals. On the first day of Sukkot, by contrast, because the people are involved in preparing a sukkah and a lulav, they do not have the energy for excessive celebration. the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach,35For the Seder is a time of great rejoicing and celebration. The seventh day of Pesach, by contrast, is not considered that important a festival. the day preceding Shavuot,36Rashi explains that the animals were necessary for sacrifices to be brought for the holiday. Tosafot states that Shavuos is customarily marked by great celebration in commemoration of the Giving of the Torah. and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.37For it is customary to begin the new year with celebratory feasts.", + "When does the above apply? When he saw that the person who purchased it last was anxious to buy and it was at the end of the day, [in which instance,] it can be presumed that he will slaughter it immediately. If, however, there was ample time during the day, he is not required to inform him, for perhaps he will not slaughter until the following day.38The fact that he shows repose indicates that he may be purchasing the animal for a later date. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the person's repose is taken into consideration only when he purchases the animal on the day before the day preceding the festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) quotes the Raa'vad's ruling.", + "When one sells the mother to a groom and the daughter to the bride, he must notify them.39That the other animal was also sold. This applies even if he did not sell them both on the same day [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6)]. For certainly, they will slaughter them both on the same day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "[With regard to the term] one day mentioned in the context of [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring, the day follows the night.40I.e., it is a calendar day according to the Jewish calendar, not a day from sunrise to sunset or a 24-hour period beginning from the time one animal is slaughtered. what is implied? He slaughtered the first animal at the beginning of Tuesday night, he may not slaughter the other one until the beginning of Wednesday night. Similarly, if he slaughtered one at the close of Wednesday, before bein hashemashot,41This term literally means \"between the suns.\" It refers to the time between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars. There is an unresolved doubt whether the day ends at sunset or at the appearance of the stars. Hence, the halachic status of this period of time is one of question. he may slaughter the other one at the beginning of Wednesday night. If he slaughtered the first during bein hashemashot Wednesday evening, he may not slaughter the second until after nightfall on Thursday.42Lest the period until the appearance of the stars be considered as part of the previous day. If he slaughtered it during the day on Thursday, he does not receive lashes.43For punishment may not be given in a situation where doubt exists." + ], + [ + "When a person takes a mother together with its young and slaughters it, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1The fact that he violated a transgression in taking the mother does not cause the meat to be prohibited. He is, however, liable for lashes for slaughtering the mother,2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 306) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 544) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The person transgresses the prohibition when he takes the mother and the offspring. Nevertheless, as long as the mother is alive and he can correct his deed by sending her away, he is not liable for lashes. This follows the principle of lav hanitak li'asai, a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah. as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: \"Do not take the mother together with its offspring.\" Similarly, if it died before he sent it away, he is liable for lashes.3For he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment. If he sent it away after he took it, he is not liable.4For he corrected his actions through the positive commandment. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden for him to take the mother. He must send it away first, as is the simple meaning of the Torah's commandment. See Siftei Cohen 292:11.", + "Similarly, [with regard to] all negative commandments that can be corrected by a positive commandment,5The positive commandment to send away the mother bird is also considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 148); Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 545)].
See the Kessef Mishneh (to Halachah 19) which explains that Chullin 141a mentions a difference of opinion concerning this mitzvah between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages. Rabbi Yehudah maintains - and this is the simple meaning of the verse - that the positive commandment requires one to send away the mother bird only before taking it. Thus according to his view, sending away the mother after it was taken does not fulfill a mitzvah and hence, does not correct the transgression. The Sages differ and maintain that the halachic definition of the mitzvah also includes sending away the bird after it was taken. Therefore, if one took the mother together with its young, he can correct his transgression by sending away the mother. The Rambam's decision reflects the Sages' position. one is obligated to fulfill the positive commandment. If he does not fulfill it, he is liable for lashes.6See Makkot 16b which mentions a difference of opinion concerning the matter. One view maintains that as long as the person does not prevent himself from correcting the transgression through his own conduct, e.g., with regard to the matter at hand, he did not kill the mother bird, he is not lible for lashes. The other view, which as above is accepted as halachah by the Rambam, is that the person becomes liable for lashes when he violates the transgression. It is just that the punishment is suspended as long as he has the opportunity to correct the matter. Once, however, that opportunity no longer exists, even if it is not his fault - e.g., in the matter at hand, the bird dies - that punishment is meted out.", + "If another person comes and seizes the mother bird from his hands and sends it away or it took flight from his possession without his knowledge, he is liable for lashes. [This is implied by ibid.:7]: \"You shall certainly send away [the mother],\" i.e., he must send away [the mother bird] himself. [If not,] he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.7And is therefore held liable for the violation of the negative commandment.", + "If he took a mother bird together with its young, cut off its wings so that it cannot fly and sent it away,8I.e., he is trying to perform the mitzvah by sending the mother bird away on its feet so that he will not be held liable and yet will be able to take it again shortly afterwards. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:4). he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.9I.e., he is punished for his defiance of the spirit of the Torah's commandments even though it is possible that he will not actually be held liable for lashes. [He must] keep [the mother bird] in his possession until her wings grow back and then send her away. If [the mother] died before this or fled and was lost, he is liable for lashes, for he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.", + "How must one send away the mother? He holds her by her wings and has her fly away. If he sent her away and she returned, he sent her away and she returned10I.e., as long as the mother returns before he takes the young so that the mitzvah is still relevant (Siftei Cohen 292:8). - even if this happens - four or five times, he is obligated to send her away, as [implied by the repetition of the verb in the] phrase: \"You shall certainly send away.\"11See Bava Metzia 31a which gives several examples of how the repetition of a verb in the Torah implies that a commandment must be fulfilled even 100 times.", + "Although a person says \"I will take the mother bird and send away the young,\"12And thus seemingly, he will be fulfilling the intent of the Torah's commandment, for he will not be taking the mother and the young together. he is obligated to send away the mother bird, as the verse states: \"You shall certainly send away the mother.\"", + "If he [sent away the mother,]13This addition is made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:5). took the offspring and [then] returned them to the nest and the mother came back to them, he is not obligated to send [her] away.14Once he has taken the offspring, they are considered as \"at hand,\" and this mitzvah no longer applies as stated in the following halachah and notes (Siftei Cohen 292:10).
It is permitted to send away the mother and then snare her again. The Torah forbade snaring only when she cannot fly away because of her offspring over which she is hovering so that they not be taken,15For, as emphasized in Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, which explains that this is the motivating rationale for this mitzvah: to prevent the cruel act of taking the young in front of the mother. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 and the resolution of the apparent contradiction in the previous chapter. as [ibid.:6] states: \"And the mother is resting on the chicks.\" If, however, he removed her from his grasp and then snared her again, it is permitted.", + "[The mitzvah to] send away the mother bird applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl16Chullin 139b derives this concept from the exegesis of the prooftext from Deuteronomy. that are not at hand, e.g., doves that rested in a dovecote or on a loft,17When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2 and commentaries) emphasizes that if the nest is within the person's property and the mother bird lifts itself up, the person automatically acquires the offspring. From that time on, they are considered as \"at hand\" and the mitzvah does not apply. See Halachah 18 and notes. wild fowl that nested in an orchard. [This is derived from the phrase (ibid.)]: \"When you will chance upon.\" When, however, [fowl is] at hand, e.g., ducks, chicken, and doves that nested in a building, one is not liable to send away the mother.", + "If the chicks could fly and thus they no longer needed their mother or [the mother was sitting on] unfertilized eggs,18Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Chullin 64b. he is not obligated to send away [the mother]. If the chicks were trefot, it is comparable to unfertilized eggs and he is not liable to send away [the mother].19Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the verse mentions both eggs and chicks and derives both of these concepts from an equation it establishes between the two: Just as the chicks are entities that will continue to exist, so too, the eggs must be entities that will continue to exist [in contrast to unfertilized eggs that will spoil after a certain time]. Just as the eggs require their mother, so too, the chicks must require their mother.", + "When a male fowl is resting on a nest, one is not obligated to send him away [before taking the young].20Chullin 140a emphasizes that the verse mentions a mother, implying \"and not a father.\" When a non-kosher bird is resting on the nest of the eggs of a kosher fowl or a kosher fowl is resting on the eggs of a non-kosher fowl, one is not obligated to send away [the fowl that is resting].21For Chullin 138b states that the verse forbids taking the bird and its offspring \"for yourself.\" Implied is that there is no prohibition when taking it for your dogs, i.e., taking a non-kosher species which is fit only to be fed to the dogs.", + "When a [kosher fowl] was resting on kosher eggs of a different species, one should send [the bird] away. If, however, one fails to do so, one is not liable.22There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Chullin 140b. Hence, it is forbidden to take the birds, but one is not liable for lashes because of the doubt. If the mother is trefe, he is obligated to send her away.23Even though it is forbidden to eat the mother, there is a difference between it and a fowl from a non-kosher species. A mother from a non-kosher species is excluded because the prooftext uses the term tzipor which indicates a kosher species. A bird which is trefe, though forbidden, is still a tzipor (Siftei Cohen 292:1).", + "When one slits a portion of the gullet24The literal meaning of the Rambam's words is \"If he cut a portion of the signs.\" We have translated the Rambam's words as above because as obvious from the conclusion of his ruling, there is a doubt whether he is obligated to send away the mother bird. And with regard to the windpipe there is no doubt that he is obligated to send away the mother.
To explain: Chullin 140b questions: \"Do we say that since after slitting a portion of the signs the animal will be trefe, is there a need to send it away?\" Now, if a person slits less than half the windpipe, the fowl is not trefe and if he slits more than half of it, its slaughter is completed. Hence, we are forced to say that he is speaking about cutting a portion - but less than half - of the gullet. If he does not complete the slaughter, making such a slit will render the fowl trefe. [of the mother]25The fact the Rambam uses the term sheyikachenah, \"before he takes her,\" implies that he is speaking about the mother bird. This understanding is also acknowledged by the Tur and Rabbenu Nissim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions that interpretation, noting that even if the mother bird was made trefe by slitting its gullet, it would have to be sent away as stated in the previous halachah. Therefore, he suggests amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to imply that the signs of the chicks were slit and the question is, since he is involved in the slaughter of the chicks and stopping to send away the mother would render them trefe, must he stop and send her away or not. He follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:10). before he took her, he is liable to send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.26Since the Talmud does not resolve the question it raises, one cannot be held liable for lashes because of the doubt.", + "[The following laws apply if the mother bird] was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings were touching the nest, one is obligated to send her away.27The Torah uses the expression \"resting on the nest.\" Chullin 40b infers that if the mother is hovering over the nest, the mitzvah does not imply. Since the verse does not use the term \"sitting,\" however, we learn that the obligation exists even when the mother is not sitting in the nest but lingering close by in a manner that its wings are touching. If not, he is not obligated. If there was a cloth or feathers intervening between her wings and the nest, he must send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.28This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence, the Rambam rules that one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.", + "If there were two rows of eggs and [the mother bird's] wings were touching [only] the top row, [the mother bird] was sitting on unfertilized eggs, but there were good eggs below them, one female was sitting on another female, a male was sitting on the nest and the female was sitting on the male - [in all these situations,] one should not take [the mother bird with the offspring]. If he takes [her], he should send her away. But if he does not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.29All of these situations are questions left unresolved by Chullin 140b. Hence, as above, one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.", + "If [the mother bird] was sitting among the young or the eggs and was not touching them,30In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a question raised by Rabbenu Nissim: Since touching the nest from the side is not sufficient as indicated by the concluding clause in the halachah, what does it matter if the mother bird touches its young from the side when it sits among them? Based on that objection, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:12), he incorporates Rabbenu Nissim's understanding when quoting this law. one is not liable to send her away.31For the Torah speaks about the mother \"resting on the eggs or the chicks\" and not sitting at their side. Similarly, if she was at the side of the nest and her wings were touching the nest from the side, he is not obligated to send her away.", + "When [the mother bird was perched] on two branches of a tree and the nest was positioned between them, we make an evaluation. In all instances where the mother would fall on the nest if the branches were removed, one is obligated to send her away.32Rashi, Chullin 140b, states that this applies even if the mother's wings are not touching the nest. As long as she is resting directly above the nest, it is considered as if she was resting on it. The Siftei Cohen 292:17 quotes this point as halachah.", + "When the mother is resting on one chick or on one egg, one is obligated to send her away.33As evident from Chullin 12:3, the Biblical command speaks about \"a nest.\" As long as a nest contains one egg or chick, it is still considered a nest. When a person finds a nest floating on the water or positioned on the back of an animal, he is obligated to send the mother away. [The verse] mentions \"chicks or eggs\"34Using a plural form. and \"on any tree or on the ground\" [not as exclusions], but because the Torah speaks about the commonplace situations.35This is a general principle applying with regard to many Biblical commandments. See Yevamot 15:2, Shabbat 65a, Nedarim 48a.", + "It is forbidden to acquire the eggs as long as the mother is resting upon them. Therefore even if a mother bird was resting on eggs or chicks in one's loft or dovecote, they are not considered as \"at hand\" and his courtyard does not acquire them for him.36The Rambam is referring to a principle in Jewish business law which maintains that a person can acquire property by virtue of its presence in his domain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 17:8-11:
A person's courtyard can acquire property for him without him being aware of it. Thus, if a lost object falls into a person's courtyard, he acquires it.
When does the above apply? When the courtyard is protected. [When, by contrast, a lost article enters a person's] field or garden [different rules apply]. If he is standing at the side of his field and says, \"May my field acquire it for me,\" he acquires it. If, however, he is not standing there, or he is standing there but does not make such a statement [he does not acquire it.]...
The [potential for] a man [to acquire property by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard is derived, by contrast, from [the fact that] he is able to acquire an article via an agent. Just as an agent can acquire [an article] for him, so too, can he acquire [an article by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard....
[The following rules apply when a person] sees... young doves that cannot fly [in his property]: [When the following conditions are met:] he was standing at the side of his field, [the animals] were on his property, and he could catch them if he ran, he can acquire them [by virtue of their presence in] his field if he states: \"May my field acquire them for me.\"
Thus in the case at hand, since the person cannot acquire the eggs himself until he sends away the mother, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf (Chullin 141b).
 Just as he cannot acquire them on behalf of others [until he sends away the mother], so, too, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf.37For as stated in the quoted portion, the potential for a person's property to acquire an article on his behalf is derived from the laws of agency. Therefore, he must send [her] away.38As mentioned above, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2) states that if the mother bird lifted itself up, the person can acquire the chicks by virtue of their presence in his property even if he does not remove them from their nest. From that time on, they are considered as \"at hand\" and this mitzvah does not apply. Indeed, he can tap the nest so that the mother will rise up and then acquire the young (Kessef Mishneh).", + "It is forbidden to take a mother bird together with her offspring, even to purify a person with tzara'at.39A skin condition, resembling leprosy, that is visited upon a person as retribution for speaking gossip and slander. The purification process for such a person is described in Leviticus, ch. 14, and Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1. If he took [the mother], he is obligated to send her away. If he did not, he is liable for lashes.40As stated in Halachah 2. Even if he used the mother bird for a mitzvah, he still receives lashes for violating the transgression. [The rationale is that] a positive commandment41The purification of the person with tzara'at. does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment [that is reinforced] by a positive commandment.42The prohibition of taking the mother which is reinforced by the mitzvah to send her away. Note the Kessef Mishneh who questions whether the two mitzvot should be placed in this category, for according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted as halachah), the two mitzvot do not apply at the same time. And a positive commandment does not supersede another positive commandment.43I.e., once he has taken the mother bird, he is obligated to send her away and the observance of another positive commandment, e.g., the purification rite mentioned above, does not supplant it.", + "[The following rule applies when] a person consecrates a wild fowl to the Temple treasury, it flies away from his hand, but he recognizes it and finds it resting on chicks or on eggs. He should take the entire [nest]44For not only the mother, but also the offspring, belong to the Temple treasury. For the mother gave birth to them after she had been consecrated. and bring it to the Temple treasurer. [The rationale is that the mitzvah of] sending away the mother bird does not apply with regard to consecrated [fowl], as [implied by Deuteronomy 22:7]: \"And you may take the offspring for yourself.\" These may not [be taken] for yourself.45For as above the offspring are also the property of the Temple treasury.
Significantly, although the Rambam's ruling is based on Chullin 138b, he does not quote the wording of the Talmud, but instead, explains the derivation of the ruling in a different manner. The Lechem Mishneh explains that this reflects a pattern found frequently in the Mishneh Torah: The Rambam will explain the derivation of a law differently than the Talmud if it appears to him that his derivation is simpler and more direct.", + "When a fowl killed a human being, one is not obligated to send it away. [The rationale is that] one is commanded to bring it to court so that it will be judged.46See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:2 which states that an animal that kills a human must be judged by a court of 23 judges." + ], + [ + "It is a positive commandment1Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 187) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. to cover the blood of a kosher wild beast or fowl2Both a wild fowl and a domesticated one. One need not, by contrast, cover the blood of a domesticated animal that was slaughtered. that was slaughtered, as [Leviticus 17:13] states: \"If you will snare a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, you shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.\" Therefore, before covering it, he is obligated to recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to cover the blood.", + "[The mitzvah] to cover the blood applies to animals that are at hand and those that are not at hand. [The verse mentions:] \"If you will snare\" only because it speaks about the commonplace situation. It applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to those consecrated: whether they were consecrated [to be offered on] the altar or consecrated to the Temple treasury. If a person transgresses3For it is forbidden to slaughter animals consecrated to the Temple treasury until they have been redeemed. and slaughters [such an animal], he is not obligated to cover its blood.", + "If a person slaughters a wild beast or a fowl and afterwards, consecrates them - or consecrates the blood - he is obligated to cover the blood.4Because when the blood was poured out, it did not have a connection to the Temple treasury, and at that time, the person became obligated to cover it.", + "It is necessary to cover the blood of a hybrid that comes from the mating of an animal and a wild beast or an animal that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or a wild beast,5The commentaries to Chullin 83a employ this interpretation with regard to a kevi, an animal which one opinion in Chullin 80a understands as referring to an animal whose species could not be identified as a domesticated animal or a wild beast. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4) employs this concept with regard to a buffalo. but one does not recite the blessing.6We are unsure of the status of this animal and do not know whether there is an obligation to cover its blood or not. Hence, we cover it, but do not recite a blessing, lest the blessing be recited in vain. When a person slaughters for the sake of a sick person on the Sabbath, he is obligated to cover the blood after the Sabbath.7For covering it on the Sabbath would be a violation of the prohibition against performing labor. Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal whose status is doubtful or is a hybrid on a festival, he should cover its blood after the festival.8He is required to cover the animal's blood because of the doubt as stated in the first clause. Nevertheless, he may not cover it on the festival, for perhaps he is not obligated to do so, and hence, will be performing a forbidden labor on the festival for no valid reason. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:3) rules that, as an initial and preferred option, one should not slaughter such an animal on a festival. See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 498:18) which states that even if one has earth prepared before the festival so that covering the blood will not involve the transgression of a prohibition, one should not cover it on a festival because of the impression that will be created. People might think that it was definitely determined that it is a wild beast and may therefore partake of its fat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 6:1) based on Beitzah 8b].
See also the Siftei Cohen 28:10 which states that the blood must be poured out on the ground on the festival. It cannot be saved in a utensil (because of the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5) and spilled out after the festival.", + "When a person slaughters many fowl and several types of wild beasts in one place, he should recite one blessing and cover the blood of all of them together at one time.9I.e., it is not necessary to cover the blood immediately. Instead, one may wait until he has slaughtered all the animals he desires and then cover the blood.", + "When blood becomes mixed with water, one is obligated to cover it if it has the appearance of blood. If not, one is not liable. If it became mixed with wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, one considers it as if they were water. If were [the wine or blood] to have been water, [the mixture] would have appeared to be blood, he is obligated to cover the entire mixture. If not, he is not obligated.", + "If a person covered blood and then it became revealed, he is not obligated to cover it a second time.10For he has already fulfilled the mitzvah involved. If blood was covered by [dust blown] by the wind, one is not obligated to cover it.11For the Torah's commandment obligates one to cover only blood that is apparent. If it is covered, there is no mitzvah involved. If it became revealed again after the wind covered it, he is obligated to cover it.12Since the person never covered the blood himself, it is as if it was never covered. See Pitchei Teshuvah 28:4; Magen Avraham 586:6 which discuss whether there is a definite obligation to cover the blood in such a situation or there is an unresolved question and one does so because of the doubt involved. The question of whether or not to recite a blessing in this situation depends on the clarification of this issue.", + "If there is no other blood [from the slaughter] except the blood which spurted out [while the animal was being slaughtered] and the blood on the knife,13Usually, a certain quantity of blood is poured out directly after the slaughter as well. one is obligated to cover it.14According to the Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah (Chullin 6:6), if there is other blood aside from this, it is sufficient to cover that other blood. It is not necessary to cover all the blood. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that all the blood must be covered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:15 follows the Rambam's view.", + "[The following rules apply if] one slaughters and the blood is absorbed in the ground. If a mark remains, he is obligated to cover it. If not, it is as if it was covered by the wind15See Halachah 7. and he is not obligated to cover it.", + "The only blood that must be covered is the blood of slaughter [that produces meat] that is fit to be eaten, as [the prooftext cited] states: \"that may be eaten.\"16This prooftext causes the ruling to be different from that applying to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. See Chullin 85a. Therefore, if a person slaughters and the animal is discovered to be trefe, one slaughters ordinary [fowl or beasts] in the Temple Courtyard,17Which are forbidden to be eaten (Chapter 2, Halachah 2). one slaughters fowl or beasts that were condemned to be stoned to death,18I.e., an animal or fowl that killed a human. one slaughters an animal and causes it to become a nevelah, one is not obligated to cover the blood. Similarly when a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotional incompetent person or a minor slaughters in private, there is no obligation19We have used a non-literal translation, for these individuals are not obligated in the performance of any mitzvot. See Siftei Cohen 28:24 which states that we are forbidden to cover this blood. to cover the blood [of the animal] they slaughtered.20As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, if these individuals slaughter privately, the slaughter is unacceptable. If, however, they slaughter in the presence of an expert and he states that they slaughtered correctly, the slaughter is acceptable and the blood must be covered.", + "With what should [the blood] be covered? With earth,21Though this term is not found in the standard printed texts. It is found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The version of the standard printed text can be interpreted to mean that in this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying which other substances can be considered as \"earth.\"
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:23) gives the following introduction: \"Any substance in which seeds will grow is called סearth'.... If [seeds] will not grow in it, but it is called סearth,' we may cover [blood] with it.\" lime, gypsum, fine fertilizer, fine sand that need not be crushed by a potter, crushed rocks and earthen-ware, fine flax chips, fine saw dust, bricks, burnt mud,22This translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:1). In his commentary to 3:7, 10:2, he interprets the term as \"crushed earthenware.\" We, however, used the former translation to avoid redundancy. Others cite the interpretation of the Aruch who explains that the term refers to a type of lime. and sealing clay that are crushed, for all of these are types of \"earth.\" If, however, one covered it with a utensil or with stones, it is not considered as \"covered,\" for the verse states \"with earth.\"", + "For this reason, we do not cover [blood] with coarse fertilizer, coarse sand, flour, bran, grain fiber, or filings from metal utensils, for these are not types of \"earth.\" There is one exception: filings of gold alone may be used to cover [blood], for they are called \"dust,\"23The Hebrew term afar has both the meaning \"earth\" and \"dust.\" as [Job 28:6] states: \"And it possesses the dust of gold\" and [Deuteronomy 9:21] speaks [of grinding the Gold Calf] \"until it was thin, into dust.\"", + "We may cover [blood] with oven soot, stibium,24A blue-powder uses for makeup and medicinal purposes in Talmudic times. powder from mills, and ashes. [This includes] ashes from trees and ashes from clothes, even ashes from meat that was burnt, for [Numbers 19:17] speaks of \"the ashes of the burnt sin-offering.\"25I.e., the red heifer. It is permitted to cover [blood] with the ashes of a city that went astray [and was therefore destroyed].26See Deuteronomy ch. 13 and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. , which explain that if an entire city is led astray and worships false deities, the city is condemned, the transgressors executed, and the city burnt. With the ruling in this halachah, the Rambam is explaining that although it is forbidden to benefit from the property - and even the ashes - of such a condemned city, its ashes may be used for this purpose. The rationale is that using the ashes for the mitzvah is not considered as benefiting from them, because the mitzvoth were not given for our benefit (Chullin 89a).", + "One who slaughters must place earth below27Moreover, this earth must be loose. One should not slaughter over a place where the earth is hard [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:5)]. and then slaughter, [pouring the blood] into [the earth]. Afterwards, he covers it with earth. He should not slaughter [and pour the blood] into a container28Even if the utensil contains murky water and thus the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5, does not apply. and then cover it with earth.", + "The person who slaughters [the animal] should cover its blood,29One may, however, give another person the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah. For that reason, there are many who ask the ritual slaughterer for the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah of covering the blood after fulfilling the custom of kapporot. Nevertheless, one must ask the slaughterer for the privilege, one who takes it without asking is liable to pay the slaughterer a fine for \"stealing\" his mitzvah. See Turei Zahav 28:8. as [the above prooftext ] states: \"[You shall pour out its blood and] cover it with earth.\"30Chullin 87a states: \"The one who סpours out its blood' should סcover it.'\" If he did not cover the blood and another person sees it, he is obligated to cover it, for this is an independent mitzvah and is not dependent on the slaughterer alone.31Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the passage states: \"And you shall say to the children of Israel,\" implying that the mitzvah is the concern of the entire people.", + "When a person covers the blood, he should not cover it with his feet,32I.e., by kicking the earth over the blood. but instead with his hands, a knife, or a utensil, so that he will not treat it with disdain and regard the mitzvoth with scorn. For the mitzvot in and of themselves are not worthy of honor. Instead, [the honor is] due He, blessed be He, who commanded us to observe them and [thus] saved us from groping in darkness and thus granted us a lamp to straighten crooked paths and a light to illumine the upright ways.33As Bereishis Rabbah 44:1 states: \"The mitzvoth were given to the Jewish people solely to refine the created beings with them.\" See also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 26. And so [Psalms 119:105] states: \"Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my ways.\"
Blessed be G‑d who grants assistance." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1c7eb10e034f4658e27872563aa0ee48aaf5f49 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", + "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", + "license": "CC0", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": false, + "isSource": false, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [], + [] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d05bbd950306197673a75d620dd0ba9730db6f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,330 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Ritual_Slaughter", + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment1Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 451) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As mentioned at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah, the Ra'avad differs and does not consider this a mitzvah. for one who desires to partake of the meat of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl to slaughter [it] and then partake of it,2The Rambam's wording echo his statements in Hilchot Berachot 11:2: \"There are other mitzvot that are not obligations, but resemble voluntary activities, for example, the mitzvah of mezuzah.... A person is not obligated to dwell in a house that requires a mezuzah in order to fulfill this mitzvah.\" Similarly, in the instance at hand, a person is not obligated to slaughter. If, however, he desires to eat meat, he must fulfill this mitzvah. as [Deuteronomy 12:21] states: \"And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your sheep.\" And with regard to a firstborn animal with a blemish,3Note the Kessef Mishneh who elaborates, explaining that although Rashi does not interpret the verse in the same manner the Rambam does, there is support for the Rambam's interpretation. [ibid.:22] states: \"As one would partake of a deer and a gazelle.\" From this, we learn that a wild beast is [governed by] the same [laws] as a domesticated animal with regard to ritual slaughter.
And with regard to a fowl, [Leviticus 17:13] states: \"that will snare a beast or a fowl as prey... and shed its blood.\" This teaches that shedding the blood of a fowl is analogous to shedding the blood of a wild beast.4I.e., in both instances, ritual slaughter is required. The Kessef Mishneh notes that Chulin 27b derives this equivalence from another source and explains why the Rambam cites this verse instead.", + "The laws governing ritual slaughter are the same in all instances.5See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who explains that there are some differences between the laws governing the slaughter of each of these types of animals. Therefore one who slaughters a domesticated animal, beast, or fowl should first6For the blessings for all mitzvot must be recited before their observance (Pesachim 7b). recite the blessing: \"[Blessed...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning7We do not, however, say \"to slaughter,\" for, as above, the mitzvah to slaughter is not obligatory. It is dependent on the person's desire (Hilchot Berachot 11:15). ritual slaughter.\" If he did not recite a blessing, either consciously or inadvertently, the meat is permitted.8For after the fact, the recitation of the blessings is not essential (Kessef Mishneh).
It is forbidden to partake of a slaughtered animal throughout the time it is in its death throes.9Partaking of the meat at this time does not, however, represent a transgression of the prohibitions against eating a limb or flesh from a living animal (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 5). For once the animal has been slaughtered, these prohibitions no longer apply. When a person partakes of it before it dies, he transgresses a negative commandment. [This act] is included in the prohibition [Leviticus 19:26]: \"Do not eat upon the blood.\" He does not, however, receive lashes.10This prohibition is considered as a prohibition of a general nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3), i.e., prohibitions that include several diverse and unrelated acts, and lashes are not given for the violation of such prohibitions.
It is permitted to cut meat from it after it has been ritually slaughtered, but before it dies. That meat should be salted thoroughly, washed thoroughly,11The Rambam's words provoke a question: Of course, this meat must be salted thoroughly as must all meat so that its blood will be removed (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:10). Why would one think that this meat is different?
It would appear that the explanation is that other meat may be eaten if it is roasted or its blood sealed by being cast into vinegar (ibid.:12) and these options do not apply with regard to the meat in question. and left until the animal dies. Afterwards, it may be eaten.", + "Fish and locusts need not be slaughtered. Instead, gathering them causes them to be permitted to be eaten. [This is indicated by Numbers 11:22]: \"Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them that will suffice them? If all the fish of the sea would be gathered for them....\" This indicates that gathering fish is like slaughtering cattle and sheep. And with regard to locusts, [Isaiah 33:4] states: \"the gathering of the locusts,\" i.e., gathering alone [is sufficient]. Therefore if fish die naturally in the water, they are permitted.12One might think that man would have to gather them alive for them to be permitted. Hence the Rambam emphasizes that this is not so (Kessef Mishneh). The general principle is: Whenever the mitzvah of ritual slaughter does not apply, the prohibitions against eating flesh from a living animal and eating a dead animal do not apply. And it is permitted to eat them while they are alive.13The commentaries note that Shabbat 90b states that one who eats a live locust violates the prohibition: \"Do not make your souls detestable.\" [See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:1) who issues a similar warning with regard to partaking of live fish.) How then can the Rambam say that it is permitted?
Among the resolutions of this question are:
a) The passage in Shabbat refers only to a non-kosher locust, not a kosher one.
b) The Rambam, here, is saying that one may cut off part of a living locust and eat it, but not that one may eat an entire locust alive.
c) Here the Rambam is speaking with regard to the laws regarding ritual slaughter. He is not focusing on those involving other prohibitions.", + "The slaughter which the Torah mentions without elaboration must be explained so that we know: a) which place in the animal is [appropriate] for ritual slaughter?, b) what is the measure of the slaughtering process?, c) with what do we slaughter?, d) when do we slaughter?, e) in which place [on the animal's neck] do we slaughter? f) how do we slaughter, g) what factors disqualify the slaughter? h) who can slaughter?14In the following chapters, the Rambam proceeds to answer all of these questions.
We were commanded concerning all of these factors in the Torah with the verse [Deuteronomy 12:21]: \"And you shall slaughter from your cattle... as I commanded you.\" All of these factors were commanded to us orally as is true with regard to the remainder of the Oral Law which is called \"the mitzvah,\" as we explained in the beginning of this text.15I.e., in the Introduction that precedes Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. There the Rambam explains that the Oral Law is called \"the mitzvah,\" because it gives us instruction concerning the observance of the mitzvot. Without it, we would not know how to fulfill them.", + "The place where an animal should be slaughtered is the neck. The entire neck is acceptable for slaughtering.
What is implied? With regard to the gullet,16As will be explained in Halachah 9, ritual slaughter involves cutting the gullet and the windpipe. In this halachah, the Rambam defines where the gullet may be cut. from the beginning of the place where when it is cut, it contracts until the place where hair grows17In contrast to the surface of the gullet which is smooth. and it begins appearing fissured like the stomach, this is the place of slaughter with regard to the gullet.", + "If one slaughters above this place - in the area called the entrance to the gullet18I.e., the end of the throat, where it is attached to the jaw.. - or below this place - i.e., the beginning of the digestive system, the slaughter is unacceptable.19The animal is considered a nevelah and it is forbidden to partake of it. See Chapter 3, Halachah 18 (Kessef Mishneh, note Siftei Cohen 20:5).
The measure of the entrance to the gullet above which is unfit for slaughter in an animal or a beast is so one can grab it with two fingers.20This is the Rambam's interpretation of Chulin 44a. Rashi interprets that passage as referring to a space the size of four fingers. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 20:2) follows the Rambam's understanding, while the Rama cites that of Rashi. With regard to a fowl, it depends on its size. The lower limit extends until the crop.21The first of the fowl's stomachs. The crop is not considered part of the gullet and it is forbidden to slaughter there.", + "Where is the place of slaughter with regard to the windpipe? From the slant of its cap22The windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Above the top ring, there is a slanted covering that is called the cap. downward until the beginning of the flank of the lung when the animal extends its neck to pasture,23When the animal extends its neck, the flanks of its lungs rise upward. this is the place of slaughter with regard to the windpipe. The area opposite this place on the outside is called the neck.", + "When the animal strained itself and extended its neck exceedingly or the slaughterer applied exertion to the signs and extended them upward, but slaughtered in the neck at the place of slaughter, there is an unresolved doubt24See Chulin 45a which discusses these questions but leaves them unresolved. whether [the animal] is a nevelah. For the place where the gullet and windpipe were cut is not the place where [the animal] is [usually] slaughtered.25I.e., the place of slaughter on the neck should be aligned with the place of slaughter on the windpipe and the gullet in their natural position. In this instance, the external place of slaughter - the position on the neck - was correct, but the signs were not cut in the usual place.", + "The slaughterer must slaughter in the center of the neck. If he slaughters to the side, it is acceptable.26This applies only after the fact. At the outset, one must slaughter in the center of the neck.
What is the measure of slaughter? That one [cut] the two identifying marks, the windpipe and the gullet.27Since the acceptability of the slaughter is dependent on them, they are referred to as the simanim, \"signs,\" i.e., indications that the slaughter is acceptable. Superior slaughter involves cutting both of them, whether for an animal or a fowl and a slaughterer should have this intent. [After the fact,] if one cut the majority of one of them for a fowl and the majority of both of them for an animal or a beast, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "When one cut one sign entirely and half28But not the majority. of the other sign when slaughtering an animal, his slaughter is unacceptable. If he cut the majority of both signs, even though in each instance he cuts only a hair's breadth more than half, it is acceptable. Since he cut even the slightest amount more than half,29See the Turei Zahav 21:2 who emphasizes that the difference in size need not be significant. As long as more than half is cut, the slaughter is acceptable. he has cut the majority.", + "If he cut half30But no more than half. of one and half of the other - even in a fowl - the slaughter is unacceptable. When a windpipe is half slit31This is speaking about a situation where the animal is alive. The fact that an animal's windpipe is slit slightly does not cause it to be considered as a trefe. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 21:5) adds that we must be careful that the gullet has not been punctured, for that would render the animal trefe. See the Turei Zahav 21:4 and the Siftei Cohen 21:5 who debate whether it is possible to rely on this leniency at present. See also Chapter 3, Halchot 6-7. and one cut a little more on the place of the slit, making the cut a majority, the slaughter is acceptable. [This applies] whether one begins [on a portion of the windpipe] that is intact and reaches the slit or one inserts the knife into the slit and [increases its size until it] reaches the majority.", + "Every slaughterer must check the signs after he slaughters.32To make sure that the minimal measure for slaughter was slit. If he did not check and the animal's head was cut off before he could check,33Obviously, once the head is cut off, it is no longer possible to check. [the animal] is [considered] a nevelah.34Because of the doubt involved. See the following halachah. [This applies even] if the slaughterer was adroit and expert.", + "During its lifetime, every animal is considered to be forbidden until it is definitely known that it was slaughtered in an acceptable manner.35This is the rationale for the stringency stated in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).", + "With what can we slaughter? With any entity, with a metal knife, a flint, glass, the edge of a bulrush,36The Kessef Mishneh notes that many marsh plants splinter easily and they are unacceptable for they will perforate the gullet. or the like among the entities that cut. [This applies] provided its edge is sharp and does not have a barb. If, however, there was a spike at the edge of the entity with which one slaughters, even if the spike is very small,37Generally, it is accepted that a spike that can be detected by a fingernail disqualifies an animal. Nevertheless, the Rambam appears to be referring to an even smaller measure. His approach is followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:2) which speaks of a spike that is even the size of a hairsbreadth being sufficient to disqualify a knife.
Alternatively, it can be understood that the two are synanomous. This understanding is reflected by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14 which speaks about \"a stone being blemished so that a fingernail would become caught in it like a knife used for ritual slaughter.\" the slaughter is unacceptable.38For the spike will perforate the gullet, rendering the animal trefe before the slaughter was completed (Maggid Mishneh).", + "If the spike was on only one side of the knife, one should not slaughter with it [at the outset]. [After the fact,] if one slaughtered with it using the side on which the blemish was not detectable, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "What is implied? There was a knife that was checked by passing it [over one's finger] and no blemish was felt on it, but when one drew it back, one felt that it had a blemish. If one slaughtered with it by passing it forwards and did not draw it back, the slaughter is acceptable. If one drew it back, the slaughter is unacceptable.39The commentaries offer two explanations for this ruling. The Rambam's position is that when the spike is felt only on one side of the knife, one may slaughter with that side. Others add that the blemish must be positioned to the very far end of the knife, either near its point or near its handle. In such an instance, it is possible that the blemish never actually touched the signs and thus did not disqualify the ritual slaughter. See Shulchan Aruch [Yoreh De'ah and Rama (18:4)].", + "When a knife ascends and descends [in a curve] like a snake40Who raises his head and tail, creating a curve for its body (Kessef Mishneh). but does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option. When the edge of a knife is smooth, but is not sharp, one may slaughter with it, since it does not have a blemish.41Since it does not have a blemish, it will not disqualify the signs. Even though one passes it back and forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed], the slaughter is acceptable.42Provided one does not interrupt the slaughter in the middle as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.", + "When a sharp knife has been whetted, but its [blade] is not smooth, instead, touching it is like touching the tip of an ear of grain which becomes snarled on one's finger, [nevertheless,] since it does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it.43The Rama (Yoreh De'ah18:6) writes that since it is difficult to understand what exactly is meant by such a knife, we do not permit this leniency.", + "When a person uproots a reed or a tooth or cuts off a flint or a nail, if they are sharp and do not have a blemish, one may slaughter with them.44As apparent from Halachah 14. If one stuck them into the ground, one should not slaughter with them while they are stuck into the ground. [After the fact,] if one slaughtered [in such a situation],45For example, by passing the animal's neck back and forth below the knife [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 6:4)]. one's slaughter is acceptable.46As indicated by the following halachah, an entity may not be used for ritual slaughter if it is connected to its source. When an entity is stuck into the ground, it is not connected to its source and hence, after the fact, the slaughter is acceptable. Nevertheless, because of the similarity to the forbidden situation, initially, one should not use such an entity for slaughter.", + "When one slaughtered with these entities when they were connected from the beginning of their existence, before they were uprooted, the slaughter is unacceptable47Chulin 16a states that it is a Scriptural decree that the cutting edge used for slaughter must be a separate entity, something that one could take in his hand. even if they do not have a blemish.", + "If one took the jawbone of an animal that had sharp teeth and slaughtered with it, it is unacceptable, for they are like a sickle.48I.e., a blade with a jagged edge which is unacceptable as stated above. When, however, only one tooth is fixed in a jaw, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option, even though it is set in the jaw.49Since the jaw as a whole is moveable, we are not concerned with the fact that the tooth is in a fixed position (Kessef Mishneh).", + "When one made a knife white-hot in fire and slaughtered with it, the slaughter is acceptable.50We do not say that rather than cut the signs, the knife burnt them. The latter would disqualify the slaughter.
It must be noted that the Tur (see also the gloss of the Radbaz) quotes the Rambam as ruling that the slaughter is unacceptable for the above reason. This approach is also followed by many other Rishonim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam rules that the slaughter is acceptable. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 9:1), however, he quotes both views without stating which should be followed. All authorities agree that such a knife should not be used as an initial and preferred option. If one side of a knife is [jagged-edge like] a sickle and the other side is desirable, [i.e., smooth,] one should not slaughter with the desirable side as an initial and preferred measure. [This is] a decree lest one slaughter with the other side. If one slaughtered [with it], since one slaughtered with the desirable side, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "A slaughterer must check the knife at its tip and at both of its sides [before slaughtering]. How must he check it? He must pass it over and draw it back over the flesh of his finger and pass it over and draw it back51Using the same motions as he would use to slaughter an animal. over his fingernail on three edges, i.e., its tip and both of its sides so that it will not have a blemish at all. [Only] afterwards, should he slaughter with it.", + "It must [also] be inspected in this manner after slaughter.52The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that after ritual slaughter, no inspection is necessary unless the person desires to use the knife to slaughter another animal immeidately. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro justifies the Rambam's ruling and he cites it in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:3). For if a blemish is discovered on it afterwards, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.53This ruling also depends on the principle stated in Halachah 13, that during its lifetime, an animal is forbidden. Hence it is not permitted unless we are certain that it was slaughtered in a proper manner (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen 18:2). For perhaps [the knife] became blemished [when cutting] the skin and when he cut the signs, he cut them with a blemished knife.54And this would cause the slaughter to be unacceptable as mentioned above.
For this reason, when a person slaughters many animals or many fowl,55The Kessef Mishneh notes that since the skin of a fowl is soft, it is not very probable that this caused the blemish on the knife. Nevertheless, our Sages adopted this stringency. he must inspect [the knife] between each [slaughter]. For if he did not check, and then checked [after slaughtering] the last one and discovered [the knife] to be blemished, there is an unresolved doubt whether all of them - even the first - are nevelot56See Chapter 3, Halachah 18, for the ramifications of this ruling. or not.57I.e., it is possible that the knife could have become blemished when cutting the skin of the first animal. Hence, that animal - and all the subsequent ones - were slaughtered with an unacceptable knife.", + "When one inspected a knife, slaughtered with it, but did not inspect it after slaughtering, and then used it to break a bone, a piece of wood, or the like, and afterwards, inspected it and discovered it to be unacceptable, his slaughter is acceptable. [The rationale is that] the prevailing assumption is that the knife became blemished on the hard entity which it was used to break.58Since he checked the knife at the outset and it was acceptable, we rely on probability. As long as we have a way of explaining how the knife was blemished, we do not say it was blemished on the animal's skin, for the likelihood of that happening is very low. Similarly, if one was negligent and did not check his knife [after slaughtering] or the knife was lost before it could be checked, the slaughter is acceptable.59Here also, since the knife was inspected initially, there is no reason to suspect that the slaughter was unacceptable, we do not disqualify it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:12)] .", + "Whenever a slaughterer60This is referring to a slaughterer who slaughters on behalf of people at large, not only for his own private purposes. does not have the knife with which he slaughters inspected by a wise man61The Radbaz notes that the Rambam's words appear to differ slightly from the simple meaning of Chullin 18a, his source. From Chullin, it appears that the necessity to show the knife to the wise man is a mere token of respect, while from the Rambam it appears that it is a necessary safeguard to check that the slaughter is kosher.
The difference between these approaches can lead to a variance in practice. If we say that this inspection is merely for the sake of respect, then the sages may forgo the respect due them and allow an expert to slaughter even though he does not present his knife. If, however, it is a necessary precaution to insure that the slaughter is performed correctly, an inspection is always necessary.
Both of these perspectives have continued to be given emphasis throughout the Rabbinic literature, although the halachah as prescribed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 18:17) is that a sage may forgo the honor due him. The present custom in many slaughtering houses today is for the slaughterers to work in pairs and for one to check the knife of the other. At times, a visiting Rabbinic authority comes and he inspects the knives of all of the slaughterers. and uses it to slaughter for himself, we inspect it. If it is discovered to be desirable [and passes] the examination, we, nevertheless, place him under a ban of ostracism [lest] he rely on himself on another occasion and then the knife will be blemished, but he will still slaughter with it. If [upon examination] the knife is discovered to be blemished, he is removed from his position and placed under a ban of ostracism. We pronounce all the meat that he slaughtered to be unacceptable.62I.e., we assume that not only on this occasion, but on others, he slaughtered using an unacceptable knife, thus disqualifying the meat.", + "How long must the knife with which one slaughters be? Even the slightest length, provided it is not [overly] thin to the extent that it pierces and does not slit63As will be explained, ritual slaughter is accomplished by drawing the knife back and forth across the neck. If a knife is two small to enable this, it should not be used [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 8:1)]. like the head of a blade or the like.64See the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 24:2) who quotes opinions that require a knife used to slaughter a animal to be twice the length of the animal's neck. The custom is also to use a knife of such measure for a fowl.", + "When can one slaughter? Any time, whether during the day or during the night, provided that [at night] he has a torch65Two candles are considered a torch [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 11:1)]. with him so that he sees what he is doing.66Otherwise, it is possible that the animal will be slaughtered incorrectly without him realizing. If a person slaughters in darkness, his slaughter is acceptable.67Nevertheless, it is forbidden to do so as an initial and preferred option [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 11:1)].", + "When a person inadvertently slaughters on Yom Kippur or the Sabbath,68I.e., he was not aware that the day was either the Sabbath or Yom Kippur; alternatively, he did not know that it was forbidden to slaughter on these holy days. his slaughter is acceptable,69The Turei Zahav 11:2 states that one must, nevertheless, wait until the conclusion of the Sabbath or Yom Kippur before partaking of the meat, as is the law when one cooks on the Sabbath. even though were he to have been acting willfully he would be liable for his life70For slaughtering on the Sabbath. or for lashes [for slaughtering] on Yom Kippur.71If he does so intentionally, he is considered as an apostate who desecrates the Sabbath and his slaughter is disqualified (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Chullin 1:1; see Chapter 4, Halachah 14). The Siftei Cohen 11:3 states that in certain instances the leniency would also apply if he slaughters intentionally." + ], + [ + "It is permitted to slaughter an animal in any place except the Temple courtyard. For only animals consecrated for [sacrifice on the altar] may be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Ordinary animals, by contrast, whether domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl, are forbidden to be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Similarly, [Deuteronomy 12:21] states with regard to meat [which man] desires [to eat]:1This is the term the Sifri to the above verse and other Rabbinic texts use to describe ordinary meat in contrast to animals offered as sacrifices. \"When the place that God will choose will be distant from you... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep... and you shall eat in your gates.\" One may infer that meat [which man] desires [to eat] may be slaughtered only outside \"the place that God will choose.\"", + "[Meat from animals] slaughtered outside this [holy] place is permitted to be eaten everywhere. If, however, one slaughters an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, that meat is ritually pure,2Since the slaughter was acceptable, the animal is not considered as a nevelah. Hence it does not impart ritual impurity. but it is forbidden to benefit from it like meat mixed with milk and the like. It must be buried; [if it is burnt,] its ashes are forbidden [to be used].3See Hilchot Pesulei HaMekudashim 19:13-14.
[The above applies] even if one slaughters for healing purposes,4Without intending to partake of the meat. I.e., using the meat for this or the following purposes is forbidden. to feed a gentile, or to feed dogs. If, however, one cuts off an animal's head in the Temple courtyard, one rips the signs from their place, a gentile slaughters, [a Jew] slaughters, but the animal was discovered to be trefe, or one slaughters a non-kosher domesticated animal, beast, or fowl in the Temple courtyard, it is permitted to benefit from all of the above.5For the prohibition is only against slaughtering ordinary animals in the Temple courtyard, for this resembles the slaughter of the sacrifices (Kessef Mishneh). Since none of the above actions are considered as ritual slaughter, they do not cause the animal to become forbidden.", + "This does not apply only to domesticated animals or beasts. Instead, it is forbidden to bring all ordinary food into the Temple courtyard. [This includes] even meat from a slaughtered [animal], fruit, or bread.6The Rashba (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh) questions the Rambam's ruling, stating that the prohibition applies only to fruit that resemble the first fruits and bread that resembles the loaves of the Thanksgiving offering. If one transgresses and brings in such food, it is permitted to partake of this food as it was beforehand.
All of the above concepts are part of the Oral Tradition. Whenever anyone slaughters in the Temple courtyard or eats an olive-sized portion of the meat of ordinary [animals that were] slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.7Since the prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, he is not liable for lashes - as appropriate for the violation of an explicit Scriptural prohibition (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, since the source for the prohibition is a Scriptural verse, it has the weight of a Scriptural commandment. Others, however, interpret the Rambam as implying that the prohibition is entirely Rabbinic. The verse cited previously is merely an asmachta.
The above applies to the prohibition against slaughetring in the Temple Courtyard. With regard to partaking of the meat, all authorities agree that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:6.", + "[The following rule applies when] a person says: \"This animal is [consecrated as] a peace offering, but [the fetus it is carrying] remains of ordinary status.\" If it is slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, it is permitted to partake of its offspring, because it is forbidden to slaughter [the mother] outside [the Temple courtyard].8As stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:13-14, when a pregnant animal is slaughtered, the fetus it is carrying is considered as one of its limbs. Even if it lives, it does not have to be slaughtered again; the slaughter of its mother causes it to be permitted.
In this instance, the mother may not be slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard. Since there is no other way for the fetus to be permitted, the slaughter of the mother inside the Temple courtyard does not cause it to be forbidden.", + "One should not slaughter into9I.e., pour the blood directly into. seas or rivers, lest [an onlooker] say: \"He is worshipping the water,\"10In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 2:9), the Rambam writes that we suspect that the person worships \"the element of water,\" water in its pure elemental state and not the water before us. and it would appear as if he is offering a sacrifice to the water. Nor should one slaughter into a utensil filled with water, lest one say: \"He is slaughtering into the form that appears in the water.\"11In this context also, the Rambam (ibid.) explains that we fear he is worshipping the power that controls the image seen in the water. Nor should he slaughter into utensils12Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 11:3) writes that we fear that onlookers will say that he is collecting blood to offer it to false deities. or into a pit for this is the way of idolaters. If one slaughters in the above manner, his slaughter is acceptable.", + "One may slaughter into murky water in which an image may not be seen. Similarly, one may slaughter outside a pit and allow the blood to flow and descend into a pit. One should not do this in the marketplace so as not to mimic the gentiles. [Indeed,] if one slaughters into a pit in the marketplace, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter until his [character] is examined, lest he be a heretic.13Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 12:2) mentions this ruling, but also the ruling of the Rashba that, after the fact, the slaughter is permitted. The Rama rules that, in the present age, when pagan rites are uncommonly practiced, one may rely on the more lenient view.
It is permitted to slaughter on the wall of a ship, [although] the blood will flow down the wall and descend into the water.14As long as he is not slaughtering directly into the water, it does not appear that he is worshipping it. [Similarly,] it is permitted to slaughter above [the outer surface of] utensils.", + "How does one slaughter? One extends the neck and passes the knife back and forth until [the animal] is slaughtered. Whether the animal was lying down15And thus the knife was above its neck. or it was standing and one held the back of its neck, held the knife in his hand below, and slaughtered, the slaughter is acceptable.", + "If one implanted a knife in the wall and brought the neck [of an animal back and forth] over it until it was slaughtered, the slaughter is acceptable, provided the neck of the animal is below and the knife is above.16See Chapter 1, Halachah 19. For if the neck of the animal will be above the knife, it is possible that the animal will descend with the weight of its body [on the knife] and cut [its throat] without [it being brought back and forth].17The Turand the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 6:4) rule that slaughtering an animal in such a manner is unacceptable even if the slaughterer states that he is certain the animal's throat was not pierced in this manner. The rationale is that an animal's head is heavy and its weight will most likely cause its throat to be pierced. This is not ritual slaughter, as will be explained.18Chapter 3, Halachah 11. Even though the throat of the animal is cut, it is not considered ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter involves bringing the knife back and forth across the neck or bringing the neck back and forth across the knife. Any other act that cuts its throat is not acceptable. Therefore, if we are speaking about a fowl, whether its neck is above the knife that is implanted or below it, the slaughter is acceptable.19Since a fowl is light, the slaughterer can hold it securely and maneuver it back and forth over the knife without difficulty. See Chullin 16b.", + "When a person slaughters and draws the knife forward, but does not draw it back, draws it back, but does not draw it forward, his slaughter is acceptable.20Provided the slaughter of the animal is accomplished in that one action. If the slaughterer lifts the knife, that disqualifies the slaughter.
If he drew the knife back and forth until he cut off the head entirely, his slaughter is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] he drew the knife forward, but did not draw it back, drew it back, but did not draw it forward, and cut off the head while drawing it forward alone or drawing it back alone. If the knife is twice as long21The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:2) requires that a knife be of this length even if one does not cut off the animal's head. as the width of the neck of the animal being slaughtered, his slaughter is acceptable. If not, his slaughter is not acceptable.22For it is not feasible that passing a knife the length of the animal's neck alone will be sufficient to slice off its head in one motion [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. Hence, we must assume that the animal's head was severed by pressing the knife against the neck. This disqualifies the slaughter as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 11.
If one slaughters the heads [of two animals] together, his slaughter is acceptable.", + "When two people hold unto a knife together - even when one is holding from one side and the other from the other side - and they slaughter together, the slaughter is acceptable. Similarly, if two people hold two knives and both slaughter simultaneously in two places in the neck, their slaughter is acceptable. This applies even if one slit the gullet alone or its majority and the other cut the windpipe or its majority in another place, this slaughter is acceptable even though the slaughter was not entirely in the same place.
Similarly, slaughter in the form of a reed23He cut in a slant, cutting the windpipe at an angle and continuing to descend at that angle and cutting the gullet. and slaughter in the form of a comb24The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the person cut in several places on the signs. Others interpret it as meaning a cut that slants back and forth (Turei Zahav 21:3). are acceptable.", + "The slaughter of ordinary animals25In contrast to the slaughter of sacrificial animals (see Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:3). does not require focused attention.26Here, we are not speaking about refined spiritual intentions; the Rambam is stating that even if the person slaughters the animal without paying attention to what he is doing or even if he had no intent to slaughter it, the slaughter is acceptable. Even if one slaughtered when [wielding a knife] aimlessly, in jest, or [even] if he threw a knife to implant it in the wall and it slaughtered an animal as it was passing, since it slaughtered properly in the appropriate place and with the appropriate measure, it is acceptable.", + "Accordingly,27Since the deed is significant and not the intent. when a deafmute, an emotional or an intellectual unstable individual, a minor, a drunk whose mind is befuddled,28While he is intoxicated, he may reach the point where he is no longer able to control his conduct. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8). a person who became overtaken by an evil spirit slaughters and others observe that he slaughters in the correct manner,29The others must watch. Otherwise, there is no way that we can insure that the slaughter is acceptable. Indeed, if such a person slaughters in private, the slaughter is disqualified [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:5)]. [the slaughter] is acceptable.30This applies only after the fact [Radbaz; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5)]. At the outset, only a person fully in control of his intellect and emotions should be entrusted with ritual slaughter.
If, by contrast, a knife falls31On its own accord or because of the wind. If, however, a person pushed the knife, since it was set in motion by human action, the slaughter is acceptable (Chullin 31a). and slaughters [an animal] on its way, it is not acceptable even if it slaughtered it in [the appropriate] manner. For [Deuteronomy, loc. cit.] states: \"You shall slaughter,\" implying that a man must slaughter. [His actions are acceptable,] even if he does not intend to slaughter.", + "[The following laws apply if there is] a stone or wooden wheel with a knife affixed to it. If a person turned the wheel and placed the neck of a fowl or an animal opposite it and slaughtered by turning the wheel, [the slaughter] is acceptable. If water is turning the wheel and he placed the neck of [the animal] opposite it while it was turning causing it to be slaughtered, it is unacceptable.32For the animal was slaughtered by the power of the water and not by human power. If a person caused the water to flow until they turned the wheel and caused it to slaughter by turning it, [the slaughter] is acceptable.33Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 7:1) rules that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. At the outset, one should not slaughter in this manner. The Siftei Cohen 7:1 states that this is the Rambam's opinion with regard to the first clause of the halachah as well. For [the activity] came as a result of man's actions.
When does the above apply? With regard to the first turn, for that comes from man's power. The second and subsequent turns, however, do not come from man's power, but from the power of the flowing water.", + "When a person slaughters for the sake of mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, his slaughter is unacceptable even when he does not intend to worship these entities, but merely for curative purposes or the like according to the empty words related by the gentiles, the slaughter is unacceptable.34It is forbidden to partake of the animal, because this resembles bringing a sacrifice to a false deity. Nevertheless, since one is bringing the offering for a particular purpose and not in actual worship of the false deity, it is not forbidden to benefit from the animal (Kessef Mishneh). If, however, one slaughtered for the sake of the spiritual source35This is the translation of the Hebrew term mazal; i.e., the person is not worshipping the material entity but the spiritual source from which its existence emanates. of the sea, the mountain, the stars, the constellations, or the like, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal36For this is considered as worshipping a false deity. like all offerings brought to false deities.37See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 11:1; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.", + "When a person slaughters an animal [with the intent of] sprinkling its blood for the sake of false deities or burning its fats for the sake of false deities,38He is not slaughtering the animal itself for the sake of the false deity - in which instance, there would be no question that it is forbidden - but, nevertheless, at the time of slaughter, he does intend to offer its blood or fats to the false deity. it is forbidden. For we derive [the laws governing] one's intent outside [the Temple] with regard to [slaughtering] ordinary animals from those pertaining to the intent with regard to [slaughtering] consecrated animals within [the Temple]. For such an intent disqualifies them, as will be explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.39In Chapter 15, Halachah 10, of those halachot, the Rambam writes that one who slaughters a sacrificial animal with the proper intent for the sake of sprinkling its blood or burning its fats for an improper intent, the slaughter is unacceptable.", + "When a person slaughtered [an animal] and afterwards, thought to sprinkle its blood for the sake of false deities or to burn its fats for the sake of false deities, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved.40The Turei Zahav 4:2 writes that according to the Rambam, because of the doubt, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal. Others (see also Siftei Cohen 4:2) rule that it is forbidden to partake of the animal's meat, but one may benefit from it. Perhaps the ultimate result showed what his initial intent was and it was with this intent that he slaughtered.", + "When a person slaughters [an animal] for the sake of [a type of] sacrifice for which one could consecrate an animal through a vow or through a pledge,41As indicated in the following halachah, there are certain sacrifices that a person may offer on his own initiative. Since he has not actually consecrated the animal, the prohibition against sacrificing consecrated animals outside the Temple does not apply according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, because of the impression created, our Sages forbade the slaughter of an animal for that intent (Maggid Mishneh). The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 5), however, states that we fear that he might have consecrated it, implying that there is a question of a Scriptural prohibition involved.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 5:1) rules that this law applies even when the slaughtered animal has a blemish which would disqualify it as a sacrifice, for there are times when a person will conceal the blemish. the slaughter is unacceptable.42From the fact that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, sec. 7) quotes this and the following halachot, we see that these laws also apply in the present age although the Temple is destroyed. See the conclusion of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Halachah 20 which mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter. For this is comparable to slaughtering consecrated animals outside [the Temple courtyard]. If he slaughters [an animal] for the sake of [a type of] sacrifice for which one could not designate an animal through a vow or through a pledge,43As indicated in the following halachah, there are other sacrifices for which a person may consecrate an animal only when he is required to bring that offering. He may not pledge such a sacrifice on his own initiative. the slaughter is acceptable.44Since he cannot consecrate animals for such offerings, we do not worry about the impression that may be created. On the contrary, an onlooker will consider the person's statements facetious (Siftei Cohen 5:4)", + "What is implied? When one slaughters [an animal] for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a thanksgiving offering, or for the sake of a Paschal offering, the slaughter is unacceptable.45For these are sacrifices that a person can consecrate on his own initiative. Hence slaughtering an animal for this purpose is forbidden as stated in the previous halachah. Since a Paschal offering may be designated every year at any time one desires, it resembles a sacrifice that can be consecrated through a vow or through a pledge.46Seemingly, the Paschal offering does not resemble the others for it is an obligation incumbent on a person and can be brought only on the fourteenth of Nisan (Chullin 41b). Nevertheless, it is placed in this category for the reason explained by the Rambam.
If one slaughters [an animal] for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a certain guilt offering, for the sake of a doubtful guilt offering,47The instance of a doubtful guilt offering is debated in Chullin, loc. cit., without the Talmud reaching a definite conclusion concerning the matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view. The Tur and the Rama, however, follow the view that a person can consecrate a doubtful guilt offering on his own initiative and hence, forbid ritual slaughter for this intent. for the sake of a firstborn offering,48For a firstborn animal is consecrated by birth; a person cannot consecrate it through his statements. for the sake of a tithe offering,49For the tithe offerings are consecrated through the tithing rite; a person cannot consecrate it through his statements. or for the sake of a substitute [for any offering],50For unless a person has a consecrated animal at home, there is no reason that an onlooker might think that the substitution is of consequence (Chullin, loc. cit.). the slaughter is acceptable.51For these are sacrifices that a person cannot consecrate unless he is required to.", + "When a person is liable for a sin offering and he slaughters, saying: \"For the sake of my sin offering,\" his slaughter is unacceptable.52Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) explains that when a person is liable to bring a sin offering, he makes the matter known so that he will be embarrassed and thus further his atonement. Therefore the onlookers will know of his obligation and will not regard his statements as facetious. If he had a sacrificial animal in his home and he slaughters, saying: \"For the sake of a substitution for my sacrifice,\" his slaughter is unacceptable, for he substituted the animal [for the consecrated one].53From the Rambam's words, it would appear that this is not merely a Rabbinical safeguard, but that his statements bring about a substitution (temurah) of the animal and he is liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple courtyard.", + "When a woman slaughters54As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4, a woman may slaughter animals. And since she may slaughter ordinary animals, her slaughter of sacrificial animals would be acceptable. Note, however, the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 2:10) which speaks about a man slaughtering an animal on behalf of a woman. for the sake of the burnt offering brought by a woman who gave birth, saying: \"This is for the sake of my burnt offering,\" her slaughter is acceptable.55Since this offering cannot be brought on a person's own initiative, her statements are considered facetious. [The rationale is that the obligation to bring] the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth cannot be initiated through a vow or through a pledge and this woman has not given birth and thus is not obligated to bring a burnt offering. We do not suspect that she had a miscarriage.56A woman who miscarries is also obligated to bring such a burnt offering. For it will become public knowledge if a woman miscarries.57The word here matches the Rambam's statements in the revised text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) as published by Rav Kappach. The Rambam's original text - and the version of his Commentary to the Mishnah commonly circulated - present an entirely different conception of this halachah.
When, by contrast, a person slaughters for the sake of a burnt offering brought by a Nazarite, his slaughter is unacceptable even if he is not a Nazarite. [The rationale is that] the fundamental dimension of being a Nazarite is a vow like other vows.58Hence we suspect that perhaps he took a Nazarite vow in private and the matter has not become known (Kessef Mishneh, Lechem Mishneh).", + "When two people hold a knife and slaughter, one has in mind an intent that would disqualify the slaughter and the other has nothing at all in mind - or even if he had in mind an intent that is permitted - the slaughter is unacceptable.59Since his activity in slaughtering the animal was significant, his intent is also of consequence. Similarly, if they slaughtered one after the other60I.e., without waiting; thus the slaughter is not disqualified. and one had an intent that disqualifies the slaughter, it is disqualified.
When does the above apply? When [the person with the undesirable intent] has a share in the animal. If, however, he does not have a share in the animal, it does not become forbidden. For a Jewish person does not cause something that does not belong to him to become forbidden. He is acting only to cause his colleague anguish.61He makes such statements to make it appear that the slaughter is unacceptable so that his colleague will suffer anguish. Nevertheless, his statements have no effect. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 5:3). The Tur and the Rama states that there are opinions which forbid the slaughter regardless of whether the other person has a share in the animal or not because of the impression that is created.", + "When a Jew slaughters for a gentile, the slaughter is acceptable regardless of the thoughts the gentile has in mind.62I.e., even if the gentile considers it as a sacrifice to a false deity. For we are concerned only with the thoughts of the person slaughtering and not the thoughts of the owner of the animal.63See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1. Therefore when a gentile - even a minor64Who is to young to be involved in the worship of false deities. - slaughters for the sake of a Jew, the animal he slaughters is a nevelah, as will be explained.65As stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 11-12, the gentile's slaughter is not considered halachicly significant and it is as if the animal died without being slaughtered." + ], + [ + "There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are: shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.1The Rambam describes each of these terms in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.", + "What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.", + "With regard to a small domesticated animal:2I.e., a sheep or a goat., the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal,3I.e., a cow. the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.4I.e., each animal is considered according to its category. It will take more time to deal with a large animal than a smaller one and the time factor is adjusted accordingly. With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.5The Rambam's ruling favors the opinion of Shmuel over Rav. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that generally, we follow the principle that the halachah follows Rav's approach with regard to the Torah prohibitions. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there are other Sages who support Shmuel's view, the Rambam favors his opinion. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:2), in addition to the Rambam's view, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Rashi's position which rules much more stringently with regard to shehiyah for a fowl. The Rama states that the common custom is to disqualify any ritual slaughter involving shehiyah of the slightest time for both animals and fowl.", + "When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.6Although the Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen dispute the Rambam's ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:3). The Rama reiterates the stringency stated above.
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.", + "If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs.7In addition to the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:5) quotes the view of Rashi cited by the Tur that as long as the cutting of the signs is not completed, shehiyah can disqualify an animal. Hence, as an initial and preferred option, one should show respect for this view. The Rama rules even more stringently, stating that even after the fact, the slaughter is disqualified. For that reason, he continues, if the majority of the signs are cut, but the animal is lingering alive, rather than cut the signs further, one should hit it on its head to kill it. For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.", + "If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence.8For until half of the windpipe is cut, the animal is not considered as trefe. If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.9He cannot return and correct the slaughter, for the animal is already considered as a nevelah. [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.10Halachah 19.", + "It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat.11As stated in Halachah 5. If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires,12As stated in Halachah 6. for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.", + "[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not.13If the gullet was perforated, the slaughter is unacceptable. If not, it is acceptable. He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place,14Theoretically, he could also cut the windpipe in the same place and complete the slaughter in that manner. Nevertheless, our Sages advised against doing so, for in this way, it is much easier to perforate the gullet when cutting the windpipe and thus he might disqualify the slaughter unnecessarily (Kessef Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 23:6 who offers another rationale. As mentioned above, the Rama rules that whenever one waits during the slaughter of a fowl or an animal, the slaughter is disqualified.
A parallel law - slaughtering the animal in a different place - does not apply with regard to an animal. For to slaughter the animal, he must slit the gullet and we fear that he will cut at a place where it had been perforated previously (Kessef Mishneh). let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside.15I.e., he should cut the gullet off at its top and/or bottom and turn it inside out. If he is able to find a drop of blood, he can assume that it is perforated and it is unacceptable. An external examination of the gullet is not sufficient for the surface of the gullet is red and a drop of blood will not be noticeable. Its inner surface, however, is skin-colored and the blood will be noticed (Kessef Mishneh). If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.", + "What is meant by chaladah?16Chullin 20b states that this term is derived from the word chuldah meaning \"weasel,\" i.e., an animal that hides in the foundation of homes. Similarly, chaladah involves \"hiding\" the knife when slaughtering; i.e., inserting it in a way that the blade is not open to the eye. Implied is that the proper way to slaughter is for the slaughterer to hold the animal or fowl with its neck upward and to draw the knife back and forth across the neck. For example, one inserted the knife between one sign and another.17Certainly, this applies when he inserted the knife below both signs and slaughtered the animal by moving the knife back and forth while pointed upward (Siftei Cohen 24:6). Whether one then slits the upper sign above or cuts the lower sign below in the manner of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.", + "If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck18In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes other authorities who explain that this is referring to a situation where the person tied the cloth around the animal's neck, attached it with wax, or the like. If, however, he merely loosely spread the cloth over the animal, the slaughter is acceptable. He concludes, however, that the Rambam's opinion should be respected. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:8), he rules according to the other views, but states: \"One should show concern for his (the Rambam's) opinion at the outset.\" and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs with chaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.", + "What is meant by dirasah?19The term doreis means \"prey\" or \"strike,\" i.e., killing with a blow, rather than drawing back and forth as is required for ritual slaughter. For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.", + "What is meant by hagramah?20The Maggid Mishneh gives two interpretations of the term hagramah:
a) \"lift up,\" as in II Kings 9:13; i.e., he lifted the knife above its proper place; and
b) \"tip,\" as in Bava Batra 88b; i.e., he tipped the knife upward. This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe21The Rambam speaks only with regard to the windpipe, because he defines hagramah as slaughtering the animal in an improper place. If one would slit the gullet above the proper place, the animal would become disqualified as a trefe immediately (Kessef Mishneh). where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring.22The Maggid Mishneh states that the windpipe is made up of many rings. Over the top ring, there is a flap (cap) of flesh which is slanted. (This is the area of the larynx. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.) At the top of this flap, there are two kernel-like buttons of flesh. As long as the slaughterer leaves some portion of these kernels intact, the slaughter is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.", + "If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.23The Rambam derived this concept from a comparison to the laws of shehiyah mentioned in Halachah 5. The same concept applies if one slaughters more than half the signs appropriately and then completes the slaughter through chaladah. Indeed, it can be explained that the Rambam does not mention this law with regard to chaladah, because it is obvious. For in chaladah, the slaughter is essentially correct; it is only the manner in which one inserts the knife that is unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, there are opinions who differ and disqualify the slaughter. Similarly, with regard to the laws at hand, there are opinions that are more stringent, except with regard to hagramah. In that instance, they accept the leniency mentioned by the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:12) quotes both of the views without stating which should be followed. The Rama goes further and states that it is customary to rule stringently even with regard to hagramah, and even with regard to fowl.
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe]24This addition is necessary, for as stated above, if the gullet is perforated, the slaughter is disqualified. through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.25For the majority of the windpipe was cut in an acceptable manner and the preliminary cutting did not cause the animal to be considered as a trefe. If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.26Here also, the majority of the windpipe is cut in an acceptable manner. The fact that the two thirds were not cut directly after each other is not significant. If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable.27For the majority of the windpipe has not been slit in an acceptable manner. If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.28The rationale for the Rambam's words has been discussed at length by the commentaries, because with regard to chaladah, in Halachah 10, he writes that there is an unresolved question whether the slaughter is disqualified, while here he appears to say that it is definitely unacceptable. The Rivosh (Responsum 187), the Kessef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, and the Siftei Cohen 24:18 all offer lengthy - and somewhat forced - explanations to attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. The core of the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh is that since the majority of the windpipe was slit in the proper place, it is not disqualified because a portion was not.
Needless to say, if one cuts the last third in either of these fashions, according to the Rambam, the slaughter is not disqualified, for it has already been completed (through slitting more than half of the sign[s] in an acceptable manner). The Rama, however, would disqualify the slaughter as stated above.", + "What is meant by ikur? That the gullet and/or the windpipe were displaced29The term ikur means \"uproot.\" The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the signs have slipped from their place does not cause the animal to be deemed a trefe (see, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 21, and notes). Nevertheless, such a condition disqualifies the animal, for it is impossible for the ritual slaughter to be carried out in the proper manner. and slid [from their place] before the conclusion of the slaughter. If, however, one slit an entire sign or its majority in a fowl, and then the second sign slipped, the slaughter is acceptable.30For the slaughter was already completed in an acceptable manner. Compare to the following halachah.", + "If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable.31This applies even with regard to a fowl. Although it is only necessary for one of the signs of a fowl to be cut in the appropriate manner, the other one must be fit to be slit in an appropriate manner (Kessef Mishneh). If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter32In which instance it would disqualify it. or after slaughter,33In which instance, it would be acceptable. there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.", + "If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal]34With regard to a fowl, the sign in question is the only sign slit. With regard to an animal, the other sign must have been slaughtered effectively. is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].35The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:18) rule more stringently and maintain that it is necessary to slaughter another animal, displace its signs afterwards, and compare the two. Only if they are similar is the slaughter accepted. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues stating that, at present, we are not expert at making this comparison and hence, forbid an animal whenever such a condition arises.", + "When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced.36Because the slaughterer will hold the signs in the proper position by hand. Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered,37And we do not know whether the slaughterer held it by hand or not. there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.", + "Whenever we have used the term \"unacceptable,\" the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained.38See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 4. Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.39Since an animal is forbidden during its lifetime, its meat is permitted only when we are certain that the slaughter was acceptable (Radbaz). A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "When the thigh of an animal and [the meat40The addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah.41I.e., even though the animal still has a certain vestige of vitality, it is considered as if it has died already and it imparts ritual impurity as a nevelah does (Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1). [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed,42In this and the following instance, the Siftei Cohen 33:4 rules that the animal is a trefe and not a nevelah. or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter,43If, however, the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah. it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.", + "The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white.44I.e., skin-colored. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.45For the one that is not perforated is sufficient to protect the animal sufficiently for it to survive.
This leniency applies when the inner membrane is perforated due to sickness. If, however, it is perforated due to a thorn, we fear that the outer membrane may also be perforated, but that perforation cannot be detected [see Halachah 22; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)]. If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah.46As above, if the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah (Kessef Mishneh). [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah47With regard to other organs which have two membranes, e.g., the brain and the lungs, the animal is not considered as trefe unless the holes correspond to each other. In this instance, however, the ruling is much more severe because the gullet is stretched and becomes extended. Thus even if the place of the holes do not correspond, they can match each other at times [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)]..", + "When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand.48For as the gullet expands, it is possible that the scab will open (Rashi, Chullin 42a). If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible.49The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules more leniently, stating that unless a trace of blood is detected on the outer side, we do not disqualify an animal because a thorn was implanted in the gullet. If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise50The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules that this applies even if the thorn is lying widthwise, as long as it is not implanted in the membrane. [Indeed, some versions of the Mishneh Torah substitute widthwise for lengthwise.] in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.51And yet do not suffer any internal damage.", + "The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside.52Because, as stated above (see Halachot 8, 19), since its outer membrane is red, a trace of blood will not be obvious. What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.", + "When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe53I.e., the slit goes from side to side in a manner in which the majority of the cavity is slit. The Rambam (based on Chullin 44a,b) is emphasizing that this measure disqualifies an animal even if when including the thickness of the flesh of the windpipe, the slit would not cover the majority of the windpipe. has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering,54See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes. [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.55An Italian coin, frequently used in the Talmudic era. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that an isar is the weight of four barley corns.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) states that we are unfamiliar with the measure of an isar. Therefore, the laws applying to an animal should resemble those applying to a fowl and if the slit covers the majority of the cavity of the windpipe, it is disqualified. The Rama states that, for an animal, an isar is smaller than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe. Therefore he states that perhaps the intent of the Shulchan Aruch, is the majority of the cavity of a fowl. He cautions anyone who has a doubt to rule stringently and disqualify the animal.
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes.56When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:3) speaks of perforating the windpipe \"like a sifter.\" If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar.57In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:3), Rav Yosef Caro writes that as long as the flesh between the holes is not larger than the holes themselves, it is included together with them in this measure. Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]:58For the entire windpipe of a fowl may not be the size of an isar (Rashi, Chullin 45a). Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity],59The addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. For each particular fowl, this measure is calculated individually (Maggid Mishneh). it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.", + "If the windpipe was perforated on both sides with a hole large enough for the thickness of isar60Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who quotes the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 34) who explains that in contrast to the previous halachah which speaks of a hole the area of an isar, this halachah is speaking about a hole through which an isar can be slipped through on its side.
It must be emphasized that the Rambam's ruling depends on the interpretation of Chullin 54a advanced by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Rashi advances a different interpretation of that passage on which basis, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:5-6) quotes both opinions without stating which is favored. to be inserted into it, it is a nevelah. If it is slit lengthwise, even if only the slightest portion of the place fit to slaughter [an animal] remains above and below, it is acceptable.61The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that if the windpipe is slit across we rule more stringently, for the stress of breathing will extend the windpipe and cause the slit to expand. This does not apply when it is split lengthwise.", + "When a windpipe has been perforated62In a manner that would disqualify the animal. and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards,63Were it to have been perforated afterwards, the perforation would not be significant. we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.64For it is apparent that the first hole was also made after the animal's death. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 34:9) states that we are not proficient in inspecting the animal in this way and should disqualify it in all situations.
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring." + ], + [ + "When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained1The five factors mentioned in the previous chapter and how to prepare a knife [Kessef Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:2)]. slaughters [an animal] in private,2If, however, a wise man supervises his actions, the slaughter is acceptable, as indicated by Halachah 5. The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as ruling that such a person may slaughter in the presence of a wise man even as an initial and preferred option. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:3) accepts this ruling, but the Rama does not. it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved.3There is no factor that we see that would cause us to disqualify the slaughter. Nevertheless, since it is highly probable that he slaughtered the animal in a way that disqualified it and rendered it a nevelah, the animal is prohibited and placed in this category. When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.", + "Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly.4Moreover, even if afterwards, he is taught the laws of ritual slaughter and states that he observed them when he slaughtered the animal, the ruling is not revised. Since he did not know the laws at that time, we fear that he did not observe them (Kessef Mishneh). For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.", + "[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent.5This training process is still observed in the present age. Even though a person is familiar with the laws of ritual slaughter, he must first undergo apprenticeship under the guidance of a master and receive authorization to slaughter [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1). If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.6I.e., after the fact, since he knows the laws, we do not disqualify the slaughter.", + "When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women7The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1) states that woman should not be allowed to slaughter as an initial and preferred option. and servants8This refers to Canaanite servants whose Halachic status is the same as women. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 1) rules that in general servants may not serve as ritual slaughterers. See Siftei Cohen 1:2. may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.", + "When a deaf-mute,9See Halachah 9 which grants a person with only one of these handicaps to slaughter. an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child,10The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5) states that this refers to a child who does not know how to maneuver his hands for ritual slaughter. If he knows how to maneuver his hands he may be given an animal to slaughter at the outset. The Rama emphasizes that even so, the child may only slaughter in the presence of others. He may not slaughter alone. Furthermore, the Rama states that it is not customary for a person to receive authorization to slaughter until he is eighteen. The Siftei Cohen 1:25, however, rules more stringently. or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled11The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8) states that one who becomes as drunk as Lot (see Genesis, ch. 19) may not slaughter. One who has not reached this stage of inebriation may slaughter at the outset. The Rama rules more stringently, stating that a person should never slaughter when drunk, for it is likely that he will disqualify the slaughter. slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.", + "When a person whose reputation12With regard to his proficiency in the laws of ritual slaughter. has not been established among us slaughters in private, we question him. If it is discovered that he knows the fundamental principles of ritual slaughter,13Those mentioned in the previous chapter and how to check a knife; there is no need for him to be knowledgeable with regard to all the particulars of the laws of ritual slaughter. his slaughter is acceptable.14The Kessef Mishneh explains that when there is no alternative (see the following halachah), we rely on the principle that most of those who slaughter are knowledgeable regarding its laws. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we have the opportunity to clarify the matter, we do so.", + "When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: \"Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf,\" and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted.15With regard to questions of business law, we rely on the presumption that an agent will perform the mission with which he was charged. We do not, however, accept this principle with regard to questions involving the Torah's prohibitions (Hilchot Terumot 4:6). Nevertheless, even if we know for certain that the agent did not slaughter the animal, we consider it as permitted because of the reason stated by the Rambam. [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.16And when there is no alternative we can rely on this presumption.
From the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1), it appears that there is a slight difference between the present age and the Talmudic period. In the Talmudic era, most people were proficient in both the laws and practice of ritual slaughter. In the present age, this applies only to those who are occupied professionally in this field. Nevertheless, the laws remain the same, for we assume that only a person who is knowledgeable will actually slaughter animals.", + "[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place.17We are not speaking about a waste dump in the market place. In such an instance, all opinions would agree that the animal is forbidden. Instead, we are speaking about a situation where it was found in the marketplace at large. Chullin 12b records a dispute between two Sages concerning this matter and the Rambam chooses the more stringent ruling. Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.18For the circumstances indicate that it was discarded.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud regarding this issue. Most Rishonim follow the more lenient view and rule that if the slaughtered animal is found in an ordinary place in the marketplace or in a waste dump at home, it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:4) also follows this view.", + "When an expert [slaughterer] loses his power of speech, but he is [still] capable of understanding, he can hear and he is of sound mind, he may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.19Another person should recite the blessing for him [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:7)]. Similarly, a person who does not hear,20As long as he has the ability to speak, he is not considered to be intellectually underdeveloped.
Rabbenu Asher explains that such a person should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option, because there is a difficulty with his recitation of the blessing. For a person must recite a blessing in a manner that enables him to hear it and that is impossible for such an individual. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 1:6) rules that a person who is dumb should not separate terumah at the outset for that reason [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:6)]. may slaughter.", + "A blind man should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option unless others supervise him.21For we fear that he will err and not detect his error. The Siftei Cohen 1:35 quotes opinions that rule that a blind person should not slaughter even when others are watching him. If he slaughters, his slaughter is acceptable.22In this instance as well, the Siftei Cohen 1:36 mentions views that maintain that a person who was never able to see should not slaughter. Even after the fact, one should not partake of his slaughter.", + "When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife,23And is well-versed in the laws of ritual slaughter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:1)]. and even if he was a minor,24One might think that the slaughter of a minor has an advantage, because a minor's worship of idols is not significant. his slaughter is a nevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it,25Thus a gentile's slaughter is not recognized by Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that the reason the animal is forbidden is that, in general, when a gentile slaughters, his intent is that the animal is an offering to his false deity, it is, however, permissible to benefit from the animal. We do not consider it as a sacrifice to idols (Chullin 13b; see Chapter 2, Halachah 2), because we assume the gentile is not really sincere in his worship, he is merely mimicking his ancestors.
Rabbeinu Asher differs and explains that the Scriptural command for ritual slaughter states: \"And you shall slaughter,\" implying that the slaughtering must be a Jew. Hence, a gentile is inherently disqualified; his thoughts are of no consequence. See the Siftei Cohen 2:2 and the Turei Zahav 2:1 who discuss this issue. as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: \"[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter.\" Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.", + "[Our Sages] established a great safeguard concerning this matter, [decreeing] that even [an animal] slaughtered by a gentile who does not serve false deities26E.g., a resident alien who accepts the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and his descendants (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7). is a nevelah.27According to the Rambam, if he does not serve false deities and knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable according to Scriptural Law.
One might ask: If so, why is an animal slaughtered by a child a nevelah? A child is not liable for the service of false deities. The Lechem Mishneh answers that ultimately, the child will grow up and worship false deities.", + "If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it,28See the Siftei Cohen 2:27 maintains that if the Jew slit the majority of the gullet and windpipe, the slaughter is acceptable even if the gentile completed it. it is invalid.29Thus if a gentile slit the majority of the windpipe or any portion of the gullet, the slaughter is disqualified [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:10)]. [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.30See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18 for another application of this principle. If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.31For, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, even if the windpipe is half slit because of other factors, it can be slaughtered acceptably.", + "A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression32As the Rambam states in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, there is a concept of an apostate with regard to one transgression, i.e., \"a person who has made a fixed practice of willfully violating a certain transgression [to the extent that] he is accustomed to transgressing and his deeds are public knowledge... provided he does so with the intent of angering God.\" who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.33Although he repeatedly violates that particular transgression, we do not assume that he will not slaughter correctly.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites Chullin 4a which states that as long as if given a choice whether to eat kosher meat or non-kosher meat, the person would choose the kosher meat - even if he would partake of the non-kosher meat if kosher meat was not available - it is permitted to partake of an animal he slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh continues, explaining that as long as one does not transgress with the intent of angering God, one may partake of an animal he slaughtered. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:5), he rules that an apostate who transgresses with the intent of angering God resembles a gentile and his slaughter is inherently unacceptable.
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is some difficulty with the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation, because Hilchot Teshuvah specifically states that a person is deemed an apostate only when his transgression is performed with the intent of angering God. A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].34Although we do not assume that he will definitely transgress, it is logical to presume that he will not be careful in his observance.
Although it also cites the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:6) mentions the opinion of the Tur and others who rule that if the person is not an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, it is not even necessary to check his knife. He may slaughter in private. If, however, he is an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, his knife must be checked. Moreover, if he shows no concern for kashrut at all, his slaughter is not acceptable [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:5].
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public,35See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat. or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah,36Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8. he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.", + "[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition,37See Hilchot Edut 10:1-3. he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert.38In this instance, the Rambam does not even require him to have another person observe him. Since his disregard for Jewish observance is not as severe as that of an apostate, he is allowed to slaughter on his own. For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden.39I.e., he would not slaughter the animal in an invalid way when it would be just as easy for him to slaughter it in an acceptable way. This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.", + "These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, 40Tzadok and Beotus were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: \"Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward,\" they forsook Jewish practice, saying: \"Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?\"
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah. their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, \"We did not blunder.\"41The Rambam appears to be saying that there is no inherent difficulty with these individuals slaughtering an animal. The only question is whether or not they slaughtered correctly. Hence, when it is possible to verify that the slaughter was performed correctly, the animal is permitted. They are not placed in the same category as apostates. Kin'at Eliyahu adds that, based on the previous halachah, these Tzadukim must also be Sabbath observant.", + "When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals.42There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages (Chullin 17a). The Rambam follows Rabbi Akiva's perspective. Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: \"When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings.\" If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.", + "This mitzvah43The obligation to offer as a sacrifice an animal which one desires to ritually slaughter. is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard,44See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: \"When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you.\" This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat." + ], + [ + "We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot1Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:8-9. that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means \"torn apart\" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.", + "There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefe were transmitted to Moses at Sinai.2All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories. They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.3These terms are defined in this and the following chapters.", + "Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai,4And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law. since only derusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah,5Exodus 22:30 speaks of \"meat torn apart in the field.\" [our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah [causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.6The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 29) questions the Rambam's statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29:1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek seifkah, a condition of multiple doubt. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.", + "Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl.7As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim's organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker's claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker's claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that \"the poison\" of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal8An ox. or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion.9If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal. [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal10A sheep or a goat. or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens,11We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator. and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.12See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.", + "When a hawk attacks, the laws of derisah apply even with regard to a larger fowl.13For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones. With regard to other birds of prey the laws of derisah apply only with regard to fowl their size and not with regard to fowl which are larger than they are.14Here also, the Tur and the Rama (loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisah apply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.", + "[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of] derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] a hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.15Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the \"poison\" of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.", + "[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs,16This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57:10; Siftei Cohen 57:19). we show no concern.17Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about \"poisoning\" an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:6)]. [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity.18With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, \"they are no different than a thorn,\" i.e., there is no question of \"poison.\" We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply.19For then it will not release its poison. [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.20For it releases its \"poison\" only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:8)].", + "What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that \"we show concern,\" the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefe and there is no sign that it was attacked,21As explained in the following halachah. it is permitted.22The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden. If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.", + "What is meant by \"a sign that it was attacked\"? That the flesh above the intestines turns red.23In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal's flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam's intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam's wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur's ruling. If the flesh above the intestines decays to the extent it becomes like flesh which a doctor would scrape from a wound, we consider that flesh as if it were lacking and [rule that the animal is] trefe.24Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).", + "If [the predator] attacked the \"signs\" [which must be cut for ritual slaughter, the animal is] trefe if they turn red.25Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered trefe. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh). The slightest wound [is significant]. If even the smallest portion of them becomes red because of an attack, [the animal is] trefe.26This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).", + "When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.27As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as trefe.
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them,28An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the animal. We, nevertheless, disqualify it, for in this instance, we say that the animal released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that it was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm). we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: \"Maybe it scratched itself on a wall.\"29And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enters among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked.30And that is why they are clamoring. If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them,31The Rama 57:9 states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided. we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.", + "When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.33For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: \"Perhaps it was wounded among the trees.\"34I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding." + ], + [ + "What is meant by nekuvah?1The term literally means \"perforated.\" There are eleven organs that if there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches their inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe. They are:2The Rambam explains the particular laws regarding the perforation of these organs in this chapter with the exception of those concerning the lung. The latter, because they are many and are of more common application, are given greater focus and an entire chapter, Chapter 7, is devoted to them. the entrance to the gullet,3If the gullet itself is perforated, the animal is considered a nevelah as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 13. the membrane of the brain in the skull, the heart and its large arteries, the gall-bladder, the arteries leading to the liver, the maw,4A kosher domesticated animal has four stomachs. If any one of them is perforated, the animal is trefe. This and the following three terms refer to those stomachs. the stomach, the abdomen, the gut, the intestines, and the lung and the bronchia.", + "We have already mentioned the definition of the entrance to the gullet.5See Chapter 1, Halachah 6. It refers to a portion of the esophagus above the gullet which is not fit for ritual slaughter. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.", + "The brain in the skull has two membranes. If the outer one near the skull bone alone is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.6The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 31:1) quotes authorities who maintain that even if the upper membrane alone is perforated, the animal is trefe. He states that unless a significant loss is involved, this perspective should be followed. The Turei Zahav 31:1 and the Siftei Cohen 31:1 quote views that advocate stringency even if a significant loss is involved. If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe.7There is a question among the commentaries with regard to the law if only the bottom membrane is perforated. Many Rishonim - and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:10) - rule that the animal is considered trefe in such a situation, for that membrane is the primary protection for the brain.
There are those who maintain that this is alluded to in the Rambam's wording: \"If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe,\" i.e., its perforation alone causes the animal to be considered trefe. Others maintain that this is not the Rambam's intent and some even maintain that the proper version of the text is \"If also the lower one...,\" which would imply that both membranes must be perforated.
[The more stringent ruling is also stated in the popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:1). However, Rav Kappach - while not disputing the ruling - maintains that the translation there is in error.] With regard to the portion where the brain extends to the spinal cord, i.e., the portion below the glands where the neck begins, the laws governing [the perforation of] its membranes change.8Instead, it is governed by the laws pertaining to the breach of the spinal cord, as described in Chapter 9, Law 1. If they are perforated beyond the glands, [the animal] is permitted.", + "When the brain itself is perforated9In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes a different version substituting nirkav (\"decayed\") for nikeiv (\"perforated\"). He also quotes this version in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:2). or crushed, [the animal] is acceptable if its membrane is intact.10For the animal will still be able to function. If, however, [it has degenerated to the extent that] it can be poured like water or melts like wax, [the animal] is trefe.11In Chapter 10, the Kessef Mishneh includes this - as the implication from the Rambam's order here - in the category of nekuvah. For in such a situation, ultimately, the brain's membrane will become perforated.", + "When there is a perforation of the heart to its inner cavity - whether to the larger cavity on the left or the smaller cavity to the right - [the animal] is trefe. If, however, the flesh of the heart is perforated, but the perforation does not reach the inner cavity, [the animal] is permitted.12The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:2) follows the opinion of the Tur who accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a perforation stemming from sickness, but rules more stringently with regard to a perforation caused by a thorn or a needle. In such an instance, even if the perforation does not extend to the cavity of the heart, the animal is trefe. The arteries leading from the heart to the lung is considered as the heart itself. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.", + "When the gall-bladder is perforated and the liver seals it, [the animal] is permitted.13For flesh will cling to flesh . If, however, the perforation is not sealed, it is trefe even if the perforation is located close to the liver.", + "[The following rules apply when] a kernel14Needless to say, these laws apply when a needle or a thorn is found in the gall-bladder [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 42:9)]. is found in the gall-bladder. If it was shaped like a date seed, i.e., its head is not pointed, [the animal] is permitted.15We assume that instead of perforating the gall bladder from the outside, it entered through the blood vessels and became lodged there. If, however, its head is pointed like an olive seed, it is forbidden, for we can assume that it perforated [the gall bladder] when it entered. [The reason that] the perforation cannot be seen is that a scab developed over the opening of the wound.16And as indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 21, the sealing of a perforation by a scab is not significant in these contexts.", + "When there is a perforation of the slightest size in one of the arteries of the liver where the blood develops, [the animal] is trefe.17The Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that this ruling applies only with regard to the arteries leading to the liver, but not with regard to those within the liver itself. The Rivosh (Responsum 189) supports the challenge to the Rambam by citing the ruling (Chapter 8, Halachah 21) that if the liver is removed entirely except for a small portion, the animal is not trefe.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains the Rambam's position as follows: Even when the liver is removed, its blood vessels must remain intact. A parallel to that concept exists with regard to the lungs (see Chapter 7, Halachah 9). Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, he follows the position of the other Rishonim and does not mention a perforation in the liver as a factor that disqualifies an animal. Accordingly, [the following rules apply] if a needle is found in the lobes of the liver. If it was a large needle and its pointed edge was facing inward, it can be assumed that it perforated [the liver] when it entered. If its rounded edge was facing inward, we say that it entered through the blood vessels and [the animal] is permitted.18Here also the Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that his understanding of Chullin 45b, the source for this halachah, is in error. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 41:6) follow their understanding.", + "If it was a small needle, [the animal] is trefe, because both of its heads are sharp and it certainly perforated [the liver].19I.e., regardless of the direction it entered. If it is found in the large blood vessel, the wide artery through which food enters the liver,20I.e., blood from the stomach; for food does not enter the liver. it is permitted.21Since this blood vessel is large, it cannot be taken for granted that the needle perforated the blood vessel. If the flesh of the liver became wormridden, [the animal] is permitted.22We do not suspect that the blood vessels of the liver were perforated.", + "When the maw is perforated and kosher fat23See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 7, for an explanation which fat is kosher and which is forbidden. Halachah 6, of that chapter speaks explicitly of the fat on the maw. seals [the perforation], [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, whenever a perforation is sealed by flesh or fat that is permitted to be eaten, [the animal] is permitted. The [only] exceptions are the fat of the heart,24Concerning this point, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:1) follows the lenient view and permits the animal in such a situation, while the Rama follows the more stringent perspective. the membrane that is above the entire heart, the diaphragm in the midst of the belly that separates between the digestive organs and the respiratory organs, i.e., the one that when it is cut open, the lungs could be seen and which is called the membrane [above] the liver, the white place in the center [of the liver], and the fat of the colon. In these organs, we do not say that they shield [the perforation] because they are firm.25And thus they will not bend in a manner that will seal the perforation. Kosher fat and flesh, by contrast, are pliable and will seal any perforation over which they are located. A perforation that is sealed with one of these is not considered as sealed.
A portion of fat from a beast that corresponds to a portion of forbidden fat in a domesticated animal does not seal [a perforation] even though it is permitted to be eaten.26All fat in a wild beast is permitted to be eaten. Hence, in this instance, the general principle stated above is not followed and we determine which fat can seal a perforation by comparing it to the corresponding situation in a domesticated animal.
With regard to a fowl, all its kosher fat will seal a perforation beneath it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1)].", + "When the stomach is perforated, [the animal] is trefe. There is nothing that can seal it for the fat upon it is forbidden.27The Turei Zahav 48:2 questions: Seemingly, the spleen should be able to seal it, for the spleen may be eaten and lies on the stomach. He explains that since the membrane covering the spleen is forbidden, it is not an effective seal. Similarly, when there is a perforation of the abdomen or gut that extends to its outer periphery, [the animal] is trefe. If one of them was perforated and the perforation leads to the cavity of the other,28This is possible for some of these stomachs are located within each other. [the animal] is permitted.29For the perforation will not reach beyond the digestive system.", + "[The following rules apply when] a needle is found in the folds of the gut: If it was from one side,30From the following clause, it appears that according to the Rambam, this refers to a needle lodged in the outer side of the gut. See the following note. [the animal] is permitted.31There are other authorities (their perspective is reflected in the objections of the Ra'avad) who maintain that even in this instance, an examination is required. Moreover, they explain that we are speaking about a needle lodged in the inner side of the gut. If a needle is lodged in the outer side of the gut, according to this view, the animal is trefe.
According to the Rambam, as mentioned above, we are speaking about a needle that comes from the outside. As the Rambam states in Chapter 11, Halachah 4, in such an instance, all of the inner organs of the body must be checked (Kessef Mishneh). Thus this halachah is speaking only with regard to the gut. Since the perforation does not breach the digestive system, the animal is not considered trefe.
Both perspectives are based on a comparison of two Talmudic passages (Chullin 50b and 51a) that are difficult to reconcile. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 48:8,10) follows the perspective of the other authorities. The Rama cites the Rambam's perspective with regard to a hole made on the inside that does not pass from one side to the other and states we may rely on it in a situation where a severe financial loss is involved. If it caused a complete perforation extending [from the outer side] to the cavity of the gut and a drop of blood was found at the place of the perforation, [the animal] is trefe. For we are certain that the perforation occurred before the slaughter. If there is no blood at the place of the perforation,32The Ra'avad and the other authorities state that the drop of blood must be found on the outer side of the gut. [the animal] is permitted. For we are certain that after the slaughter, under pressure the needle caused the perforation.33Since the animal was slaughtered, its blood was not flowing and it is unlikely that there will be sufficient pressure to force it outside the gut.", + "When an animal swallowed a substance that will perforate the intestines, e.g., the root of the asafetida34A yellow-brown, bitter, offensive-smelling resinous material used for medicinal purposes in the ancient Middle East. plant or the like, it is trefe, for we can be certain that it perforated them. If there is a question whether or not a perforation was made,35The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 51), and others quote a different version of the Mishneh Torah concerning which questions are raised. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the version translated here and the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah states that it is followed by most of the authoritative manuscripts. [the animal] must be inspected.36The Ra'avad states that the inspection of the intestines is difficult. That position is reflected in the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 51:4) who rules that in such a situation, because of its questionable status, the animal is considered as trefe.
When one of the organs of the digestive system through which the food waste passes, i.e., the intestines, are perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Among them are those which are curved and surrounded by each other like a snake that is coiled, they are referred to as the small intestines. If one of them was perforated [on the side where] another [is located], the animal is permitted, for the other [intestine] will shield [the perforation].", + "When the digestive organs were perforated and viscous body fluids seal them, [the animal] is trefe for this seal will not endure.37When the digestive system is under pressure, the vicious fluids will not seal effectively. The Siftei Cohen 46:1 states that the same ruling applies even if a scab has developed over the wound.
When a wolf, a dog, or the like, snatched [an animal's] intestines38I.e., after the animal was slaughtered. and they were perforated after they were abandoned, we surmise that [the predator caused the perforation and the slaughtered animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps [the predator] made a perforation in a place where one already existed.39Chullin 9a explains that, unless there is a known factor that certainly indicates otherwise, we assume that an animal that has been slaughtered is acceptable. In this instance, the perforation would lead us to rule stringently. Nevertheless, since the fact that it was snatched by a predator can serve as an explanation, we rely on the original assumption. Accordingly, for this ruling to apply, we must know that the animal was slaughtered properly [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 25:3)].
If [an intestine] was discovered to be perforated40As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, in this instance, we do not know how it was perforated. and it was not known whether it was perforated before [the animal's] slaughter41In which instance, the animal would be considered as trefe. or afterwards, we perforate it again and compare the two. If the first perforation resembles this one, [the animal] is kosher.42The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 50:1) rules that in the present generation, we are not knowledgeable regarding the making of such a comparison and hence, forbid the animal because of the doubt. If there was a difference between them, [we presume that the first] occurred before the slaughter and [the animal] is trefe. If the perforation in doubt was handled, the perforation to which it is being compared must also be handled before the comparison is made.", + "When [an animal's] digestive organs protrude outside [its body] without having been perforated,43I.e., the animal's belly was cut open while it was alive. It could no longer support the digestive organs and they protruded beyond the skin. Nevertheless, the digestive organs themselves were not blemished. [the animal] is permitted. If they were turned upside down,44As might happen if a person was trying to reinsert them into the animal's belly. [the animal] is trefe even if they were not perforated. [The rationale is that] once [the digestive organs] have been turned upside down,45The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:2) rules that if an animal's digestive organs are discovered to have turned upside down, the animal is trefe, even if the organs did not fall out of its belly. they will never return to their ordinary functioning and [the animal] will not live.", + "The final digestive organ that is straight and not curved from which feces are excreted in the genital area and is joined [to the body] between the thighs is called the colon. If it is perforated even slightly, [the animal] is trefe,46Even though the fat upon it is kosher, it does not seal it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1); see also Halachah 10]. as applies with regard to the other digestive organs.
When does the above apply? When the perforation faced the cavity of the belly. When, however, it was perforated at the point where it is joined between the thighs, [the animal] is permitted.47For the thighs will support it (Chullin 50a). [Indeed,] even if the entire place where it is joined between the thighs is removed, [the animal] is permitted, provided a length of at least four fingerbreadths48The Rambam (based on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi) considers this the meaning of the term \"in order to grasp it\" used by Chullin, loc. cit. Although there are more lenient views, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:5) follows the Rambam's ruling.
According to Shiurei Torah , a fingerbreadth is 2 cm, according to Chazon Ish 2.48 cm. remains in an ox.49For other animals, the minimum measure is calculated proportionately (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).", + "A fowl does not have a stomach, an abdomen, or a gut. Instead of them, it has a crop and a craw.50Unlike a domesticated animal that has four stomachs, a kosher fowl has two.
All the factors that render an animal trefe apply equally to a domesticated animal, a wild beast, and a fowl.51I.e., though the laws above were stated with regard to a domesticated animal, they apply equally to a beast and to a fowl if they possess the same organs.
When the roof of the crop receives even the slightest perforation, [the animal] is trefe. What is meant by the roof of the crop? That which becomes extended with the gullet when the fowl extends its neck.52Hence just as the perforation of the gullet disqualifies a fowl; so, too, the perforation of this portion of the crop (see Chullin 58b). If, however, the remainder of the crop becomes perforated, [the fowl] is permitted.", + "The craw has two [membranes] covering it. The outer one is red like meat; the inner one is white like skin. If one was perforated and not the other, [the fowl] is permitted unless they are both perforated, even slightly. If they are both perforated, but in places that do not correspond, [the fowl] is permitted.53Compare this entire halachah to Chapter 3, Halachah 20, concerning the gullet, noting the similarities and differences.", + "The spleen is not one of the limbs which is disqualified because of a perforation of even the slightest size. Therefore our Sages did not include it in that category. Instead, a perforation that disqualifies it has a measure which is not uniform throughout it.
What is implied? One of the ends of the spleen is thick and the other thin, like the shape of the tongue. If the thick end was perforated by a hole that extends from side to side, [the animal] is trefe. If the hole does not extend from side to side, [more lenient rules apply]: If a portion the thickness of a golden dinar remains,54This is less than half the thickness of the spleen (Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh). [the animal] is permitted. If less than that remains, [the perforation] is considered as if it extends from side to side and [the animal] is trefe. If the thin side is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.55This applies with regard to an animal and a beast. More lenient rules apply with regard to a fowl and the perforation of its spleen never causes it to be considered as trefe, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 10.", + "[The following principle applies with regard to] all of the organs concerning which our Sages said that even the slightest perforation [causes the animal to be considered] trefe. If [that organ] was removed entirely, [the animal] is trefe.56Since the perforation of an organ impairs its functioning to the point that the animal is trefe, the implication is that the organ must function excellently for the body to be maintained. Hence, we can certainly assume that an animal will be considered trefe when the organ does not exist at all. This applies whether it was eliminated through sickness, removed by hand, or [the animal] was created lacking the organ.
The same laws also apply if it was created with two of that organ, for any extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking.57The commentaries explain that since the organ is duplicated, neither one of the two organs will be able to function satisfactorily. Thus it is as the animal is lacking that organ entirely.
What is implied? If one of an animal's or fowl's digestive organs, its gall-bladder,58The Radbaz states that if we do not see a gall-bladder, we have the liver tasted. If its taste is bitter, we assume that the gall-bladder was absorbed by the liver. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3). or the like was removed, it is trefe. Similarly if it was discovered to have two gall-bladders or two of a [particular digestive] organ, it is trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If, however, the spleen was removed or two spleens were found, [the animal] is permitted, for [that organ] is not among those listed [by our Sages in this category].", + "[The statement that] an extra digestive organ causes an animal to be considered trefe applies only when there is an entire extra organ from its beginning to its end and thus two digestive organs are found next to each other as is [sometimes found in] the digestive organs of a fowl59Thus this phenomenon does not render a fowl trefe, only an animal (Chullin 58b). or the extra organ projects outward like a branch from a bough and it is a separate entity.60The Siftei Cohen 47:1 rules that this applies only when the extra organ branches off from the stomach. If it branches off from the intestines, it is acceptable. [The latter applies] whether in a fowl or in an animal. If, however, the extra organ returns and becomes combined with the main organ and they are fused at the two ends61If, however, each of the organs branches off from a different place in the animal's digestive system, the animal is trefe even if the organs merge at their end (Maggid Mishneh). even though they are separate in the middle, [the animal] is permitted and the organ is not considered as extra." + ], + [ + "The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.1For the other will protect the lung (Chullin 46a). If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe.2If both membranes are perforated, but the perforations do not correspond, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:1) rules that the animal is kosher, but the Rama considers it trefe. Even if the entire upper membrane3The Radbaz states that if, by contrast, the lower membrane alone is peeled off, the animal is trefe, for certainly, part of the lung will be lacking. is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest4I.e., from the beginning of the ribcage. or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower portion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.5Chapter 1, Halachah 7 defines the portion of the windpipe acceptable for ritual slaughter. If, however, the windpipe is perforated in a such a place, the animal is kosher.", + "If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] is trefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter.6Although the functioning of the lung is dependent on the windpipe, since a perforation in the lung causes an animal to be considered trefe, it is given that status (Chullin 32b). Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "If one of the bronchioles7The small extensions of the windpipe that convey air within the lungs itself. was perforated, even if the perforation is covered by another bronchiole, [the animal] is trefe.8Because the walls of the bronchioles are firm and not pliant. Hence, they will not serve as effective seals (Rashi, Chullin 48b).
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:6), Rav Yosef Caro rules that if a perforation in a bronchiole is sealed by flesh, the animal is acceptable. See also the comments of Siftei Cohen 36:20. As the Rama states (Yoreh De'ah 39:18), the custom in the Ashkenazic community is to rule that an animal is trefe if its lungs are perforated even if they are sealed closed by other inner organs. If one saw that it was perforated and then it developed a scab, [the scab] is of no consequence.9For ultimately it will open (Rashi, Chullin 47b).
If the mass of the lung is perforated, [the animal] is trefe, even if one of the ribs seals the perforation.10Since this portion of the lung is located below the ribs, the perforation will never be sealed thoroughly. If it was perforated in a place where the lung breaks into lobes and the lobe lies on [a rib, the animal] is kosher.11For the lobes lie on the ribs themselves and the seal will be maintained.
One of the issues related to the question of whether a lung is perforated or not is sirchaot, adhesions, where the lung becomes attached to the ribs and/or other portions of the body. For a discussion of that matter, see the latter half of Chapter 11.", + "When does the above apply? When the perforation in the lobes is sealed by flesh.12It is not necessary to inspect the lung to see if air escapes (Tur, as quoted by Siftei Cohen 39:44). If, however, the perforation is pressed against the bone, it does not protect it.13For the bone is firm and will not move when the lung expands and contracts. Even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe (ibid.). If, however, the perforation in the lobes was clinging both to the bone and the flesh, [the animal] is permitted.", + "When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths14Boils or carbuncles filled with pus. This heightens the probability that it could have been perforated. appeared on it.
What do we do [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise.15And we postulate that the animal was bruised after its slaughter. Hence it is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that we are talking about a situation where the perforation is opposite the bruise. If they do not correspond, the animal is trefe. If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it is trefe.16Here, also, even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:22)]. The Ra'avad states there is an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's ruling here and that in Chapter 11, Halachah 6. See the notes to that halachah for a discussion of this issue.", + "When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] is trefe.17I.e., unless it is checked as the Rambam continues to explain.
How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung]18According to the Rambam, the portion of the lung itself is cut off and we inspect it. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:9) offers a different interpretation. PAGE 239 that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it,19I.e., the feather is placed on the portion of the lung that was cut off. One blows throw the brochia. If the air passes through the bronchioles, the feather should flutter. it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher.20The movement indicates that air flows through it. If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].", + "[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm21Chullin 47b states that hot water will cause the lung to contract and cold water will cause it to become firmer. If it was put in either hot or cold water first, it may not be checked in lukewarm water afterwards [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:4)]. water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] is trefe.22For obviously the lung has been perforated and the air is flowing out from it. If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.", + "Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.23This principle is significant with regard to the discussion concerning sirchaot, adhesions, in Chapter 11. The Ra'avad (whose interpretation is paralleled by that of Rashi and other Rishonim) maintain that inflating the lung represents a stringency: If air escapes, an animal is considered trefe even though there is reason to permit it. The same principle cannot be applied as a leniency. The Rambam - and his approach is shared by Rabbenu Tam, Rashba, Rabbenu Nissim, and others - maintains that this principle was instituted as a leniency.", + "[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung24The Siftei Cohen 36:21 states that this leniency applies even if the entire lung has degenerated and can be poured out like water. can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.25As stated in Halachah 3, if one of the bronchioles is perforated, the animal is trefe. Certainly, that ruling applies if it has degenerated.
What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead26Because it is glazed, one will be able to see the white strands clearly if they exist [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 36)]. or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degenerated27And the white strands are the remnants of the bronchioles. and it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.28When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:7) adds a concept stated in the following halachah: that the fluid poured out may not be putrid. (The commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch maintain that the Rambam would follow this stringency.) The Rama, however, rules leniently, maintaining that as long as the bronchioles are not visible, the animal is acceptable.", + "[The following rules apply when] boils29Based on Chullin 48a, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:1) states that even if boils are very large, the animal may still be kosher. are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe.30The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch. The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of many other Rishonim who permit the animal even if the fluid in the boils is putrid. When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.31The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on his decision in the previous halachah. The Rambam maintains that the fluid indicates that there is a strong possibilility that a perforation exists. Other opinions maintain that the animal is permitted, for the fluid is not necessarily a sign that a perforation exists. According to those views (and they are accpeted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), there is no need for the inspection the Rambam requires.", + "When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] is trefe,32The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:3) state that even if the boils are filled with clear fluid, the animal is trefe. If, however, they are hard, it is acceptable. for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them33Rashi (Chullin 47a) explains that most likely the membrane was perforated and therefore the boils developed. Rabbenu Nissim explains that since the two boils are next to each other, it is likely that one perforated the other. and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted.34The Maharil requires a further check: to see whether they share the same pocket (Turei Zahav 37:5; Siftei Cohen 37:7). If not, [the animal] is trefe.", + "If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces.
When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: \"It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter.\"35The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) suggests that the shape of the perforations must indicate that they were made by the butcher.
If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.36See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.", + "We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.37This represents the Rambam's understanding of Chullin 50a. Rashi interprets the passage slightly differently. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) follows Rashi's understanding and states that we do not compare a lung from one animal to that of another one at all. And even within one animal, we do not compare a perforation in a large lobe to one in a small lobe.
If a perforation is found in one of the boils of a lung, [the animal] is trefe. We do not say: \"Perforate another boil and compare them,\"38With the intent of seeing whether the perforation was made before or after the slaughter. because the matter is not clearly apparent.39I.e., in this instance, it is not easy to differentiate based on the comparison.", + "When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them].40In contrast to the liver where some authorities make a distinction in the ruling depending on the direction it is facing (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8), no such contrast is made with regard to a needle found in the lung. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:16-17) which states that if a drop of blood is found on the exterior of the lung, the animal is considered trefe. the Rama rules that unles a significant loss is involved, whenever a needle is found in the lungs, the animal is considered trefe. If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it,41And thus it is impossible to check it by blowing air into it, for the air will be released through the portion cut off. [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.", + "When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughter42For while the animal was alive, the lung was continually expanding and contracting and it would be very hard for the worm to perforate it (Turei Zahav 36:8). and emerged [then].
There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ].43The remaining halachot in this chapter are expressions of this principle. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 48:5) rules that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the correct appearance of the lung. Hence, if its appearance changes and one might think it became unacceptable, we rule stringently. For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated.44And as stated above, the perforation of a lung disqualifies it. For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [Leviticus 13:10] states: \"And there is a spot of living45We have translated the verses literally to convey the meaning mentioned by the Rambam. In its ordinary context, the terms would be translated as \"healthy flesh.\" flesh in the blemish...,\" and [ibid. 13:10] states: \"On the day when he will present living flesh....\" Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not \"alive.\"", + "[The following principles apply if] the color46Our translation is dependent on the following halachah. of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].47And even the slightest perforation of the lung disqualifies the animal.", + "There are five forbidden hues for the lung: black like ink, greenish-yellow48This represents the translation the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 38:1) offers for the Talmudic term yerok quoted by the Rambam. like hops, [yellow] like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower,49Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2). Rashi (Chullin 47b) renders the term as saffron. There is little difference between the two colors. or like the color of meat.50Which is reddish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].
Safflower is a color which clothes are dyed. It is comparable to hairs that are slightly red, leaning towards gold.", + "If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted.51For during the animal's lifetime, the lung is repeatedly inflated. If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.", + "There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.", + "When a fowl52These laws do not apply with regard to an animal because its skin is tough and its ribs protect it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:7]. The Rama, however, does not accept this leniency. The Ra'avad (Chapter 10, Halachah 11) also accepts the Rama's view. fell into a fire and its heart, its liver,53In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:1), Rav Yosef Caro qualifies the ruling with regard to the liver, stating that to disqualify a fowl, it must change color at its thin end, the portion next to the gall-bladder, or at the place where it derives its nurture. or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe.54Significantly, if the lungs change color, the fowl is not disqualified, because its ribs protect it [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.55For it is possible that the cooking and/or the massage will restore the organ's natural color.", + "Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire,56I.e., even though we do not know that the fowl fell into a fire, the fact that these organs changed color serves as evidence of such [Kessef Mishneh; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 3:3)]. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:6) quotes this ruling, but the Rama rules leniently and states that we must see that the fowl actually fell into a fire. its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.57The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3) does not accept this stringency, following the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that we do not disqualify an animal unless we definitely know that it fell into a fire.
Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the term chasairah?1Chasairah means \"lacking.\" This category disqualifies an animal if it lacks one of its fundamental organs. There are two organs that render [an animal] trefe if it is lacking the proper number. They are the lungs and the feet.2It is true that there are more organs that render an animal trefe if they are lacking. Nevertheless, the lack of these organs is not placed in this category. Instead, the organ is considered as nekuvah, \"perforated.\" As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, if the perforation of these organs will disqualify an animal, surely, it will be disqualified when the organs are lacking entirely.
The lungs have five lobes. When a person will drape them over his hand with the inner portion of the lung facing his face,3I.e., he will be holding the animal from behind. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:2). there will be three [lobes] on the right and two on the left. In addition, at the right of [the lung], there is a small ear-like attachment. It is not in the row of the lobes. It has a pocket of its own and it is located in the pocket. This [attachment] is called a rose, because that is what it looks like.4I.e., it is small and red. It is not counted as one of the number of lobes.
Accordingly, if [an animal] does not possess this \"rose,\" it is permitted.5The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 35:2 states that it is customary within the Ashkenazic community to declare an animal trefe, if it lacks this \"rose\" or if there is an extra \"rose.\" For this is the pattern with regard to [this organ], there are some animals in which it is found and some in which it is not found. If it is perforated, [the animal] is trefe even though its pocket seals it.6For it does not seal it thoroughly.", + "If the number of lobes was lacking and one was discovered on the left side or two on the right side, [the animal] is trefe. If, however, there were two on the right side and this \"rose,\" [the animal] is permitted.7For the \"rose\" functions in place of the missing lobe. If, however, the \"rose\" is found on the left and there is only one lobe, the animal is not acceptable. Since it is not in its proper place, it cannot replace a lobe (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:7) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but the Rama differs.", + "If the position of the lobes was switched and three were found on the left and two on the right without a \"rose\" or the \"rose\" was found together with three on the left side, it is trefe, for it is lacking on the right side.8In this instance, the \"rose\" does not compensate for the lack of the lobe, because it is not on the right side.", + "[The following rules apply if] the number of lobes was increased. If the extra lobe was on the side of the [other] lobes9\"In the row of the lungs\" to borrow the expression used by Chullin 47b. Generally, we follow the principle that every addition is considered as if it was lacking. In this instance, however, since the extra lobe is found in the row of the lobes, it will not disturb the lungs' ordinary functioning. or in front of the lungs10In this instance as well, the Rambam maintains that the position of the extra lobe prevents it from disturbing the lungs' ordinary functioning. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:3) accepts the Rambam's ruling.The Rama quotes more stringent views that state that any extra lobe that is not found in the row of the lungs is trefe. Nevertheless, the custom is to rule leniently. on the side of the heart, [the animal] is permitted. If [the extra lobe] is on its back, near the ribs, [the animal] is trefe for an extra [organ] is considered equivalent to one that is lacking. [This applies] provided it is [at least] the size of a myrtle leaf.11I.e., even when inflated. If it is smaller than this, it is not considered as a lobe and [the animal] is permitted.", + "When one lobe is found clinging to the one next to it, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, [the lobes] became attached out of the ordinary order, e.g., the first lobe became attached to the third, [the animal] is trefe.12If the portions of the lungs that follow their natural pattern become attached to each other, all authorities agree that the animal is acceptable, for this attachment will not create any difficulties. And if the third lobe becomes attached to the first, all agree that it is unacceptable, because as the lungs inflate, the attached portions will separate, cause the attachment to tear, and in doing so, perforate the lobe.
The commentaries question - and the Maggid Mishneh actually maintains that the text of the Mishneh Torah reads in this manner - whether if the back of one lobe is attached to the back of the lobe next to it, the animal is also trefe. For in this instance as well, since the lobes are attached in an unnatural order, the attachment will tear and perforate the lungs. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro maintains that the Rambam's wording implies that as long as the attached lobes are next to each other, the lung is acceptable, even if they are attached back to back. He does note, however, that there are authorities who rule stringently. He concludes in his Kessef Mishneh and also rules accordingly in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:4), that the attachments do not disqualify an animal only when the lobes are attached side to side - and not back to back - in the natural order. If they are attached in such an order, however, the lungs need not be checked. The Rama differs, requiring an examination. He also states that there are authorities who maintain that we are not knowledgable regarding how to make such an examination and therefore such an animal should be considered as trefe. Nevertheless, his ruling also leaves room for leniency if less than half of the body of the lobes are attached. See Siftei Cohen 39:11.", + "[The following laws apply if] there are two lobes [that appear] as one lobe and do not appear as two lobes joined together.13I.e., they appear as one flush mass, without differentiation. If they are distinct, but attached, they are governed by the laws stated in the previous halachah. If there was a space about the size of a myrtle leaf14From Halachah 4, it appears that this is the size of a lobe that is significant. Hence, just as it is significant in disqualifying an animal, it is significant in causing it to be deemed kosher (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:8). The Rama cites authorities that maintain that even if a smaller portion is distinct, the lobes are considered as separate and the animal, kosher. The Rama states that we may rely on these opinions if there is a significant loss involved. between them - whether at their root, in their center, or at their end - so that it is clear that they are two which are attached, [the animal] is permitted. If not, it is lacking [one of the lobes] and is trefe.", + "If the entire lung appears like two rows and it is not divided into lobes, it is trefe. Similarly, if the body of the lung itself15I.e., it is lacking part of its ordinary mass. was lacking, even if it was not perforated, it is considered as if the required number of lobes were missing and [the animal] is trefe.16The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the Rambam rules that if a lung has decayed, it is kosher as long as its bronchioles and outer membrane are intact despite the fact that it has lost a large amount of its substance. He explains that this is not necessarily a contradiction to the ruling here. In that instance, since the lung has decayed significantly and yet, the brochioles have not been perforated, we assume that they will not be perforated. In this instance, by contrast, we suspect that the lack within the lung will cause it to become perforated.
Many other Rishonim, however, do not make such a distinction and maintain that a lung is acceptable if it is lacking some of its inner substance. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:8) quotes both views. The Rama states that certain circumstances call for leniency and others, for stringency. Therefore if a dried portion that could be chipped away with one's nail of even the slightest size was discovered within it, it is considered as lacking17The Kessef Mishneh explains that others explain that it is considered as if the dried portion is perforated and therefore the animal is trefe. and [the animal] is trefe.", + "When a lung was discovered to be inflated like the leaves of a palm tree, we rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. For this is an abnormal addition to its body and perhaps an addition to its body is considered as equivalent to a lack in its body, as stated with regard to the number of lobes.18As stated in law 4, an extra lobe is considered as a missing lobe and disqualifies a lung. Similarly, there is reason to think that an increase in the size of a lung is equivalent to a decrease in its size and disqualifies it in a similar fashion.", + "[The following rules apply when] an animal became frightened and was terrified to the extent that her lung19When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14) speaks of an \"entire lung\" shriveling. shriveled and came closer to becoming dried out: If it became frightened through the hand of heaven, e.g., it heard a thunderclap, saw lightening, or the like, it is permitted.20For in the near future, it will regain its natural size, as indicated by the following halachah. If it became frightened through human activity, e.g., another animal was slaughtered in its presence or the like, it is considered as if it were lacking and it is trefe.", + "How do we inspect it? We place the lung in water for an entire day. In the winter, we place it in lukewarm water, in a container which will not cause the water to condense on its back21Chullin 55b states that earthern-ware utensils made of white clay will have water condense upon them easily. and flow so that they will not become cold rapidly. If the season was hot, we place it in cold water in a container on which the water will condense on its back so that the water will remain cold. If [the lung] returns to its natural state, [we assume that the animal was frightened] by the hand of heaven and it is permitted.22Chullin, loc. cit., also debates what the ruling would be if one animal is frightened by another animal. The Rambam does not discuss the issue for seemingly, it would be able to be resolved by the same test mentioned here. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14 considers being frightened by other animals as equivalent to being frightened by the hand of heaven.
The Radbaz also states that if the lung returns to normal, it is acceptable even if the animal was frightened by human activity. Other authorities differ and maintain that if we know that the animal was frightened by human activity, this examination is not acceptable (Siftei Cohen 36:30).
See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:15) who rules that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the various inspections that our Sages spoke about and hence, should not employ them. If, however, it appears that an animal's lung shrunk due to the hand of heaven, it should not be permitted without undergoing this examination. If it does not return, we [we assume that] it happened due to mortal causes and [the animal] is trefe.", + "An animal that was lacking a foot23The category of chasairah involves two organs: the lungs and the feet. Having discussed the lungs, the Rambam proceeds to discuss the feet. As the Rambam continues to explain, here the intent is the hindlegs. from the time it came into being is trefe. The same ruling applies if it possesses an extra foot, for an extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking. If, however, it has three forefeet or only one forefoot, [the animal] is permitted. Accordingly, if [an animal's] forefoot is cut off, [the animal] is permitted.24The severed foot itself, however, is forbidden.
If its leg is cut off from the joint and above,25There are three segments of an animal's leg between its trunk and its hoofs. We are speaking about the joint between the highest and middle portions of the leg. [the animal] is trefe. From the joint and below, it is permitted.26Note, however, Halachah 15. Which joint are we speaking about? The joint that is at the end of the hip close to the body.", + "When the bone27I.e., the highest of the three bones of the animal's legs. is broken above the joint, if it emerges outward entirely or in its majority, it is considered as if it were cut and fell off,28For it will never heal. and [the animal] is trefe. If the flesh or the skin29Even the covering of the skin alone is sufficient. This represents a revision of the Rambam's thinking. The initial text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:13) stated \"there was flesh and skin covering it\" and he altered it to read \"flesh or skin covering it.\" was covering both the majority of the thickness and the majority of the circumference of the broken bone, [the animal] is permitted.30For the leg will heal. Not only is the animal permitted, the leg itself is permitted. We do not consider it as if it had been severed and removed during the animal's lifetime. This applies even if part of the broken bone fell off and no longer is present. Soft sinews are not considered as flesh.", + "The juncture of the sinews is a place in an animal and in a beast which is above the heel, at the place where the butchers hang the animal.31I.e., it is customary for the butchers to make a hole in the lowest bone of the leg and hang the animal head downwards so that they can skin it and cut off its meat. The definition of \"the juncture of the sinews\" is important, as reflected in Halachot 15-18. There are three white sinews there, one thick and two thin. From the place where they begin and are firm and white until [the place] where the whiteness is removed from them and they begin to become red and soften is considered the juncture of the sinews. It is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths32A fingerbreadth is approximately 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.
Together with the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:5) also quotes Rashi's view that the juncture of the sinews is four fingerbreadths long. [long] in an ox.", + "In a fowl, there are sixteen such sinews. They begin on the lowest bone, from the extra talon and [continue] until the conclusion of the foot which is [covered by a series of] crusted scales.33The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's statements, admitting that the sinews of a fowl - as do those of an animal - begin in its actual feet. Nevertheless, he states, it is only from the joint between the second and third bone of the leg that they are considered halachically significant. For the laws of trefot that govern a fowl parallel those which govern an animal.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites authorities that maintain that the text of the Mishneh Torah is in error and it should be amended to parallel the Ra'avad's comments. He cites a responsum attributed to the Rambam sent to the Sages of Provence which also follows this understanding. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:8), he rules in this manner.", + "When an animal's feet are cut off at the juncture of the sinews, it is trefe. Do not be amazed and say: \"How is it possible that [an animal] will be permitted if its [legs] are cut off above the juncture of the sinews - indeed, it is permitted unless its [legs] are cut off above the highest joint as we explained34Halachah 11.- but forbidden if they are cut off at a lower point, at the juncture of the sinews?
[The resolution is as follows: With regard to the designation of an animal] as trefe, [there are times when] one will cut from this point and it will live, but if [one would cut] from this point, it would die. We have not forbidden this animal, because its feet were cut off at a particular point,35Thus according to the Rambam - and his position is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 55:1) - if an animal's leg is severed in the top bone, it is trefe. If it is severed in the bottom bone, it is kosher, and if it is severed in the middle bone, the ruling depends on whether it was severed above the juncture of the sinews or not.
The Shulchan Aruch also cites a more stringent view - and the Rama states that it should be followed - that if the middle bone was severed, even above the juncture of the sinews, the animal is trefe. Moreover, even if it is severed at the lower joint, above the cartiledge called the irkum, the animal is trefe. but rather because its sinews were severed36The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam is explaining that a severed leg causes an animal to be considered trefe, because it is in the category of chasairah. When the juncture of its sinews is lacking, it is considered trefe, because it is in the category of netulah, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. and this renders it trefe, as will be explained.37See Halachot 16-17.", + "What is meant by the term Netulah?38Netulah is one of the eight types of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"removed.\" There are three limbs and organs which even though they do not [cause an animal to be deemed trefe] when they are perforated or if they are lacking [when the animal is born],39I.e., there are many organs besides these three that cause an animal to be deemed lacking if they are removed. The disqualification of these other organs, however, is not included in the category of netulah, rather that of nekuvah, perforated, or chasairah, lacking, i.e., the organ's removal is the greatest perforation or lack that could be. See Chapter 6, Halachah 20. cause the animal to be deemed trefe. They are: the juncture of the sinews,40The Ra'avad notes that seemingly, the disqualification of an animal because the junction of its sinews was severed would cause it to be placed in the following category, pesukah (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). He and the Kessef Mishneh explan that since our Sages (Chullin 57a, 76a) uses the expression: \"If the juncture of the sinews was removed,\" it should be placed in this category and not in the other. Note the Siftei Cohen 56:1 who interprets the Ra'avad slightly differently. the liver, and the upper jaw-bone.", + "We already explained41Halachah 15. that when an animal or a fowl has had its legs cut off at the place of the juncture of the sinews, it is deemed trefe only because the sinews were cut.42I.e., the fact that this portion of the leg is missing is not significant. Therefore if the sinews alone were severed even though the foot remains intact, the animal is trefe, because the juncture of the sinews has been removed.", + "In an animal, if the thick sinew alone was severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the two [thin] ones remained. If both thin ones were severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the one thick one is larger than both of them. [In both cases,] the entire juncture was not removed, only its smaller portion.43As long as a majority - either a majority in number or the larger portion - remains intact, the animal is permitted (Chullin 76b). If the majority of each of them was severed, [the animal] is trefe. Needless to say, this applies if they were all severed or removed.", + "With regard to a fowl, even if the majority of one of the sixteen were severed, [the animal] is trefe.44The Kessef Mishneh explains this ruling as follows. Since we are stringent with regard to a fowl and require that all sixteen be intact, we extend that stringency and disqualify it if the majority of one is impaired. For when the majority of a sinew is impaired, it is as if the entire sinew is impaired.", + "When a fowl's wings are broken, it is permitted like an animal whose forelegs have been cut off.45As stated in Halachah 11. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:2-3) which explains details about this situation.", + "When the entire liver has been removed, [the animal] is trefe. If an olive-sized portion remains at the place from which it is suspended46I.e., near the kidneys. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin3:1) refers to it as the place attached to the blood vessels from which blood from the liver is dispersed throughout the body. Chullin 46a refers to this as \"the place from which it derives its nurture.\" See the Siftei Cohen 41:1 and the Turei Zahav 41:1 which quote authorities that interpret this as meaning the place to which it is attached on the diaphragm. and there is an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder, it is permitted.47For these are fundamentally necessary for its functioning.
If the liver slipped from its place and it is [in disarray, as long as it is still] connected with the diaphragm, [the animal] is permitted.48Because it - and its two fundamentally necessary portions - are still intact. If the place from which it is suspended and the portion at the place of the gall-bladder were removed, it is trefe49For these two portions are of primary necessity. even if the remainder is intact as it was previously.", + "If there remained an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder and an olive-sized portion at the place from which it was suspended, [the animal] is kosher. If, however, the portions of the liver which remain intact were scattered, some here and some there, flattened, or elongated like a strap, there is a doubt concerning its status. It appears to me that it is forbidden.50Chullin 46a raises questions regarding these situations and does not resolve them. The commentaries question why the Rambam rules definitively that the animal is unacceptable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies even if there is one olive-sized portion that is entirely intact.", + "When the upper jaw-bone is removed, [the animal] is trefe.51The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 33) objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating: \"I am amazed at his prohibition [of the animal] when the upper jaw is removed since this is not explicitly stated. Are we to add to the trefot?\"
To explain: Chullin 54a states that if the lower jaw is removed, the animal is permitted. The Rambam deduces that the implication is that if the upper jaw is removed, the animal is trefe. The Tur claims that this deduction is not explicitly stated and hence, we have no right to make this deduction on our own. The sages of Provence wrote to the Rambam, voicing similar objections and he replied to them, explaining that the upper jaw is necessary for an animal's breathing. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:2) states that it is proper to show respect for the Rambam's ruling.
Based on the gloss of the Rogatchover Gaon, it is possible to explain why this defect is not mentioned by the Sages of the Talmud. This defect is not in and of itself a direct cause for an animal's death, it is only a side factor that will lead to its death. Hence our Sages did not mention it, for they mentioned only those factors whice are direct causes (Yayin Malchut). If, however, the lower jaw-bone is removed,52When quoting this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:1) adds that the animal must be able to continue to survive by being force-fed. i.e., it was cut away until the place of the gullet and the windpipe, but they were not uprooted [from their connection to the throat, the animal] is permitted.", + "Whenever it is said that an animal is trefe if a limb or organ is lacking,53I.e., the lungs and the hindlegs as stated in Halachah 1. so, too, it is trefe if that organ is removed.54As mentioned above (Chapter 6, Halachah 20), all the organs which render an animal trefe if they are perforated, also render it trefe when they are lacking or removed. Nevertheless, the Rambam places them in the category of nekuvah for that is the most inclusive classification. If, however, it is said that an animal is trefe if an organ is removed, [the animal] is not forbidden unless that organ was cut off. If, however, the animal was created lacking that organ, it is permitted. For if not, the categories of chasairah and netulah would be identical.55And our Sages listed them as separate categories, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
The Rashba (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh, Chapter 6, Halachah 20) differs and maintains that an animal is also trefe if it is lacking a liver from the beginning of its existence. Why then did our Sages mention chasairah and netulah as two separate categories? Because if they were not listed so, one might argue that an animal is trefe only when an organ is removed and not when it was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence or vice versa. The Tur follows the Rashba's view. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 50:72 quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rashba's view. The Rama states that we may rely on the Rambam when a significant loss is involved. Whenever it is said that [an animal] is permitted if a limb is removed, it is certainly permitted56For the ruling is more lenient if at the outset, it was not created with this organ, as above. if this organ was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence and was never created.", + "When the uterus of an animal, i.e., its womb, was removed or its kidneys were removed,57I.e., even if both kidneys were removed. Even though according to medical knowledge, there is no way such an animal can live, our Sages did not deem this condition trefe. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12. it is permitted. Therefore if it was created with only one kidney or with three kidneys58For we follow the principle that any extra organ is considered as if it was removed. it is permitted.59It is, however, considered a blemish and the animal may not be offered as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 2:11). Similarly, it is permitted if a kidney was perforated.", + "Although [an animal] is permitted despite the fact that a kidney was removed or it was created without it, if its kidney is extremely undersized, it is trefe.60In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that many Rishonim disqualify an animal only when its kidneys shrank because of illness. If, however, it was born with an undersized kidney, it is acceptable. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:5), he accepts this ruling as law. For a small animal, this means the size of a bean, for a large one, the size of a grape.61The Turei Zahav 44:12 and the Siftei Cohen 44:13 quote authorities who explain that the grapes of Eretz Yisrael were very large during the Talmudic period. At that time, a grape was significantly larger than a bean. Similarly, [an animal could be deemed trefe] if a kidney became afflicted, i.e., its flesh became like the flesh of a dead [animal] that decayed after several days, [degenerating] to the extent that were one to take hold of a portion of it, it would decompose and fall apart. If this condition reached the white portion62The white fat from the loins enters the kidneys, because the different sinews are all interwoven there, causing a split to appear within the kidney. This is located in the midst of the kidney (Rashi, Rabenu Nissim, Chullin 55b). in the kidney, the animal is trefe. Similarly, if moisture - even if it is not putrid - is found in the kidney or murky or putrid fluid is found there, it is trefe. If, however, clear water is found there,63Even if it reached the white portion [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:2)]. [the animal] is permitted." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the term pesukah?1Pesukah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"severed.\" If the skin that covers the marrow2We are using this term to translate the Hebrew term moach. It is a loose term that means the material inside a bone. Chullin 45b states that this marrow is no of significance with regard to the category of pesukah. Therefore the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 32:1) rules that if the skin is severed, even if the marrow is entirely intact, the animal is trefe. of the spinal cord is severed, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided the majority of the circumference [of the skin] is severed. If, however, the skin is split lengthwise or perforated, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if the backbone was broken, but the spinal cord was not split or the marrow within the cord was crushed and it would wobble, [the animal] is permitted because its skin is still intact.", + "If the marrow decomposes and it can be poured like water or like molten wax to the extent that the spinal cord cannot stand when it is lifted up, [the animal] is trefe. If [the reason] it cannot stand is because of its weight, [the animal's] status is doubtful.3And hence, forbidden. This ruling is granted because this question is left unresolved by Chullin 45b. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that this is speaking about a situation where the spine has become thick and heavy, but has not become soft inside. The question is whether this state results from sickness or not.", + "To where does the spinal cord extend? It begins behind the two glands at the beginning of the neck and extends until the second divider.4See the following halachah for a definition of this term. Thus nothing remains after it except the third divider which is close to the beginning of the tail.", + "There are three dividers. They are three bones that cleave to each other below the vertebrae of the backbone. The spinal cord of a fowl extends to in between the wings.5The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 32:5) interprets this as meaning the place where the wings are attached to the body. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosafot who state that the term refers to the place where the wings lie on the body, a point somewhat lower on the fowl's back. Below these places, we are not concerned with the cord that extends there, even if its skin was severed or its marrow decays.6For these portions are not fundamental for the body's functioning.", + "What is meant by the term keru'ah?7Keru'ah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"ripped apart.\" [This concerns] the flesh which covers the majority of [the animal's] belly. If it is ripped open, the belly will [fall] out. If this flesh is ripped open, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if the tear did not reach the belly itself to the extent that it is seen. Instead, since the majority of the thickness of this flesh was ripped open8I.e., but some flesh remained. The animal is deemed trefe, because in such a condition, ultimately, the entire flesh will tear open.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that many others authorities interpret Chullin 50b, the Rambam's source, as implying that if the cut extends over the majority of the animal's belly, the animal is trefe. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rashba as explaining that the Rambam does not accept this approach because if so, there would be no difference between the categories of pesukah and keru'ah. The Rashba himself does not require such a distinction and instead, maintains that these categories overlap. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 48:3), he quotes the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 48:5 and the Siftei Cohen 48:4 mention the other positions. or removed, [the animal] is trefe.
What is the measure of the tear? It must be a handbreadth long. If the animal was small and the majority of the length9The dissenting perspectives also maintain that the same ruling applies with regard to the majority of the breadth of the belly (Siftei Cohen 48:6). of the flesh covering the belly was torn, it is trefe even though the tear is not a handbreadth long. For the majority [of its length] was torn.", + "[The following rules apply if] a circular or oblong portion of this flesh was cut.10The previous halachah was speaking about a slit where the flesh was not necessarily cut away. This halachah speaks about a situation where a portion of flesh was removed (Kessef Mishneh). If it was larger than a sela,11A coin of the Talmudic era with a diameter that is a third of a handbreadth, i.e., 2.6 cm. According to Shiurei Torah. i.e., large enough to fit tightly three date seeds next to each other, [the animal] is trefe. For when this size cut will be extended, it will be a handbreadth in length.12I.e., a sela is a little more than a third of a handbreadth. Hence the circumference of the cut is a handbreadth.", + "When the skin of an animal was removed from it entirely - whether it was torn off by hand or [decomposed due to] sickness - the animal is trefe. This is called geludah. If a [portion of] skin as wide as a sela remained on the entire backbone, one as wide as a sela remained on the navel, and one as wide as a sela remained on the tips of the limbs, [the animal] is permitted.13Chullin 55b mentions a tradition that maintains that if an animal's entire skin is removed except for a portion the size of a sela, the animal is acceptable. [For from this portion, the entire skin will be regenerated (Rashi).] The Talmud continues mentioning three views, concerning where the skin must remain. Since the matter remains unresolved and we do not know which of these views should be followed, the Rambam rules that all of the different views must be respected and a portion of skin the size of a sela must remain in each place (Kessef Mishneh).
(Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2), the Rambam mentions only the view that requires skin on the backbone and not the other opinions.)
If [a portion] as wide as a sela was removed from the entire backbone, from the navel, or from the tips of the limbs, but the remainder of the skin remained intact, there is a doubt [concerning the ruling].14This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence there is a doubt concerning the ruling. It appears to me that we permit [the animal].15Many authorities question the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, if the question was left unresolved by the Talmud, on what basis does the Rambam permit it?
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro offers two explanations for the Rambam's ruling:
a) As the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 3, since all the categories of trefot aside from a derusah are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, we rule leniently concerning doubts.
b) Since the skin was removed from only one of three places mentioned, there is a multiple doubt (sefek s'feikah) involved. Perhaps the place from which the skin was removed was in fact not the vital area (for the halachah could follow one of the other views). Even if it was the vital area, perhaps the fact that the skin on the remainder of the body is intact is enough for the animal to be permitted.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 59:1), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Siftei Cohen 59:2 mentions the opinions that differ with the Rambam. The Rama adds that if the skin is removed from all three places, the animal is trefe.", + "What is meant by the term nefulah?16Nefulah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"one which fell.\" When an animal fell from a high place - at least ten handbreadths high17In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Chullin 50b which states that this refers to a height of four handbreadths above the ground, for there are six handbreadths from the bottom of an animal's belly until the ground. He also cites this view in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:1).
Moreover, in both those sources, Rav Yosef Caro also quotes views that state that this law applies only when the animal fell on its own or knew that it was being pushed by others. If, however, it was pushed suddenly by others, it is considered trefe even if it fell from a lesser height. - and one of its organs was crushed, it is trefe.
To what extent must it be crushed? It must be smashed and become ailing because of the fall to the extent that its form and appearance have been destroyed. Even though [the organ] is not perforated, cracked, or broken, [the animal] is trefe. Similarly, if one struck it with a stone or a staff and crushed one of its organs, it is trefe.18In this instance, the distance of ten handbreadths is not significant. Instead, if it was thrown with enough force to cause mortal damage, it can cause the animal to be rendered trefe.
To which organs are we referring? To those in the body's inner cavity.19Therefore all of those organs must be inspected (Chullin 51a). The Ra'avad states that every organ that would render the animal trefe if crushed must be inspected.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6) writes that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal that falls should be permitted only if it walks, as stated in the next halachah.", + "If an animal walks after falling from a roof, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].20Walking is adequate proof that the animal was not injured by the fall to the extent that it would no longer survive. Since it walks, we assume that it is healthy and do not require an internal examination, as stated in Halachah 17. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only when the animal stood up on its own and then walked. If it was lifted up by others, we harbor suspicions. Similarly, he quotes authorities who maintain that it must walk in an ordinary manner. If it limps as it proceeds, an inspection is required. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6).
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:5), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who writes that even if an obvious change was seen in its organs, as long as it was able to stand and walk, we do not suspect that it has become trefe. If it stood, but did not walk, we harbor such suspicions.21And require an inspection. If it jumped [from the roof] on its own [initiative], we do not harbor suspicions.22For we assume that it prepared itself and jumped in a manner that would not cause injury. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:11) states that this applies even if the animal is not able to walk afterwards. If [a person] left his animal on the roof and found it on the ground, we do not suspect that it fell.23We assume that it jumped intentionally, as explained above.", + "When bulls butt each other, we do not harbor suspicions.24We do not assume that their inner organs were crushed, because this is ordinary behavior. If one falls to the ground, we do harbor suspicions.25Chullin 51a states that we harbor suspicions, not because of the butting, but because the animal fell and we fear that it was injured by the fall. Similarly, [if we see] an animal dragging its feet, we do not suspect that its organs were crushed or that its backbone was severed.26I.e., if we do not know that it fell.", + "When thieves steal lambs and throw them outside the corral, we do not suspect that their organs were crushed, because they throw them only with the intent that they will not be broken.27Otherwise, the stolen animal will not be of any benefit to them. If they returned them and threw them back to the corral because of fear,28I.e., the fear of being caught. we suspect that they [may have become trefe].29For the thieves will not show any care for the animal while throwing it back into the corral. If they returned them out of a desire to repent, we do not harbor suspicions about [the lambs], because [the thieves] have the intent of returning them intact and therefore they will be careful when throwing them back.", + "When an ox was forced to lie down for slaughter, we do not suspect [that its internal organs were crushed]. [This applies] even if it fell considerably to the extent that it made a great noise30Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning that the ox bellowed, but this does not appear to be the Rambam's understanding. when it fell. [The rationale is that] it implants its hooves into it and strengthens itself until it falls to the ground.31I.e., it is aware that they are trying to push it to the ground and it fights against them, thus lessening the impact of its fall. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:10) writes that if the ox's feet are tied when it is pushed to the ground, we do suspect that it may have become trefe. For when its feet are tied, it cannot control its fall.", + "If one struck an animal on its head and the blow extended toward its tail or [one hit it] on its tail and the blow extended toward its head - even if one struck it on the entire backbone - we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If the staff had bulges at different points, we harbor suspicions [concerning the animal].32For the blows dealt by the bulges will be far more severe. Hence the backbone must be inspected to see that it is intact. See Turei Zahav 32:4. If the head of the staff reached a portion of the backbone,33In the previous clauses, the head of the staff did not carry with the brunt of the blow, because the lower portion of the staff struck the animal's body first. Here we are speaking about a situation where the first and primary focus of the blow is delivered to the backbone by the top of the staff. This is a far more dangerous situation. we harbor suspicions. Similarly, we harbor suspicions if he struck the animal across the breadth of the backbone.34For the entire blow is focused on one point of the spinal cord.", + "When a fowl is knocked against a firm article,35Or conversely, if a firm article like a stone falls upon it [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:2)]. e.g., a heap of grain, a mound of almonds, or the like, we suspect that its organs may have been crushed. If, by contrast, it is knocked against something soft, e.g., a folded garment, straw,36I.e., a mound of loose straw. Straw that has been bundled, by contrast, is considered as a firm article (Chullin 51b)., ashes, or the like, we do not harbor such suspicions.", + "[The following rules apply when a fowl's] wings became stuck with glue37One of the techniques with which hunters would trap wild fowl would be to set traps for them which would glue their wings to boards or other articles that prevented them from flying. when it was being captured and it received a blow. If only one wing became stuck, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].38For by flapping the other wing, it will slow its fall and lessen the impact. If both of its wings became stuck and it receive a blow on its body, we harbor suspicions.39For there is nothing to soften the blow.", + "[The following rules apply if] it is knocked against water.40It was snared and fell unto a river. If it swam for its full height upriver, against the current, we do not suspect [that it became trefe].41For this exertion indicates that the animal is fundamentally healthy. It is equivalent to - or exceeds - the walking mentioned in Halachah 9. If, however, it swims downriver, with the current, we harbor suspicions, for perhaps the water is carrying it.42In a still body of water that has no current, any swimming is a sign of health (see Siftei Cohen 58:10). If it advances toward straw or hay that is floating on the river, it is swimming on its own power and we do not harbor suspicions.", + "In all situations where we said: \"We do not harbor suspicions,\" it is permitted to slaughter [the animal] immediately and it is not necessary to check whether an organ was crushed. In all situations where we said: \"We harbor suspicions,\" if one slaughters the animal, one must check its entire internal category from the head to the hind-thigh.43The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 58:3) quotes the Rambam's ruling. As mentioned above, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 58:6) states that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal is permitted only if it walks after falling or receiving a blow. If any of the factors that render an animal trefe mentioned above were discovered or one of the inner organs was crushed to the extent that its form was destroyed, [the animal] is trefe. Even if one of the organs whose removal does not render the animal trefe,44The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the ruling in this instance. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam's position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: Since Chullin 51a states that if the uterus is crushed, it is not significant, we conclude that the crushing of all other internal organs is significant. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to single out the uterus. Moreover, he explains that crushing an organ can be more painful and more injurious to an animal than removing it. e.g., the spleen or the kidneys, is crushed, [the animal] is trefe. [There is] an exception, the uterus; if it is crushed, the animal is permitted.", + "[The gullet and the windpipe] do not require examination in these situations, for a fall will not crush them.", + "When an animal fell from a roof and did not stand [afterwards],45I.e., if it stands - even if it does not walk - it can be slaughtered immediately and deemed acceptable through an examination, as above. it is forbidden to slaughter it until one waits an entire day.46For sometimes the effects of a fall are not immediately evident. It is possible that an animal would be inspected and no difficulty found, but in truth, the effects of the fall would be enough to kill it. To reduce the possibility of such an occurrence, Chullin 51b requires waiting an entire day before slaughtering the animal. See Kessef Mishneh. If one slaughtered it during this time, it is trefe. When one slaughters it after a day has passed, an examination is required, as we explained.47See Halachah 17.", + "Similarly, if a person treaded on a fowl48Chullin 56a describes such a situation with regard to an animal. The Rambam speaks of a fowl instead, for this is a more commonplace possibility. with his feet, an animal trampled it, or it was crushed against a wall and it is in its death throes, we leave it alive for a day. Afterwards, we slaughter it and examine it,49Lest its organs have been crushed. as we stated.", + "When the majority of [the windpipe and the gullet were separated50This addition is made on the basis of the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:10). and] hang loosely, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if [this condition occurs] due to reasons other than a fall.51Nevertheless, the Rambam mentions this condition here in connection with an animal that has fallen, because this is the most frequent situation in which this condition will occur. Similarly, if they became folded over,52They came loose from the place where they are attached within the throat area. See Chapter 3, Halachah 14, and Chapter 8, Halachah 23. [the animal is unacceptable,] because they are no longer fit for ritual slaughter.53The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam rules that the animal is unacceptable, not because it would die because of this condition, but because it is impossible to slaughter it correctly. If, by contrast, [even though] the majority54If, however, the entire throat became loose from the jaw, the animal is trefe. For the gullet and the windpipe themselves, however, must remain taut and this is impossible if the entire throat has become loose (Kessef Mishneh). of the throat55I.e., the area referred to by the halachic term \"the entrance to the gullet.\" was set loose from the jaw-bone, [the animal] is permitted, for the throat area is not fit for ritual slaughter, as we explained.56Chapter 1, Halachah 6." + ], + [ + "What is meant by the term sheburah?1Sheburah is also one of the eight categories of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means \"broken.\" That the majority of [an animal's] ribs are broken. An animal has eleven ribs2An animal also has several smaller ribs, but they're being broken does not impair the animal's functioning. on either side of its body. If six were broken on one side and six on the other, or eleven were broken on one side and one on the other, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided it is the half that faces the backbone3I.e., the portion close to the backbone. If the ribs are broken there, the animal's functioning can be impaired. If they are broken closer to the chest, the impairment will be less severe. and not the half that faces the chest.", + "When six [ribs] were broken on either side, [the animal] is trefe [only] when they are large ribs that have marrow. If not, even though they represent the majority of the animal's ribs and they were broken facing the backbone, [the animal] is permitted.
Similarly, if the majority of the ribs were uprooted, [the animal] is trefe. [Moreover,] if even one rib is uprooted together with half of the vertebra in which it is lodged, it is trefe. Similarly, if even one vertebra was uprooted from the backbone, it is trefe, even if was a vertebra that is below the flanks where there are no ribs.", + "[The following rules apply when] the thigh of an animal has slipped from its place and has left its socket. If its sinews, i.e., the peg-like projections from the bones of the socket which extend toward the bone that enters the socket4Speaking in analogy, the Rambam refers to this as \"the male\" bone. and holds it have degenerated, [the animal] is trefe.5The Ra'avad states that if the thigh is dislocated from its upper socket, the animal is trefe even if the sinews have not degenerated. According to the Ra'avad, the law stated by the Rambam applies when the thigh is dislocated from its lower socket. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 55:2) follows the Rambam's perspective. The Rama mentions that there are opinions that maintain that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the determination of whether the sinews have degenerated and we should rule an animal trefe whenever its thigh has dislocated. He advises following these views whenever there is not a significant loss involved. If they have not degenerated, it is permitted.6Similarly, even if they have degenerated, but the bone has not slipped out of its socket, the animal is permitted. As long as the bone is in its socket, we assume that the sinews will regenerate [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 55:2)].", + "Similarly, with regard to a fowl, if its hip is dislocated,7And the sinews have degenerated (Kessef Mishneh). it is trefe. If its wing is dislocated from its socket, we fear that it perforated the lung.8I.e., the dislocation of the wing is not sufficient to render the fowl trefe in its own right. Nevertheless, we fear that perhaps it perforated the lung and hence require an examination. Therefore we conduct an examination.9And inflate the lung [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:3)]. Afterwards, it may be eaten. When the foreleg of an animal is dislocated from its socket, it is permitted. We do not harbor any suspicions.10For the shoulder socket is substantial and will prevent the arm bone from perforating the lung (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 52:1) quotes views that rule that an animal is trefe if its arm is broken close to its body and there are signs of internal bleeding.", + "When a portion of the skull of a domesticated animal or wild beast the size of a sela11As mentioned above, a sela is one third of a handbreadth wide. Thus its diameter is 2.6 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 3.2 cm according to Chazon Ish. was removed, [the animal] is trefe even though the membrane was not perforated. If a skull was perforated by a number of small holes that [detract from the skull's] substance, they are all added together [to see if their combined size equals] a sela.", + "Similarly, if the majority of the height12I.e., the majority of the portion of the skull from the eyes up (Rashi, Chullin 52b). and the majority of the circumference of a skull was crushed, [the animal] is trefe, even though its membrane is intact and it is not lacking any substance. If the majority of its height was crushed, but the majority of its circumference was intact or the majority of its circumference was crushed, but the majority of its height was intact, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal] is trefe or not.13This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. It appears to me that we forbid it.14The Kessef Mishneh clarifies why it is necessary for the Rambam to make this statement, seemingly, it is obvious. Whenever there is an unresolved question concerning a Torah prohibition, we rule stringently. He explains that it is possible to interpret the Talmud's question is implying that in one circumstance, when the majority of the skull's height alone is crushed or the majority of its circumference alone is crushed, the animal is kosher, but we are unsure of which one. Therefore the Rambam must clarify that because of the doubt, both situations are forbidden.", + "When the bones of the skull of a water fowl, e.g., a goose, is perforated,15Even the smallest perforation can render the fowl trefe (Kessef Mishneh). [the fowl] is trefe even though the membrane has not been perforated. [The rationale is that] the membrane is soft.16If it is not protected by the skull, it will most likely be perforated in the near future (Rashi, Chullin 56a).
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a weasel struck17The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation where the weasel bit the fowl on the skull. If it struck it with its paws, the fowl is trefe, because it is a derusah, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 6. a land fowl on the head or it was struck by a stone or a piece of wood. One places his hand next to the hole and applies pressure or he inserts his hand into the fowl's mouth and applies pressure upward. If [the fowl's] brain emerged from the hole, it can be concluded that the membrane has been perforated and it is trefe. If not, it is permitted.18According to the Rambam, both of these procedures are equally effective (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 30:2) writes that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to this process of examination and should rule that a fowl is trefe whenever its skull is perforated.", + "When an animal's blood pressure causes it to choke,19Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:5). it was affected by a black gall bladder secretion20Here also our translation follows the above source. Rav Kapach draws support for his interpretation from Psalms 74:1. or a white gall bladder secretion,21Which, when not released according to the proper measure causes the animal to become very heavy and to have difficulty moving (ibid.). It must be emphasized that other commentaries offer different interpretations of all three of these conditions. it ate a poison which kills animals, or drank fowl water, it is permitted.22In this context, the commentaries have cited Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:11: \"When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.\" If it ate a poison that could kill a human or it was bitten by a snake or the like, it is permitted with regard to the laws of trefe, but it is forbidden because of the mortal danger [partaking of it could cause].23For the poison or the venom could kill the person who partakes of the animal's meat. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1. 24. The Kessef Mishneh explains the basis for the Rambam's reckoning: Whenever a condition that causes an animal to be deemed trefe is mentioned explicitly by the Talmud, it is considered as being in a separate category even though it is a derivative of another category. For example, the degeneration of the bronchioles is considered a separate category even though it is a derivative of the category of the perforation of the bronchioles.", + "Thus the total number of conditions that cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be deemed trefe when singled out are seventy. They are: 1) an animal that has been attacked;24See Chapter 5, Halachah 4 ff.
2) the perforation of the entrance to the gullet;25See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
3) the perforation of the membrane of the brain;26See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.
4) the degeneration of the brain itself;27See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
5) the perforation of the heart itself to its cavities;28See Chapter 6, Halachah 5.
6) the perforation of the arteries leading from the heart;29See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
7) the perforation of the gall-bladder;30See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
8) the perforation of the arteries of the liver;31See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
9) the perforation of the maw;32See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
10) the perforation of the stomach;33See Chapter 6, Halachah 11.
11) the perforation of the abdomen;34See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
12) the perforation of the gut;35See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
13) the perforation of the digestive organs;36See Chapter 6, Halachot 13-14.
14) the digestive organs protruded outside the animal's body and became overturned;37See Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
15) the perforation of the thick portion of the spleen;38See Chapter 6, Halachah 19.
16) a lack of a gall-bladder;39This - and the instances mentioned in situations 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever the perforation of an organ causes an animal to be deemed trefe, the animal is also deemed trefe if that organ is lacking.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's mentions a lack of only those organs that an animal could exist for a brief time without. If, however, it is impossible for an animal to exist at all without these organs, e.g., the brain and the heart, it is improper to call the animal trefe. Instead a more severe term is appropriate.
17) being born with two gall-bladders;40This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal to be deemed trefe if organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed trefe if it possesses two of that organ.
18) a lack of a maw;
19) being born with two maws;
20) a lack of a stomach;
21) being born with two stomachs;
22) a lack of an abdomen
23) being born with abdomens;
24) a lack of a gut;
25) being born with two guts;
26) a lack of one of the digestive organs;
27) being born with an extra digestive organ;
28) the perforation of the lung;41See Chapter 7, Halachot 1-2.
29) the perforation of the windpipe in a place where it is not fit for ritual slaughter;42This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal to be deemed trefe if organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed trefe if it possesses two of that organ.
30) the perforation of the bronchioles of the lungs, even if it is covered by another one;43See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
31) a portion of the lungs has become closed;44See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.
32) the degeneration of one of the bronchioles of the lungs;45See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
33) the discovery of putrid fluid in the lungs;46See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
34) the discovery of putrid liquid in the lungs;47See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
35) the discovery of murky liquid in [the lungs] even if it has not become putrid;48See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
36)the degeneration of the lung;49See Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
37) a change in the lung's appearance;50See Chapter 7, Halachot 15-19.
38) the reversal of the gullet's appearance;51See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
39) a lack of one of the required number of lobes of the lung;52See Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2.
40) a change in the order of the lobes;53See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
41) the addition of a lobe on the back [of the lung];54See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
42) the attachment of one lobe to another out of the ordinary order;55See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
43) the discovery of a lung without division into lobes:56See Chapter 8, Halachah 7.
44) the lack of a portion of the lung;57See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
45) a portion of the body of the lung is dried out;58See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
46) the discovery of the lung in an inflated state;59See Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
47) a lung became shriveled because of fear of humans;60See Chapter 8, Halachot 9-10.
48) the lack of a hindleg; whether from birth or because it was cut off;61See Chapter 8, Halachot 11-12.
49) the possession of an extra leg;62See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
50) the removal of the junction of the sinews;63See Chapter 8, Halachot 13, 15-18.
51) the removal of the liver;64See Chapter 8, Halachot 21-22.
52) the removal of the upper jaw-bone;65See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
53) a kidney that became extremely undersized;66See Chapter 8, Halachah 26.
54) a kidney that has become afflicted;67See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
55) the discovery of fluid in the kidney;68See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
56) the discovery of murky liquid in the kidney, even if it is not putrid;69See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
57) the discovery of putrid liquid in the kidney;70See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
58) the severance of the spinal cord;71See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
59) the softening and degeneration of the spinal cord;72See Chapter 9, Halachah 2.
60) the ripping open of the majority of the flesh that covers the belly;73See Chapter 9, Halachot 5-6.
61) the removal of [an animal's] skin;74See Chapter 9, Halachah 7.
62) the crushing of [an animal's] organs due to a fall;75See Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.
63) the slippage of the gullet and windpipe;76See Chapter 9, Halachah 21.
64) the breaking of the majority of [the animal's] ribs;77Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
65) the uprooting of the majority of the ribs;78Halachah 2 of the present chapter.
66) the uprooting of one rib together with its vertebra;79Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
67) the uprooting of one vertebra; 80Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
68) the slippage of the thigh from its socket;81Halachah 3 of the present chapter.
69) the lack of a portion of the skull the size of a sela;82Halachah 5 of the present chapter.
70) the crushing and smashing of the majority of the skull;83Halachah 5 of the present chapter.", + "These seventy conditions of infirmity which cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be forbidden as a trefe were each explained together with all the particular laws. All of the possible parallels that can be found with regard to a fowl in the organs that are common to an animal and a fowl are the same with regard to an animal and a fowl. The only exceptions are the conditions that render an animal trefe in the kidneys, the spleen, and the lobes of the lung. For a fowl does not have a division of lobes like an animal does. If there is such a division, there is no fixed number. The spleen of a fowl is round like a grape and is not the same shape as that of an animal.84Therefore the distinction between its thick and thin end that applies with regard to an animal does not apply with regard to a fowl. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 43:6) rules that a perforation of the spleen does not render a fowl trefe. The Siftei Cohen 43:10, however, quotes opinions that rule that a perforation does render it trefe. [The conditions of infirmity] concerning the kidneys and the spleen [that render] an animal trefe were not mentioned in order to find parallels with regard to a fowl. Therefore no set measure was given concerning a fowl with regard to a kidney whose size was reduced. Similar concepts apply in other analogous situations.85I.e., other factors concerning a kidney which render an animal trefe, as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:10) states bluntly: \"There are no factors involving the kidneys of a fowl that render it trefe.\"", + "There are two conditions that render a fowl trefe in addition to those that render an animal [trefe] despite the fact that [an animal] also possesses these organs. They are: a) a fowl whose digestive organs have changed color because of [exposure to] fire;86See Chapter 7, Halachot 20-21. An animal will not be affected in this way, because his ribs will protect him and the skin of his digestive organs are stronger than that of a fowl. The Ra'avad differs and states that if an animal is subjected to heat and it burns its internal organs to this degree, it will surely die immediately. Therefore, our Sages did not mention it as a trefe. The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are two other conditions that render a fowl trefe. They involve perforations in the stomachs. Since parallel - albeit not identical - conditions apply with regard to an animal, the Rambam does not list them as separate categories.
b) a water fowl whose skull bone has been perforated.87See Halachah 7 of this chapter. This stringency applies only to a water fowl, because its membrane is very soft.", + "One should not add to these conditions that render an animal trefe at all.88Chullin 54a makes this statement, implying that in the Talmudic era, these rulings were already established. For any condition that occurs with regard to a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl aside from those listed by the Sages of the early generations and which were agreed upon by the courts of Israel can possibly live. [This applies] even if it is known to us according to medical wisdom that ultimately it will not live.89Kin'at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven truth..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.", + "Similarly, with regard to those [conditions] which [our Sages] listed as [causing an animal to be] deemed trefe even though it appears from the medical knowledge we possess that some of them will not kill and it is possible for the animal to live - we follow only what the Torah says,90The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) states that even if the animal survives for over a year, it is still deemed trefe and it is forbidden to partake of it. as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: \"According to the Torah in which they will instruct you.\"91Kin'at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven truth..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.", + "Whenever a butcher is knowledgeable about these [conditions that cause an animal to be deemed] trefe and he has established a reputation for observance, he may slaughter [animals], inspect them himself, and sell them without any suspicion. [The rationale is the word of] one witness is accepted with regard to the Torah's prohibition whether his testimony will lead to benefit for him or not.
We already explained92Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:7-9. that we do not purchase meat from a butcher who slaughters and inspects [the animal] himself in the Diaspora or [even] in Eretz Yisrael in the present age unless he established a reputation as an expert. If he sold an animal that was trefe, we place him under a ban of ostracism and remove him from his position.93The Maggid Mishneh writes that although he is not permitted to sell meat on his own, he is permitted to sell under the supervision of a trustworthy expert.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:2) rules leniently concerning this manner and allows such a person to continue slaughtering in certain situations. The Siftei Cohen 2:11 questions this leniency. He cannot reestablish his credibility until he goes to a place where his identity is not recognized and he returns a lost article that is very valuable or [slaughters an animal] for himself and declares it trefe even though it involves a significant loss." + ], + [ + "[The following principles apply] whenever a situation arises that creates a doubt that an animal or fowl should be deemed trefe because of one of the above conditions - e.g., an animal that fell and did not walk, it was attacked by a wild beast and we do not know whether the flesh near the intestines turned red or not, its skull was crushed and we do not know if the majority of the skull was crushed or not, or other similar circumstances: If the animal was male and it remained alive for twelve months, we operate on the assumption that it is intact like all other animals. If it was female, [we wait] until it gives birth.1I.e., if it gives birth successfully, that is a sign that it is intact. There is no need for an inspection or waiting twelve months. Even the Rama who maintains that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to inspections will consider an animal acceptable if it lives this amount of time (Yoreh De'ah 57:18).
With regard to a fowl: If it is male, [we wait] twelve months. If it is female, [we wait] until it lays all the eggs that it is carrying, spawns a new load, and lays them.", + "During this course of time, it is forbidden to sell an animal concerning which doubt has arisen whether it is a trefe to a gentile lest he sell it to a Jew.2Without informing him of the doubt involved.
The Rama quotes the Sha'arei Dura who writes that if a condition that renders an animal trefe is obvious, we permit its sale to a gentile. For a Jew who seeks to purchase it will immediately become aware of the difficulty.
The Rama also mentions the ruling of the Terumat HaDeshen that if there is merely a question of whether an animal is trefe, it may be sold to a gentile. The Siftei Cohen 57:51 accepts this leniency only with regard to an animal regarding which there is a question whether or not it was attacked, but not with regard to other conditions.", + "We operate under the presumption that all domesticated animals, wild beasts, or fowl are healthy3Chullin 11b explains that this is based on the principle that we follow the majority. Since most animals are healthy we assume that this is an animal's condition unless there is reason to suspect otherwise. Note, however, Halachah 7. and we do not suspect that they possess conditions that would render them trefe. Therefore when they are slaughtered in the proper manner, they do not require an examination to see whether they possess a condition that would render them trefe. Instead, we operate under the presumption that they are permitted unless a situation arises that arouses suspicion.4Based on Chullin 51a, the Kessef Mishneh goes further and states that even if the animal possesses a condition that is somewhat problematic, if we can find a commonplace explanation for it that will not render an animal trefe and the factor that will render it trefe is uncommon, we do not require an examination. Afterwards, we inspect it with regard to that condition alone.", + "What is implied? For example if the wing of a fowl is displaced, we check the lung to see if it was perforated.5See Chapter 10, Halachah 4. If an animal fell, we check it to see if its organs were crushed.6See Chapter 9, Halachah 17. If the skull was crushed, we check the membrane of the brain to see if it was perforated.7See Chapter 10, Halachah 7. If it was struck by a thorn or shot by an arrow, a javelin, or the like and it entered its inner cavity, our suspicions are aroused and we require an inspection of the entire inner cavity lest it have perforated one of the organs whose perforation renders an animal trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "Therefore when there are growths on a lung or sirchos upon it - i.e., strands or adhesions - hanging from it to the ribcage, the heart, or the diaphragm, we suspect that it was perforated and require an inspection.8I.e., the strands and similarly, the other conditions the Rambam proceeds to mention, are abnormal factors that lead us to the supposition that there was a perforation in the lung. See Chapter 7, Halachot 5-11 that mention several situations of this nature. Similarly, if a swelling was found that contained fluid, we fear that a bronchiole below it was perforated and [the lung] must be inspected.9The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that even if the swelling is an indication that the bronchiole has been perforated, that does not disqualify the animal, for it is possible that it is sealed by flesh. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would also accept that ruling and one of the points that one must inspect is whether there is flesh under the swelling or not.", + "[Following the logic] of this law, [the following rules] would apply if it was discovered that sirchos like strands were hanging from the lung, whether they extended from the body of the lung to the ribcage or to the heart or to the diaphragm. We cut the sirchah, take out the lung, and [place it] in lukewarm water, and blow it up.10See Chapter 7, Halachah 8. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim concerning this issue.
The Ra'avad also mentions that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Chapter 7, Halachah 5. For there, the Rambam differentiates between whether or not there is a bruise on the chest, and there he does not speak of inspecting the lung in warm water. In a lengthy discussion in his gloss to Chapter 7, the Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction between the two rulings. If it is discovered to be perforated,11I.e., if the water bubbles. [the animal] is trefe. If the water does not bubble, it is intact, without any perforations, and [the animal] is permitted. For [the sirchah] was not at the place of a perforation12There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if this situation is possible or not. or perhaps only the outer membrane [of the lung] was perforated. Nevertheless, I never saw anyone who ruled in this manner, nor did I hear of a place that follows such practice.13I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah, the common custom is more stringent.", + "Even though this is what appears [to be the ruling] from the words of the Sages of the Gemara, the widespread custom among the Jewish people is as follows: When a domesticated animal or a wild beast is slaughtered, we tear open the diaphragm and check the lung in its place.14See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) which states that we must check the lungs for sirchot and concludes: \"Whoever breaks ranks and eats without checking [the lung] should be bitten by a snake.\" If a sirchah is not discovered hanging between the one of the lobes and the flesh where it lies, whether on the flesh that is between the ribs or the flesh on the breastbone,15For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachot 3-4, even a perforation found in this place does not render the animal trefe. or a sirchah was found, extending from one lobe to the other in order,16For as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, an adhesion of such a type does not render the animal trefe. or from the body of the lung to the lobe which is next to it,17See the notes to Halachah 9. Depending on the version of that text, the Rambam's ruling concerning this matter may be questioned. we permit [the animal].18The Rama 39:18 writes that it is common custom in the Ashkenazic community to rule that all sirchot in the lung cause an animal to be deemed forbidden except those extending from a lobe to the lobe next to it or those from the body of the lung to the lobe next to it. He does, however, permit leniency if it is possible to rub out the sirchah and then examine it to see that there is no perforation.", + "If a strand is discovered leading from the lung to any place which it is extended, even if it is thin as a hair, we forbid [the animal].19I.e., except to the lobe that is near it (Radbaz).", + "Similarly, if there was a strand extending from the lung to the heart, the diaphragm, the protective covering of the heart, or the rose,20See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, which explains that this is a tiny lobe found on the right side of the lung. we forbid [the animal]. [This applies] whether the strand came from the body of the lung or whether it came from a lobe and [applies regardless of its size], even if it was a hairsbreadth.21For we fear that it will cause a perforation in the lung. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Halachah 6.
Similarly, when the rose is attached to its pocket or a strand extends from it to its pocket, we forbid it. And when a strand extends from lobe to lobe in improper order, we forbid [the animal].22The text of the Mishneh Torah which the Ra'avad had seemed to apply that even a strand extending from the body of the lung to the lobe is unacceptable. The Ra'avad therefore protests and maintains it is acceptable. The Migdal Oz states that he also saw texts of the Mishneh Torah with this version, but that the authoritative manuscripts do not follow that reading. This is also the position of the Kessef Mishneh.", + "There are places where the custom is that if a sirchah is from the lobe to the flesh and the bones of the ribs and the sirchah is attached to both of them, they forbid it.23If the sirchah is attached to the flesh alone, it does not cause an animal to be considered trefe (see Chapter 7, Halachah 4). Here, however, it is attached to both the flesh and the bone and that creates the problem. My father and teacher is from those who forbid it. I, by contrast, am one of those who permit it.24The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:18) cites the Rambam's position.
Parenthetically, the commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements here from the standpoint of kibud av, \"honoring one's father.\" Seemingly, after mentioning his father, he should have stated - as he himself rules in Hilchot Mamrim 6:5 - \"May he be remembered for the life of the world to come.\" Also, that same source (Halachah 3) forbids \"offering an opinion that outweighs [that of his father].\" In a small number of places, they permit it even when it is attached to the bone alone, and I forbid it.25The Ra'avad follows the more lenient view. Here also the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) cites the Rambam's position.", + "There are places where a lung is [always] blown up to see whether or not it is perforated. In most places, however, it is not blown up, because there is no factor that raised a suspicion [concerning it]. In Spain and in the West, we never blew up a lung unless there was a factor that caused suspicion.26The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) mentions both the custom of blowing up the lung in all cases and the Rambam's position that it is not necessary to blow up all lungs. He concludes that the Rambam's position should be given primacy.", + "All of these factors27I.e., the stringencies forbidding an animal because of certain sirchot and requiring the lungs to be blown up. are not dictated by law, but rather are a result of custom, as we explained.28Halachot 6 and 7. I never heard of anyone who had a fowl's lung inspected unless a factor that raised suspicions arose.29At present, there are certain Rabbinic authorities who require that the lungs of a chicken be inspected, because in the present age, since chickens are raised in a manner very different from their natural circumstances, it is common for there to be difficulties with regard to their lungs.", + "If, [after] a person slaughtered an animal and cut open its belly, a dog or a gentile came, took the lung, and departed before [the slaughterer] checked the lung, [the animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps it was perforated or perhaps it was attached [to the bone], for we do not presume that [an animal] was forbidden.30If there is no evidence that a factor existed that caused the animal to become trefe, we do not assume that one existed. Even according to the custom that requires an animal to be checked, we are assuming only the possibility that it might have a disqualifying factor. If there is no way to check it, we assume that the animal is kosher.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that since disqualifying factors involving the lung are common, if a lung was not inspected, we cannot consider the animal as kosher. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:2) quotes the Rambam's view. The Rama mentions the position of the Ra'avad and states that the Rambam's position may be followed only when there is a possibility of severe financial loss. Instead, we operate under the presumption that the animal is kosher unless we know what factor caused it to become trefe. Just like we do not suspect that the membrane of the brain was perforated, the backbone [was severed], or the like, we do not raise suspicions over a lung that has been lost. There are no customs regarding such a situation, because customs are not instituted with regard to factors that are not commonplace.", + "If a gentile or a Jew comes and takes out a lung before the lung was inspected, but the lung [still] exists, we blow it up.31Normally, we would not blow up a lung unless there was a factor that aroused suspicion. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we did not see it in its natural situation - and the possibility exists that there were such factors there - we require an examination. The Turei Zahav 39:2 states that, according to our custom [see Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:4)] that we do not rely on an examination in a situation where there is a clearly problematic situation, we do not rely on an examination in this instance as well. [This applies] even if we do not know whether there were growths or not, because of the widespread custom.", + "There are places who rule that we forbid [an animal] if there are sirchot hanging from the lung, even if they are not attached to the chest or to another place. This practice causes great loss and the forfeit of Jewish money. This was never the custom in France or in Spain and it was never heard in the West. It is not proper to follow this custom. Instead, all that is necessary is to blow up [the lung]. If it is discovered to be intact without a perforation, [the animal] is permitted.32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:8) rules that such an animal is permitted without the lung being inspected. The Turei Zahav 39:12 states that an examination must be conducted to see whether the lung is perforated or not.
This represents the difference between glatt meat and meat that is not glatt. Glatt means \"smooth,\" i.e., i.e., there are no sirchot, adhesions, or growths, extending from the animal's lungs. Thus there is no need to inspect it. When meat is not glatt, there were sirchot and/or the like extending from the lungs. They were inspected and no perforation was discovered. Hence, the meat is kosher. Nevertheless, there are many who follow the stringency of not partaking of it.
(It must be emphasized that, at present, glatt is sometimes used as a general term to connote a higher level of punctilious observance of the details of kashrus in general without specifically referring to questions concerning the lungs.)" + ], + [ + "When a person slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:3) mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter, for some authorities forbid partaking of the meat. The Rama clarifies that the difference of opinion applies only with regard to the second animal. The first animal is permitted. Moreover, even the more stringent authorities maintain that the prohibition applies:
a) only that day, and
b) only for the transgressor himself. It is a penalty imposed upon him by the Sages and not a prohibition of Scriptural Law. See Maggid Mishneh; Turei Zahav 16:23. The slaughterer, however, is punished by lashes,2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 101) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 294) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
See Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, that states that this prohibition was given to us to prevent cruelty. For an animal will be severely aggrieved if its offspring or its mother is slaughtered before its eyes. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 where the Rambam emphasizes that the Torah's mitzvot were not given to us for the sake of any particular rationale. Note, however, the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah which explains that there are two dimensions to every mitzvah: that it is God's decree and that He issued that decree for a particular rationale. (See also Halachah 3 which indicates that the prohibition is a Divine decree, not limited to that rationale.) as [Leviticus 22:28] states: \"Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3The Torah (and the Rambam) use the masculine although the prohibition applies primarily to a mother and its offspring. See Halachah 11. and its offspring on one day.\" He receives lashes only for slaughtering the second animal. Accordingly, if one person slaughtered one of such a pair and another person slaughtered the second, [the one who slaughtered the second alone] receives lashes.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake.4For the prohibition concerns slaughter. Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals,5And it is forbidden to slaughter an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard. they were both sacrificial animals,6And thus may not be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard. or one7I.e., either the one that was sacrificed inside the Temple or the one sacrificed outside. The point of these statements is, as stated in Halachah 6, even though the slaughter is not befitting, within the context of this prohibition, it is considered as ritual slaughter. was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to ritual slaughter, as the verse states: \"Do not slaughter.\" [Implied] is that the prohibition involves the slaughter of both animals. If, however, one chopped off the head of one of them or it became a nevelah in his hand,8I.e., the slaughter was unacceptable. If, however, it was discovered that the animal was trefe, it is considered to have been slaughtered and it is forbidden to slaughter the second animal (Halachah 6, Siftei Cohen 16:18). it is permitted to slaughter [the other]. Similarly, if he slaughtered the first and chopped off the head of the second or it became a nevelah in his hand, he is not liable.", + "When a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor slaughtered the first animal privately,9If, however, they slaughtered under the supervision of a knowledgeable adult, their slaughter is acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 5). Hence, this prohibition applies. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 16:9). it is permitted to slaughter the second animal afterwards because their slaughter is not considered as slaughter.10Hence it is equivalent to cutting off the head of the animal and the previous halachah applies.", + "When one slaughters the first animal, but a question arises whether it is a nevelah or not, it is forbidden to slaughter the second [animal].11For perhaps the animal was kosher and one would be violating the prohibition. If one slaughters it, he is not liable for lashes.12Because there is a doubt involved.", + "Slaughter from which it is not fit to eat is, nevertheless, considered slaughter. Therefore if the first person slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard,13Rambam LeAm questions why this concept is mentioned. It was already stated in Halachah 2. one which is trefe, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, a red heifer, or slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,14In all these instances, it is forbidden to benefit from the slaughtered animal. (See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9; Hilchot Rotzeach 10:6, Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:7; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.) a person who slaughters the second animal is liable. Similarly, if one slaughtered the first animal and another slaughtered the second though it is an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, or a red heifer, [the second person] is liable for lashes.", + "When [the second animal] is slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,15Seemingly, the same principles stated in the previous halachah would apply in this instance. Nevertheless, in this case, there is another factor involved as the Rambam continues to explain. [the slaughterer] is not liable because of [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring, for he is liable for capital punishment.16As befits one who sacrifices to a false deity. One is not liable for both capital punishment and lashes for the same act. Since he is liable for capital punishment, he is not held liable for lashes. (See Ketubot 33b; Chullin 81b.) If, however, he was given a warning for [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring and was not given a warning for the worship of false deities,17I.e., when the witnesses administered the warning, they mentioned the lesser transgression and not the more severe one. he receives lashes.18For in this instance, he is not liable for the more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud concerning whether one is absolved from liability for lashes in such a situation or not and the halachah follows the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that one is liable. See Ketubot 34b-35a, Chullin, loc. cit.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to a kosher domesticated animal. [This is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus, loc. cit.]:19See the Sifra to the verse which states that the first excludes wild beasts and fowl. \"Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day.\"
[This prohibition] does apply with regard to hybrid species. What is implied? When a [male] deer mates with a [female] goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring, one is liable. When, however, a [male] goat mates with a [female] deer and one slaughters the deer and its offspring, it is forbidden to slaughter [the deer and its offspring], if one slaughters them, however, one is not liable for lashes.20See the Turei Zahav 16:11 and the Siftei Cohen 16:16 who debate the rulings of the Rashba and the Maharshal who permit one to slaughter the deer and its offspring even as an initial and preferred option. The Torah forbade slaughtering a cow21I.e., a kosher domesticated animal. and its offspring and not a deer and its offspring.", + "If the offspring of this deer was female and it gave birth to offspring, one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring [on the same day].22Since ultimately, the ancestor of the hybrid deer was a domesticated animal, we hold the slaughterer liable (see Chullin 80a). Although in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who does not hold the slaughtered liable for lashes, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:8), he cites the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 16:12 and the Siftei Cohen 16:17 debate this issue and side with the more lenient views, questioning the Rambam's ruling in light of his position in Halachah 11. Similarly, if a hybrid species is produced by mating a sheep and a goat - regardless of which is male and which is female - [the slaughterer can be held liable for] lashes for [violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring.", + "It is permitted to slaughter a pregnant animal. The fetus is considered as a limb of its mother.23And not a separate entity for whose slaughter one is held liable. If the fetus emerged alive after the slaughter of its mother and stepped on the ground,24If the fetus does not step on the ground, it need not be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:14). Hence, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring would not apply. one should not slaughter it on the same day. If one did, one is not liable for lashes.25The Tosefta states: Since it is not required to slaughter such an animal, one is not liable for slaughtering it together with its mother.", + "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies with regard to a mother, for the offspring is certainly its own. If one knows with certainty that a male fathered offspring, the two should not be slaughtered on the same day. If one slaughtered [them together, however,] he is not liable for lashes, for there is a doubt whether or not the prohibition applies with regard to males.26This issue was apparently a matter of uncertainty for the Rambam, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 5:6) he revised his interpretation several times. His final text (see Rav Kapach's version which differs from the standard published text) parallels the text here. Note, however, Bechorot 7:7 which appears to refer to this prohibition with regard to males.", + "When a person slaughters a cow and afterwards slaughters two of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.27For he violated the prohibition twice. If he slaughters [several of] its offspring and then it, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.28For he performed one forbidden act. If he slaughtered it, its female offspring and the offspring of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.29For in this instance as well, he violated the prohibition twice. If he slaughtered it, the offspring of its offspring and its female offspring, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.30Although the same act caused two violations of the prohibition, since it was only one deed, the majority opinion in Chullin 82a only holds the person liable for set of lashes. As Rashi explains: There is one prohibition, one deed, and one warning.", + "When two people [each] purchased an animal: one the mother and one the offspring and they brought the matter for judgment,31I.e., they both desired to slaughter their animal that day. the one who purchased [the animal] first is allowed to slaughter it first,32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) states that this law applies only when the two purchased the animals from the same person. If they purchased them from different individuals, neither has precedence over the other. the other one should wait until the next day. If the second purchaser slaughtered [his animal] first, he gains and the first must wait until the next day.", + "Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day.33In other situations, it is not necessary to notify him, for it is not certain that either purchaser will slaughter the animal on that day. They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot,34This is the holiday of Shemini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, a day of great rejoicing. Hence it is appropriate that meat be part of the festive meals. On the first day of Sukkot, by contrast, because the people are involved in preparing a sukkah and a lulav, they do not have the energy for excessive celebration. the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach,35For the Seder is a time of great rejoicing and celebration. The seventh day of Pesach, by contrast, is not considered that important a festival. the day preceding Shavuot,36Rashi explains that the animals were necessary for sacrifices to be brought for the holiday. Tosafot states that Shavuos is customarily marked by great celebration in commemoration of the Giving of the Torah. and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.37For it is customary to begin the new year with celebratory feasts.", + "When does the above apply? When he saw that the person who purchased it last was anxious to buy and it was at the end of the day, [in which instance,] it can be presumed that he will slaughter it immediately. If, however, there was ample time during the day, he is not required to inform him, for perhaps he will not slaughter until the following day.38The fact that he shows repose indicates that he may be purchasing the animal for a later date. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the person's repose is taken into consideration only when he purchases the animal on the day before the day preceding the festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) quotes the Raa'vad's ruling.", + "When one sells the mother to a groom and the daughter to the bride, he must notify them.39That the other animal was also sold. This applies even if he did not sell them both on the same day [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6)]. For certainly, they will slaughter them both on the same day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "[With regard to the term] one day mentioned in the context of [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring, the day follows the night.40I.e., it is a calendar day according to the Jewish calendar, not a day from sunrise to sunset or a 24-hour period beginning from the time one animal is slaughtered. what is implied? He slaughtered the first animal at the beginning of Tuesday night, he may not slaughter the other one until the beginning of Wednesday night. Similarly, if he slaughtered one at the close of Wednesday, before bein hashemashot,41This term literally means \"between the suns.\" It refers to the time between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars. There is an unresolved doubt whether the day ends at sunset or at the appearance of the stars. Hence, the halachic status of this period of time is one of question. he may slaughter the other one at the beginning of Wednesday night. If he slaughtered the first during bein hashemashot Wednesday evening, he may not slaughter the second until after nightfall on Thursday.42Lest the period until the appearance of the stars be considered as part of the previous day. If he slaughtered it during the day on Thursday, he does not receive lashes.43For punishment may not be given in a situation where doubt exists." + ], + [ + "When a person takes a mother together with its young and slaughters it, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1The fact that he violated a transgression in taking the mother does not cause the meat to be prohibited. He is, however, liable for lashes for slaughtering the mother,2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 306) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 544) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The person transgresses the prohibition when he takes the mother and the offspring. Nevertheless, as long as the mother is alive and he can correct his deed by sending her away, he is not liable for lashes. This follows the principle of lav hanitak li'asai, a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah. as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: \"Do not take the mother together with its offspring.\" Similarly, if it died before he sent it away, he is liable for lashes.3For he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment. If he sent it away after he took it, he is not liable.4For he corrected his actions through the positive commandment. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden for him to take the mother. He must send it away first, as is the simple meaning of the Torah's commandment. See Siftei Cohen 292:11.", + "Similarly, [with regard to] all negative commandments that can be corrected by a positive commandment,5The positive commandment to send away the mother bird is also considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 148); Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 545)].
See the Kessef Mishneh (to Halachah 19) which explains that Chullin 141a mentions a difference of opinion concerning this mitzvah between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages. Rabbi Yehudah maintains - and this is the simple meaning of the verse - that the positive commandment requires one to send away the mother bird only before taking it. Thus according to his view, sending away the mother after it was taken does not fulfill a mitzvah and hence, does not correct the transgression. The Sages differ and maintain that the halachic definition of the mitzvah also includes sending away the bird after it was taken. Therefore, if one took the mother together with its young, he can correct his transgression by sending away the mother. The Rambam's decision reflects the Sages' position. one is obligated to fulfill the positive commandment. If he does not fulfill it, he is liable for lashes.6See Makkot 16b which mentions a difference of opinion concerning the matter. One view maintains that as long as the person does not prevent himself from correcting the transgression through his own conduct, e.g., with regard to the matter at hand, he did not kill the mother bird, he is not lible for lashes. The other view, which as above is accepted as halachah by the Rambam, is that the person becomes liable for lashes when he violates the transgression. It is just that the punishment is suspended as long as he has the opportunity to correct the matter. Once, however, that opportunity no longer exists, even if it is not his fault - e.g., in the matter at hand, the bird dies - that punishment is meted out.", + "If another person comes and seizes the mother bird from his hands and sends it away or it took flight from his possession without his knowledge, he is liable for lashes. [This is implied by ibid.:7]: \"You shall certainly send away [the mother],\" i.e., he must send away [the mother bird] himself. [If not,] he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.7And is therefore held liable for the violation of the negative commandment.", + "If he took a mother bird together with its young, cut off its wings so that it cannot fly and sent it away,8I.e., he is trying to perform the mitzvah by sending the mother bird away on its feet so that he will not be held liable and yet will be able to take it again shortly afterwards. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:4). he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.9I.e., he is punished for his defiance of the spirit of the Torah's commandments even though it is possible that he will not actually be held liable for lashes. [He must] keep [the mother bird] in his possession until her wings grow back and then send her away. If [the mother] died before this or fled and was lost, he is liable for lashes, for he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.", + "How must one send away the mother? He holds her by her wings and has her fly away. If he sent her away and she returned, he sent her away and she returned10I.e., as long as the mother returns before he takes the young so that the mitzvah is still relevant (Siftei Cohen 292:8). - even if this happens - four or five times, he is obligated to send her away, as [implied by the repetition of the verb in the] phrase: \"You shall certainly send away.\"11See Bava Metzia 31a which gives several examples of how the repetition of a verb in the Torah implies that a commandment must be fulfilled even 100 times.", + "Although a person says \"I will take the mother bird and send away the young,\"12And thus seemingly, he will be fulfilling the intent of the Torah's commandment, for he will not be taking the mother and the young together. he is obligated to send away the mother bird, as the verse states: \"You shall certainly send away the mother.\"", + "If he [sent away the mother,]13This addition is made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:5). took the offspring and [then] returned them to the nest and the mother came back to them, he is not obligated to send [her] away.14Once he has taken the offspring, they are considered as \"at hand,\" and this mitzvah no longer applies as stated in the following halachah and notes (Siftei Cohen 292:10).
It is permitted to send away the mother and then snare her again. The Torah forbade snaring only when she cannot fly away because of her offspring over which she is hovering so that they not be taken,15For, as emphasized in Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, which explains that this is the motivating rationale for this mitzvah: to prevent the cruel act of taking the young in front of the mother. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 and the resolution of the apparent contradiction in the previous chapter. as [ibid.:6] states: \"And the mother is resting on the chicks.\" If, however, he removed her from his grasp and then snared her again, it is permitted.", + "[The mitzvah to] send away the mother bird applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl16Chullin 139b derives this concept from the exegesis of the prooftext from Deuteronomy. that are not at hand, e.g., doves that rested in a dovecote or on a loft,17When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2 and commentaries) emphasizes that if the nest is within the person's property and the mother bird lifts itself up, the person automatically acquires the offspring. From that time on, they are considered as \"at hand\" and the mitzvah does not apply. See Halachah 18 and notes. wild fowl that nested in an orchard. [This is derived from the phrase (ibid.)]: \"When you will chance upon.\" When, however, [fowl is] at hand, e.g., ducks, chicken, and doves that nested in a building, one is not liable to send away the mother.", + "If the chicks could fly and thus they no longer needed their mother or [the mother was sitting on] unfertilized eggs,18Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Chullin 64b. he is not obligated to send away [the mother]. If the chicks were trefot, it is comparable to unfertilized eggs and he is not liable to send away [the mother].19Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the verse mentions both eggs and chicks and derives both of these concepts from an equation it establishes between the two: Just as the chicks are entities that will continue to exist, so too, the eggs must be entities that will continue to exist [in contrast to unfertilized eggs that will spoil after a certain time]. Just as the eggs require their mother, so too, the chicks must require their mother.", + "When a male fowl is resting on a nest, one is not obligated to send him away [before taking the young].20Chullin 140a emphasizes that the verse mentions a mother, implying \"and not a father.\" When a non-kosher bird is resting on the nest of the eggs of a kosher fowl or a kosher fowl is resting on the eggs of a non-kosher fowl, one is not obligated to send away [the fowl that is resting].21For Chullin 138b states that the verse forbids taking the bird and its offspring \"for yourself.\" Implied is that there is no prohibition when taking it for your dogs, i.e., taking a non-kosher species which is fit only to be fed to the dogs.", + "When a [kosher fowl] was resting on kosher eggs of a different species, one should send [the bird] away. If, however, one fails to do so, one is not liable.22There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Chullin 140b. Hence, it is forbidden to take the birds, but one is not liable for lashes because of the doubt. If the mother is trefe, he is obligated to send her away.23Even though it is forbidden to eat the mother, there is a difference between it and a fowl from a non-kosher species. A mother from a non-kosher species is excluded because the prooftext uses the term tzipor which indicates a kosher species. A bird which is trefe, though forbidden, is still a tzipor (Siftei Cohen 292:1).", + "When one slits a portion of the gullet24The literal meaning of the Rambam's words is \"If he cut a portion of the signs.\" We have translated the Rambam's words as above because as obvious from the conclusion of his ruling, there is a doubt whether he is obligated to send away the mother bird. And with regard to the windpipe there is no doubt that he is obligated to send away the mother.
To explain: Chullin 140b questions: \"Do we say that since after slitting a portion of the signs the animal will be trefe, is there a need to send it away?\" Now, if a person slits less than half the windpipe, the fowl is not trefe and if he slits more than half of it, its slaughter is completed. Hence, we are forced to say that he is speaking about cutting a portion - but less than half - of the gullet. If he does not complete the slaughter, making such a slit will render the fowl trefe. [of the mother]25The fact the Rambam uses the term sheyikachenah, \"before he takes her,\" implies that he is speaking about the mother bird. This understanding is also acknowledged by the Tur and Rabbenu Nissim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions that interpretation, noting that even if the mother bird was made trefe by slitting its gullet, it would have to be sent away as stated in the previous halachah. Therefore, he suggests amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to imply that the signs of the chicks were slit and the question is, since he is involved in the slaughter of the chicks and stopping to send away the mother would render them trefe, must he stop and send her away or not. He follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:10). before he took her, he is liable to send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.26Since the Talmud does not resolve the question it raises, one cannot be held liable for lashes because of the doubt.", + "[The following laws apply if the mother bird] was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings were touching the nest, one is obligated to send her away.27The Torah uses the expression \"resting on the nest.\" Chullin 40b infers that if the mother is hovering over the nest, the mitzvah does not imply. Since the verse does not use the term \"sitting,\" however, we learn that the obligation exists even when the mother is not sitting in the nest but lingering close by in a manner that its wings are touching. If not, he is not obligated. If there was a cloth or feathers intervening between her wings and the nest, he must send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.28This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence, the Rambam rules that one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.", + "If there were two rows of eggs and [the mother bird's] wings were touching [only] the top row, [the mother bird] was sitting on unfertilized eggs, but there were good eggs below them, one female was sitting on another female, a male was sitting on the nest and the female was sitting on the male - [in all these situations,] one should not take [the mother bird with the offspring]. If he takes [her], he should send her away. But if he does not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.29All of these situations are questions left unresolved by Chullin 140b. Hence, as above, one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.", + "If [the mother bird] was sitting among the young or the eggs and was not touching them,30In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a question raised by Rabbenu Nissim: Since touching the nest from the side is not sufficient as indicated by the concluding clause in the halachah, what does it matter if the mother bird touches its young from the side when it sits among them? Based on that objection, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:12), he incorporates Rabbenu Nissim's understanding when quoting this law. one is not liable to send her away.31For the Torah speaks about the mother \"resting on the eggs or the chicks\" and not sitting at their side. Similarly, if she was at the side of the nest and her wings were touching the nest from the side, he is not obligated to send her away.", + "When [the mother bird was perched] on two branches of a tree and the nest was positioned between them, we make an evaluation. In all instances where the mother would fall on the nest if the branches were removed, one is obligated to send her away.32Rashi, Chullin 140b, states that this applies even if the mother's wings are not touching the nest. As long as she is resting directly above the nest, it is considered as if she was resting on it. The Siftei Cohen 292:17 quotes this point as halachah.", + "When the mother is resting on one chick or on one egg, one is obligated to send her away.33As evident from Chullin 12:3, the Biblical command speaks about \"a nest.\" As long as a nest contains one egg or chick, it is still considered a nest. When a person finds a nest floating on the water or positioned on the back of an animal, he is obligated to send the mother away. [The verse] mentions \"chicks or eggs\"34Using a plural form. and \"on any tree or on the ground\" [not as exclusions], but because the Torah speaks about the commonplace situations.35This is a general principle applying with regard to many Biblical commandments. See Yevamot 15:2, Shabbat 65a, Nedarim 48a.", + "It is forbidden to acquire the eggs as long as the mother is resting upon them. Therefore even if a mother bird was resting on eggs or chicks in one's loft or dovecote, they are not considered as \"at hand\" and his courtyard does not acquire them for him.36The Rambam is referring to a principle in Jewish business law which maintains that a person can acquire property by virtue of its presence in his domain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 17:8-11:
A person's courtyard can acquire property for him without him being aware of it. Thus, if a lost object falls into a person's courtyard, he acquires it.
When does the above apply? When the courtyard is protected. [When, by contrast, a lost article enters a person's] field or garden [different rules apply]. If he is standing at the side of his field and says, \"May my field acquire it for me,\" he acquires it. If, however, he is not standing there, or he is standing there but does not make such a statement [he does not acquire it.]...
The [potential for] a man [to acquire property by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard is derived, by contrast, from [the fact that] he is able to acquire an article via an agent. Just as an agent can acquire [an article] for him, so too, can he acquire [an article by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard....
[The following rules apply when a person] sees... young doves that cannot fly [in his property]: [When the following conditions are met:] he was standing at the side of his field, [the animals] were on his property, and he could catch them if he ran, he can acquire them [by virtue of their presence in] his field if he states: \"May my field acquire them for me.\"
Thus in the case at hand, since the person cannot acquire the eggs himself until he sends away the mother, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf (Chullin 141b).
 Just as he cannot acquire them on behalf of others [until he sends away the mother], so, too, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf.37For as stated in the quoted portion, the potential for a person's property to acquire an article on his behalf is derived from the laws of agency. Therefore, he must send [her] away.38As mentioned above, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2) states that if the mother bird lifted itself up, the person can acquire the chicks by virtue of their presence in his property even if he does not remove them from their nest. From that time on, they are considered as \"at hand\" and this mitzvah does not apply. Indeed, he can tap the nest so that the mother will rise up and then acquire the young (Kessef Mishneh).", + "It is forbidden to take a mother bird together with her offspring, even to purify a person with tzara'at.39A skin condition, resembling leprosy, that is visited upon a person as retribution for speaking gossip and slander. The purification process for such a person is described in Leviticus, ch. 14, and Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1. If he took [the mother], he is obligated to send her away. If he did not, he is liable for lashes.40As stated in Halachah 2. Even if he used the mother bird for a mitzvah, he still receives lashes for violating the transgression. [The rationale is that] a positive commandment41The purification of the person with tzara'at. does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment [that is reinforced] by a positive commandment.42The prohibition of taking the mother which is reinforced by the mitzvah to send her away. Note the Kessef Mishneh who questions whether the two mitzvot should be placed in this category, for according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted as halachah), the two mitzvot do not apply at the same time. And a positive commandment does not supersede another positive commandment.43I.e., once he has taken the mother bird, he is obligated to send her away and the observance of another positive commandment, e.g., the purification rite mentioned above, does not supplant it.", + "[The following rule applies when] a person consecrates a wild fowl to the Temple treasury, it flies away from his hand, but he recognizes it and finds it resting on chicks or on eggs. He should take the entire [nest]44For not only the mother, but also the offspring, belong to the Temple treasury. For the mother gave birth to them after she had been consecrated. and bring it to the Temple treasurer. [The rationale is that the mitzvah of] sending away the mother bird does not apply with regard to consecrated [fowl], as [implied by Deuteronomy 22:7]: \"And you may take the offspring for yourself.\" These may not [be taken] for yourself.45For as above the offspring are also the property of the Temple treasury.
Significantly, although the Rambam's ruling is based on Chullin 138b, he does not quote the wording of the Talmud, but instead, explains the derivation of the ruling in a different manner. The Lechem Mishneh explains that this reflects a pattern found frequently in the Mishneh Torah: The Rambam will explain the derivation of a law differently than the Talmud if it appears to him that his derivation is simpler and more direct.", + "When a fowl killed a human being, one is not obligated to send it away. [The rationale is that] one is commanded to bring it to court so that it will be judged.46See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:2 which states that an animal that kills a human must be judged by a court of 23 judges." + ], + [ + "It is a positive commandment1Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 187) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. to cover the blood of a kosher wild beast or fowl2Both a wild fowl and a domesticated one. One need not, by contrast, cover the blood of a domesticated animal that was slaughtered. that was slaughtered, as [Leviticus 17:13] states: \"If you will snare a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, you shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.\" Therefore, before covering it, he is obligated to recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to cover the blood.", + "[The mitzvah] to cover the blood applies to animals that are at hand and those that are not at hand. [The verse mentions:] \"If you will snare\" only because it speaks about the commonplace situation. It applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to those consecrated: whether they were consecrated [to be offered on] the altar or consecrated to the Temple treasury. If a person transgresses3For it is forbidden to slaughter animals consecrated to the Temple treasury until they have been redeemed. and slaughters [such an animal], he is not obligated to cover its blood.", + "If a person slaughters a wild beast or a fowl and afterwards, consecrates them - or consecrates the blood - he is obligated to cover the blood.4Because when the blood was poured out, it did not have a connection to the Temple treasury, and at that time, the person became obligated to cover it.", + "It is necessary to cover the blood of a hybrid that comes from the mating of an animal and a wild beast or an animal that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or a wild beast,5The commentaries to Chullin 83a employ this interpretation with regard to a kevi, an animal which one opinion in Chullin 80a understands as referring to an animal whose species could not be identified as a domesticated animal or a wild beast. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4) employs this concept with regard to a buffalo. but one does not recite the blessing.6We are unsure of the status of this animal and do not know whether there is an obligation to cover its blood or not. Hence, we cover it, but do not recite a blessing, lest the blessing be recited in vain. When a person slaughters for the sake of a sick person on the Sabbath, he is obligated to cover the blood after the Sabbath.7For covering it on the Sabbath would be a violation of the prohibition against performing labor. Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal whose status is doubtful or is a hybrid on a festival, he should cover its blood after the festival.8He is required to cover the animal's blood because of the doubt as stated in the first clause. Nevertheless, he may not cover it on the festival, for perhaps he is not obligated to do so, and hence, will be performing a forbidden labor on the festival for no valid reason. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:3) rules that, as an initial and preferred option, one should not slaughter such an animal on a festival. See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 498:18) which states that even if one has earth prepared before the festival so that covering the blood will not involve the transgression of a prohibition, one should not cover it on a festival because of the impression that will be created. People might think that it was definitely determined that it is a wild beast and may therefore partake of its fat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 6:1) based on Beitzah 8b].
See also the Siftei Cohen 28:10 which states that the blood must be poured out on the ground on the festival. It cannot be saved in a utensil (because of the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5) and spilled out after the festival.", + "When a person slaughters many fowl and several types of wild beasts in one place, he should recite one blessing and cover the blood of all of them together at one time.9I.e., it is not necessary to cover the blood immediately. Instead, one may wait until he has slaughtered all the animals he desires and then cover the blood.", + "When blood becomes mixed with water, one is obligated to cover it if it has the appearance of blood. If not, one is not liable. If it became mixed with wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, one considers it as if they were water. If were [the wine or blood] to have been water, [the mixture] would have appeared to be blood, he is obligated to cover the entire mixture. If not, he is not obligated.", + "If a person covered blood and then it became revealed, he is not obligated to cover it a second time.10For he has already fulfilled the mitzvah involved. If blood was covered by [dust blown] by the wind, one is not obligated to cover it.11For the Torah's commandment obligates one to cover only blood that is apparent. If it is covered, there is no mitzvah involved. If it became revealed again after the wind covered it, he is obligated to cover it.12Since the person never covered the blood himself, it is as if it was never covered. See Pitchei Teshuvah 28:4; Magen Avraham 586:6 which discuss whether there is a definite obligation to cover the blood in such a situation or there is an unresolved question and one does so because of the doubt involved. The question of whether or not to recite a blessing in this situation depends on the clarification of this issue.", + "If there is no other blood [from the slaughter] except the blood which spurted out [while the animal was being slaughtered] and the blood on the knife,13Usually, a certain quantity of blood is poured out directly after the slaughter as well. one is obligated to cover it.14According to the Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah (Chullin 6:6), if there is other blood aside from this, it is sufficient to cover that other blood. It is not necessary to cover all the blood. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that all the blood must be covered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:15 follows the Rambam's view.", + "[The following rules apply if] one slaughters and the blood is absorbed in the ground. If a mark remains, he is obligated to cover it. If not, it is as if it was covered by the wind15See Halachah 7. and he is not obligated to cover it.", + "The only blood that must be covered is the blood of slaughter [that produces meat] that is fit to be eaten, as [the prooftext cited] states: \"that may be eaten.\"16This prooftext causes the ruling to be different from that applying to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. See Chullin 85a. Therefore, if a person slaughters and the animal is discovered to be trefe, one slaughters ordinary [fowl or beasts] in the Temple Courtyard,17Which are forbidden to be eaten (Chapter 2, Halachah 2). one slaughters fowl or beasts that were condemned to be stoned to death,18I.e., an animal or fowl that killed a human. one slaughters an animal and causes it to become a nevelah, one is not obligated to cover the blood. Similarly when a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotional incompetent person or a minor slaughters in private, there is no obligation19We have used a non-literal translation, for these individuals are not obligated in the performance of any mitzvot. See Siftei Cohen 28:24 which states that we are forbidden to cover this blood. to cover the blood [of the animal] they slaughtered.20As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, if these individuals slaughter privately, the slaughter is unacceptable. If, however, they slaughter in the presence of an expert and he states that they slaughtered correctly, the slaughter is acceptable and the blood must be covered.", + "With what should [the blood] be covered? With earth,21Though this term is not found in the standard printed texts. It is found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The version of the standard printed text can be interpreted to mean that in this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying which other substances can be considered as \"earth.\"
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:23) gives the following introduction: \"Any substance in which seeds will grow is called סearth'.... If [seeds] will not grow in it, but it is called סearth,' we may cover [blood] with it.\" lime, gypsum, fine fertilizer, fine sand that need not be crushed by a potter, crushed rocks and earthen-ware, fine flax chips, fine saw dust, bricks, burnt mud,22This translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:1). In his commentary to 3:7, 10:2, he interprets the term as \"crushed earthenware.\" We, however, used the former translation to avoid redundancy. Others cite the interpretation of the Aruch who explains that the term refers to a type of lime. and sealing clay that are crushed, for all of these are types of \"earth.\" If, however, one covered it with a utensil or with stones, it is not considered as \"covered,\" for the verse states \"with earth.\"", + "For this reason, we do not cover [blood] with coarse fertilizer, coarse sand, flour, bran, grain fiber, or filings from metal utensils, for these are not types of \"earth.\" There is one exception: filings of gold alone may be used to cover [blood], for they are called \"dust,\"23The Hebrew term afar has both the meaning \"earth\" and \"dust.\" as [Job 28:6] states: \"And it possesses the dust of gold\" and [Deuteronomy 9:21] speaks [of grinding the Gold Calf] \"until it was thin, into dust.\"", + "We may cover [blood] with oven soot, stibium,24A blue-powder uses for makeup and medicinal purposes in Talmudic times. powder from mills, and ashes. [This includes] ashes from trees and ashes from clothes, even ashes from meat that was burnt, for [Numbers 19:17] speaks of \"the ashes of the burnt sin-offering.\"25I.e., the red heifer. It is permitted to cover [blood] with the ashes of a city that went astray [and was therefore destroyed].26See Deuteronomy ch. 13 and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. , which explain that if an entire city is led astray and worships false deities, the city is condemned, the transgressors executed, and the city burnt. With the ruling in this halachah, the Rambam is explaining that although it is forbidden to benefit from the property - and even the ashes - of such a condemned city, its ashes may be used for this purpose. The rationale is that using the ashes for the mitzvah is not considered as benefiting from them, because the mitzvoth were not given for our benefit (Chullin 89a).", + "One who slaughters must place earth below27Moreover, this earth must be loose. One should not slaughter over a place where the earth is hard [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:5)]. and then slaughter, [pouring the blood] into [the earth]. Afterwards, he covers it with earth. He should not slaughter [and pour the blood] into a container28Even if the utensil contains murky water and thus the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5, does not apply. and then cover it with earth.", + "The person who slaughters [the animal] should cover its blood,29One may, however, give another person the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah. For that reason, there are many who ask the ritual slaughterer for the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah of covering the blood after fulfilling the custom of kapporot. Nevertheless, one must ask the slaughterer for the privilege, one who takes it without asking is liable to pay the slaughterer a fine for \"stealing\" his mitzvah. See Turei Zahav 28:8. as [the above prooftext ] states: \"[You shall pour out its blood and] cover it with earth.\"30Chullin 87a states: \"The one who סpours out its blood' should סcover it.'\" If he did not cover the blood and another person sees it, he is obligated to cover it, for this is an independent mitzvah and is not dependent on the slaughterer alone.31Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the passage states: \"And you shall say to the children of Israel,\" implying that the mitzvah is the concern of the entire people.", + "When a person covers the blood, he should not cover it with his feet,32I.e., by kicking the earth over the blood. but instead with his hands, a knife, or a utensil, so that he will not treat it with disdain and regard the mitzvoth with scorn. For the mitzvot in and of themselves are not worthy of honor. Instead, [the honor is] due He, blessed be He, who commanded us to observe them and [thus] saved us from groping in darkness and thus granted us a lamp to straighten crooked paths and a light to illumine the upright ways.33As Bereishis Rabbah 44:1 states: \"The mitzvoth were given to the Jewish people solely to refine the created beings with them.\" See also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 26. And so [Psalms 119:105] states: \"Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my ways.\"
Blessed be G‑d who grants assistance." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e34a2ab53f766a73b6a6eb242d28fc92cba3194 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/Torat Emet 363.json @@ -0,0 +1,334 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads", + "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 363", + "status": "locked", + "priority": 1.0, + "license": "Public Domain", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 363", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לֶאֱכל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכַל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ\". וְנֶאֱמַר בִּבְכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם (דברים יב כב) \"אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֶת הַצְּבִי וְאֶת הָאַיָּל\". הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁחַיָּה כִּבְהֵמָה לְעִנְיַן שְׁחִיטָה. וּבְעוֹף הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז יג) \"וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ\" מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁפִיכַת דַּם הָעוֹף כִּשְׁפִיכַת דַּם הַחַיָּה: \n", + "וְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בְּכֻלָּן אַחַת הֵן. לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף מְבָרֵךְ תְּחִלָּה אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְאִם לֹא בֵּרֵךְ בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר. וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִן הַשְּׁחוּטָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת. וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וַהֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל (ויקרא יט כו) \"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם\" וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמֻתָּר לַחְתֹּךְ מִמֶּנָּה אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכְלֶנּוּ: \n", + "דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִים שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא אֲסִיפָתָן הִיא הַמַּתֶּרֶת אוֹתָן. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (במדבר יא כב) \"הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם וּמָצָא לָהֶם אִם אֶת כָּל דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם\", אֲסֵפַת דָּגִים כִּשְׁחִיטַת בָּקָר וְצֹאן. וּבַחֲגָבִים נֶאֱמַר (ישעיה לג ד) \"אֹסֶף הֶחָסִיל\", בַּאֲסִיפָה לְבַדָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם מֻתָּרִין. וּמֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן חַיִּים: \n", + "זְבִיחָה זוֹ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ אוֹתָהּ וְלֵידַע בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מִן הַבְּהֵמָה שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וּבְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר שׁוֹחֲטִין. וּמָתַי שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְהֵיכָן שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכֵיצַד שׁוֹחֲטִין. וּמַה הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַמַּפְסִידִין אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וּמִי הוּא הַשּׁוֹחֵט. וְעַל כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ צִוָּנוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְאָמַר (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ\" וְגוֹ' שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ עַל פֶּה צִוָּה בָּהֶן כִּשְׁאָר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שֶׁהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת (שמות כד יב) \"מִצְוָה\" כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּתְחִלַּת חִבּוּר זֶה: \n", + "מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִן הַחַי הוּא הַצַּוָּאר. וְכָל הַצַּוָּאר כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד. בַּוֵּשֶׁט מִתְּחִלַּת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁכְּשֶׁחוֹתְכִין אוֹתוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּץ עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּשְׂעִיר וְיַתְחִיל לִהְיוֹת פְּרָצִין פְּרָצִין כְּכֶרֶס. זֶה הוּא מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּוֵּשֶׁט: \n", + "שָׁחַט לְמַעְלָה מִמָּקוֹם זֶה וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ לְמַטָּה מִמָּקוֹם זֶה וְהוּא מִתְּחִלַּת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְשִׁעוּר תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה לְמַעְלָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחַז בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּבְעוֹף הַכּל לְפִי גָּדְלוֹ וְקָטְנוֹ. וּלְמַטָּה עַד הַזֶּפֶק: \n", + "וְאֵי זֶה הוּא מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה. מִשִּׁפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה עַד רֹאשׁ כְּנַף הָרֵאָה כְּשֶׁתִּמְשֹׁךְ הַבְּהֵמָה צַוָּארָהּ לִרְעוֹת. זֶה הוּא מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה. וְכָל שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה מִבַּחוּץ נִקְרָא צַוָּאר: \n", + "אָנְסָה הַבְּהֵמָה עַצְמָהּ וּמָשְׁכָה צַוָּארָהּ הַרְבֵּה אוֹ שֶׁאִנֵּס הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַסִּימָנִין וּמְשָׁכָן לְמַעְלָה וְשָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה בַּצַּוָּאר וְנִמְצֵאת הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה אוֹ בַּוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "וְצָרִיךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט בְּאֶמְצַע הַצַּוָּאר. וְאִם שָׁחַט מִן הַצְּדָדִין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְכַמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. שְׁנֵי הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁהֵן הַקָּנֶה וְהַוֵּשֶׁט הַשְּׁחִיטָה הַמְעֻלָּה שֶׁיֵּחָתְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה בֵּין בְּעוֹף. וְלָזֶה יִתְכַּוֵּן הַשּׁוֹחֵט. וְאִם שָׁחַט רֹב אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּעוֹף וְרֹב הַשְּׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט הָאֶחָד כֻּלּוֹ וְחֶצְיָהּ הַשֵּׁנִי בִּבְהֵמָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְרֻבּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁחַט מִכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶלָּא יֶתֶר עַל חֶצְיוֹ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט יֶתֶר עַל חֶצְיוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא רֻבּוֹ הוּא: \n", + "שָׁחַט חֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְחֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל זֶה אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. קָנֶה שֶׁהָיָה חֶצְיוֹ פָּסוּק וְשָׁחַט עַל מָקוֹם הֶחָתוּךְ מְעַט וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְרֹב בֵּין שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט בַּמָּקוֹם הַשָּׁלֵם וּפָגַע בַּחֲתָךְ בֵּין שֶׁהִכְנִיס אֶת הַסַּכִּין בַּחֲתָךְ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְרֹב שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כָּל הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק הַסִּימָנִין לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם לֹא בָּדַק וְנֶחְתַּךְ הָרֹאשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבָּדֵק הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשּׁוֹחֵט זָרִיז וּמָהִיר: \n", + "כָּל בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "ובְּאֵי זֶה דָּבָר שׁוֹחֲטִין. בְּכָל דָּבָר בֵּין בְּסַכִּין שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בֵּין בְּצוּר אוֹ בִּזְכוּכִית אוֹ בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קְנֵה הָאֲגַם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִדְּבָרִים הַחוֹתְכִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּיהָ חַד וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָּהּ פְּגָם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה כְּמוֹ תֶּלֶם בְּחֻדּוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר שֶׁשּׁוֹחֲטִין בּוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַתֶּלֶם קָטָן בְּיוֹתֵר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "הָיָה הַתֶּלֶם הַזֶּה מֵרוּחַ אַחַת לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ. וְאִם שָׁחַט דֶּרֶךְ הָרוּחַ שֶׁאֵין הַפְּגִימָה נִכֶּרֶת בָּהּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. סַכִּין שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק בְּהוֹלָכָה וְלֹא תַּרְגִּישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגָם וּכְשֶׁתַּחְזִיר אוֹתָהּ בַּהֲבָאָה תַּרְגִּישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגָם. אִם שָׁחַט בָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ הוֹלָכָה וְלֹא הֵבִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הֵבִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "סַכִּין שֶׁהִיא עוֹלָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת כְּנָחָשׁ וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וסַכִּין שֶׁפִּיהָ חָלָק וְאֵינָהּ חַדָּה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא בָּהּ כָּל הַיּוֹם עַד שֶׁשָּׁחְטָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "סַכִּין חַדָּה שֶׁהֻשְׁחֲזָה וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ חֲלָקָה אֶלָּא מַגָּעָתָהּ כְּמַגָּע רֹאשׁ הַשִּׁבּלֶת שֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּבֵּךְ בְּאֶצְבַּע. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ: \n", + "הַתּוֹלֵשׁ קָנֶה אוֹ שֵׁן אוֹ שֶׁקָּצַץ צוּר אוֹ צִפֹּרֶן וַהֲרֵי הֵן חַדִּין וְאֵין בָּהֶן פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהֶן. וְאִם נְעָצָן בַּקַּרְקַע לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן נְעוּצִין. וְאִם שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִין מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָן קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲקֹר אוֹתָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם פְּגָם: \n", + "לָקַח לְחִי בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שִׁנַּיִם חַדּוֹת וְשָׁחַט בָּהֶן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּמַגָּל. אֲבָל בְּשֵׁן אַחַת הַקְּבוּעָה בַּלֶּחִי שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא קְבוּעָה בּוֹ: \n", + "לִבֵּן הַסַּכִּין בָּאוּר וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. סַכִּין שֶׁצִּדָּהּ אֶחָד מַגָּל וְצִדָּהּ הַשֵּׁנִי יָפֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בַּצַּד הַיָּפֶה לְכַתְּחִלָּה גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁחֹט בַּצַּד הָאַחֵר. וְאִם שָׁחַט הוֹאִיל וּבַצַּד הַיָּפֶה שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק הַסַּכִּין בְּחֻדָּהּ וּמִצַּד זֶה וּמִצַּד זֶה. וְכֵיצַד בּוֹדְקָהּ. מוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ עַל בְּשַׂר אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ עַל צִפָּרְנוֹ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהֵן פִּיהָ וּשְׁנֵי צְדָדָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בָּהּ פְּגָם כְּלָל וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ: \n", + "וְצָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק כֵּן אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִם מָצָא בָּהּ פְּגָם אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה שֶׁמָּא בָּעוֹר נִפְגְּמָה וּכְשֶׁשָּׁחַט הַסִּימָנִים בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה שָׁחַט. לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמוֹת רַבּוֹת אוֹ עוֹפוֹת רַבִּים צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק בֵּין כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. שֶׁאִם לֹא בָּדַק וּבָדַק בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְנִמְצֵאת סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הֲרֵי הַכּל סְפֵק נְבֵלוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה: \n", + "בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּדָקָהּ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁבַר בָּהּ עֶצֶם אוֹ עֵץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּדַק וּמְצָאָהּ פְּגוּמָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁחֶזְקַת הַסַּכִּין שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה בַּדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה שֶׁשָּׁבַר בָּהּ. וְכֵן אִם פָּשַׁע וְלֹא בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה הַסַּכִּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִבְדֹּק שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כָּל טַבָּח שֶׁלֹּא בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ לִפְנֵי חָכָם וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ לְעַצְמוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם נִמְצֵאת יָפָה וּבְדוּקָה מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ לְפִי שֶׁיִּסְמֹךְ עַל עַצְמוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת וְתִהְיֶה פְּגוּמָה וְיִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ. ואִם נִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ וּמְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ וּמַכְרִיזִין עַל כָּל בָּשָׂר שֶׁשָּׁחַט שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "כַּמָּה הוּא אֹרֶךְ הַסַּכִּין שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט. כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה דָּבָר דַּק שֶׁנּוֹקֵב וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵט כְּמוֹ רֹאשׁ הָאִזְמֵל הַקָּטָן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: \n", + "וּמָתַי שׁוֹחֲטִין. בְּכָל זְמַן. בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אֲבוּקָה עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה. וְאִם שָׁחַט בַּאֲפֵלָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת בְּשׁוֹגֵג אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה מֵזִיד הָיָה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ אוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב מַלְקוֹת עַל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n" + ], + [ + "בְכָל מָקוֹם מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט חוּץ מִן הָעֲזָרָה. שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּעֲזָרָה אֶלָּא קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל הַחֻלִּין אָסוּר לְשָׁחֳטָן בָּעֲזָרָה בֵּין בְּהֵמָה בֵּין חַיָּה בֵּין עוֹף. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בִּבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה (דברים יב כא) \"כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"וְאָכַלְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ\". הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה אֶלָּא חוּץ לַמָּקוֹם (דברים יב כא) \"אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר ה'\": \n", + "וְזֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לַמָּקוֹם הוּא שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ בְּכָל הַשְּׁעָרִים. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה כְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְקוֹבְרִים אוֹתוֹ וְאֶפְרוֹ אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לַאֲכִילַת עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל לִכְלָבִים. אֲבָל הַנּוֹחֵר בָּעֲזָרָה. וְהַמְעַקֵּר. וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׁחַט. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף הַטְּמֵאִים בָּעֲזָרָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא כָּל הַחֻלִּין אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיסָן לַעֲזָרָה. אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה אוֹ פֵּרוֹת וּפַת. אִם עָבַר וְהִכְנִיסָן מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה כְּשֶׁהָיוּ. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה הֵן. וְכָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹ הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר חֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ חֻלִּין. אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה בָּעֲזָרָה וְלָדָהּ מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתוֹ בְּרִחוּק מָקוֹם: \n", + "אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים וּנְהָרוֹת שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ עוֹבֵד מַיִם הוּא זֶה וְנִרְאֶה כְּמַקְרִיב לַמַּיִם. וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט לִכְלִי מָלֵא מַיִם שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ לַצּוּרָה שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה בַּמַּיִם שָׁחַט. וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט בְּתוֹךְ כֵּלִים וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ הַגֻּמָּא שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי עַכּוּ\"ם. וְאִם שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שׁוֹחֲטִין לִכְלִי מַיִם עֲכוּרִין שֶׁאֵין הַצּוּרָה נִרְאֵית בָּהֶן. וְכֵן שׁוֹחֵט חוּץ לְגֻמָּא וְהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד לַגֻּמָּא. וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵּן שֶׁמָּא יְחַקֶּה אֶת הַמִּינִים. וְאִם שָׁחַט לְגֻמָּא בַּשּׁוּק אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּבְדְּקוּ אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא מִין הוּא. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט עַל דֹּפֶן הַסְּפִינָה וְהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת עַל הַדֹּפֶן וְיוֹרֵד לַמַּיִם. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֵּלִים: \n", + "כֵּיצַד שׁוֹחֲטִין. מוֹתֵחַ אֶת הַצַּוָּאר וּמוֹלִיךְ הַסַּכִּין וּמְבִיאָהּ עַד שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רְבוּצָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת וְאָחַז בְּעָרְפָּהּ וְהַסַּכִּין בְּיָדוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה וְשָׁחַט הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "נָעַץ אֶת הַסַּכִּין בַּכֹּתֶל וְהֶעֱבִיר הַצַּוָּאר עָלֶיהָ עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה צַוָּאר הַבְּהֵמָה לְמַטָּה וְסַכִּין לְמַעְלָה. שֶׁאִם הָיָה צַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה מִן הַסַּכִּין שֶׁמָּא תֵּרֵד הַבְּהֵמָה בְּכֹבֶד גּוּפָהּ וְתֵחָתֵךְ בְּלֹא הוֹלָכָה וַהֲבָאָה וְאֵין זוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה עוֹף בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה צַוָּארוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִן הַסַּכִּין הַנְּעוּצָה אוֹ לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְלֹא הֱבִיאָהּ אוֹ הֱבִיאָהּ וְלֹא הוֹלִיכָהּ וְשָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא עַד שֶׁחָתַךְ הָרֹאשׁ וְהִתִּיזוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא אוֹ הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ וְהִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּהוֹלָכָה בִּלְבַד אוֹ בַּהֲבָאָה בִּלְבַד. אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא שְׁנֵי צַוָּארִים מִצַּוְּארֵי הַנִּשְׁחָט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִם לָאו שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים כְּאֶחָד שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ בְּסַכִּין אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד מִצַּד זֶה וְשֵׁנִי מִצַּד אַחֵר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וְשָׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ שְׁנֵי סַכִּינִין וְשָׁחֲטוּ כְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת בַּצַּוָּאר שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט זֶה הַוֵּשֶׁט בִּלְבַד אוֹ רֻבּוֹ וְהַשֵּׁנִי שָׁחַט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הַקָּנֶה אוֹ רֻבּוֹ הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְכֵן שְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּקֻלְמוֹס וּשְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּמַסְרֵק כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "אֵין שְׁחִיטַת הַחֻלִּין צְרִיכָה כַּוָּנָה אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט כְּמִתְעַסֵּק אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק סַכִּין לְנָעֳצָהּ בַּכֹּתֶל וְשָׁחֲטָה בַּהֲלִיכָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה כָּרָאוּי בִּמְקוֹמָהּ וְשִׁעוּרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ קָטָן אוֹ שִׁכּוֹר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה דַּעְתּוֹ וּמִי שֶׁאֲחָזַתּוּ רוּחַ רָעָה שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִין אוֹתָם שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּתִקְנָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲבָל סַכִּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְשָׁחֲטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַזּוֹבֵחַ אָדָם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁחִיטָה: \n", + "גַּלְגַּל שֶׁל אֶבֶן אוֹ שֶׁל עֵץ שֶׁהָיְתָה הַסַּכִּין קְבוּעָה בּוֹ וְסִבֵּב אָדָם אֶת הַגַּלְגַּל וְשָׂם צַוַּאר הָעוֹף אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בִּסְבִיבַת הַגַּלְגַּל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הַמַּיִם הֵן הַמְסַבְּבִין אֶת הַגַּלְגַּל וְשָׂם אֶת הַצַּוָּאר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁסִּבֵּב וְנִשְׁחַט הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם פָּטַר אָדָם אֶת הַמַּיִם עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ וְסִבְּבוּ אֶת הַגַּלְגַּל וְשָׁחַט בִּסְבִיבָתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי מִכֹּחַ אָדָם בָּא. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּסְבִיבָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁהִיא מִכֹּחַ הָאָדָם אֲבָל מִסְּבִיבָה שְׁנִיָּה וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ אֵינָהּ מִכֹּחַ הָאָדָם אֶלָּא מִכֹּחַ הַמַּיִם בְּהִלּוּכָן: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם הָרִים לְשֵׁם גְּבָעוֹת לְשֵׁם יַמִּים לְשֵׁם נְהָרוֹת לְשֵׁם מִדְבָּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוִּן לְעָבְדָן אֶלָּא לִרְפוּאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מִדִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי שֶׁאוֹמְרִין הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט לְשֵׁם מַזַּל הַיָּם אוֹ מַזַּל הָהָר אוֹ לְכוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָה כְּכָל תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר חֶלְבָּהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁלְּמֵדִין מַחֲשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּחֻלִּין מִמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים. שֶׁמַּחֲשָׁבָה כָּזוֹ פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין: \n", + "שְׁחָטָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָשַׁב לִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר חֶלְבָּהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה מִסָּפֵק. שֶׁמָּא סוֹפוֹ הוֹכִיחַ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ וּבְמַחֲשָׁבָה כָּזוֹ שָׁחַט: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וְנִדָּרִים כְּמוֹתָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁזֶּה כְּשׁוֹחֵט קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. שָׁחַט לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הוֹאִיל וְהַפֶּסַח מַפְרִישׁ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל הַשָּׁנָה בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הֲרֵי הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְדָבָר הַנִּדָּר וְהַנִּדָּב. שָׁחַט לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם וַדַּאי לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי לְשֵׁם בְּכוֹר לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֵׂר לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת וְשָׁחַט וְאָמַר לְחַטָּאתִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָיָה לוֹ קָרְבָּן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְשָׁחַט וְאָמַר לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרַת זִבְחִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵמִיר בּוֹ: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת וְאָמְרָה זוֹ לְעוֹלָתִי שְׁחִיטָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁאֵין עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת בָּאָה בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּבָה בְּעוֹלָה. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא הִפִּילָה. שֶׁכָּל הַמַּפֶּלֶת קוֹל יֵשׁ לָהּ. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת נָזִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָזִיר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁעִקַּר הַנְּזִירוּת נֵדֶר מִן הַנְּדָרִים: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין. אֶחָד מִתְכַּוֵּן לְשֵׁם דָּבָר שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט לוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וְהַשֵּׁנִי לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ כַּוָּנָה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לְשֵׁם דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר לְהִתְכַּוֵּן לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט זֶה אַחַר זֶה וְהִתְכַּוֵּן הָאֶחָד מֵהֶן לְשֵׁם דָּבָר הַפָּסוּל פּוֹסֵל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפוּת אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפוּת אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ אֶלָּא לְצַעֲרוֹ: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְעַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם מִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין אֶלָּא לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזּוֹבֵחַ לֹא לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת בַּעַל הַבְּהֵמָה. לְפִיכָךְ עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n" + ], + [ + "חֲמִשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַפְסִידִין אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְעִקַּר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה לְהִזָּהֵר בְּכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁהִיָּה. דְּרָסָה. חֲלָדָה. הַגְרָמָה. וְעִקּוּר: \n", + "שְׁהִיָּה כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט וְהִגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגְמֹר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְשָׁהָה בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס וְחָזַר הוּא אוֹ אַחֵר וְגָמַר אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם שָׁהָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי זֶה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וְאִם הָיְתָה גַּסָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וּבְעוֹף כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט: \n", + "שָׁחַט מְעַט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט וְחָזַר וְשָׁחַט מְעַט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט עַד שֶׁגָּמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְלֹא שָׁהָה בְּפַעַם אַחַת שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁהִיָּה אֲבָל כְּשֶׁתַּחְשֹׁב כָּל זְמַן הַשְּׁהִיּוֹת יִצְטָרֵף מִכֻּלָּן שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וּכְדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט כְּמוֹ מִעוּט הַסִּימָנִין בִּלְבַד לֹא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט שְׁחִיטָה גְּמוּרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט רֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף אוֹ רֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁהָה חֲצִי הַיּוֹם וְחָזַר וְגָמַר חֲתִיכַת הַסִּימָנִין הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בָּהּ כַּשִּׁעוּר הֲרֵי זֶה כִּמְחַתֵּךְ בְּשַׂר הַשְּׁחוּטָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט בַּקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ חֶצְיוֹ אוֹ מִעוּטוֹ וְשָׁהָה זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְגוֹמֵר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט רֹב הַקָּנֶה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקֵּב בַּוֵּשֶׁט כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְשָׁהָה כַּשִּׁעוּר בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְגָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִתְחִיל בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁחִיטָה גְּמוּרָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב הַקָּנֶה שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ נְבֵלָה וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "הִנֵּה נִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ שֶׁאֵין שְׁהִיָּה בַּקָּנֶה בָּעוֹף כְּלָל. שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט רֹב הַקָּנֶה וְשָׁהָה כְּבָר נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֶׁחָזַר וְגָמַר מְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר הוּא. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּמִעוּט הַקָּנֶה וְשָׁהָה הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵק רֹב הַקָּנֶה: \n", + "שָׁחַט הָעוֹף וְשָׁהָה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ לֹא נִקַּב חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת וּבוֹדֵק הַוֵּשֶׁט מִבִּפְנִים. אִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ טִפַּת דָּם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב וּכְשֵׁרָה: \n", + "חֲלָדָה כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכְנִיס הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן. בֵּין שֶׁפָּסַק הַסִּימָן הָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַעְלָה בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַטָּה שֶׁהוּא דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "הִכְנִיס אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הָעוֹר וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי הַסִּימָנִים כְּדַרְכָּן. אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרַס מַטְלִית עַל הַסַּכִּין וְעַל הַצַּוָּאר וְשָׁחַט תַּחַת הַמַּטְלִית הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַסַּכִּין גְּלוּיָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט מִעוּט הַסִּימָנִים בְּהַחְלָדָה וְגָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַחְלָדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "דְּרָסָה כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכָּה בְּסַכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּכִּין בְּסַיִף וְחָתַךְ הַסִּימָנִין בְּבַת אַחַת בְּלֹא הוֹלָכָה וְלֹא הוֹבָאָה. אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַסַּכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר וְדָחַק וְחָתַךְ לְמַטָּה כְּחוֹתֵךְ צְנוֹן אוֹ קִישׁוּת עַד שֶׁחָתַךְ הַסִּימָנִין הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "הַגְרָמָה כֵּיצַד. זֶה הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה. וּכְמוֹ שְׁנֵי חִטִּים יֵשׁ בְּסוֹף הַקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה בְּטַבַּעַת גְּדוֹלָה. שָׁחַט בְּתוֹךְ הַחִטִּים אִם שִׁיֵּר מֵהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַעְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁחַט מִשִּׁפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה. וְהוּא מִן הַמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם לֹא שִׁיֵּר מֵהֶן כְּלוּם אֶלָּא שָׁחַט לְמַעְלָה מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻגְרֶמֶת וּפְסוּלָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט רֹב הָאֶחָד אוֹ רֹב הַשְּׁנַיִם וְהִשְׁלִים הַשְּׁחִיטָה בִּדְרָסָה אוֹ בְּהַגְרָמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁחַט הַשִּׁעוּר כָּרָאוּי. הִגְרִים בַּתְּחִלָּה שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן כְּשֵׁרָה. הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם דָּרַס אוֹ הֶחְלִיד בֵּין בַּשְּׁלִישׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין בַּשְּׁלִישׁ הָאֶמְצָעִי הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "עִקּוּר כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְהִיא הַקָּנֶה אוֹ הַוֵּשֶׁט וְנִשְׁמַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד בָּעוֹף אוֹ רֻבּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמַט הַסִּימָן הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "נִשְׁמַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. שָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִמְצָא הַשֵּׁנִי שָׁמוּט וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמַט אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "נִמְצָא הַסִּימָן הַשָּׁחוּט שָׁמוּט הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁוַּדַּאי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נֶעֱקַר. שֶׁאִלּוּ נֶעֱקַר קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה הָיָה מִתְדַּלְדֵּל וְלֹא נִשְׁחָט: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס הַסִּימָנִין בְּיָדוֹ כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט. אֲבָל אִם תְּפָסָן וְשָׁחַט אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט אַחַר הָעִקּוּר וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת שְׁמוּטָה וּשְׁחוּטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וְאִם אָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיא מִידֵי נְבֵלָה אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּטַּל יָרֵךְ שֶׁלָּהּ וַחֲלָלָה עִמָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה חֲסֵרָה כְּשֶׁתִּרְבַּץ הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ חֶצְיָהּ וְנֶחְלְקָה לִשְׁנֵי גּוּפוֹת וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְכֵן אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה מִפְרֶקֶת וְרֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרְעָה מִגַּבָּהּ כְּדָג אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב הַקָּנֶה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה מֵחַיִּים וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְאֶחָד הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד הָעוֹף בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה: \n", + "שְׁנֵי עוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַוֵּשֶׁט. הַחִיצוֹן אָדֹם וְהַפְּנִימִי לָבָן. נִקַּב הָאֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּלְבַד כְּשֵׁרָה. נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וּבֵין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה נְבֵלָה: \n", + "נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט וְעָלָה בּוֹ קְרוּם וּסְתָמוֹ אֵין הַקְּרוּם כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי הוּא נָקוּב כְּשֶׁהָיָה. נִמְצָא קוֹץ עוֹמֵד בַּוֵּשֶׁט הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט וְעָלָה קְרוּם בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא הַקּוֹץ לְאָרְכּוֹ בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁרֹב הַבְּהֵמוֹת הַמִּדְבָּרִיּוֹת אוֹכְלוֹת הַקּוֹצִים תָּמִיד: \n", + "וֵשֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים. כֵּיצַד. הוֹפְכוֹ וּבוֹדֵק. אִם נִמְצָא עָלָיו טִפַּת דָּם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהָיָה נָקוּב: \n", + "גַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב חֲלָלָה בַּמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן אִם נִקְּבָה כְּאִיסָר. נִקְּבָה נְקָבִים קְטַנִּים אִם נְקָבִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן הֵם מִצְטָרְפִין לְרֻבָּהּ וְאִם נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם חֶסְרוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְאִיסָר. וְכֵן אִם נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנָּה רְצוּעָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לִכְאִיסָר. וּבְעוֹף כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ מְקַפֵּל הָרְצוּעָה אוֹ הַנְּקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן וּמַנִּיחָן עַל פִּי הַקָּנֶה אִם חוֹפֶה אֶת רֻבּוֹ נְבֵלָה וְאִם לָאו כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "נִקְּבָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס אִיסָר לְרָחְבּוֹ נְבֵלָה. נִסְדְּקָה לְאָרְכָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִן הַמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי בָּהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ לְמַעְלָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ לְמַטָּה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "גַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבָה. נוֹקְבִין אוֹתָהּ עַתָּה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְדַמִּין הַנֶּקֶב לְנֶקֶב אִם נִדְמֶה לוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵין מְדַמִּין אֶלָּא מֵחֻלְיָא גְּדוֹלָה לְחֻלְיָא גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ מִקְּטַנָּה לִקְטַנָּה. אֲבָל לֹא מִקְּטַנָּה לִגְדוֹלָה שֶׁכָּל הַקָּנֶה חֻלְיוֹת חֻלְיוֹת הוּא וּבֵין כָּל חֻלְיָא וְחֻלְיָא חֻלְיָא אַחַת קְטַנָּה מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן וְרַכָּה: \n" + ], + [ + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁמַּפְסִידִין אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְשָׁחַט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ. לֹא הוּא וְלֹא אֲחֵרִים. וַהֲרֵי זוֹ קְרוֹבָה לִסְפֵק נְבֵלָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בְּפָנֵינוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שְׁחִיטָה נְכוֹנָה וּגְמוּרָה אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה. הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דְּבָרִים הַמַּפְסִידִים אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּפְסִיד הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְהוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה אוֹ יִדְרֹס אוֹ יִשְׁחֹט בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָתוֹ: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט בִּפְנֵי חָכָם פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רָגִיל וְזָרִיז. וְאִם שָׁחַט תְּחִלָּה בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁחַט בִּפְנֵי חָכָם עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה רָגִיל הוּא הַנִּקְרָא מֻמְחֶה. וְכָל הַמֻּמְחִין שׁוֹחֲטִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן. וַאֲפִלּוּ נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים אִם הָיוּ מֻמְחִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שׁוֹחֲטִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה: \n", + "חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן וְשִׁכּוֹר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָתָן פְּסוּלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דַּעַת שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁחֲטוּ בִּפְנֵי הַיּוֹדֵעַ וְרָאָה אוֹתָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ כַּהֹגֶן שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אֶצְלֵנוּ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצָא יוֹדֵעַ עִקְּרֵי הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁרָאִינוּ יִשְׂרְאֵלִי מֵרָחוֹק שֶׁשָּׁחַט וְהָלַךְ לוֹ וְלֹא יָדַעְנוּ אִם יוֹדֵעַ אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּשְׁחֹט לִי וּמָצָא הַבְּהֵמָה שְׁחוּטָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם שְׁלוּחוֹ שְׁחָטָהּ אוֹ אַחֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁרֹב הַמְּצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מֻמְחִין הֵן: \n", + "אָבַד לוֹ גְּדִי אוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל וּמְצָאוֹ שָׁחוּט בַּבַּיִת מֻתָּר. שֶׁרֹב הַמְּצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מֻמְחִים הֵן. מְצָאוֹ בַּשּׁוּק אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא נִתְנַבֵּל וּלְפִיכָךְ הֻשְׁלַךְ. וְכֵן אִם מְצָאוֹ בָּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת אָסוּר: \n", + "מֻמְחֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק וַהֲרֵי הוּא מֵבִין וְשׁוֹמֵעַ וְדַעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט: \n", + "הַסּוּמָא לֹא יִשְׁחֹט לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אֲחֵרִים רוֹאִים אוֹתוֹ וְאִם שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּסַכִּין יָפָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה וְלוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לד טו) \"וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ\". מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִזְהִיר שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִזִּבְחוֹ אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁזִּבְחוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה: \n", + "וְגָדֵר גָּדוֹל גָּדְרוּ בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה: \n", + "הִתְחִיל הָעַכּוּ\"ם לִשְׁחֹט מִעוּט סִימָנִין וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ הִתְחִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם פְּסוּלָה. יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָתוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט הָעַכּוּ\"ם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֲצִי הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בִּלְבַד וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר לַעֲבֵרָה מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁהָיָה מֻמְחֶה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְצָרִיךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּשֵׁר לִבְדֹּק אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְּנֶנָּה לְמוּמָר זֶה לִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵחַ לִבְדֹּק. וְאִם הָיָה מוּמָר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אוֹ מְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא אוֹ אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס וְהוּא הַכּוֹפֵר בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעַכּוּ\"ם וּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת בַּעֲבֵרָה מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ אִם הָיָה מֻמְחֶה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵנִיחַ דָּבָר מֻתָּר וְאוֹכֵל דְּבַר אִסּוּר. שֶׁזּוֹ חֲזָקָה הִיא עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָרְשָׁעִים מֵהֶן: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַצְּדוֹקִין וְהַבַּיְתוֹסִין וְתַלְמִידֵיהֶן וְכָל הַטּוֹעִים אַחֲרֵיהֶן שֶׁאֵינָן מַאֲמִינִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שְׁחִיטָתָן אֲסוּרָה. וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ בְּפָנֵינוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר שְׁחִיטָתָן אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ וְהֵם אֵינָן מַאֲמִינִין בְּתוֹרַת הַשְּׁחִיטָה לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר לֹא קִלְקַלְנוּ: \n", + "כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא נִצְטַוּוּ בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַחֻלִּין אֶלָּא הָיוּ נוֹחֲרִין אוֹ שׁוֹחֲטִין וְאוֹכְלִין כִּשְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת. וְנִצְטַוּוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִשְׁחֹט לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא שְׁלָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ג) \"אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ד) \"וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ה) \"לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ה) \"וְזָבְחוּ זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לַה'\" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל הָרוֹצֶה לִנְחֹר וְלֶאֱכל בַּמִּדְבָּר הָיָה נוֹחֵר: \n", + "וּמִצְוָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת אֶלָּא בַּמִּדְבָּר בִּלְבַד בְּעֵת הֶתֵּר הַנְּחִירָה. וְנִצְטַוּוּ שָׁם שֶׁכְּשֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ תֵּאָסֵר הַנְּחִירָה וְלֹא יֹאכְלוּ חֻלִּין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. וְיִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם לְעוֹלָם חוּץ לַעֲזָרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כ) \"כִּי יַרְחִיב ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבוּלְךָ\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ\" וְגוֹ'. וְזוֹ הִיא הַמִּצְוָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת לִשְׁחֹט וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאָכֵל: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת שֶׁהַטְּרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא הַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת. וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) \"טְרֵפָה\" אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בָּהוֹוֶה כְּגוֹן שֶׁטְּרָפָהּ אֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וּשְׁבָרָהּ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ שָׁם חֳלָאִים אֲחֵרִים אִם יֶאֶרְעוּ לָהּ תֵּחָשֵׁב טְרֵפָה וְהֵן הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וּשְׁמוֹנָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמשֶׁה בְּסִינַי וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. דְּרוּסָה. נְקוּבָה. חֲסֵרָה. נְטוּלָה. פְּסוּקָה. קְרוּעָה. נְפוּלָה. וּשְׁבוּרָה: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הֵן. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לְךָ בְּפֵרוּשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא דְּרוּסָה הֶחְמִירוּ בָּהּ. וְכָל סָפֵק שֶׁיִּסְתַּפֵּק בִּדְרוּסָה אָסוּר. וּשְׁאָר שִׁבְעָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן סְפֵקִין מֻתָּרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "הַדְּרוּסָה הוּא שֶׁיִּטְרֹף הָאֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה וְיִדְרֹס עָלֶיהָ בְּיָדוֹ. אוֹ יִדְרֹס הַנֵּץ וְהַנֶּשֶׁר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן עַל הָעוֹף. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה בִּבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה וּבְחַיָּה גַּסָּה אֶלָּא לַאֲרִי בִּלְבַד. וּבִבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה מִן הַזְּאֵב וּלְמַעְלָה. וּבִגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים אֲפִלּוּ חָתוּל וְשׁוּעָל וּנְמִיָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרִיסָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּעוֹפוֹת: \n", + "וְהַנֵּץ יֵשׁ לוֹ דְּרִיסָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת הַדּוֹרְסִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרִיסָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁכְּמוֹתָן. וְאֵין לָהֶן דְּרִיסָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ לְחֻלְדָּה דְּרִיסָה בְּעוֹפוֹת. וְכֶלֶב אֵין לוֹ דְּרִיסָה כָּל עִקָּר לֹא בְּעוֹף וְלֹא בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה. וְהַנֵּץ יֵשׁ לוֹ דְּרִיסָה בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים וְהוּא שֶׁיִּקֹּב בְּצִפָּרְנָיו לְבֵית הֶחָלָל: \n", + "אֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא בְּיַד הַטּוֹרֵף אֲבָל בְּרַגְלָיו אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא בְּצִפֹּרֶן אֲבָל בְּשֵׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִקַּב עַד בֵּית הֶחָלָל בּוֹדְקִין שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב אֶחָד מִן הָאֵיבָרִים שֶׁנִּטְרֶפֶת בִּנְקִיבָתָן. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא בְּכַוָּנַת הַטּוֹרֵף. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל הַדּוֹרֵס וְנִשְׁתַּקְּעוּ צִפָּרְנָיו בַּנִּטְרַף אֵין זוֹ דְּרִיסָה. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא מֵחַיִּים. אֲבָל אִם דָּרַס וְנֶהֱרַג וַעֲדַיִן יָדוֹ בַּדְּרוּסָה וְלֹא שָׁמַט צִפָּרְנָיו מִמֶּנָּה אֶלָּא אַחַר מוֹתוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד דִּין הַדְּרוּסָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַנִּטְרָף וּבוֹדְקִין כָּל הֶחָלָל שֶׁלּוֹ מִכַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַקָּדְקֹד. אִם נִמְצֵאת כֻּלָּהּ שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא נִמְצָא בָּהּ רשֶׁם הַדְּרִיסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִמְצָא בָּהּ רשֶׁם הַדְּרִיסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה וַאֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "אֵי זֶה הוּא רשֶׁם הַדְּרִיסָה. שֶׁיַּאְדִּים הַבָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְאִם נִמֹּק הַבָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְרוֹ מִן הַחַבּוּרָה רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר כְּאִלּוּ חָסֵר וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "וְאִם דָּרַס בַּסִּימָנִין מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִימוּ טְרֵפָה וּדְרִיסָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶאֱדִים בָּהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲמַת דְּרִיסָה טְרֵפָה: \n", + "סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק כִּדְרוּסָה וַדָּאִית. כֵּיצַד. אֲרִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין שְׁוָרִים וְנִמְצָא צִפֹּרֶן בְּגַבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא בַּכֹּתֶל נִתְחַכֵּךְ. וְכֵן שׁוּעָל אוֹ נְמִיָּה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין הָעוֹפוֹת וְהוּא שׁוֹתֵק וְהֵן מְקַרְקְרִין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא דָּרַס. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הוּא נוֹהֵם וְהֵם מְקַרְקְרִין מִיִּרְאָתוֹ וּמִנְּהִימָתוֹ הֵן מְקַרְקְרִין. וְכֵן אִם קָטַע רֹאשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן הִנֵּה נָח רָגְזוֹ. וְכֵן אִם שָׁתַק הוּא וְהֵם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁאִלּוּ הִזִּיק הָיוּ מְקַרְקְרִין: \n", + "סָפֵק שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְכָאן טוֹרֵף אוֹ לֹא נִכְנַס. אוֹ שֶׁרָאִינוּ וְלֹא נוֹדַע אִם זֶה מִן הַטּוֹרְפִין אוֹ אֵינוֹ מִן הַטּוֹרְפִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין. וְכֵן עוֹף שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין הָעֵצִים אוֹ לְבֵין הַקָּנִים וְיָצָא וְרֹאשׁוֹ מְנַטֵּף דָּם אוֹ צַוָּארוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִטְרַף אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא בָּעֵצִים נִזַּק: \n" + ], + [ + "נְּקוּבָה כֵּיצַד. אַחַד עָשָׂר אֵיבָרִים הֵן שֶׁאִם נִקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחֲלָלוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט. וּקְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ הָרֹאשׁ. וְהַלֵּב עִם הַקָּנֶה שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַמָּרָה. וּקְנֵה הַכָּבֵד. וְהַקֵּבָה. וְהַכֶּרֶס. וְהֶמְסֵס. וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת. וְהַדַּקִּין. וְהָרֵאָה עִם הַקָּנֶה שֶׁלָּהּ: \n", + "תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שִׁעוּרוֹ וְשֶׁהוּא הַמָּקוֹם מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה לְמַעְלָה מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט. אִם נִקַּב לַחֲלָלוֹ בְּמַה שֶּׁהוּא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "שְׁנֵי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ לַמֹּחַ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ. אִם נִקַּב הָעֶלְיוֹן הַסָּמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִקַּב הַתַּחְתּוֹן הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֹּחַ טְרֵפָה. וּמִשֶּׁיַּתְחִיל הַמֹּחַ לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ לַשִּׁדְרָה וְהוּא מִחוּץ לַפּוֹלִין שֶׁהֵן תְּחִלַּת הָעֹרֶף יִהְיֶה לִקְרוּמוֹ דִּין אַחֵר. וְאִם נִקַּב חוּץ לַפּוֹלִין מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַמֹּחַ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִּקַּב אוֹ נִתְמַעֵךְ וְהַקְּרוּם קַיָּם כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם נִשְׁפַּךְ כַּמַּיִם אוֹ נָמֵס כַּדּוֹנַג טְרֵפָה: \n", + "הַלֵּב שֶׁנִּקַּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ. בֵּין לְחָלָל גָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּשְׂמֹאל בֵּין לְחָלָל קָטָן שֶׁבְּיָמִין טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִקַּב בְּשַׂר הַלֵּב וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ לַחֲלָלוֹ מֻתָּר. וּקְנֵה הַלֵּב וְהוּא הַמִּזְרָק הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ לָרֵאָה הֲרֵי הוּא כַּלֵּב וְאִם נִקַּב לַחֲלָלוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "מָרָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְכָבֵד סוֹתְמָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא נִסְתַּם הַנֶּקֶב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לַכָּבֵד טְרֵפָה: \n", + "נְזִיָּה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּמָּרָה אִם הָיְתָה כְּמוֹ גַּרְעִינָהּ שֶׁל תְּמָרָה שֶׁאֵין רֹאשָׁהּ חַד מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם רֹאשָׁהּ חַד כְּגַרְעִינַת הַזַּיִת אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִקְּבָה אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה. וְזֶה שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָאֶה הַנֶּקֶב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֻגְלַד פִּי הַמַּכָּה: \n", + "קְנֵי הַכָּבֵד וְהֵן הַמִּזְרְקִין שֶׁבּוֹ שֶׁבָּהֶן הַדָּם מִתְבַּשֵּׁל. אִם נִקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּחִתּוּךְ הַכָּבֵד אִם הָיְתָה מַחַט גְּדוֹלָה וְהָיָה הַקָּצֶה הַחַד שֶׁלָּהּ לְפָנִים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּקְּבָה כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה. וְאִם הָיָה הָרֹאשׁ הֶעָגל לְפָנִים אוֹמְרִין דֶּרֶךְ סִמְפּוֹנוֹת הָלְכָה וּמֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "הָיְתָה מַחַט קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין וַדַּאי נִקְּבָה. וְאִם נִמְצֵאת בַּסִּמְפּוֹן הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּכָּבֵד וְהוּא הַקָּנֶה הָרָחָב שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע שֶׁבּוֹ נִכְנַס הַמַּאֲכָל לַכָּבֵד הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וּבְשַׂר כָּבֵד שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "קֵבָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְחֵלֶב טָהוֹר סוֹתֵם אֶת הַנֶּקֶב מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן כָּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הַחֵלֶב הַמֻּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה סוֹתֵם אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. חוּץ מֵחֵלֶב הַלֵּב וְהַקְּרוּם שֶׁעַל הַלֵּב כֻּלּוֹ. וְהַמְּחִצָּה שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַבֶּטֶן הַמַּבְדֶּלֶת בֵּין אֵיבְרֵי הַמַּאֲכָל וְאֵיבְרֵי הַנְּשִׁימָה. וְהִיא שֶׁקּוֹרְעִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ תֵּרָאֶה הָרֵאָה. וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת טַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד. וְהַמָּקוֹם הַלָּבָן שֶׁבְּאֶמְצָעָהּ. וְחֵלֶב הַמְּעִי הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבְּאֵיבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אֵין מְגִנִּין לְפִי שֶׁהֵן קָשִׁין. וְנֶקֶב שֶׁנִּסְתַּם בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ כְּסָתוּם. וְחֵלֶב חַיָּה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה אָסוּר אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", + "כֶּרֶס שֶׁנִּקַּב טְרֵפָה. וְאֵין לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁיִּסְתֹּם אוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעָלָיו אָסוּר. וְכֵן הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחוּץ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְתוֹךְ חֲלַל חֲבֵרוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּעֳבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם נִקְּבָה נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ לְתוֹךְ חֲלַל בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת טִפַּת דָּם בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב טְרֵפָה שֶׁוַּדַּאי קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקַּב. אֲבָל אִם אֵין דָּם בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁוַּדַּאי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דָּחֲקָה הַמַּחַט וְנִקְּבָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִלְעִיטָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁנּוֹקֵב בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ כְּגוֹן קֹרֶט שֶׁל חִלְתִּית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁוַּדַּאי נוֹקֵב. וְאִם הָיָה סָפֵק נוֹקֵב סָפֵק אֵינוֹ נוֹקֵב תִּבָּדֵק. כָּל אֶחָד מִן בְּנֵי הַמֵּעַיִם שֶׁפְּסלֶת הַמַּאֲכָל סוֹבֶבֶת בָּהֶן וְהֵן הַנִּקְרָאִים דַּקִּין שֶׁנִּקַּב טְרֵפָה. וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן מְלֻפָּפִין וּמֻקָּפִין זוֹ לְפָנִים מִזּוֹ בְּעִגּוּל כְּמוֹ נָחָשׁ שֶׁנִּכְרָךְ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִים הַדְרָא דְּכַנְתָּה. אִם נִקֵּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחֲבֵרוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ מֵגֵן עָלָיו: \n", + "וּמֵעַיִם שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ וְלֵחָה סוֹתַמְתָּן טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ סְתִימָה עוֹמֶדֶת. בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁבָּא זְאֵב אוֹ כֶּלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וּנְטָלָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן נְקוּבִין אַחַר שֶׁהִנִּיחָן תּוֹלִין בּוֹ וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נִקַּב. נִמְצְאוּ נְקוּבִין וְלֹא נוֹדַע אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבוּ אִם אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נוֹקְבִין בָּהֶן נֶקֶב אַחֵר וּמְדַמִּין לוֹ. אִם הָיָה הַנֶּקֶב הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּמוֹתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקַּב וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם מִשְׁמְשׁוּ הַיָּדַיִם בְּנֶקֶב הַסָּפֵק כָּךְ צָרִיךְ לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בַּנֶּקֶב שֶׁמְּדַמִּין לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ עוֹרְכִין זֶה לָזֶה: \n", + "בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לַחוּץ וְלֹא נִקְּבוּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִתְהַפְּכוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקְּבוּ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אַחַר שֶׁנֶּהֶפְכוּ וְאֵינָהּ חַיָּה: \n", + "הַמְּעִי הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה וְאֵין בּוֹ עִקּוּם וְהוּא שֶׁהָרְעִי יוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִן הָעֶרְוָה וְהוּא דָּבוּק בֵּין עִקְּרֵי הַיְרֵכַיִם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא חַלְחלֶת. אִם נִקַּב בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה כִּשְׁאָר הַמֵּעַיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּקַּב לַחֲלַל הַבֶּטֶן. אֲבָל אִם נִקַּב בַּמָּקוֹם הַדָּבוּק בַּיְרֵכַיִם מֻתֶּרֶת. וַאֲפִלּוּ נָטַל מִמֶּנּוּ מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק כֻּלּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּיֵּר מֵאָרְכּוֹ בַּשּׁוֹר כְּמוֹ אַרְבַּע אֶצְבָּעוֹת: \n", + "הָעוֹף אֵין לוֹ כֶּרֶס וְלֹא הֶמְסֵס וְלֹא בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת. אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ כְּנֶגְדָּן זֶפֶק וְקֻרְקְבָן. וְכָל הַטְּרֵפוֹת שָׁווֹת הֵן בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְזֶפֶק שֶׁנִּקַּב גַּגּוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. וְאֵי זֶהוּ גַּגּוֹ שֶׁל זֶפֶק זֶה שֶׁיִּמָּתַח עִם הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּשֶׁיַּאֲרִיךְ הָעוֹף צַוָּארוֹ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַזֶּפֶק שֶׁנִּקַּב מֻתָּר: \n", + "שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין יֵשׁ בַּקֻּרְקְבָן. הַחִיצוֹן אָדֹם כְּמוֹ בָּשָׂר. וְהַפְּנִימִי לָבָן כְּמוֹ עוֹר. נִקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה מֻתֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּנָּקְבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. וְאִם נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַטְּחוֹל אֵינוֹ מִן הָאֵיבָרִין שֶׁנְּקִיבָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא מָנוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים בִּכְלָלָן אֶלָּא יֵשׁ לַנֶּקֶב שֶׁלּוֹ שִׁעוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּכֻלּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הַטְּחוֹל רֹאשׁוֹ הָאֶחָד עָבֶה וְהַשֵּׁנִי דַּק כִּבְרִיַּת הַלָּשׁוֹן. אִם נִקַּב בָּרֹאשׁ הֶעָבֶה נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקַּב נֶקֶב שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפֻלָּשׁ אִם נִשְׁאָר תַּחְתָּיו כָּעֳבִי דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב מֻתָּר. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְפֻלָּשׁ וּטְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִקַּב הַדַּק כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כָּל אֵיבָר שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בּוֹ שֶׁאִם נִקַּב בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה כָּךְ אִם נִטַּל כֻּלּוֹ טְרֵפָה. בֵּין שֶׁנִּטַּל בְּחלִי אוֹ בַּיָּד בֵּין שֶׁנִּבְרָא חָסֵר. וְכֵן אִם נִבְרָא בִּשְׁנֵי אֵיבָרִים מֵאוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר טְרֵפָה שֶׁכָּל הַיָּתֵר כְּנָטוּל הוּא חָשׁוּב. כֵּיצַד. נִטַּל אֶחָד מִן הַמֵּעַיִם אוֹ הַמָּרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא בָּהֶן שְׁתֵּי מְרָרוֹת אוֹ שְׁנֵי מֵעַיִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם נִטַּל הַטְּחוֹל אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל הַמְּנוּיִין: \n", + "הַמְּעִי הַיָּתֵר שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה הוּא הַיָּתֵר מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי מֵעַיִם זֶה בְּצַד זֶה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כִּמְעֵי הָעוֹף אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַמְּעִי יוֹצֵא כְּעָנָף מִן הַבַּד וַהֲרֵי הוּא מֻבְדָּל בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה. אֲבָל אִם חָזַר וְנִתְעָרֵב עִם הַמְּעִי וְנַעֲשָׂה אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי רָאשָׁיו וַהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם מֻבְדָּלִין בָּאֶמְצַע הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת וְאֵין כָּאן יָתֵר: \n" + ], + [ + "שְׁנֵּי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ עַל הָרֵאָה. אִם נִקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן טְרֵפָה. אֲפִלּוּ נִגְלַד הַקְּרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן כֻּלּוֹ וְהָלַךְ לוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְהַקָּנֶה שֶׁנִּקַּב מִן הֶחָזֶה וּלְמַטָּה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה: \n", + "הִתְחִיל בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁחַט כָּל הַקָּנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ גָּמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְנִקְּבָה קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֶחָד מִסִּמְפּוֹנֵי רֵאָה שֶׁנִּקַּב אֲפִלּוּ נִקַּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְרֵאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְעָלָה קְרוּם בַּמַּכָּה וְנִסְתַּם הַנֶּקֶב אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. נִקְבָּה הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֹּפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקְּבָה בִּמְקוֹם חִתּוּךְ הָאֻנּוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁרוֹבֶצֶת עָלָיו כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁסָּתַם מְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב שֶׁבָּאֻנּוֹת בָּשָׂר. אֲבָל אִם נִסְמַךְ הַנֶּקֶב לָעֶצֶם אֵינוֹ מֵגֵן. וְאִם הָיָה נֶקֶב הָאֻנּוֹת דָּבוּק בָּעֶצֶם וּבַבָּשָׂר מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת סְמוּכָה לַדֹּפֶן. בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱלַת צְמָחִים בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלַת חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ. מְפָרְקִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַדֹּפֶן וְנִזְהָרִין בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּנָּקֵב. אִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה וְנִמְצָא בַּדֹּפֶן מַכָּה בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב תּוֹלִין בַּמַּכָּה וְאוֹמְרִים אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבָה כְּשֶׁנִּפְרָק מִן הַמַּכָּה. וְאִם אֵין מַכָּה בַּדֹּפֶן בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנֶּקֶב זֶה בָּרֵאָה הָיָה קֹדֶם הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "הָרֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ מָקוֹם אָטוּם כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁאֵין הָרוּחַ נִכְנֶסֶת בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִתְפָּח הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּנְקוּבָה וּטְרֵפָה. וְכֵיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. קוֹרְעִין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּח בִּשְׁעַת נְפִיחָה. אִם נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ לֵחָה מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת הַלֵּחָה לֹא נִכְנְסָה שָׁם הָרוּחַ. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ לֵחָה נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו מְעַט רֹק אוֹ תֶּבֶן אוֹ כָּנָף וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ אִם נִתְנַדְנֵד כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִם לָאו טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵין הָרוּחַ נִכְנֶסֶת לְשָׁם: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁתִּשָּׁמַע בָּהּ הֲבָרָה כְּשֶׁנּוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ אִם נִכָּר הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ תִּשָּׁמַע הַהֲבָרָה מוֹשִׁיבִין עָלָיו רֹק אוֹ תֶּבֶן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אִם נִתְנַדְנֵד בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא נְקוּבָה וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִכַּר הַמָּקוֹם מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם פּוֹשְׁרִין וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם בִּקְבֵּק הַמַּיִם טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁקְּרוּם הַתַּחְתּוֹן בִּלְבַד נִקַּב וְהָרוּחַ תְּנַהֵג בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַקְּרוּמוֹת וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יִשָּׁמַע בָּהּ קוֹל דְּמָמָה בִּשְׁעַת נְפִיחָה: \n", + "זֶה עִקָּר גָּדוֹל יִהְיֶה בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁכָּל רֵאָה שֶׁנּוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין וְלֹא יְבַקְבֵּק הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל נֶקֶב: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּשְׁפְּכָה כְּקִיתוֹן וּקְרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ קַיָּם שָׁלֵם בְּלֹא נֶקֶב. אִם הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת עוֹמְדִים בִּמְקוֹמָם וְלֹא נִמּוֹחוּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם נִמּוֹחַ אֲפִלּוּ סִמְפּוֹן אֶחָד טְרֵפָה. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. נוֹקְבִין אוֹתָהּ וְשׁוֹפְכִין אוֹתָהּ בִּכְלִי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹעַ בַּאֲבָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אִם נִרְאֶה בָּהּ חוּטִין לְבָנִין בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּמֹּקּוּ הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו בְּשַׂר הָרֵאָה בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁנִּמּוֹק וּכְשֵׁרָה: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת אִם הָיוּ מְלֵאִים רוּחַ אוֹ מַיִם זַכִּים אוֹ לֵחָה הַנִּמְשֶׁכֶת כִּדְבַשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אוֹ לֵחָה יְבֵשָׁה וְקָשָׁה אֲפִלּוּ כְּאֶבֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִמְצֵאת בָּהֶן לֵחָה סְרוּחָה אוֹ מַיִם סְרוּחִין אוֹ עֲכוּרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וּכְשֶׁמּוֹצִיא הַלֵּחָה וּבוֹדֵק אוֹתָהּ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק הַסִּמְפּוֹן שֶׁתַּחְתֶּיהָ. אִם נִמְצָא נָקוּב טְרֵפָה: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת סְמוּכוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר קָרוֹב הַרְבֵּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ נֶקֶב בֵּינֵיהֶן וְאֵין לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ בְּדִיקָה. הָיְתָה אַחַת וְנִרְאֶה כִּשְׁתַּיִם נוֹקְבִין הָאַחַת. אִם שָׁפְכָה לָהּ הָאַחֶרֶת אַחַת הִיא וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְאִם לָאו טְרֵפָה: \n", + "הָרֵאָה שֶׁנִּתְמַסְמְסָה טְרֵפָה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת שְׁלֵמָה וּכְשֶׁתּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ תֵּחָתֵךְ וְתִפּל חֲתִיכוֹת חֲתִיכוֹת. רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיַּד הַטַּבָּח מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ מֻתֶּרֶת וְתוֹלִין בְּיָדוֹ וְאוֹמְרִין מִיַּד הַטַּבָּח נִקְּבָה אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. נִמְצָא הַנֶּקֶב בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נוֹקְבִין בָּהּ נֶקֶב אַחֵר וּמְדַמִּין כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם: \n", + "וְאֵין מְדַמִּין מֵרֵאָה שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה לְרֵאָה שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶלָּא מִדַּקָּה לְדַקָּה וּמִגַּסָּה לְגַסָּה. נִמְצָא הַנֶּקֶב בְּאֶחָד מִן הָאֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין נִקּוֹב אֲבַעְבּוּעַ אַחֵר וְנַעֲרֹךְ שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר נִכָּר: \n", + "מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּרֵאָה נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם לֹא יָצָא מִמֶּנָּה רוּחַ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁזֹּאת הַמַּחַט דֶּרֶךְ סִמְפּוֹנוֹת נִכְנְסָה וְלֹא נִקְּבָה. וְאִם נִתְחַתְּכָה הָרֵאָה קֹדֶם נְפִיחָה וְנִמְצֵאת בָּהּ הַמַּחַט הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה שֶׁהַדָּבָר קָרוֹב שֶׁנִּקְּבָה כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה: \n", + "תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּרֵאָה וְנִקְּבָה וְיָצְאָה וַהֲרֵי הָרֵאָה נְקוּבָה בְּתוֹלַעַת הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. חֶזְקָתָהּ שֶׁאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה תִּקּוֹב וְתֵצֵא. יֵשׁ שָׁם מַרְאוֹת שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה מַרְאֵה הָאֵיבָר לְאוֹתוֹ הַמַּרְאֶה הָרַע הֲרֵי הוּא כְּנָקוּב שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאָיו לְמַרְאֶה זֶה כְּמֵת הוּא חָשׁוּב וּכְאִלּוּ הוּא הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנֶּהֱפַךְ עֵינוֹ אֵינוֹ מָצוּי. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יג י) \"וּמִחְיַת בָּשָׂר חַי בַּשְׂאֵת\" (ויקרא יג יד) \"וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי\" מִכְּלָל שֶׁשְּׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה אֵינוֹ חַי: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאֶיהָ. בֵּין מַרְאֵה כֻּלָּה בֵּין מַרְאֵה מִקְצָתָהּ. אִם נִשְׁתַּנֵּית לְמַרְאֶה הַמֻּתָּר אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁתַּנֵּית כֻּלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה לְמַרְאֶה הָאָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהַמַּרְאֶה הָאָסוּר כְּנֶקֶב הוּא חָשׁוּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְחָמֵשׁ מַרְאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת יֵשׁ בָּרֵאָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁחוֹרָה כִּדְיוֹ. אוֹ יְרֻקָּה כְּעֵין כְּשׁוּת. אוֹ כְּעֵין חֶלְמוֹן בֵּיצָה. אוֹ כְּעֵין חֲרִיעַ. אוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה הַבָּשָׂר. וַחֲרִיעַ הוּא הַצֶּבַע שֶׁצּוֹבְעִים בּוֹ הַבְּגָדִים וְהוּא דּוֹמֶה לִשְׂעָרוֹת אֲדֻמּוֹת מְעַט וְנוֹטוֹת לִירֻקָּה: \n", + "נִמְצֵאת כְּעֵין חֲרָיוֹת שֶׁל דֶּקֶל אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ מִסָּפֵק שֶׁזֶּה קָרוֹב לְמַרְאֶה הָאָסוּר. וְכָל הַמַּרְאוֹת הָאֵלּוּ אֵין אוֹסְרִין בָּהֶם עַד שֶׁנּוֹפְחִים אוֹתָהּ וּמְמָרֵס בָּהּ בְּיָדוֹ. אִם נִשְׁתַּנֵּית לַמַּרְאֶה הַמֻּתָּר מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם עָמְדָה בְּעֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "אַרְבַּע מַרְאוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהּ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁחוֹרָה כִּכְחוֹל. אוֹ יְרֻקָּה כְּחָצִיר. אוֹ אֲדֻמָּה. אוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה הַכָּבֵד. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָרֵאָה כֻּלָּהּ טְלָאִים טְלָאִים נְקֻדּוֹת נְקֻדּוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע מַרְאוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁנָּפַל לָאוּר וְהוֹרִיק לִבּוֹ אוֹ כְּבֵדוֹ אוֹ קֻרְקְבָנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהֶאְדִּימוּ הַמֵּעַיִם שֶׁלּוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁכָּל הַיְרֻקִּים שֶׁהֶאְדִּימוּ אוֹ הָאֲדֻמִּים שֶׁהוֹרִיקוּ מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר בָּעוֹף הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִי שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ וּטְרֵפָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ בְּמַרְאֶה זֶה אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ אוֹתָן מְעַט וּמְמָרְסִין בָּהֶן: \n", + "כָּל עוֹף שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת הַכָּבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם. אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ שְׁאָר בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם וְעָמְדוּ בְּשִׁנּוּיָן אַחַר שְׁלִיקָה וּמְרִיסָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנָּפַל לָאוּר וְנֶחְמְרוּ בְּנֵי מֵעָיו וּטְרֵפָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁל עוֹף שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא בָּהֶם שִׁנּוּי וּכְשֶׁנִּשְׁלְקוּ נִשְׁתַּנּוּ וְהֶאְדִּימוּ הַיְרֻקִּים וְהוֹרִיקוּ הָאֲדֻמִּים. בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנָּפַל לָאוּר וְנֶחְמְרוּ בְּנֵי מֵעָיו וּטְרֵפָה. וְכֵן הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּמְצָא הָעוֹר הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ לָבָן וְהַפְּנִימִי אָדֹם בֵּין בָּעוֹף בֵּין בַּבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ וּטְרֵפָה: \n" + ], + [ + "חֲסֵרָה כֵּיצַד. שְׁנֵי אֵיבָרִים הֵן שֶׁאִם חָסֵר מִמִּנְיָנָם טְרֵפָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הָרֵאָה וְהָרַגְלַיִם. וְחָמֵשׁ אֻנּוֹת יֵשׁ לָרֵאָה כְּשֶׁיִּתְלֶה אוֹתָהּ אָדָם בְּיָדוֹ וּפְנֵי רֵאָה כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו. שָׁלֹשׁ מִן הַיָּמִין. וּשְׁתַּיִם מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל. וּבְצַד יָמִין מִמֶּנָּה כְּמוֹ אֹזֶן קְטַנָּה וְאֵינָהּ בְּצַד הָאֻנּוֹת וְיֵשׁ לָהּ כְּמוֹ כִּיס בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ הַכִּיס. וְאֹזֶן זוֹ קְטַנָּה הִיא הַנִּקְרָא וַרְדָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא דּוֹמָה לְוֶרֶד וְאֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת הַוַּרְדָּא מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁכָּךְ הִיא דַּרְכָּהּ יֵשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת תִּמָּצֵא בָּהֶם וְיֵשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת לֹא תִּמָּצֵא בָּהֶם. וְאִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכִּיס שֶׁלָּהּ סוֹתֵם אֶת הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "חָסֵר מִנְיַן הָאֻנּוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַת מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם מִן הַיָּמִין טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתַּיִם בְּיָמִין וְזֹאת הַוַּרְדָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "נִתְחַלְּפוּ הָאֻנּוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ שָׁלֹשׁ מִן שְׂמֹאל וּשְׁתַּיִם מִן הַיָּמִין בְּלֹא וֶרֶד. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַוֶּרֶד עִם הַשָּׁלֹשׁ בְּצַד שְׂמֹאל. הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁהִיא חֲסֵרָה מִצַּד הַיָּמִין: \n", + "נִתְוַסְּפוּ הָאֻנּוֹת בְּמִנְיָנָם אִם הָיְתָה הָאֹזֶן הַיְתֵרָה בְּצַד הָאֻנּוֹת אוֹ מִלִּפְנֵי הָרֵאָה שֶׁהוּא לְעֻמַּת הַלֵּב מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם הָיְתָה עַל גַּבָּהּ שֶׁהוּא לְעֻמַּת הַצְּלָעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁהַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה כְּמוֹ עָלֶה שֶׁל הֲדַס. אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה אֵינָהּ אֹזֶן וּמֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "אֹזֶן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הַסְּמוּכָה לָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִסְמְכוּ שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּסְמְכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית טְרֵפָה: \n", + "נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי הָאֻנּוֹת כְּאֻנָּה אַחַת וְאֵינָן נִרְאוֹת כִּשְׁתַּיִם דְּבוּקוֹת אִם הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ עֲלֵה הַהֲדַס בֵּין בְּעִקָּרָן בֵּין בְּאֶמְצָעָן בֵּין בְּסוֹפָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיֻּכַּר שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם דְּבוּקוֹת מֻתֶּרֶת וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲסֵרָה וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "נִמְצֵאת כֻּלָּהּ שְׁתֵּי עֲרוּגוֹת וְאֵין לָהּ חִתּוּךְ אָזְנַיִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם חָסֵר גּוּף הָרֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקְּבָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁחָסֵר מִנְיַן הָאֻנּוֹת וּטְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצָא מִמֶּנָּה מָקוֹם יָבֵשׁ עַד שֶׁיִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפֹּרֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּחָסֵר וּטְרֵפָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת נְפוּחָה כְּמוֹ עִקַּר חֲרָיוֹת שֶׁל דֶּקֶל אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ מִסָּפֵק. שֶׁזּוֹ תּוֹסֶפֶת מְשֻׁנָּה בְּגוּפָהּ וְשֶׁמָּא הַתּוֹסֶפֶת בַּגּוּף כְּחִסָּרוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בְּמִנְיָן: \n", + "הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁפָּחֲדָה וְיָרְאָה עַד שֶׁצָּמְקָה הָרֵאָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְקָרְבָה לִהְיוֹת יְבֵשָׁה. אִם פָּחֲדָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה קוֹל רַעַם אוֹ רָאֲתָה זִקִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם פָּחֲדָה בִּידֵי אָדָם כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ לְפָנֶיהָ בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ כַּחֲסֵרָה וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ. מוֹשִׁיבִין אֶת הָרֵאָה בְּמַיִם מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם הָיָה זְמַן הַקֹּר מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם פּוֹשְׁרִין וּבִכְלִי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּיִם מִתְמַצִּין מִגַּבּוֹ וְנֹזְלִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִצֹּנּוּ בִּמְהֵרָה. וְאִם הָיָה זְמַן הַחֹם מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם צוֹנֵן בִּכְלִי שֶׁהַמַּיִם מִתְמַצִּין מִגַּבּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ קָרִים. אִם חָזְרָה לִבְרִיָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם וּמֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא חָזְרָה בִּידֵי אָדָם הִיא וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהָיְתָה חֲסֵרָה רֶגֶל בִּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה רֶגֶל. שֶׁכָּל הַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר הוּא. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ יָדַיִם אוֹ יד אַחַת מֻתֶּרֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶחְתַּךְ הַיָּד שֶׁלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. נֶחְתַּךְ הָרֶגֶל מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה טְרֵפָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה מֻתֶּרֶת. בְּאֵי זוֹ אַרְכֻּבָּה אָמְרוּ בְּאַרְכֻּבָּה שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַיָּרֵךְ הַסָּמוּךְ לַגּוּף: \n", + "נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה אִם יָצָא כֻּלּוֹ אוֹ רֻבּוֹ לַחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ וְנָפַל וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָעוֹר חוֹפֶה רֹב עָבְיוֹ וְרֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ שֶׁל עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ נָפַל מִקְצָת הָעֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. וְגִידִים הָרַכִּים אֵינָן חֲשׁוּבִין כְּבָשָׂר: \n", + "צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין הֵן בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה לְמַעְלָה מִן הֶעָקֵב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁתּוֹלִין בּוֹ הַטַּבָּחִים הַבְּהֵמָה. וְהֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּידִין לְבָנִים. אֶחָד עָבֶה וּשְׁנַיִם דַּקִּים. וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁיַּתְחִיל וְהֵן קָשִׁים וּלְבָנִים עַד שֶׁיָּסוּר הַלֹּבֶן מֵהֶן וְיַתְחִילוּ לְהִתְאַדֵּם וּלְהִתְרַכֵּךְ הוּא צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים. וְהוּא כְּאֹרֶךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אֶצְבָּעוֹת בְּשׁוֹר: \n", + "וּמִנְיַן גִּידִים אֵלּוּ בָּעוֹף שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר גִּידִין. תְּחִלָּתָן מִן הָעֶצֶם שֶׁל מַטָּה מֵאֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה עַד סוֹף הָרֶגֶל שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי קַשְׂקַשִּׂים קַשְׂקַשִּׂים: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ בִּמְקוֹם צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין טְרֵפָה. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ וְתֹאמַר כֵּיצַד תַּחְתֹּךְ לְמַעְלָה מִצֹּמֶת הַגִּידִים וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁתַּחְתֹּךְ לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאִם נֶחְתַּךְ לְמַטָּה מִצֹּמֶת הַגִּידִים אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁבִּטְרֵפוֹת תַּחְתֹּךְ מִכָּאן וְתִחְיֶה וּמִכָּאן וְתָמוּת. וְלֹא נֶאֶסְרָה בְּהֵמָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא חֲתוּכַת רֶגֶל מִמָּקוֹם זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ הַגִּידִין שֶׁחֲתִיכָתָן מִכְּלַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "נְטוּלָה כֵּיצַד. שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵיבָרִים הֵן שֶׁאִם נִטְּלוּ טְרֵפָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דִּין נֶקֶב וְלֹא דִּין חֶסְרוֹן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים. וְהַכָּבֵד. וּלְחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן: \n", + "וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ רַגְלָהּ וְכֵן הָעוֹף בִּמְקוֹם צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים לֹא נַעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ הַגִּידִין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶחְתְּכוּ הַגִּידִים לְבַדָּם וְהָרֶגֶל קַיֶּמֶת טְרֵפָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִטְּלָה צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים: \n", + "נֶחְתַּךְ בִּבְהֵמָה הָאֶחָד הֶעָבֶה לְבַדּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁאֲרוּ שְׁנַיִם. נֶחְתְּכוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם הַדַּקִּין מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאֶחָד הֶעָבֶה גְּדוֹל שְׁנֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי לֹא נִטַּל כָּל הַצֹּמֶת אֶלָּא מִעוּטָהּ. נֶחְתַּךְ רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן טְרֵפָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ כֻּלָּן אוֹ נִטְּלוּ כֻּלָּן: \n", + "וּבָעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ נֶחְתַּךְ רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל (כָּל) אֶחָד מִן הַשִּׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר טְרֵפָה: \n", + "וְעוֹף שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרוּ אֲגַפָּיו מֻתָּר כִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ יָדֶיהָ: \n", + "כָּבֵד שֶׁנִּטְּלָה כֻּלָּהּ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ וּכְזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. נִדַּלְדְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וַהֲרֵי הִיא מְעֹרָה בַּטַּרְפַּשׁ שֶׁלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. נִטַּל מִמֶּנָּה מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ וּמְקוֹם הַמָּרָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁאָר קַיָּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "נִשְׁאַר בָּהּ כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה וּכְזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲבָל הָיָה מְפֻזָּר מְעַט בְּכָאן וּמְעַט בְּכָאן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְרֻדָּד אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אָרֹךְ כִּרְצוּעָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "לְחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁנִּטַּל טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִטַּל הַתַּחְתּוֹן כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּגְמַם עַד מְקוֹם הַסִּימָנִין וְלֹא נֶעֶקְרוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "כָּל אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ שֶׁאִם הָיָה חָסֵר טְרֵפָה כָּךְ אִם נִטַּל טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ אִם נִטַּל טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת אֶלָּא אִם נֶחְתַּךְ אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר. אֲבָל אִם נִבְרֵאת חֲסֵרָה אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאִם לֹא תֹּאמַר כֵּן נִמְצֵאת הַחֲסֵרָה וְהַנְּטוּלָה אַחַת. וְכָל אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ שֶׁאִם נִטַּל מֻתֶּרֶת קַל וָחֹמֶר אִם חָסֵר מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ וְלֹא נִבְרָא שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ וְהוּא בֵּית הָרֶחֶם אוֹ שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִבְרֵאת בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת אוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ כְּלָיוֹת מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם נִקְּבָה הַכּוּלְיָא מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּטְּלָה אוֹ חֲסֵרָה מֻתֶּרֶת אִם נִמְצֵאת קְטַנָּה בְּיוֹתֵר. וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּדָקָה עַד כְּפוֹל וּבְגַסָּה עַד כְּעֵנָב. טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם לָקְתָה הַכּוּלְיָא וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה בְּשָׂרָהּ כִּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁהִבְאִישׁ אַחַר יָמִים שֶׁאִם תֶּאֱחֹז בְּמִקְצָתוֹ יִתְמַסְמֵס וְיִפּל וְהִגִּיעַ חלִי זֶה עַד הַלָּבָן שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכּוּלְיָא הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצֵאת בַּכּוּלְיָא לֵחָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ סְרוּחָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ מַיִם עֲכוּרִין אוֹ סְרוּחִים הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם זַכִּים הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n" + ], + [ + "פְּסוּקָה כֵּיצַד. חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַק הָעוֹר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַמֹּחַ טְרֵפָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵק רֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִסְדַּק הָעוֹר לְאָרְכּוֹ אוֹ נִקַּב מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ הַמֹּחַ שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַחוּט וְנִתְנַדְנֵד הוֹאִיל וְעוֹרוֹ קַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "הֻמְרַךְ הַמֹּחַ וְנִשְׁפַּךְ כַּמַּיִם אוֹ כְּדוֹנַג שֶׁנָּמֵס עַד שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא הַחוּט כְּשֶׁמַּעֲמִידוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד מִפְּנֵי כָּבְדּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק: \n", + "עַד הֵיכָן חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה. תְּחִלָּתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ לַפּוֹלִין שֶׁבִּתְחִלַּת הָעֹרֶף עַד סוֹף פָּרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית הַסְּמוּכָה לִתְחִלַּת הָאַלְיָה: \n", + "וְשָׁלֹשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הֵן וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁלֹשָׁה עֲצָמוֹת דְּבוּקִין זֶה בָּזֶה לְמַטָּה מֵחֻלְיוֹת שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה. וְחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה בָּעוֹף עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִים. אֲבָל לְמַטָּה מִמְּקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַחוּט הַנִּמְשָׁךְ לְשָׁם בֵּין שֶׁנִּפְסַק עוֹרוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְרַךְ הַמֹּחַ: \n", + "קְרוּעָה כֵּיצַד. בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב הַכֶּרֶס וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם מִן הַבֶּטֶן שֶׁאִם יִקָּרַע יֵצֵא הַכֶּרֶס אִם נִקְרַע בָּשָׂר זֶה טְרֵפָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ הַקֶּרַע לַכֶּרֶס עַד שֶׁנִּרְאֵית. אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְרַע רֹב עֳבִי הַבָּשָׂר הַזֶּה אוֹ נִטַּל טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר הַקֶּרַע בְּאָרְכּוֹ אֹרֶךְ טֶפַח. וְאִם הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה קְטַנָּה וְנִקְרַע רֹב אֹרֶךְ הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַכֶּרֶס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּאֹרֶךְ הַקֶּרַע טֶפַח טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְנִקְרַע רֻבָּהּ: \n", + "נִקְדַּר הַבָּשָׂר הַזֶּה בְּעִגּוּל אוֹ בְּאֹרֶךְ אִם הָיָה יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע וְהוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ גַּרְעִינֵי תְּמָרָה זוֹ בְּצַד זוֹ בְּדֹחַק הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁאִם יִמָּתַח קֶרַע זֶה יַעֲמֹד עַל טֶפַח: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּפְשַׁט הָעוֹר שֶׁעָלֶיהָ כֻּלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרַע בַּיָּד אוֹ בְּחלִי וְנִמְצָא בָּשָׂר בְּלֹא עוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת גְּלוּדָה. וְאִם נִשְׁאַר מִן הָעוֹר רֹחַב סֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי כָּל הַשִּׁדְרָה וְרֹחַב סֶלַע עַל הַטַּבּוּר וְרֹחַב סֶלַע עַל רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִטַּל כְּרֹחַב סֶלַע מֵעַל כָּל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה אוֹ מֵעַל הַטַּבּוּר אוֹ מֵעַל רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרֶיהָ וּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעוֹר קַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁמַּתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "נְפוּלָה כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּפְלָה הַבְּהֵמָה מִמָּקוֹם גָּבוֹהַּ שֶׁגָּבְהוֹ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אוֹ יֶתֶר וְנִתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵיצַד הוּא הָרִסּוּק. שֶׁיִּתְרוֹצֵץ הָאֵיבָר וְיֶחֱלֶה מֵחֲמַת הַנְּפִילָה עַד שֶׁתִּפָּסֵד צוּרָתוֹ וְתָאֳרוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב וְלֹא נִסְדַּק וְלֹא נִשְׁבַּר הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְּמַטֶּה וְרִצֵּץ אֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ טְרֵפָה. בְּאֵי זֶה אֵיבָרִים אָמְרוּ בְּאֵיבָרִים שֶׁבַּחֲלַל הַגּוּף: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגַּג אִם הָלְכָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאִם עָמְדָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. קָפְצָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. הִנִּיחָהּ לְמַעְלָה וּמְצָאָהּ לְמַטָּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נָפְלָה: \n", + "זְכָרִים הַמְנַגְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. נָפְלוּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְגָרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה: \n", + "גַּנָּבִים שֶׁגּוֹנְבִין הַטְּלָאִים וּמַשְׁלִיכִין אוֹתָן לַאֲחוֹרֵי הַדִּיר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן מִשּׁוּם רִסּוּק אֵיבָרִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁלִיכִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בְּכַוָּנָה שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ. וְאִם הֶחֱזִירוּם וְהִשְׁלִיכוּם לַדִּיר מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. מֵחֲמַת תְּשׁוּבָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַחֲזִירָם שְׁלֵמִים וְיִזָּהֲרוּ בְּהַשְׁלָכָתָן: \n", + "שׁוֹר שֶׁהִרְבִּיצוּהוּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּפַל נְפִילָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קוֹל בְּעֵת שֶׁמַּפִּילִין אוֹתוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֵץ צִפָּרְנָיו וּמִתְחַזֵּק עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָאָרֶץ: \n", + "הִכָּה הַבְּהֵמָה עַל רֹאשָׁהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ הַמַּכָּה כְּלַפֵּי זְנָבָהּ אוֹ עַל זְנָבָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ כְּלַפֵּי רֹאשָׁהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ בַּמַּטֶּה עַל כָּל הַשִּׁדְרָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאִם יֵשׁ בַּמַּטֶּה חֻלְיוֹת חֻלְיוֹת חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאִם הִגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ הַמַּטֶּה לְמִקְצָת הַשִּׁדְרָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְכֵן אִם הִכָּה לְרֹחַב הַשִּׁדְרָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁנֶּחְבַּט עַל דָּבָר קָשֶׁה כְּגוֹן כְּרִי שֶׁל חִטִּים אוֹ קֻפָּה שֶׁל שְׁקֵדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְרִסּוּק אֵיבָרִים. וְאִם נֶחְבַּט עַל דָּבָר רַךְ כְּגוֹן כְּסוּת כְּפוּלָה וְהַתֶּבֶן וְהָאֵפֶר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ: \n", + "נִדְבְּקוּ כְּנָפָיו בְּדֶבֶק בִּשְׁעַת צִידָה וְנִתְחַבֵּט. אִם בְּכָנָף אַחַת נֶאֱחַז אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ. וְאִם נֶאֱחַז בִּשְׁתֵּי כְּנָפָיו וְנִתְחַבֵּט בְּגוּפוֹ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ: \n", + "נֶחְבַּט עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם אִם שָׁט מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה לְעֵמַּת הַמַּיִם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שָׁט מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה עִם הִלּוּךְ הַמַּיִם חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא הַמַּיִם הֵם הַמּוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם קָדַם לְתֶבֶן אוֹ קַשׁ שֶׁמְּהַלְּכִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי זוֹ שָׁט מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט מִיָּד. וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ אִם שְׁחָטָהּ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הֶחָלָל כֻּלּוֹ מִקָּדְקֹד הָרֹאשׁ עַד הַיָּרֵךְ. אִם מָצָא בָּהּ טְרֵפָה מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנִינוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר מִן הָאֵיבָרִים שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְנִפְסְדָה צוּרָתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר מִן הָאֵיבָרִים שֶׁאִם נִטְּלוּ כְּשֵׁרָה כְּגוֹן טְחוֹל וּכְלָיוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה חוּץ מִבֵּית הָרֶחֶם שֶׁאִם נִתְרַסֵּק הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "וְהַסִּימָנִין אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה בְּכָאן שֶׁאֵין הַנְּפִילָה מְמַעֶכֶת אוֹתָן: \n", + "נָפְלָה מִן הַגַּג וְלֹא עָמְדָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁהֵא מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וּכְשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹתָהּ אַחַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְכֵן מִי שֶׁדָּרַס בְּרַגְלוֹ עַל הָעוֹף אוֹ שֶׁדְּרָסַתּוּ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ שֶׁטְּרָפוֹ לַכֹּתֶל וַהֲרֵי הוּא מְפַרְכֵּס מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ רֻבָּן טְרֵפָה וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת נְפִילָה. וְכֵן אִם נִתְקַפְּלוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל אִם נִתְפָּרֵק רֹב תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט מִן הַלֶּחִי הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין הַתַּרְבַּץ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "שְבוּרָה כֵּיצַד הוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. וְצַלְעוֹת הַבְּהֵמָה הֵן אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִיכָּן וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִיכָּן. נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ שֵׁשׁ מִיכָּן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן אוֹ אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן טְרֵפָה. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵחֶצְיָן שֶׁל מוּל הַשְּׂדֵרָה: \n", + "נִשְׁבְּרוּ שֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן אִם הָיוּ צְלָעוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מֹחַ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן רֹב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרוּ כְּלַפֵּי הַשִּׁדְרָה מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם נֶעֶקְרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נֶעֶקְרָה אֲפִלּוּ צֶלַע אַחַת וַחֲצִי חֻלְיָתָהּ עִמָּהּ שֶׁהַצֶּלַע תְּקוּעָה בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נֶעֶקְרָה מִן הַשִּׁדְרָה חֻלְיָא אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מִן הַחֻלְיוֹת שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִן הַכְּסָלִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן צְלָעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט הַיָּרֵךְ שֶׁלָּהּ מֵעִקָּרוֹ וְיָצָא מִן הַכַּף שֶׁלּוֹ אִם נִתְאַכְּלוּ נִיבָיו וְהֵן הַיְתֵדוֹת שֶׁבְּעֶצֶם הַכַּף שֶׁיּוֹצֵאת עַל הָעֶצֶם הַזָּכָר וְאוֹחֶזֶת אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִתְאַכְּלוּ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "וְכֵן בָּעוֹף אִם נִשְׁמַט יְרֵכוֹ טְרֵפָה. נִשְׁמַט כְּנָפוֹ מֵעִקָּרוֹ חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה שֶׁלּוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאָכֵל. וּבְהֵמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יָדָהּ מֵעִקָּרָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "גֻּלְגּלֶת בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁנִּטַּל מִמֶּנָּה כְּסֶלַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב הַקְּרוּם טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקְּבוּ נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן כֻּלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְסֶלַע: \n", + "וְכֵן גֻּלְגּלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבַּס רֹב גָּבְהָהּ וְרֹב הֶקֵּפָהּ טְרֵפָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקְּרוּם שָׁלֵם וְלֹא חָסֵר מִמֶּנָּה כְּלוּם. נֶחְבַּס רֹב גָּבְהָהּ וַהֲרֵי רֹב הֶקֵּפָהּ קַיָּם אוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְבַּס רֹב הֶקֵּפָהּ וַהֲרֵי רֹב גָּבְהָהּ קַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק טְרֵפָה. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם כְּגוֹן אֲוָזִים אִם נִקַּב עֶצֶם גֻּלְגָּלְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ טְרֵפָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּרוּמוֹ רַךְ. עוֹף הַיַּבָּשָׁה שֶׁהִכַּתּוּ חֻלְדָּה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּגַּף בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְּעֵץ מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ בְּצַד הַנֶּקֶב וְנוֹעֵץ אוֹ מַכְנִיס יָדוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְדוֹחֵק לְמַעְלָה. אִם יָצָא הַמֹּחַ מִן הַנֶּקֶב בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּקַּב הַקְּרוּם וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו מֻתָּר: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאָחֲזָהּ דָּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְעֻשֶּׁנֶת אוֹ מְצֻנֶּנֶת אוֹ שֶׁאָכְלָה סַם שֶׁהוֹרֵג הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שָׁתְתָה מַיִם הָרָעִים הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. אָכְלָה סַם שֶׁהוֹרֵג אֶת הָאָדָם אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ נָחָשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה וַאֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת: \n", + "נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הַטְּרֵפוֹת הַמְּנוּיוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּפָּרְטוּ וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצְאוּ בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שִׁבְעִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן עַל הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֲרוּ בְּחִבּוּר זֶה. א) דְּרוּסָה. ב) נִקַּב תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט. ג) נִקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ. ד) נִתְמַסְמֵס הַמֹּחַ עַצְמוֹ. ה) נִקַּב הַלֵּב עַצְמוֹ לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ. ו) נִקַּב קְנֵה הַלֵּב. ז) נִקְּבָה הַמָּרָה. ח) נִקְּבוּ קְנֵי הַכָּבֵד. ט) נִקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה. י) נִקַּב הַכֶּרֶס. יא) נִקַּב הֶמְסֵס. יב) נִקַּב בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת. יג) נִקְּבוּ מֵעֶיהָ. יד) יָצְאוּ הַמֵּעַיִם לַחוּץ וְנֶהֶפְכוּ. טו) נִקַּב הַטְּחוֹל בְּעָבְיוֹ. טז) חֲסֵרָה הַמָּרָה. יז) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי מְרָרוֹת. יח) חֲסֵרָה הַקֵּבָה. יט) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי קֵבוֹת. כ) חָסֵר הַכֶּרֶס. כא) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּרֵסִים. כב) חָסֵר הֶמְסֵס. כג) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי מְסָסִים. כד) חָסֵר בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת. כה) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי הַכּוֹסוֹת. כו) חָסֵר אֶחָד מִן הַמֵּעַיִם. כז) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי מֵעַיִם. כח) נִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה. כט) נִקַּב הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה. ל) נִקַּב סִמְפּוֹן מִסִּמְפּוֹנֵי רֵאָה אֲפִלּוּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לא) נֶאֱטַם מָקוֹם מִן הָרֵאָה. לב) נִמֹּק סִמְפּוֹן מִסִּמְפּוֹנֵי הָרֵאָה. לג) נִמְצְאָה לֵחָה סְרוּחָה בָּרֵאָה. לד) נִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם סְרוּחִים. לה) נִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם עֲכוּרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִסְרִיחוּ. לו) נִתְמַסְמְסָה הָרֵאָה. לז) נִשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאֶיהָ. לח) נֶהֱפַךְ הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַרְאָיו. לט) חֲסֵרָה הָרֵאָה מִמִּנְיַן הָאֻנּוֹת. מ) נִתְחַלְּפוּ הָאֻנּוֹת. מא) הוֹתִירוּ הָאֻנּוֹת מִגַּבָּהּ. מב) נִסְרְכָה אֻנָּה לְאֻנָּה שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן. מג) נִמְצְאָה הָרֵאָה בְּלֹא חִתּוּךְ אָזְנַיִם. מד) חָסֵר מִקְצָת הָרֵאָה. מה) יָבֵשׁ מִקְצָת גּוּפָהּ. מו) נִמְצְאָה הָרֵאָה נְפוּחָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת. מז) צָמְקָה הָרֵאָה מִפַּחַד אָדָם. מח) חָסֵר הָרֶגֶל בֵּין מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ. מט) אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה יְתֵרָה רֶגֶל. נ) נִטְּלָה צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים. נא) נִטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד. נב) נִטַּל לֶחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן. נג) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה בְּיוֹתֵר. נד) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁלָּקְתָה. נה) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּהּ לֵחָה. נו) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם עֲכוּרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן סְרוּחִין. נז) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם סְרוּחִין. נח) נִפְסַק חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה. נט) נִמְרַךְ מֹחַ חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִתְמַסְמֵס. ס) נִקְרַע רֹב הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַכֶּרֶס. סא) נִגְלַד הָעוֹר שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. סב) נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ מִנְּפִילָה. סג) נִדַּלְדְּלוּ הַסִּימָנִין. סד) נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. סה) נֶעֶקְרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. סו) נֶעֶקְרָה צֶלַע אַחַת בְּחֻלְיָתָהּ. סז) נֶעֶקְרָה חֻלְיָה אַחַת. סח) נִשְׁמַט הַיָּרֵךְ מֵעִקָּרוֹ. סט) חֲסֵרָה הַגֻּלְגּלֶת כְּסֶלַע. ע) נֶחְבַּס רֹב הַגֻּלְגּלֶת וְנִתְרוֹצֵץ: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַשִּׁבְעִים חֳלָיִים שֶׁאוֹסְרִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַחַיָּה מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו. וְכָל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בָּעוֹף בָּאֵיבָרִין הַמְּצוּיִין לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה דִּינוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְעוֹף אֶחָד הוּא. חוּץ מִטְּרֵפוֹת שֶׁבְּכוּלְיָא וְשֶׁבַּטְּחוֹל וְשֶׁבְּאֻנּוֹת הָרֵאָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹף אֵין לוֹ חִתּוּךְ אֻנּוֹת כִּבְהֵמָה. וְאִם יִמָּצֵא אֵין לוֹ מִנְיָן יָדוּעַ. וּטְחוֹל הָעוֹף עָגל כְּמוֹ עֵנָב וְאֵינוֹ כִּטְחוֹל בְּהֵמָה. וּטְרֵפוֹת שֶׁבַּכּוּלְיָא וְשֶׁבַּטְּחוֹל לֹא מָנוּ אוֹתָן בִּבְהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נָתְנוּ לְכוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה שִׁעוּר בָּעוֹף. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "וּשְׁתֵּי טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בָּעוֹף יֶתֶר עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אוֹתָן הָאֵיבָרִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עוֹף שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאֵה בְּנֵי מֵעָיו מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר. וְעוֹף הַמַּיִם שֶׁנִּקַּב עֶצֶם רֹאשׁוֹ: \n", + "וְאֵין לְהוֹסִיף עַל טְרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ כְּלָל. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵרַע לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ לְחַיָּה אוֹ לְעוֹף חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ חַכְמֵי דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהִסְכִּימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּבָתֵּי דִּינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ נוֹדַע לָנוּ מִדֶּרֶךְ הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָהּ לִחְיוֹת: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן טְרֵפָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְמִיתִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) \"עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ\": \n", + "כָּל טַבָּח שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ הַטְּרֵפוֹת הָאֵלּוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת מֻתָּר לוֹ לִשְׁחֹט וְלִבְדֹּק לְעַצְמוֹ וְלִמְכֹּר וְאֵין בָּזֶה חֲשָׁשׁ. שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן בְּאִסּוּרִין בֵּין יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲנָיָה בְּעֵדוּתוֹ בֵּין אֵין לוֹ הֲנָיָה בְּעֵדוּתוֹ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין לוֹקְחִין בָּשָׂר מִטַּבָּח שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט וּבוֹדֵק לְעַצְמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה מֻמְחֶה. וְאִם יָצָאת טְרֵפָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִים אוֹתוֹ וְיַחֲזִיר אֲבֵדָה בְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב אוֹ יוֹצִיא טְרֵפָה לְעַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל בְּהֵמָה אוֹ עוֹף שֶׁנּוֹלד בָּהֶן סְפֵק טְרֵפוֹת מִטְּרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ. כְּגוֹן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדְרְסָה בִּידֵי חַיָּה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם הֶאֱדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם אוֹ לֹא הֶאֱדִים. אוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה גֻּלְגָּלְתָּהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם רֻבָּהּ אוֹ מִעוּטָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אִם הָיָה זָכָר וְשָׁהָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁלֵמָה כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה נְקֵבָה עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. וּבְעוֹף בְּזָכָר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּבִנְקֵבָה עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד כָּל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁל טְעִינָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְתִטְעֹן טְעִינָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתֵלֵד: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לִמְכֹּר סְפֵק טְרֵפָה זוֹ לְנָכְרִי בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "כָּל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּחֶזְקַת בְּרִיאִים הֵם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן טְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיִּשָׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהֶן דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין עַל אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר בִּלְבַד: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט הַגַּף שֶׁל עוֹף בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הָרֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה. נָפְלָה הַבְּהֵמָה בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ. נִתְרַצֵּץ עֶצֶם הָרֹאשׁ בּוֹדְקִין קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב. הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ קוֹץ אוֹ נִזְרַק בָּהּ חֵץ אוֹ רֹמַח וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַחֲלָלָהּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הֶחָלָל שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב אֶחָד מִן הָאֵיבָרִין שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף בִּנְקִיבָתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ רֵאָה שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִין אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ סִרְכוֹת כְּמוֹ חוּטִין תְּלוּיִין מִמֶּנָּה וְלַדֹּפֶן אוֹ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא בָּהּ אֲבַעְבּוּעַ מָלֵא לֵחָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה: \n", + "מִן הַדִּין הָיָה עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שֶׁאִם נִמְצֵאת הָרֵאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּסִרְכוֹת כְּמוֹ חוּטִין. אִם הָיוּ מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה וְלַדֹּפֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד שֶׁחוֹתְכִים אֶת הַסִּרְכָא וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָרֵאָה וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין. אִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִתְבַּעְבֵּעַ הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל נֶקֶב וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְסִרְכָא זוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב אוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב קְרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן בִּלְבַד. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא רָאִינוּ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה כָּךְ וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מָקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ כָּךְ: \n", + "וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּרְאִין מִדִּבְרֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא. הַמִּנְהָג הַפָּשׁוּט בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ הוּא. כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ אֶת הַחַיָּה קוֹרְעִין אֶת הַטַּרְפַּשׁ שֶׁל כָּבֵד וּבוֹדְקִין אֶת הָרֵאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. אִם לֹא נִמְצְאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּסִרְכָא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה סִרְכָא בֵּין אֹזֶן מֵאָזְנֵי הָרֵאָה וְלַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם רְבִיצָתָהּ בֵּין בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֵּין הַצְּלָעוֹת בֵּין בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֶּחָזֶה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה סִרְכָא מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹ מִן הָאוֹם לָאֹזֶן הַסְּמוּכָה לָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "וְאִם נִמְצָא חוּט יוֹצֵא מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה לְאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּשֵׁךְ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם הָיָה מִן הָרֵאָה חוּט מָשׁוּךְ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד אוֹ לְכִיס הַלֵּב אוֹ לַוַּרְדָּא. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַחוּט מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מִן הָאֹזֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכֵן וַרְדָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בְּכִיסָהּ אוֹ חוּט יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה לְכִיסָהּ אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְחוּט הַיּוֹצֵא מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמִּנְהָגָן אִם מָצְאוּ סִרְכָא מִן הָאֹזֶן לַבָּשָׂר וְלָעֶצֶם שֶׁבַּצְּלָעוֹת וְהַסִּרְכָא דְּבוּקָה בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאַבָּא מָרִי מִן הָאוֹסְרִין וַאֲנִי מִן הַמַּתִּירִין. וּמִעוּט מְקוֹמוֹת מַתִּירִין אֲפִלּוּ נִדְבְּקָה בָּעֶצֶם לְבַדּוֹ וַאֲנִי אוֹסֵר: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנּוֹפְחִין הָרֵאָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהּ נֶקֶב. וְרֹב הַמְּקוֹמוֹת אֵין נוֹפְחִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נוֹלַד דָּבָר שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לַחֲשָׁשׁ. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא נָפַחְנוּ רֵאָה בִּסְפָרַד וּבַמַּעֲרָב אֶלָּא אִם נוֹלַד לָנוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁים לוֹ: \n", + "וּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן אֵינָן עַל פִּי הַדִּין אֶלָּא עַל פִּי הַמִּנְהָג כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּמִי שֶׁבָּדַק עוֹף אֶלָּא אִם נוֹלַד לוֹ חֲשָׁשׁ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְקָרַע אֶת הַבֶּטֶן. וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק אֶת הָרֵאָה בָּא כֶּלֶב אוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וְנָטַל אֶת הָרֵאָה וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא נְקוּבָה הָיְתָה אוֹ שֶׁמָּא דְּבוּקָה הָיְתָה. שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין אִסּוּר. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִקְרוּם מֹחַ וְלַשִּׁדְרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כָּךְ לֹא נָחוּשׁ לַרֵאָה שֶׁאָבְדָה. וְאֵין בָּזֶה מִנְהָג שֶׁדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי אֵין בּוֹ מִנְהָג: \n", + "בָּא הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְהוֹצִיא הָרֵאָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק וַהֲרֵי הִיא קַיֶּמֶת נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם הָיוּ שָׁם צְמָחִין אוֹ לֹא הָיוּ. מִפְּנֵי פִּשּׁוּט הַמִּנְהָג: \n", + "יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאִם נִמְצְאוּ סִרְכוֹת מְדֻלְדָּלוֹת מִן הָרֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן דְּבוּקוֹת לֹא לַדֹּפֶן וְלֹא לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְדָבָר זֶה הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל הוּא וְאִבּוּד מָמוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא נָהֲגוּ זֶה לֹא בְּצָרְפַת וְלֹא בִּסְפָרַד וְלֹא נִשְׁמַע זֶה בַּמַּעֲרָב. וְאֵין רָאוּי לִנְהֹג בְּמִנְהָג זֶה. אֶלָּא נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בִּלְבַד. אִם נִמְצֵאת שְׁלֵמָה מִן הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) \"אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד\". וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל שְׁחִיטַת הָאַחֲרוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי חֲבֵרוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל מָקוֹם. בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין. בֵּין קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין בֵּין קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בַּעֲזָרָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּחוּץ. אוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּחוּץ וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּעֲזָרָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֻלִּין אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן קָדָשִׁים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֻלִּין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים. זֶה שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַחֲרוֹן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ: \n", + "אֵין אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) \"לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ\" בִּשְׁחִיטַת שְׁנֵיהֶן הוּא הָאִסּוּר. אֲבָל אִם נָחַר הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ נִתְנַבֵּל בְּיָדוֹ מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִחָר הַשֵּׁנִי אוֹ נִתְנַבֵּל בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר: \n", + "חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ בֵּינָם לְבֵין עַצְמָן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט שֵׁנִי אַחֲרֵיהֶם. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָתָן שְׁחִיטָה (כְּלָל): \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וַהֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֻלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ טְרֵפָה אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְעַכּוּ\"ם וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן אֶת הָאֶחָד וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אוֹ עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה: \n", + "שְׁחָטוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם פָּטוּר מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְאִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ וְלֹא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם עַכּוּ\"ם לוֹקֶה: \n", + "אֵין אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) \"וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד\". וְנוֹהֵג בְּכִלְאַיִם. כֵּיצַד. צְבִי שֶׁבָּא עַל הָעֵז וְשָׁחַט הָעֵז וְאֶת בְּנָהּ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל הָעֵז שֶׁבָּא עַל הַצִּבְיָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת בְּנָהּ. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. פָּרָה וּבְנָהּ אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה לֹא צִבְיָה וּבְנָהּ: \n", + "הָיְתָה בַּת הַצִּבְיָה הַזֹּאת נְקֵבָה וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַנְּקֵבָה בַּת הַצִּבְיָה וְאֶת בְּנָהּ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִמִּין כֶּבֶשׂ וּמִמִּין עֵז בֵּין מִכֶּבֶשׂ עִם הָעֵז בֵּין מֵעֵז עִם הַכִּבְשָׂה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ: \n", + "מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט אֶת הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת. עֻבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֻבָּר חַי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְהִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת שֶׁזֶּה [] בְּנָהּ וַדַּאי. וְאִם נוֹדַע וַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה הוּא אָבִיו אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים אוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ לוֹקֶה שְׁתֵּי מַלְקִיּוֹת. שָׁחַט אֶת בָּנֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט הִיא לוֹקֶה אַחַת. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בִּתָּהּ וְאֶת בֶּן בִּתָּהּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בֶּן בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַבַּת לוֹקֶה אַחַת בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת זֶה הָאֵם וְזֶה הַבַּת וּבָאוּ לְדִין. זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח רִאשׁוֹן יִשְׁחֹט רִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי יַמְתִּין לְמָחָר. וְאִם קָדַם הַשֵּׁנִי וְשָׁחַט זָכָה וְיַמְתִּין הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד לְמָחָר: \n", + "בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים בְּשָׁנָה הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ כְּבָר מָכַרְתִּי אִמָּהּ אוֹ בִּתָּהּ לְאַחֵר לִשְׁחֹט כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּמְתִּין זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט עַד לְמָחָר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. וְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח. וְעֶרֶב עֲצֶרֶת. וְעֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁרָאָה זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה נֶחְפָּז לִקְנוֹת וְהָיָה בְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹחֵט עַתָּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רֶוַח בַּיּוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא לְמָחָר: \n", + "והַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הָאֵם לֶחָתָן וְהַבַּת לַכַּלָּה צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן. שֶׁוַּדַּאי בְּיוֹם אֶחָד שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "יוֹם אֶחָד הָאָמוּר בְּאֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל רְבִיעִי לֹא יִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי עַד תְּחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּסוֹף יוֹם רְבִיעִי קֹדֶם בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שׁוֹחֵט הַשֵּׁנִי בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי. שָׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁל לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי לֹא יִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי עַד לֵיל שִׁשִּׁי. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַלוֹקֵחַ אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וּשִׁחָטָהּ. הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְלוֹקֶה עַל שְׁחִיטַת הָאֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים\". וְכֵן אִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּחֶנָּה לוֹקֶה. וְאִם שִׁלְּחָהּ אַחַר שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ פָּטוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּתְּקָה לַעֲשֵׂה חַיָּב לְקַיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ. וְאִם לֹא קִיְּמוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "בָּא אֶחָד וְחָטַף הָאֵם מִיָּדוֹ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ אוֹ שֶׁבָּרְחָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח\" עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּחַ מֵעַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ: \n", + "נָטַל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וְקִצֵּץ אֲגַפֶּיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּעוּף וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וּמַשְׁהֶה אוֹתָהּ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ וּמְשַׁלְּחָהּ. וְאִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם לָזֶה אוֹ בָּרְחָה וְאָבְדָה לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד מְשַׁלֵּחַ הָאֵם. אוֹחֵז בִּכְנָפֶיהָ וּמַפְרִיחָהּ. שִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְשִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח\": \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֵם וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הַבָּנִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם\": \n", + "לָקַח אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחֱזִירָן לַקֵּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. שִׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם וְחָזַר וְצָד אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לָצוּד אוֹתָהּ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִפְרֹחַ בִּשְׁבִיל הַבָּנִים שֶׁהִיא מְרַחֶפֶת עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא יִלָּקְחוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים\". אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיאָהּ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְחָזַר וְצָד אוֹתָהּ מֻתָּר: \n", + "שִׁלּוּחַ הָאֵם אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזֻמָּן כְּגוֹן יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וַעֲלִיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"כִּי יִקָּרֵא\". אֲבָל הַמְזֻמָּן כְּגוֹן אֲוָזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין וְיוֹנִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּבַּיִת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיוּ הָאֶפְרוֹחִין מַפְרִיחִין שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן אוֹ בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. הָיוּ אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּבֵיצִים מוּזָרוֹת וּפָטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "זָכָר שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ רוֹבֵץ עַל הַקֵּן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר אוֹ עוֹף טָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל בֵּיצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מִינָהּ וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. הָיְתָה הָאֵם טְרֵפָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלְּחָהּ: \n", + "שָׁחַט מִקְצָת סִימָנִין בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּקָּחֶנָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת. אִם כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. הָיְתָה מַטְלִית אוֹ כְּנָפַיִם חוֹצְצוֹת בֵּין כְּנָפֶיהָ וּבֵין הַקֵּן הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁנֵי סִדְרֵי בֵּיצִים וּכְנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּסֵּדֶר הָעֶלְיוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן בֵּיצִים יָפוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵם עַל גַּבֵּי אֵם. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַזָּכָר עַל הַקֵּן וְהָאֵם עַל הַזָּכָר. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקַּח. וְאִם לָקַח יְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּין הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵּין הַבֵּיצִים וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת בָּהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה בְּצַד הַקֵּן וּכְנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן מִצִּדּוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיְתָה עַל שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי אִילָן וְהַקֵּן בֵּינֵיהֶן רוֹאִין כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ יִנָּטְלוּ הַבַּדִּין תִּפּל עַל הַקֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ עַל בֵּיצָה אַחַת חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. הַמּוֹצֵא קֵן עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"אֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵּיצִים\" וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"בְּכָל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בְּהוֹוֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לִזְכּוֹת בַּבֵּיצִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ וּשׁוֹבָכוֹ אֵינָן מְזֻמָּנִין. וְלֹא קָנָה לוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת בָּהֶן לַאֲחֵרִים כָּךְ לֹא תִּזְכֶּה לוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ בָּהֶן. וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "אָסוּר לִטּל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לְטַהֵר בָּהֶן אֶת הַמְצֹרָע שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה. וְאִם לָקַח חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. (וַעֲשֵׂה) וְלֹא עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה עֲשֵׂה: \n", + "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹף לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּפָרַח מִיָּדוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַכִּירוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ רוֹבֵץ עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים לוֹקֵחַ הַכּל וּמְבִיאָן לִידֵי גִּזְבָּר. שֶׁאֵין שִׁלּוּחַ הָאֵם נוֹהֵג בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ\" וְאֵלּוּ אֵינָן שֶׁלְּךָ: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית דִּין לָדוּן אוֹתוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְכַסּוֹת דּם שִׁחִיטַת חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה אוֹ עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר\". לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְבָרֵךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּכַסֶּה בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹקֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל כִּסּוּי הַדָּם: \n", + "כִּסּוּי הַדָּם נוֹהֵג בִּמְזֻמָּן וּבְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזֻמָּן. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד\" אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה. וְנוֹהֵג בְּחֻלִּין וְלֹא בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין. בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְאִם עָבַר וּשְׁחָטָן אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת אֶת דָּמָן: \n", + "שָׁחַט חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁן אוֹ הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַדָּם חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת: \n", + "כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וְכֵן בְּרִיָּה שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ. הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת לְאַחַר שַׁבָּת. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט סָפֵק אוֹ כִּלְאַיִם בְּיוֹם טוֹב מְכַסֶּה דָּמוֹ לְאַחַר יוֹם טוֹב: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹפוֹת וּמִינֵי חַיָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּן וְכִסּוּי אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן: \n", + "דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּמַּיִם אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאֵה דָּם חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן אוֹ בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִלּוּ הֵם מַיִם. אִם אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּרְאֶה מַרְאֵה הַדָּם שֶׁחַיָּב לְכַסּוֹתוֹ כְּשִׁעוּר זֶה אִלּוּ הָיָה מַיִם חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת הַכּל וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר: \n", + "כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹתוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת. כִּסַּתְהוּ הָרוּחַ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת. חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה אַחַר שֶׁכִּסַּתְהוּ הָרוּחַ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת: \n", + "דָּם הַנִּתָּז וְשֶׁעַל הַסַּכִּין אִם אֵין שָׁם דָּם אֶלָּא הוּא חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת: \n", + "שָׁחַט וְנִבְלַע הַדָּם בַּקַּרְקַע אִם רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת. וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁכִּסַּתְהוּ הָרוּחַ וּפָטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת: \n", + "אֵין חַיָּב בְּכִסּוּי אֶלָּא דָּם שְׁחִיטָה הָרְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל\". לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה. אוֹ הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה. אוֹ הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וְעוֹף שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָן לִסְקִילָה וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְכֵן חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן פְּטוּרִין מִלְּכַסּוֹת דַּם שְׁחִיטָתָן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה מְכַסִּין בְּסִיד וּבְגַפְסִית בְּזֶבֶל דַּק וּבְחוֹל דַּק שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹצֵר צָרִיךְ לְכָתְשׁוֹ וּבִשְׁחִיקַת אֲבָנִים וַחֲרָשִׁים וּבִנְעֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן דַּקָּה וּבִנְסֹרֶת חָרָשִׁים דַּקָּה וּבִלְבֵנָה וְחַרְסִית וּמְגוּפָה שֶׁכְּתָשָׁהּ שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ מִין עָפָר הֵן. אֲבָל אִם כָּפָה עָלָיו כְּלִי אוֹ כִּסָּהוּ בַּאֲבָנִים אֵין זֶה כִּסּוּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"בֶּעָפָר\": \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְכַסִּים בְּזֶבֶל גַּס וְחוֹל גַּס וְקֶמַח וְסֻבִּין וּמוֹרְסָן וּשְׁחִיקַת כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מִין עָפָר. חוּץ מִשְּׁחִיקַת הַזָּהָב בִּלְבַד שֶׁמְּכַסִּין בָּהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּקְרָא עָפָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כח ו) \"וְעַפְרֹת זָהָב לוֹ\" וְאוֹמֵר (דברים ט כא) \"עַד אֲשֶׁר דַּק לְעָפָר\": \n", + "מְכַסִּין בְּשִׁחוֹר וְהוּא פִּיחַ הַכִּבְשָׁן וּבְכוֹחַל וּבְנִקְרַת פְּסִילִים וּבְאֵפֶר בֵּין אֵפֶר עֵצִים בֵּין אֵפֶר בְּגָדִים אֲפִלּוּ אֵפֶר בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתוּב (במדבר יט יז) \"מֵעֲפַר שְׂרֵפַת הַחַטָּאת\". וּמֻתָּר לְכַסּוֹת בְּעָפָר עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ לִתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁחֹט בּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְכַסֶּה בְּעָפָר אֲבָל לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בִּכְלִי וִיכַסֶּה בְּעָפָר: \n", + "וּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט הוּא יְכַסֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר\". וְאִם לֹא כִּסָּהוּ וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בַּשּׁוֹחֵט לְבַד: \n", + "וּכְשֶׁמְּכַסֶּה לֹא יְכַסֶּה בְּרַגְלוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ בְּסַכִּין אוֹ בִּכְלִי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֹג בּוֹ מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן וְיִהְיוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין הַכָּבוֹד לְעַצְמָן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁצִּוָּה בָּהֶן בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְהִצִּילָנוּ מִלְּמַשֵּׁשׁ בַּחשֶׁךְ וְעָרַךְ אוֹתָנוּ נֵר לְיַשֵּׁר הַמַּעֲקַשִּׁים וְאוֹר לְהוֹרוֹת נְתִיבוֹת הַיּשֶׁר. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים קיט קה) \"נֵר לְרַגְלִי דְבָרֶךָ וְאוֹר לִנְתִיבָתִי\": \n" + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38d3c08380187802c9812834926b040371bee6c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/Wikisource Mishneh Torah.json @@ -0,0 +1,334 @@ +{ + "language": "he", + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D", + "versionTitle": "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY-SA", + "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה תורה (ויקיטקסט)", + "actualLanguage": "he", + "languageFamilyName": "hebrew", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "rtl", + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "text": [ + [ + "מצות עשה שישחוט מי שירצה לאכול בשר בהמה חיה ועוף ואחר כך יאכל שנאמר וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך, ונאמר בבכור בעל מום אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל, הא למדת שחיה כבהמה לענין שחיטה, ובעוף הוא אומר אשר יצוד ציד חיה או עוף וגו' ושפך את דמו מלמד ששפיכת דם העוף כשפיכת דם החיה.", + "והלכות שחיטה בכולן אחת הן, לפיכך השוחט בהמה או חיה או עוף מברך תחלה אקב\"ו על השחיטה ואם לא בירך בין בשוגג בין במזיד הבשר מותר, ואסור לאכול מן השחוטה כל זמן שהיא מפרכסת, והאוכל ממנה קודם שתצא נפשה עובר בלא תעשה, והרי הוא בכלל לא תאכלו על הדם ואינו לוקה ומותר לחתוך ממנה אחר שחיטה קודם שתצא נפשה ומולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה ומניחו עד שתמות ואח\"כ יאכלנו.", + "דגים וחגבים אינן צריכים שחיטה אלא אסיפתן היא המתרת אותן, הרי הוא אומר הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם אם את כל דגי הים יאסף להם אסיפת דגים כשחיטת בקר וצאן, ובחגבים נאמר אוסף החסיל באסיפה לבדה, לפיכך אם מתו מאיליהן בתוך המים מותרין, ומותר לאכלן חיים.", + "זביחה זו האמורה בתורה סתם צריך לפרש אותה ולידע באי זה מקום מן הבהמה שוחטין, וכמה שיעור השחיטה, ובאי זה דבר שוחטין, ומתי שוחטין, והיכן שוחטין, וכיצד שוחטין, ומה הן הדברים המפסידין את השחיטה, ומי הוא השוחט, ועל כל הדברים האלו צונו בתורה ואמר וזבחת מבקרך וגו' כאשר צויתיך ואכלת בשעריך וגו' שכל הדברים האלו על פה צוה בהן כשאר תורה שבעל פה שהיא הנקראת מצוה כמו שביארנו בתחלת חבור זה.", + "מקום השחיטה מן החי הוא הצואר וכל הצואר כשר לשחיטה, כיצד בושט מתחלת המקום שכשחותכין אותו מתכווץ עד מקום שישעיר ויתחיל להיות פרצין פרצין ככרס, זה הוא מקום השחיטה בושט.", + "שחט למעלה ממקום זה והוא הנקרא תרבץ הושט או למטה ממקום זה והוא מתחלת בני מעים שחיטתו פסולה, ושיעור תרבץ הושט שאינו ראוי לשחיטה למעלה בבהמה וחיה כדי שיאחז בשתי אצבעותיו ובעוף הכל לפי גדלו וקטנו, ולמטה עד הזפק.", + "ואי זה הוא מקום שחיטה בקנה משיפוי כובע ולמטה עד ראש כנף הריאה כשתמשוך הבהמה צוארה לרעות, זה הוא מקום השחיטה בקנה, וכל שכנגד המקום הזה מבחוץ נקרא צואר.", + "אנסה הבהמה עצמה ומשכה צוארה הרבה או שאינס השוחט את הסימנין ומשכן למעלה ושחט במקום שחיטה בצואר ונמצאת השחיטה בקנה או בושט שלא במקום שחיטה הרי זה ספק נבלה.", + "וצריך השוחט שישחוט באמצע הצואר, ואם שחט מן הצדדין שחיטתו כשרה, וכמה הוא שיעור השחיטה שני הסימנין שהן הקנה והושט השחיטה המעולה שיחתכו שניהן בין בבהמה בין בעוף, ולזה יתכוין השוחט, ואם שחט רוב אחד מהן בעוף ורוב השנים בבהמה ובחיה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "שחט האחד כולו וחציה השני בבהמה שחיטתו פסולה, רובו של זה ורובו של זה אע\"פ שלא שחט מכל אחד מהן אלא יתר על חציו כחוט השערה הרי זו כשרה, כיון ששחט יתר על חציו כל שהוא רובו הוא.", + "שחט חציו של זה וחציו של זה אפילו בעוף שחיטתו פסולה, קנה שהיה חציו פסוק ושחט על מקום החתוך מעט והשלימו לרוב בין שהתחיל לשחוט במקום השלם ופגע בחתך בין שהכניס את הסכין בחתך והשלימו לרוב שחיטתו כשרה.", + "כל השוחט צריך לבדוק הסימנין לאחר שחיטה, ואם לא בדק ונחתך הראש קודם שיבדק הרי זו נבלה ואפילו היה השוחט זריז ומהיר.", + "כל בהמה בחייה בחזקת איסור עומדת עד שיודע בודאי שנשחטה שחיטה כשרה.", + "ובאי זה דבר שוחטין, בכל דבר בין בסכין של מתכת בין בצור או בזכוכית או בקרומית של קנה האגם וכיוצא בהן מדברים החותכין, והוא שיהיה פיה חד ולא יהיה בה פגם, אבל אם היה כמו תלם בחודו של דבר ששוחטין בו ואפילו היה התלם קטן ביותר שחיטתו פסולה.", + "היה התלם הזה מרוח אחת לא ישחוט בה, ואם שחט דרך הרוח שאין הפגימה ניכרת בה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "כיצד סכין שתבדק בהולכה ולא תרגיש שיש בה פגם וכשתחזיר אותה בהבאה תרגיש שיש בה פגם, אם שחט בה דרך הולכה ולא הביא שחיטתו כשרה, ואם הביא שחיטתו פסולה.", + "סכין שהיא עולה ויורדת כנחש ואין בה פגם שוחטין בה לכתחלה, וסכין שפיה חלק ואינה חדה הואיל ואין בה פגם שוחטין בה ואע\"פ שהוליך והביא בה כל היום עד ששחטה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "סכין חדה שהושחזה והרי אינה חלקה אלא מגעתה כמגע ראש השיבולת שהוא מסתבך באצבע, הואיל ואין בה פגם שוחטין בה.", + "התולש קנה או שן או שקצץ צור או צפורן והרי הן חדין ואין בהן פגם שוחטין בהן, ואם נעצן בקרקע לא ישחוט בהן כשהן נעוצין, ואם שחט שחיטתו כשרה.", + "שחט בהן כשהן מחוברין מתחלת ברייתן קודם שיעקור אותן שחיטתו פסולה, ואע\"פ שאין בהם פגם.", + "לקח לחי בהמה שיש בו שינים חדות ושחט בהן שחיטתו פסולה, מפני שהן כמגל, אבל בשן אחת הקבועה בלחי שוחט בה לכתחלה ואע\"פ שהיא קבועה בו.", + "ליבן הסכין באור ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה, סכין שצדה אחד מגל וצדה השני יפה לא ישחוט בצד היפה לכתחלה גזרה שמא ישחוט בצד האחר, ואם שחט הואיל ובצד היפה שחט שחיטתו כשרה.", + "השוחט צריך שיבדוק הסכין בחודה ומצד זה ומצד זה, וכיצד בודקה מוליכה ומביאה על בשר אצבעו ומוליכה ומביאה על צפורנו משלש רוחותיה שהן פיה ושני צדדיו כדי שלא יהיה בה פגם כלל ואח\"כ ישחוט בה.", + "וצריך לבדוק כן אחר השחיטה שאם מצא בה פגם אחר השחיטה הרי זו ספק נבלה שמא בעור נפגמה וכששחט הסימנים בסכין פגומה שחט, לפיכך השוחט בהמות רבות או עופות רבים צריך לבדוק בין כל אחת ואחת שאם לא בדק ובדק באחרונה ונמצאת סכין פגומה הרי הכל ספק נבלות ואפילו הראשונה.", + "בדק הסכין ושחט בה ולא בדקה אחר שחיטה, ושבר בה עצם או עץ וכיוצא בהן ואחר כך בדק ומצאה פגומה שחיטתו כשרה, שחזקת הסכין שנפגמה בדבר הקשה ששבר בה, וכן אם פשע ולא בדק הסכין או שאבדה הסכין עד שלא יבדוק שחיטתו כשרה.", + "כל טבח שלא בדק הסכין שלו ששוחט בה לפני חכם ושחט בה לעצמו בודקין אותה, אם נמצאת יפה ובדוקה מנדין אותו לפי שיסמוך על עצמו פעם אחרת ותהיה פגומה וישחוט בה, ואם נמצאת פגומה מעבירין אותו ומנדין אותו ומכריזין על כל בשר ששחט שהוא טרפה.", + "כמה הוא אורך הסכין ששוחט כל שהוא, והוא שלא יהיה דבר דק שנוקב ואינו שוחט כמו ראש האיזמל הקטן וכיוצא בו.", + "ומתי שוחטין, בכל זמן בין ביום בין בלילה והוא שתהיה אבוקה עמו כדי שיראה מה יעשה, ואם שחט באפילה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "השוחט ביום הכפורים או בשבת בשוגג אע\"פ שאילו היה מזיד היה מתחייב בנפשו או מתחייב מלקות על יום הכפורים שחיטתו כשרה." + ], + [ + "בכל מקום מותר לשחוט חוץ מן העזרה, שאין שוחטין בעזרה אלא קדשי מזבח בלבד, אבל החולין אסור לשוחטן בעזרה בין בהמה בין חיה בין עוף וכן הוא אומר בבשר תאוה כי ירחק ממך המקום אשר יבחר ה' וגו' וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך וגו' ואכלת בשעריך, הא למדת שאין שוחטין בשר תאוה אלא חוץ למקום אשר בחר ה'.", + "וזה שנשחט חוץ למקום הוא שמותר לאכלו בכל השערים, אבל השוחט חולין בעזרה אותו הבשר טהור ואסור בהנייה כבשר בחלב וכיוצא בו, וקוברים אותו ואפרו אסור אפילו שחט לרפואה או לאכילת עכו\"ם או להאכיל לכלבים, אבל הנוחר בעזרה, והמעקר, ועכו\"ם ששחט, והשוחט ונמצא טרפה, והשוחט בהמה חיה ועוף הטמאים בעזרה הרי אלו כולן מותרין בהנייה.", + "ולא בהמה וחיה בלבד, אלא כל החולין אסור להכניסן לעזרה אפילו בשר שחוטה או פירות ופת אם עבר והכניסן מותרין באכילה כשהיו, ודברים אלו כולן דברי קבלה הן, וכל השוחט חולין בעזרה או האוכל כזית מבשר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "האומר בהמה זו שלמים וולדה חולין, אם נשחטה בעזרה ולדה מותר באכילה לפי שאינו יכול לשחוט אותו בריחוק מקום.", + "אין שוחטין לתוך ימים ונהרות שמא יאמרו עובד מים הוא זה ונראה כמקריב למים, ולא ישחוט לכלי מלא מים שמא יאמרו לצורה שתראה במים שחט, ולא ישחוט בתוך כלים ולא לתוך הגומא שכן דרך עובדי עכו\"ם, ואם שחט שחיטתו כשרה.", + "שוחטין לכלי מים עכורין שאין הצורה נראית בהן, וכן שוחט חוץ לגומא והדם שותת ויורד לגומא, ובשוק לא יעשה כן שמא יחקה את המינים, ואם שחט לגומא בשוק אסור לאכול משחיטתו עד שיבדקו אחריו שמא מין הוא, ומותר לשחוט על דופן הספינה והדם שותת על הדופן ויורד למים ומותר לשחוט על גבי הכלים.", + "כיצד שוחטין מותח את הצואר ומוליך הסכין ומביאה עד ששוחט, בין שהיתה הבהמה רבוצה בין שהיתה עומדת ואחז בערפה והסכין בידו מלמטה ושחט הרי זו כשירה.", + "נעץ את הסכין בכותל והעביר הצואר עליה עד שנשחט שחיטתו כשרה, והוא שיהיה צואר הבהמה למטה וסכין למעלה, שאם היה צואר בהמה למעלה מן הסכין שמא תרד הבהמה בכובד גופה ותחתך בלא הולכה והבאה ואין זו שחיטה כמו שיתבאר, לפיכך אם היה עוף בין שהיה צוארו למעלה מן הסכין הנעוצה או למטה ממנו שחיטתו כשרה.", + "השוחט והוליך את הסכין ולא הביאה או הביאה ולא הוליכה ושחט שחיטתו כשרה, הוליך והביא עד שחתך הראש והתיזו שחיטתו כשרה, הוליך ולא הביא או הביא ולא הוליך והתיז את הראש בהולכה בלבד או בהבאה בלבד, אם יש בסכין כמלא שני צוארים מצוארי הנשחט שחיטתו כשרה ואם לאו שחיטתו פסולה, שחט שני ראשים כאחד שחיטתו כשרה.", + "שנים שאחזו בסכין אפילו אחד מצד זה ושני מצד אחר כנגדו ושחטו שחיטתן כשרה, וכן שנים שאחזו שני סכינין ושחטו כאחד בשני מקומות בצואר שחיטתן כשרה, ואפילו שחט זה הושט בלבד או רובו והשני שחט במקום אחר הקנה או רובו הרי שחיטה זו כשרה ואע\"פ שאין השחיטה כולה במקום אחד, וכן שחיטה העשויה כקולמוס ושחיטה העשויה כמסרק כשרה.", + "אין שחיטת החולין צריכה כוונה אלא אפילו שחט כמתעסק או דרך שחוק או שזרק סכין לנועצה בכותל ושחטה בהליכתה הואיל והשחיטה כראוי במקומה ושיעורה הרי זו כשירה.", + "לפיכך חרש או שוטה או קטן או שכור שנתבלבלה דעתו ומי שאחזתו רוח רעה ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותם שהשחיטה כתיקנה הרי זו כשרה, אבל סכין שנפלה ושחטה אע\"פ ששחטה כדרכה הרי זו פסולה שנאמר וזבחת עד שיהיה הזובח אדם ואע\"פ שאינו מתכוון לשחיטה.", + "גלגל של אבן או של עץ שהיתה הסכין קבועה בו וסבב אדם את הגלגל ושם צואר העוף או הבהמה כנגדו עד שנשחט בסביבת הגלגל הרי זו כשירה, ואם המים הן המסבבין את הגלגל ושם את הצואר כנגדו בשעה שסבב ונשחט הרי זו פסולה, ואם פטר אדם את המים עד שבאו וסבבו את הגלגל ושחט בסביבתו הרי זו כשרה שהרי מכח אדם בא, במה דברים אמורים בסביבה ראשונה שהיא מכח האדם אבל מסביבה שנייה ולאחריה אינה מכח האדם אלא מכח המים בהילוכן.", + "השוחט לשם הרים לשם גבעות לשם ימים לשם נהרות לשם מדברות אע\"פ שלא נתכוון לעבדן אלא לרפואה וכיוצא בה מדברי הבאי שאומרין העכו\"ם הרי שחיטתו פסולה, אבל אם שחט לשם מזל הים או מזל ההר או לכוכבים ומזלות וכיוצא בהן הרי זו אסורה בהנייה ככל תקרובת עכו\"ם.", + "השוחט את הבהמה לזרוק דמה לעכו\"ם או להקטיר חלבה לעכו\"ם הרי זו אסורה, שלמדין מחשבה בחוץ בחולין ממחשבת הקדשים בפנים, שמחשבה כזו פוסלת בהן כמו שיתבאר בהלכות פסולי המוקדשין.", + "שחטה ואחר כך חשב לזרוק דמה לעכו\"ם או להקטיר חלבה לעכו\"ם הרי זו אסורה מספק, שמא סופו הוכיח על תחלתו ובמחשבה כזו שחט.", + "השוחט לשם קדשים שמתנדבין ונידרים כמותן שחיטתו פסולה שזה כשוחט קדשים בחוץ, שחט לשם קדשים שאינן באין בנדר ונדבה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "כיצד השוחט לשם עולה לשם שלמים לשם תודה לשם פסח שחיטתו פסולה, הואיל והפסח מפריש אותו בכל השנה בכל עת שירצה הרי הוא דומה לדבר הנידר והנידב, שחט לשם חטאת לשם אשם ודאי לשם אשם תלוי לשם בכור לשם מעשר לשם תמורה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "היה מחוייב חטאת ושחט ואמר לחטאתי שחיטתו פסולה, היה לו קרבן בתוך ביתו ושחט ואמר לשם תמורת זבחי שחיטתו פסולה שהרי המיר בו.", + "האשה ששחטה לשם עולת יולדת ואמרה זו לעולתי שחיטתה כשרה, שאין עולת יולדת באה בנדר ונדבה והרי אינה יולדת שנתחייבה בעולה, ואין חוששין לה שמא הפילה, שכל המפלת קול יש לה, אבל השוחט לשם עולת נזיר אע\"פ שאינו נזיר שחיטתו פסולה שעיקר הנזירות נדר מן הנדרים.", + "שנים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין, אחד מתכוין לשם דבר שהשוחט לו שחיטתו אסורה, והשני לא היתה לו כוונה כלל ואפילו נתכוון לשם דבר המותר להתכוין לו הרי זו פסולה, וכן אם שחט זה אחר זה והתכוון האחד מהן לשם דבר הפסול פוסל, במה דברים אמורים כשהיה לו בה שותפות אבל אם אין לו בה שותפות אינה אסורה, שאין אדם מישראל אוסר דבר שאינו שלו שאין כונתו אלא לצערו.", + "ישראל ששחט לעכו\"ם אע\"פ שהעכו\"ם מתכוין לכל מה שירצה שחיטתו כשרה, שאין חוששין אלא למחשבת הזובח לא למחשבת בעל הבהמה, לפיכך עכו\"ם ששחט לישראל אפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה כמו שיתבאר.." + ], + [ + "חמשה דברים מפסידין את השחיטה, ועיקר הלכות שחיטה להזהר בכל אחת מהן, ואלו הן: שהייה, דרסה, חלדה, הגרמה, ועיקור.", + "שהייה כיצד הרי שהתחיל לשחוט והגביה ידו קודם שיגמור השחיטה ושהה בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס וחזר הוא או אחר וגמר את השחיטה, אם שהה כדי שיגביה את הבהמה וירביצנה וישחוט שחיטתו פסולה, ואם שהה פחות מכדי זה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "היתה בהמה דקה שיעור שהייתה כדי שיגביה בהמה דקה וירביצנה וישחוט, ואם היתה גסה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וישחוט, ובעוף כדי שיגביה בהמה דקה וירביצנה וישחוט.", + "שחט מעט ושהה מעט וחזר ושחט מעט ושהה מעט עד שגמר השחיטה ולא שהה בפעם אחת שיעור השהייה אבל כשתחשוב כל זמן השהיות יצטרף מכולן שיעור שהייה הרי זו ספק נבלה, וכן אם שהה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וכדי שישחוט כמו מיעוט הסימנין בלבד לא כדי שישחוט שחיטה גמורה הרי זו ספק נבלה.", + "שחט רוב אחד בעוף או רוב שנים בבהמה אע\"פ ששהה חצי היום וחזר וגמר חתיכת הסימנין הרי זו מותרת, מאחר שנשחט בה כשיעור הרי זה כמחתך בשר השחוטה.", + "שחט בקנה לבדו חציו או מיעוטו ושהה זמן מרובה הרי זה חוזר וגומר השחיטה אין בכך כלום, אבל אם שחט רוב הקנה או שנקב בושט כל שהוא ושהה כשיעור בין שחזר וגמר השחיטה שהתחיל בין ששחט שחיטה גמורה במקום אחר הרי זו פסולה, מפני שהבהמה או העוף שנפסק רוב הקנה שלה או שניקב הושט במשהו נבלה ואין השחיטה מועלת בה כמו שיתבאר.", + "הנה נתבאר לך שאין שהייה בקנה בעוף כלל, שאם שחט רוב הקנה ושהה כבר נגמרה שחיטתו כשחזר וגמר מחתך בשר הוא, ואם שחט במיעוט הקנה ושהה הרי זה חוזר ושוחט כל זמן שירצה שאינה נאסרת משום נבלה עד שיפסק רוב הקנה.", + "שחט העוף ושהה בו ואינו יודע אם ניקב הושט או לא ניקב חוזר ושוחט הקנה לבדו במקום אחר ומניחו עד שימות ובודק הושט מבפנים, אם לא נמצאת בו טיפת דם בידוע שלא ניקב וכשרה.", + "חלדה כיצד, כגון שהכניס הסכין בין סימן לסימן בין שפסק הסימן העליון למעלה בין ששחט התחתון למטה שהוא דרך שחיטה הרי זו פסולה.", + "הכניס את הסכין תחת העור ושחט שני הסימנים כדרכן, או שהחליד את הסכין תחת צמר מסובך, או שפרס מטלת /מטלית/ על הסכין ועל הצואר ושחט תחת המטלת הואיל ואין הסכין גלויה הרי זו ספק נבלה, וכן אם שחט מיעוט הסימנים בהחלדה וגמר השחיטה שלא בהחלדה הרי זו ספק נבלה.", + "דרסה כיצד, כגון שהכה בסכין על הצואר כדרך שמכין בסייף וחתך הסימנין בבת אחת בלא הולכה ולא הובאה, או שהניח הסכין על הצואר ודחק וחתך למטה כחותך צנון או קישות עד שחתך הסימנין הרי זו פסולה.", + "הגרמה כיצד, זה השוחט בקנה למעלה במקום שאינו ראוי לשחיטה, וכמו שני חטים יש בסוף הקנה למעלה בטבעת גדולה, שחט בתוך החטים אם שייר מהן כל שהוא למעלה הרי זו כשרה, שהרי שחט משיפוי כובע ולמטה, והוא מן המקום הראוי לשחיטה, ואם לא שייר מהן כלום אלא שחט למעלה מהן הרי זו מוגרמת ופסולה.", + "שחט רוב האחד או רוב השנים והשלים השחיטה בדרסה או בהגרמה הרי זו כשרה שהרי נשחט השיעור כראוי, הגרים בתחלה שליש ושחט שני שלישים הרי זו כשרה, שחט שליש והגרים שליש וחזר ושחט שליש האחרון כשרה, הגרים שליש ושחט שליש וחזר והגרים שליש האחרון הרי זו פסולה, ואם דרס או החליד בין בשליש הראשון בין בשליש האמצעי הרי זו פסולה.", + "עיקור כיצד, כגון שנעקרה הגרגרת והיא הקנה או הושט ונשמט אחד מהן או שניהן קודם גמר שחיטה, אבל אם שחט אחד בעוף או רובו ואח\"כ נשמט הסימן השני שחיטתו כשרה.", + "נשמט אחד מהן ואחר כך שחט את השני שחיטתו פסולה, שחט אחד מהן ונמצא השני שמוט ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה נשמט או אחר שחיטה הרי זו ספק נבלה.", + "נמצא הסימן השחוט שמוט הרי זו כשרה, שודאי אחר שחיטה נעקר, שאילו נעקר קודם שחיטה היה מתדלדל ולא נשחט.", + "במה דברים אמורים שלא תפס הסימנין בידו כששחט, אבל אם תפסן ושחט אפשר שתשחט אחר העיקור ולפיכך אם נמצאת שמוטה ושחוטה הרי זו ספק נבלה.", + "כל מקום שאמרנו בשחיטה פסולה הרי זו נבלה, ואם אכל ממנה כזית לוקה משום אוכל נבלה שאין מוציא מידי נבלה אלא שחיטה כשרה כאשר צוה משה רבינו ע\"ה =עליו השלום= כמו שביארנו, וכל ספק בשחיטה הרי הוא ספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "בהמה שניטל ירך שלה וחללה עמה עד שתראה חסרה כשתרבץ הרי זו נבלה, כמו שנחתך חציה ונחלקה לשני גופות ואין השחיטה מועלת בה, וכן אם נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה או שנקרעה מגבה כדג או שנפסק רוב הקנה או שניקב הושט בכל שהוא במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה מחיים ואין השחיטה מועלת בה, ואחד הבהמה ואחד העוף בכל הדברים האלה.", + "שני עורות יש לו לושט, החיצון אדום והפנימי לבן, ניקב האחד מהן בלבד כשרה, ניקבו שניהן בכל שהוא במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה, ובין שנשחטה במקום הנקב בין שנשחטה במקום אחר אין השחיטה מועלת בה, ניקבו שניהם זה שלא כנגד זה נבלה.", + "ניקב הושט ועלה בו קרום וסתמו אין הקרום כלום והרי הוא נקוב כשהיה, נמצא קוץ עומד בושט הרי זו ספק נבלה שמא ניקב הושט ועלה קרום במקום הנקב ואינו נראה, אבל אם נמצא הקוץ לאורכו בושט אין חוששין לו שרוב הבהמות המדבריות אוכלות הקוצים תמיד.", + "ושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אלא מבפנים, כיצד הופכו ובודק אם נמצא עליו טיפת דם בידוע שהיה נקוב.", + "גרגרת שנפסק רוב חללה במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה, וכן אם ניקבה כאיסר, ניקבה נקבים קטנים אם נקבים שאין בהן חסרון הם מצטרפין לרובה ואם נקבים שיש בהם חסרון מצטרפין לכאיסר, וכן אם ניטלה ממנה רצועה מצטרפת לכאיסר, ובעוף כל שאילו מקפל הרצועה או הנקבים שיש בהן חסרון ומניחן על פי הקנה אם חופה את רובו נבלה ואם לאו כשרה.", + "ניקבה הגרגרת נקב מפולש משני צדדיה כדי שיכנס איסר לרחבו נבלה, נסדקה לארכה אפילו לא נשתייר מן המקום הראוי בה לשחיטה אלא משהו למעלה ומשהו למטה כשרה.", + "גרגרת שניקבה ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה ניקבה או אחר שחיטה ניקבה, נוקבין אותה עתה במקום אחר ומדמין הנקב לנקב אם נדמה לו מותרת, ואין מדמין אלא מחוליא גדולה לחוליא גדולה או מקטנה לקטנה, אבל לא מקטנה לגדולה שכל הקנה חליות חליות הוא ובין כל חוליא וחוליא חוליא אחת קטנה משתיהן ורכה." + ], + [ + "ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות שחיטה שביארנו ושחט בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו, לא הוא ולא אחרים, והרי זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות.", + "ואפילו שחט בפנינו ארבע וחמש פעמים שחיטה כשרה והרי שחיטה זו ששחט בינו לבין עצמו שחיטה נכונה וגמורה אסור לאכול ממנה, הואיל ואינו יודע דברים המפסידים אפשר שיפסיד השחיטה והוא אינו יודע כגון שישהה או ידרוס או ישחוט בסכין פגומה וכיוצא באלו בלא כונתו.", + "ישראל שיודע הלכות שחיטה הרי זה לא ישחוט בינו לבין עצמו לכתחלה עד שישחוט בפני חכם פעמים רבות עד שיהיה רגיל וזריז, ואם שחט תחלה בינו לבין עצמו שחיטתו כשרה.", + "היודע הלכות שחיטה ושחט בפני חכם עד שנעשה רגיל הוא הנקרא מומחה וכל המומחין שוחטין לכתחלה בינן לבין עצמן ואפילו נשים ועבדים אם היו מומחין הרי אלו שוחטין לכתחלה.", + "חרש שוטה וקטן ושכור שנתבלבלה דעתו ששחטו שחיטתן פסולה מפני שאין בהן דעת שמא יקלקלו, לפיכך אם שחטו בפני היודע וראה אותן ששחטו כהוגן שחיטתן כשרה.", + "מי שאינו יודע אצלנו ששחט בינו לבין עצמו שואלין אותו, אם נמצא יודע עיקרי הלכות שחיטה שחיטתו כשרה.", + "הרי שראינו ישראלי מרחוק ששחט והלך לו ולא ידענו אם יודע אם אינו יודע הרי זו מותרת, וכן האומר לשלוחו צא ושחוט לי ומצא הבהמה שחוטה ואין ידוע אם שלוחו שחטה או אחר הרי זו מותרת, שרוב המצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן.", + "אבד לו גדי או תרנגול ומצאו שחוט בבית מותר, שרוב המצויין אצל שחיטה מומחים הן, מצאו בשוק אסור שמא נתנבל ולפיכך הושלך, וכן אם מצאו באשפה שבבית אסור.", + "מומחה שנשתתק והרי הוא מבין ושומע ודעתו נכונה הרי זה שוחט לכתחלה, וכן מי שאינו שומע הרי זה שוחט.", + "הסומא לא ישחוט לכתחלה אלא אם כן אחרים רואים אותו ואם שחט שחיטתו כשרה.", + "עכו\"ם ששחט אע\"פ ששחט בפני ישראל בסכין יפה ואפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה ולוקה על אכילתה מן התורה, שנאמר וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו, מאחר שהזהיר שמא יאכל מזבחו אתה למד שזבחו אסור ואינו דומה לישראל שאינו יודע הלכות שחיטה.", + "וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו עכו\"ם שאינו עובד ע\"ז שחיטתו נבלה.", + "התחיל העכו\"ם לשחוט מיעוט סימנין וגמר ישראל או התחיל ישראל וגמר העכו\"ם פסולה, ישנה לשחיטתו מתחלה ועד סוף, אבל אם שחט העכו\"ם דבר שאינו עושה אותו נבלה כגון ששחט חצי הגרגרת בלבד וגמר ישראל הרי זו כשרה.", + "ישראל מומר לעבירה מן העבירות שהיה מומחה הרי זה שוחט לכתחלה וצריך ישראל כשר לבדוק את הסכין ואח\"כ יתננה למומר זה לשחוט בה מפני שחזקתו שאינו טורח לבדוק, ואם היה מומר לעבודה זרה או מחלל שבת בפרהסיא או אפיקורוס והוא הכופר בתורה ובמשה רבינו כמו שביארנו בהלכות תשובה הרי הוא כעכו\"ם ושחיטתו נבלה.", + "מי שהוא פסול לעדות בעבירה מן העבירות של תורה הרי זה שוחט בינו לבין עצמו אם היה מומחה, שאינו מניח דבר מותר ואוכל דבר איסור שזו חזקה היא על כל ישראל ואפילו הרשעים מהן.", + "אלו הצדוקין והבייתוסין ותלמידיהן וכל הטועים אחריהן שאינן מאמינים בתורה שבעל פה שחיטתן אסורה, ואם שחטו בפנינו הרי זו מותרת, שאין איסור שחיטתן אלא שמא יקלקלו והם אינן מאמינין בתורת השחיטה לפיכך אינן נאמנין לומר לא קלקלנו.", + "כשהיו ישראל במדבר לא נצטוו בשחיטת החולין אלא היו נוחרין או שוחטין ואוכלין כשאר האומות, ונצטוו במדבר שכל הרוצה לשחוט לא ישחוט אלא שלמים שנאמר איש איש מבית ישראל אשר ישחט שור וגו' ואל פתח אהל מועד וגו' למען אשר יביאו וגו' וזבחו זבחי שלמים לה' וגו', אבל הרוצה לנחור ולאכול במדבר היה נוחר.", + "ומצוה זו אינה נוהגת לדורות אלא במדבר בלבד בעת היתר הנחירה, ונצטוו שם שכשיכנסו לארץ תאסר הנחירה ולא יאכלו חולין אלא בשחיטה, וישחטו בכל מקום לעולם חוץ לעזרה שנאמר כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך וגו' וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך אשר נתן ה' אלהיך וגו', וזו היא המצוה הנוהגת לדורות לשחוט ואחר כך יאכל.." + ], + [ + "כבר ביארנו בהלכות איסורי מאכלות שהטרפה האמורה בתורה היא הנוטה למות, ולא נאמר טריפה אלא שדבר הכתוב בהווה כגון שטרפה ארי וכיוצא בו ושברה ועדיין לא מתה.", + "ויש שם חלאים אחרים אם יארעו לה תחשב טריפה והן הלכה למשה מסיני, ושמונה מיני טרפות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני ואלו הן: דרוסה, נקובה, חסרה, נטולה, פסוקה, קרועה, נפולה, ושבורה.", + "אע\"פ שכולן הלכה למשה מסיני הן, הואיל ואין לך בפירוש בתורה אלא דרוסה החמירו בה, וכל ספק שיסתפק בדרוסה אסור, ושאר שבעה מיני טרפות יש בהן ספקין מותרים כמו שיתבאר.", + "הדרוסה הוא שיטרוף הארי וכיוצא בו הבהמה וידרוס עליה בידו, או ידרוס הנץ והנשר וכיוצא בהן על העוף, ואין דריסה בבהמה גסה ובחיה גסה אלא לארי בלבד, ובבהמה דקה מן הזאב ולמעלה, ובגדיים וטלאים אפילו חתול ושועל ונמייה וכיוצא בהן יש להן דריסה וכל שכן בעופות.", + "והנץ יש לו דריסה ואפילו בעוף גדול ממנו, אבל שאר עופות הדורסים יש להן דריסה בעוף שכמותן, ואין להן דריסה בעוף שהוא גדול מהן.", + "ויש לחולדה דריסה בעופות, וכלב אין לו דריסה כל עיקר לא בעוף ולא בבהמה וחיה, והנץ יש לו דריסה בגדיים וטלאים והוא שיקוב בצפרניו לבית החלל.", + "אין דריסה אלא ביד הטורף אבל ברגליו אין חוששין לה, ואין דריסה אלא בצפורן אבל בשן אין חוששין לה אלא אם כן נקב עד בית החלל בודקין שמא נקב אחד מן האיברים שנטרפת בנקיבתן, ואין דריסה אלא בכוונת הטורף, אבל אם נפל הדורס ונשתקעו צפרניו בנטרף אין זו דריסה, ואין דריסה אלא מחיים, אבל אם דרס ונהרג ועדיין ידו בדרוסה ולא שמט צפרניו ממנה אלא אחר מותו אין חוששין לה.", + "וכיצד דין הדרוסה, כל מקום שאמרנו חוששין לה שוחטין את הנטרף ובודקין כל החלל שלו מכף הירך עד הקדקד, אם נמצאת כולה שלימה מכל מיני טרפות ולא נמצא בה רושם הדריסה הרי זו מותרת, ואם נמצא בה רושם הדריסה הרי זו טריפה ואסורה מן התורה.", + "אי זה הוא רושם הדריסה, שיאדים הבשר כנגד בני מעים ואם נמוק הבשר כנגד בני מעים עד שנעשה כבשר שהרופא גוררו מן החבורה, רואין אותו הבשר כאילו חסר וטרפה.", + "ואם דרס בסימנין משיאדימו טריפה ודריסתן במשהו כיון שהאדים בהן כל שהוא מחמת דריסה טריפה.", + "ספק דרוסה אסורה עד שתבדק כדרוסה ודאית, כיצד ארי שנכנס לבין שוורים ונמצא צפורן בגבו של אחד מהן חוששין שמא ארי דרסו, ואין אומרים שמא בכותל נתחכך, וכן שועל או נמייה שנכנס לבין העופות והוא שותק והן מקרקרין חוששין שמא דרס, אבל אם היה הוא נוהם והם מקרקרין מיראתו ומנהימתו הן מקרקרין, וכן אם קטע ראש אחד מהן הנה נח רגזו, וכן אם שתק הוא והם אין חוששין שאילו הזיק היו מקרקרין.", + "ספק שנכנס לכאן טורף או לא נכנס, או שראינו ולא נודע אם זה מן הטורפין או אינו מן הטורפין אין חוששין, וכן עוף שנכנס לבין העצים או לבין הקנים ויצא וראשו מנטף דם או צוארו אין חוששין לו שמא נטרף אלא אומרים שמא בעצים ניזק.." + ], + [ + "נקובה כיצד, אחד עשר איברים הן שאם ניקב אחד מהן לחללו במשהו טרפה ואלו הן: תרבץ הושט, וקרום של מוח הראש, והלב עם הקנה שלו, והמרה, וקנה הכבד, והקיבה, והכרס, והמסס, ובית הכוסות, והדקין, והריאה עם הקנה שלה.", + "תרבץ הושט כבר ביארנו שיעורו ושהוא המקום מן הושט שאינו ראוי לשחיטה למעלה מן הושט אם ניקב לחללו במה שהוא טריפה.", + "שני קרומות יש למוח שבראש, אם ניקב העליון הסמוך לעצם בלבד הרי זו מותרת, ואם ניקב התחתון הסמוך למוח טרפה, ומשיתחיל המוח להמשך לשדרה והוא מחוץ לפולין שהן תחלת העורף יהיה לקרומו דין אחר, ואם ניקב חוץ לפולין מותר.", + "המוח עצמו שניקב או נתמעך והקרום קיים כשרה, ואם נשפך כמים או נמס כדונג טריפה.", + "הלב שניקב לבית חללו, בין לחלל גדול שבשמאל בין לחלל קטן שבימין טרפה, אבל אם ניקב בשר הלב ולא הגיע לחללו מותר, וקנה הלב והוא המזרק הגדול שיוצא ממנו לריאה הרי הוא כלב ואם ניקב לחללו במשהו טריפה.", + "מרה שניקבה וכבד סותמה מותרת, ואם לא נסתם הנקב אע\"פ שהוא סמוך לכבד טרפה.", + "נזייה שנמצאת במרה אם היתה כמו גרעינה של תמרה שאין ראשה חד מותרת, ואם ראש חד כגרעינת הזית אסורה, שהרי ניקבה אותה כשנכנסה, וזה שלא יראה הנקב מפני שהוגלד פי המכה.", + "קני הכבד והן המזרקין שבו שבהן הדם מתבשל, אם ניקב אחד מהן במשהו טרפה, לפיכך מחט שנמצאת בחיתוך הכבד אם היתה מחט גדולה והיה הקצה החד שלה לפנים בידוע שניקבה כשנכנסה ואם היה הראש העגול לפנים אומרין דרך סימפונות הלכה ומותרת.", + "היתה מחט קטנה הרי זה טרפה מפני ששני ראשיה חדין ודאי ניקבה, ואם נמצאת בסימפון הגדול שבכבד והוא הקנה הרחב שבאמצע שבו נכנס המאכל לכבד הרי זה מותרת, ובשר כבד שהתליע מותרת.", + "קיבה שניקבה וחלב טהור סותם את הנקב מותרת, וכן כל נקב שהבשר או החלב המותר באכילה סותם אותו הרי זה מותר, חוץ מחלב הלב והקרום שעל הלב כולו, והמחיצה שבאמצע הבטן המבדלת בין איברי המאכל ואיברי הנשימה, והיא שקורעין אותה ואחר כך תראה הריאה, והיא הנקראת טרפש הכבד, והמקום הלבן שבאמצעה, וחלב המעי האחרון שבאיברים אלו, אין מגינין לפי שהן קשין, ונקב שנסתם באחד מהן אינו כסתום, וחלב חיה שכנגדו בבהמה אסור אינו סותם אע\"פ שהוא מותר באכילה.", + "כרס שניקב טריפה, ואין לו דבר שיסתום אותו, שהרי החלב שעליו אסור, וכן המסס ובית הכוסות שניקב אחד מהן לחוץ טרפה, ואם נקב אחד מהן לתוך חלל חבירו מותרת.", + "מחט שנמצאת בעובי בית הכוסות מצד אחד כשירה, ואם נקבה נקב מפולש לתוך חלל בית הכוסות, ונמצאת טיפת דם במקום הנקב טרפה שודאי קודם שחיטה ניקב, אבל אם אין דם במקום הנקב הרי זה מותר שודאי אחר שחיטה דחקה המחט ונקבה.", + "בהמה שהלעיטה דבר שנוקב בני מעיה כגון קורט של חלתית וכיוצא בו טרפה שודאי נוקב, ואם היה ספק נוקב ספק אינו נוקב תבדק, כל אחד מן בני המעים שפסולת המאכל סובבת בהן והן הנקראים דקין שניקב טרפה, ויש מהן מלופפין ומוקפין זו לפנים מזו בעיגול כמו נחש שנכרך ואלו הן הנקראים הדרא דכנתה אם ניקב אחד מהן לחבירו כשירה, שהרי חבירו מגין עליו.", + "ומעים שניקבו וליחה סותמתן טריפה שאין זו סתימה עומדת, בני מעים שבא זאב או כלב וכיוצא בהן ונטלן והרי הן נקובין אחר שהניחן תולין בו ומותרת ואין אומרין שמא במקום נקב ניקב, נמצאו נקובין ולא נודע אם קודם שחיטה ניקבו אם אחר שחיטה נוקבין בהן נקב אחר ומדמין לו, אם היה הנקב הראשון כמותו כשרה, ואם היה ביניהן שינוי קודם שחיטה ניקב וטרפה, ואם משמשו הידים בנקב הספק כך צריך למשמש בנקב שמדמין לו ואחר כך עורכין זה לזה.", + "בני מעיים שיצאו לחוץ ולא ניקבו מותרת ואם נתהפכו אף על פי שלא ניקבו טרפה, שאי אפשר שיחזרו כמות שהיו אחר שנהפכו ואינה חיה.", + "המעי האחרון שהוא שוה ואין בו עיקום והוא שהרעי יוצא בו מן הערוה והוא דבוק בין עיקרי היריכים הוא הנקרא חלחולת אם ניקב במשהו טרפה כשאר המעים, במה דברים אמורים שניקב לחלל הבטן אבל אם נקב במקום הדבוק ביריכים מותרת ואפילו נטל ממנו מקום הדבק כולו מותרת והוא שישתייר מארכו בשור כמו ארבע אצבעות.", + "העוף אין לו כרס ולא המסס ולא בית הכוסות, אבל יש לו כנגדן זפק וקרקבן, וכל הטרפות שוות הן בבהמה חיה ועוף, וזפק שניקב גגו במשהו טרפה ואי זהו גגו של זפק זה שימתח עם הושט כשיאריך העוף צוארו אבל שאר הזפק שניקב מותר.", + "שני כיסין יש בקרקבן, החיצון אדום כמו בשר, והפנימי לבן כמו עור, ניקב זה בלא זה מותרת עד שינקבו שניהן במשהו, ואם ניקבו שניהן זה שלא כנגד זה מותר.", + "הטחול אינו מן האיברין שנקיבתן במשהו ולפיכך לא מנו אותו חכמים בכללן אלא יש לנקב שלו שיעור שאינו שוה בכולו, כיצד הטחול ראשו האחד עבה והשני דק כבריית הלשון, אם ניקב בראש העבה נקב מפולש טרפה, ואם ניקב נקב שאינו מפולש אם נשאר תחתיו כעובי דינר של זהב מותר פחות מכאן הרי הוא כמפולש וטרפה, אבל אם ניקב הדק כשרה.", + "כל אבר שאמרו חכמים בו שאם ניקב במשהו טרפה כך אם ניטל כולו טרפה, בין שניטל בחולי או ביד בין שנברא חסר, וכן אם נברא בשני איברים מאותו אבר טרפה שכל היתר כנטול הוא חשוב, כיצד ניטל אחד מן המעים או המרה וכיוצא בהן בין בעוף בין בבהמה טרפה, וכן אם נמצא בהן שתי מררות או שני מעים טרפה וכן כל כיוצא בהן, אבל אם ניטל הטחול או שנמצאו שנים מותרת שאינו בכלל המנויין.", + "המעי היתר שתטרף בו הבהמה הוא היתר מתחלתו ועד סופו עד שנמצאו שני מעים זה בצד זה מתחלה ועד סוף כמעי העוף או שהיה המעי יוצא כענף מן הבד והרי הוא מובדל בין בעוף בין בבהמה, אבל אם חזר ונתערב עם המעי ונעשה אחד משני ראשיו והרי שניהם מובדלין באמצע הרי זו מותרת ואין כאן יתר.." + ], + [ + "שני קרומות יש על הריאה אם ניקב זה בלא זה מותרת, ואם ניקבו שניהן טרפה אפילו נגלד הקרום העליון כולו והלך לו מותרת, והקנה שניקב מן החזה ולמטה במשהו טרפה, והוא המקום שאינו ראוי לשחיטה בקנה למטה.", + "התחיל בשחיטה ושחט כל הקנה ואחר כך ניקבה הריאה ואחר כך גמר השחיטה הרי זו טרפה, הואיל וניקבה קודם גמר שחיטה וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "אחד מסמפוני ריאה שניקב אפילו ניקב לחבירו טרפה, וריאה שניקבה ועלה קרום במכה ונסתם הנקב אינו כלום, ניקבה האום של ריאה אע\"פ שדופן סותמתה טרפה, ואם ניקבה במקום חתוך האונות שלה והוא המקום שרובצת עליו כשרה.", + "במה דברים אמורים כשסתם מקום הנקב שבאונות בשר, אבל אם נסמך הנקב לעצם אינו מגין, ואם היה נקב האונות דבוק בעצם ובבשר מותרת.", + "האום של ריאה שנמצאת סמוכה לדופן, בין שהעלת צמחים בין שלא העלת חוששין לה שמא ניקבה, וכיצד עושין בה מפרקין אותה מן הדופן ונזהרין בה שלא תנקב, אם נמצאת נקובה ונמצא בדופן מכה במקום הנקב תולין במכה ואומרים אחר שחיטה ניקבה כשנפרק מן המכה, ואם אין מכה בדופן בידוע שנקב זה בריאה היה קודם השחיטה וטרפה.", + "הריאה שנמצא בה מקום אטום כל שהוא שאין הרוח נכנסת בו ואינו נתפח הרי זו כנקובה וטרפה, וכיצד בודקין אותו, קורעין המקום שלא נתפח בשעת נפיחה אם נמצאת בו לחה מותרת שמחמת הלחה לא נכנסה שם הרוח, ואם לא נמצאת בו לחה נותנין עליו מעט רוק או תבן או כנף וכיוצא בהן ונופחין אותה אם נתנדנד כשרה ואם לאו טרפה שאין הרוח נכנסת לשם.", + "ריאה שתשמע בה הברה כשנופחין אותה אם ניכר המקום שממנו תשמע ההברה מושיבין עליו רוק או תבן וכיוצא בו, אם נתנדנד בידוע שהיא נקובה וטרפה, ואם לא ניכר המקום מושיבין אותה במים פושרין ונופחין אותה, אם בקבק המים טרפה, ואם לאו בידוע שקרום התחתון בלבד ניקב והרוח תנהג בין שני הקרומות ומפני זה ישמע בה קול דממה בשעת נפיחה.", + "זה עיקר גדול יהיה בידך שכל ריאה שנופחין אותה בפושרין ולא יבקבק המים הרי היא שלימה מכל נקב.", + "ריאה שנשפכה כקיתון וקרום העליון שלה קיים שלם בלא נקב, אם הסמפונות עומדים במקומם ולא נמוחו כשרה, ואם נמוח אפילו סמפון אחד טרפה, כיצד עושין נוקבין אותה ושופכין אותה בכלי שהוא שוע באבר וכיוצא בו, אם נראה בה חוטין לבנין בידוע שנימוקו הסמפונות וטרפה, ואם לאו בשר הריאה בלבד הוא שנמוק וכשרה.", + "ריאה שנמצאו בה אבעבועות אם היו מלאים רוח או מים זכים או לחה הנמשכת כדבש וכיוצא בו או לחה יבשה וקשה אפילו כאבן הרי זו מותרת, ואם נמצאת בהן לחה סרוחה או מים סרוחין או עכורין הרי זו טרפה, וכשמוציא הלחה ובודק אותה צריך לבדוק הסמפון שתחתיה אם נמצא נקוב טרפה.", + "ריאה שנמצאו בה שתי אבעבועות סמוכות זו לזו טרפה, שהדבר קרוב הרבה שיש נקב ביניהן ואין להן דרך בדיקה, היתה אחת ונראה כשתים נוקבין האחת אם שפכה לה האחרת אחת היא ומותרת ואם לאו טרפה.", + "הריאה שנתמסמסה טרפה, כיצד כגון שנמצאת שלימה וכשתולין אותה תחתך ותפול חתיכות חתיכות, ריאה שנמצאת נקובה במקום שיד הטבח ממשמש מותרת ותולין בידו ואומרין מיד הטבח ניקבה אחר השחיטה, נמצא הנקב במקום אחר ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה או אחר שחיטה נוקבין בה נקב אחר ומדמין כשם שעושים בבני מעיים.", + "ואין מדמין מריאה של בהמה דקה לריאה של בהמה גסה אלא מדקה לדקה ומגסה לגסה, נמצא הנקב באחד מן האבעבועות הרי זו טרפה ואין אומרין ניקוב אבעבוע אחר ונערוך שאין הדבר ניכר.", + "מחט שנמצאת בריאה נופחין אותה אם לא יצא ממנה רוח בידוע שזאת המחט דרך סמפונות נכנסה ולא ניקבה, ואם נתחתכה הריאה קודם נפיחה ונמצאת בה המחט הרי זו אסורה שהדבר קרוב שניקבה כשנכנסה.", + "תולעת שהיתה בריאה וניקבה ויצאה והרי הריאה נקובה בתולעת הרי זו מותרת, חזקתה שאחר שחיטה תיקוב ותצא, יש שם מראות שאם נשתנה מראה האבר לאותו המראה הרע הרי הוא כנקוב שאותו הבשר שנשתנו מראיו למראה זה כמת הוא חשוב וכאילו הוא הבשר שנהפך עינו אינו מצוי, וכן הוא אומר ומחית בשר חי בשאת וביום הראות בו בשר חי מכלל ששאר הבשר שנשתנה אינו חי.", + "ריאה שנשתנו מראיה, בין מראה כולה בין מראה מקצתה אם נשתנית למראה המותר אפילו נשתנית כולה מותרת, ואם נשתנה למראה האסור אפילו כל שהוא טרפה, שהמראה האסור כנקב הוא חשוב כמו שביארנו.", + "וחמש מראות אסורות יש בריאה ואלו הן: שחורה כדיו, או ירוקה כעין כשות, או כעין חלמון ביצה, או כעין חריע, או כמראה הבשר, וחריע הוא הצבע שצובעים בו הבגדים והוא דומה לשערות אדומות מעט ונוטות לירוקה.", + "נמצאת כעין חריות של דקל אוסרין אותה מספק שזה קרוב למראה האסור, וכל המראות האלו אין אוסרין בהם עד שנופחים אותה וממרס בה בידו אם נשתנית למראה המותר מותרת, ואם עמדה בעינה אסורה.", + "ארבע מראות מותרת /מותרות/ יש בה ואלו הן: שחורה ככחול, או ירוקה כחציר, או אדומה, או כמראה הכבד, ואפילו היתה הריאה כולה טלאים טלאים נקודות נקודות מארבע מראות אלו הרי זו מותרת.", + "עוף שנפל לאור והוריק לבו או כבדו או קרקבנו או שהאדימו המעיים שלו בכל שהוא הרי זו טרפה, שכל הירוקים שהאדימו או האדומים שהוריקו מחמת האור בעוף הרי הן כמי שניטלו וטרפה, והוא שיעמדו במראה זה אחר ששלקו אותן מעט וממרסין בהן.", + "כל עוף שנמצאת הכבד שלו כמראה בני מעים, או שנשתנו שאר בני מעים ועמדו בשינויין אחר שליקה ומריסה כמו שביארנו בידוע שנפל לאור ונחמרו בני מעיו וטרפה, ולא עוד אלא בני מעים של עוף שלא נמצא בהם שינוי וכשנשלקו נשתנו והאדימו הירוקים והוריקו האדומים, בידוע שנפל לאור ונחמרו בני מעיו וטרפה, וכן הושט שנמצא העור החיצון שלו לבן והפנימי אדום בין בעוף בין בבהמה הרי הוא כאילו אינו וטרפה. ." + ], + [ + "חסירה כיצד, שני איברים הן שאם חסר ממניינם טרפה, ואלו הן: הריאה והרגלים, וחמש אונות יש לריאה כשיתלה אותה אדם בידו ופני ריאה כנגד פניו, שלש מן הימין, ושתים מן השמאל, ובצד ימין ממנה כמו אזן קטנה ואינה בצד האונות ויש לה כמו כיס בפני עצמה והיא בתוך הכיס, ואוזן זו קטנה היא הנקרא ורדא מפני שהיא דומה לורד ואינה מן המנין, לפיכך אם לא נמצאת הורדא מותרת, שכך היא דרכה יש בהמות תמצא בהם ויש בהמות לא תמצא בהם, ואם נמצאת נקובה אע\"פ שהכיס שלה סותם את הנקב הרי זו טרפה.", + "חסר מנין האונות ונמצאת אחת מן השמאל או שתים מן הימין טרפה, ואם נמצאו שתים בימין וזאת הורדא הרי זו מותרת.", + "נתחלפו האונות ונמצאו שלש מן שמאל ושתים מן הימין בלא ורד, או שהיה הורד עם השלש בצד שמאל הרי זו טריפה שהיא חסרה מצד הימין.", + "נתוספו האונות במניינם אם היתה האוזן היתירה בצד האונות או מלפני הריאה שהוא עומת /לעומת/ הלב מותרת, ואם היתה על גבה שהוא לעומת הצלעות הרי זו טרפה שהיתר כחסר, והוא שתהיה כמו עלה של הדס, אבל פחות מזה אינה אוזן ומותרת.", + "אוזן שנמצאת דבוקה בחברתה הסמוכה לה מותרת, ואם נסמכו שלא על הסדר כגון שנסמכה ראשונה לשלישית טריפה.", + "נמצאו שתי האונות כאונה אחת ואינן נראות כשתים דבוקות אם היה ביניהן כמו עלה ההדס בין בעיקרן בין באמצען בין בסופן כדי שיוכר שהן שתים דבוקות מותרת ואם לאו הרי זו חסירה וטריפה.", + "נמצאת כולה שתי ערוגות ואין לה חתוך אזנים טריפה, וכן אם חסר גוף הריאה אע\"פ שלא נקבה הרי זו כמי שחסר מנין האונות וטריפה, לפיכך אם נמצא ממנה מקום יבש עד שיפרך בצפורן הרי זו כחסר וטריפה ואפילו היה כל שהוא.", + "ריאה שנמצאת נפוחה כמו עיקר חריות של דקל אוסרין אותה מספק, שזו תוספת משונה בגופה ושמא התוספת בגוף כחסרון כמו שאמר במנין.", + "הבהמה שפחדה ויראה עד שצמקה הריאה שלה וקרבה להיות יבשה, אם פחדה בידי שמים כגון ששמעה קול רעם או ראתה זיקים וכיוצא בזה מותרת, ואם פחדה בידי אדם כגון ששחטו לפניה בהמה אחרת וכיוצא בזה הרי זו כחסרה וטרפה.", + "כיצד בודקין אותה, מושיבין את הריאה במים מעת לעת, ואם היה זמן הקור מושיבין אותה במים פושרין ובכלי שאין המים מתמצין מגבו ונוזלים כדי שלא יצונו במהרה, ואם היה זמן החום מושיבין אותה במים צונן בכלי שהמים מתמצין מגבו כדי שישארו קרים, אם חזרה לברייתה הרי זו בידי שמים ומותרת ואם לא חזרה בידי אדם היא וטרפה.", + "בהמה שהיתה חסרה רגל בתחלת ברייתה טרפה, וכן אם היתה יתירה רגל שכל היתר כחסר הוא, אבל אם היו לה שלש ידים או יד אחת מותרת, לפיכך אם נחתך היד שלה מותרת, נחתך הרגל מן הארכובה ולמעלה טרפה, מן הארכובה ולמטה מותרת, באי זו ארכובה אמרו בארכובה שהוא סוף הירך הסמוך לגוף.", + "נשבר העצם למעלה מן הארכובה אם יצא כולו או רובו לחוץ הרי זה כמה שנחתך ונפל וטריפה, ואם היה הבשר או העור חופה רוב עביו ורוב היקפו של עצם שנשבר הרי זו מותרת ואפילו נפל מקצת העצם שנשבר והלך לו, וגידים הרכים אינן חשובין כבשר.", + "צומת הגידין הן בבהמה ובחיה למעלה מן העקב במקום שתולין בו הטבחים הבהמה והן שלשה גידין לבנים, אחד עבה ושנים דקים, וממקום שיתחיל והן קשים ולבנים עד שיסור הלובן מהן ויתחילו להתאדם ולהתרכך הוא צומת הגידים והוא כאורך שש עשרה אצבעות בשור.", + "ומנין גידים אלו בעוף ששה עשר גידין, תחלתן מן העצם של מטה מאצבע יתירה עד סוף הרגל שהוא עשוי קשקשים קשקשים.", + "בהמה שנחתכו רגליה במקום צומת הגידין טריפה, ואל תתמה ותאמר כיצד תחתך למעלה מצומת הגידים והיא מותרת עד שתחתך למעלה מן האכובה העליונה כמו שביארנו ואם נחתך למטה מצומת הגידים אסורה, שבטריפות תחתך מכאן ותחיה ומיכן ותמות, ולא נאסרה בהמה זו מפני שהיא חתוכת רגל ממקום זה אלא מפני שנחתכו הגידין שחתיכתן מכלל הטרפות כמו שיתבאר.", + "נטולה כיצד, שלשה איברים הן שאם ניטלו טריפה ואע\"פ שאין בהן דין נקב ולא דין חסרון, ואלו הן: צומת הגידים, והכבד, ולחי העליון.", + "וכבר ביארנו שהבהמה שנחתך רגלה וכן העוף במקום צומת הגידים לא נעשו טרפה אלא מפני שנחתכו הגידין, לפיכך אם נחתכו הגידים לבדם והרגל קיימת טריפה שהרי ניטלה צומת הגידים.", + "נחתך בבהמה האחד העבה לבדו מותרת, שהרי נשארו שנים, נחתכו השנים הדקין מותרת שהרי האחד העבה גדול שניהן והרי לא ניטל כל הצומת אלא מיעוטה, נחתך רובו של כל אחד מהן טרפה ואין צריך לומר שנחתכו כולן או ניטלו כולן.", + "ובעוף אפילו נחתך רובו של (כל) אחד מן הששה עשר טרפה.", + "ועוף שנשתברו אגפיו מותר, כבהמה שנחתכו ידיה.", + "כבד שניטלה כולה טרפה, ואם נשתייר ממנה כזית במקום שהיא תלויה בו וכזית במקום מרה הרי זו מותרת, נידלדלה הכבד והרי היא מעורה בטרפש שלה מותרת, ניטל ממנה מקום שהיא תלויה בו ומקום המרה ואע\"פ שהשאר קיים כמו שהוא טרפה.", + "נשאר בה כזית במקום מרה וכזית במקום שהיא תלויה בו כשרה, אבל היה מפוזר מעט בכאן ומעט בכאן או שהיה מרודד או שהיה ארוך כרצועה הרי זו ספק ויראה לי שהיא אסורה.", + "לחי העליון שניטל טרפה, אבל אם ניטל התחתון כגון שנגמם עד מקום הסימנין ולא נעקרו הרי זו מותרת.", + "כל אבר שנאמר בו שאם היה חסר טרפה כך אם ניטל טריפה, אבל אבר שנאמר בו אם ניטל טרפה אינה נאסרת אלא אם נחתך אותו אבר, אבל אם נבראת חסירה אותו אבר הרי זו מותרת, שאם לא תאמר כן נמצאת החסירה והנטולה אחת, וכל אבר שנאמר בו שאם ניטל מותרת קל וחומר אם חסר מתחלת ברייתה ולא נברא שהיא מותרת.", + "בהמה שניטלה האם שלה והוא בית הרחם, או שניטלו הכליות הרי זו מותרת, לפיכך אם נבראת בכוליא אחת או בשלש כליות מותרת, וכן אם ניקבה הכוליא מותרת.", + "אע\"פ שהכוליא שניטלה או חסרה מותרת אם נמצאת קטנה ביותר, והקטנה בדקה עד כפול ובגסה עד כעינב, טרפה, וכן אם לקתה הכוליא והוא שיעשה בשרה כבשר המת שהבאיש אחר ימים שאם תאחוז במקצתו יתמסמס ויפול והגיע חלי זה עד הלבן שבתוך הכוליא הרי זו טרפה, וכן אם נמצאת בכוליא ליחה אע\"פ שאינה סרוחה או שנמצא בה מים עכורין או סרוחים הרי זו טרפה אבל אם נמצאו בה מים זכים הרי זו מותרת.." + ], + [ + "פסוקה כיצד, חוט השדרה שנפסק העור החופה את המוח טרפה, ובלבד שיפסק רוב היקפו, אבל אם נסדק העור לארכו או ניקב מותרת, וכן אם נשברה השדרה ולא נפסק החוט שלה או שנתמעך המוח שבתוך החוט ונתנדנד הואיל ועורו קיים הרי זו מותרת.", + "הומרך המוח ונשפך כמים או כדונג שנמס עד שימצא החוט כשמעמידו אינו עומד הרי זו טרפה, ואם אינו יכול לעמוד מפני כבדו הרי זו ספק.", + "עד היכן חוט השדרה, תחלתו מבחוץ לפולין שבתחלת העורף עד סוף פרשה שניה, שלא ישאר אחריה אלא פרשה שלישית הסמוכה לתחלת האליה.", + "ושלש פרשיות הן ואלו הן: שלשה עצמות דבוקין זה בזה למטה מחליות של שדרה, וחוט השדרה בעוף עד בין אגפיים, אבל למטה ממקומות אלו אין משגיחין על החוט הנמשך לשם בין שנפסק עורו בין שנמרך המוח.", + "קרועה כיצד, בשר החופה את רוב הכרס והוא המקום מן הבטן שאם יקרע יצא הכרס אם נקרא בשר זה טרפה, אע\"פ שלא הגיע הקרע לכרס עד שנראית, אלא כיון שנקרע רוב עובי הבשר הזה או ניטל טרפה, וכמה שיעור הקרע בארכו אורך טפח, ואם היתה בהמה קטנה ונקרע רוב אורך הבשר החופה את הכרס אע\"פ שאין באורך הקרע טפח טריפה הואיל ונקרע רובה.", + "נקדר הבשר הזה בעגול או באורך אם היה יתר מכסלע והוא כדי שיכנס בו שלש גרעיני תמרה זו בצד זו בדוחק הרי זו טרפה, שאם ימתח קרע זה יעמוד על טפח.", + "בהמה שנפשט העור שעליה כולו בין שנקרע ביד או בחולי ונמצא בשר בלא עור הרי זו טרפה, וזו היא שנקראת גלודה, ואם נשאר מן העור רוחב סלע על פני כל השדרה ורוחב סלע על הטבור ורוחב סלע על ראשי איבריה הרי זו מותרת, ואם ניטל כרוחב סלע מעל כל פני השדרה או מעל הטבור או מעל ראשי איבריה ושאר כל העור קיים הרי זו ספק ויראה לי שמתירין אותה.", + "נפולה כיצד הרי שנפלה הבהמה ממקום גבוה שגובהו עשרה טפחים או יתר ונתרסק אבר מאיבריה הרי זו טרפה, וכיצד הוא הריסוק שיתרוצץ האבר ויחלה מחמת הנפילה עד שתפסד צורתו ותארו, אע\"פ שלא ניקב ולא נסדק ולא נשבר הרי זו טרפה, וכן אם הכה אותה באבן או במטה ורצץ אבר מאיבריה טרפה, באי זה איברים אמרו באיברים שבחלל הגוף.", + "בהמה שנפלה מן הגג אם הלכה אין חוששין לה, ואם עמדה ולא הלכה חוששין לה, קפצה מחמת עצמה אין חוששין לה, הניחה למעלה ומצאה למטה אין חוששין לה שמא נפלה.", + "זכרים המנגחין זה את זה אין חוששין להן, נפלו לארץ חוששין להן, וכן בהמה שהיתה מגררת רגליה אין חוששין לה שמא נתרסקו איבריה או שמא נפסק החוט של שדרה.", + "גנבים שגונבין הטלאים ומשליכין אותן לאחורי הדיר אין חוששין להן משום ריסוק איברים, מפני שאין משליכין אותן אלא בכונה שלא ישתברו, ואם החזירום והשליכום לדיר מחמת יראה חוששין להן, מחמת תשובה אין חוששין להן, מפני שמתכוין להחזירם שלמים ויזהרו בהשלכתן.", + "שור שהרביצוהו לשחיטה אע\"פ שנפל נפילה גדולה שיש לה קול בעת שמפילין אותו אין חוששין לו מפני שנועץ צפרניו ומתחזק עד שמגיע לארץ.", + "הכה הבהמה על ראשה והלכה לה המכה כלפי זנבה או על זנבה והלכה לה כלפי ראשה ואפילו הכה אותה במטה על כל השדרה אין חוששין לה, ואם יש במטה חליות חליות חוששין לה, ואם הגיע ראש המטה למקצת השדרה חוששין לה וכן אם הכה לרוחב השדרה חוששין לה.", + "עוף שנחבט על דבר קשה כגון כרי של חטים או קופה של שקדים וכיוצא בהן חוששין לריסוק אברים, ואם נחבט על דבר רך כגון כסות כפולה והתבן והאפר וכיוצא בהן אין חוששין לו.", + "נדבקו כנפיו בדבק בשעת צידה ונתחבט, אם בכנף אחת נאחז אין חוששין לו, ואם נאחז בשתי כנפיו ונתחבט בגופו חוששין לו.", + "נחבט על פני המים אם שט מלא קומתו ממטה למעלה לעומת המים אין חוששין לו, אבל אם שט ממעלה למטה עם הלוך המים חוששין לו שמא המים הם המוליכין אותו, ואם קדם לתבן או קש שמהלכין על גבי המים הרי זו שט מחמת עצמו ואין חוששין לו.", + "כל מקום שאמרנו אין חוששין לה מותר לשחוט מיד, ואינו צריך לבדוק שמא נתרסק אבר, וכל מקום שאמרנו חוששין לה אם שחטה צריך לבדוק כנגד כל החלל כולו מקדקד הראש עד הירך, אם מצא בה טרפה מן הטרפות שמנינו או שנתרסק אבר מן האיברים שבפנים ונפסדה צורתו הרי זו טרפה, אפילו נתרסק אבר מן האיברים שאם ניטלו כשרה כגון טחול וכליות הרי זו טרפה חוץ מבית הרחם שאם נתרסק הרי זו מותרת.", + "והסימנין אינן צריכין בדיקה בכאן שאין הנפילה ממעכת אותן.", + "נפלה מן הגג ולא עמדה אסור לשחוט אותה עד שתשהא מעת לעת, ואם שחט בתוך זמן זה הרי זו טרפה, וכששוחט אותה אחר מעת לעת צריכה בדיקה כמו שביארנו.", + "וכן מי שדרס ברגלו על העוף או שדרסתו בהמה או שטרפו לכותל והרי הוא מפרכס משהין אותו מעת לעת אחר כך שוחטין אותו ובודקין אותו כדרך שביארנו.", + "סימנים שנדלדלו רובן טרפה ואפילו שלא מחמת נפילה, וכן אם נתקפלו שהרי אינן ראויין לשחיטה, אבל אם נתפרק רוב תרבץ הושט מן הלחי הרי זו מותרת שאין התרבץ ראוי לשחיטה כמו שביארנו.." + ], + [ + "שבורה כיצד, הוא שנשתברו רוב צלעותיה, וצלעות הבהמה הן אחת עשרה מיכן ואחת עשרה מיכן, נשתברו שש מיכן ושש מכאן או אחת עשרה מכאן ואחת מכאן טרפה, והוא שנשברו מחציין של מול השדרה.", + "נשברו שש מכאן ושש מכאן אם היו צלעות גדולות שיש בהן מוח טרפה, ואם לאו אע\"פ שהן רוב ואע\"פ שנשברו כלפי השדרה מותרת, וכן אם נעקרו רוב צלעותיה טרפה, ואם נעקרה אפילו צלע אחת וחצי חולייתה עמה שהצלע תקועה בה הרי זו טרפה, וכן אם נעקרה מן השדרה חוליא אחת אפילו היתה מן החליות שלמטה מן הכסלים שאין בהן צלעות הרי זו טרפה.", + "בהמה שנשמט הירך שלה מעיקרו ויצא מן הכף שלו אם נתאכלו ניביו והן היתדות שבעצם הכף שיוצאת על העצם הזכר ואוחזת אותו הרי זו טרפה, ואם לא נתאכלו מותרת.", + "וכן בעוף אם נשמט ירכו טרפה, נשמט כנפו מעיקרו חוששין שמא ניקבה הריאה שלו ולפיכך בודקין אותה ואחר כך יאכל, ובהמה שנשמטה ידה מעיקרה מותרת ואין חוששין לה.", + "גולגולת בהמה או חיה שניטל ממנה כסלע אע\"פ שלא ניקב הקרום טרפה ואם ניקבו נקבים שיש בהן חסרון כולן מצטרפין לכסלע.", + "וכן גולגולת שנחבס רוב גבהה ורוב היקפה טרפה, אע\"פ שהקרום שלם ולא חסר ממנה כלום, נחבס רוב גבהה והרי רוב היקפה קיים או שנחבס רוב היקפה והרי רוב גבהה קיים הרי זו ספק טרפה ויראה לי שאוסרין אותה.", + "עוף של מים כגון אווזים אם ניקב עצם גולגולתו אע\"פ שלא ניקב קרום של מוח טריפה מפני שקרומו רך, עוף היבשה שהכתו חולדה על ראשו או שנגף באבן או בעץ מניח ידו בצד הנקב ונועץ או מכניס ידו לתוך פיו דוחק למעלה אם יצא המוח מן הנקב בידוע שניקב הקרום וטריפה ואם לאו מותר.", + "בהמה שאחזה דם או שהיתה מעושנת או מצוננת או שאכלה סם שהורג הבהמה או שתתה מים הרעים הרי זו מותרת, אכלה סם שהורג את האדם או שנשכה נחש וכיוצא בו מותרת משום טריפה ואסורה מפני סכנת נפשות.", + "נמצאו כל הטריפות המנויות כשיפרטו ואפשר שימצאו בבהמה וחיה שבעים, ואלו הן על הסדר שנתבארו בחבור זה: (א) דרוסה. (ב) ניקב תרבץ הושט. (ג) ניקב קרום של מוח. (ד) נתמסמס המוח עצמו. (ה) ניקב הלב עצמו לבית חללו. (ו) ניקב קנה הלב. (ז) ניקבה המרה. (ח) ניקבו קני הכבד. (ט) ניקבה הקיבה. (י) ניקב הכרס. (יא) ניקב המסס. (יב) ניקב בית הכוסות. (יג) ניקבו מעיה. (יד) יצאו המעים לחוץ ונהפכו. (טו) ניקב הטחול בעביו. (טז) חסרה המרה. (יז) נמצאו שתי מררות. (יח) חסרה הקיבה. (יט) נמצאו שתי קיבות. (כ) חסר הכרס. (כא) נמצאו שני כרסים. (כב) חסר המסס. (כג) נמצאו שני מססים. (כד) חסר בית הכוסות. (כה) נמצאו שני בתי הכוסות. (כו) חסר אחד מן המעים. (כז) נמצאו שני מעים. (כח) ניקבה הריאה. (כט) ניקב הקנה למטה במקום שאינו ראוי לשחיטה. (ל) ניקב סימפון מסימפוני ריאה אפילו לחבירו. (לא) נאטם מקום מן הריאה. (לב) נימוק סמפון מסמפוני הריאה. (לג) נמצאה ליחה סרוחה בריאה. (לד) נמצאו בה מים סרוחים. (לה) נמצאו בה מים עכורין אע\"פ שלא הסריחו. (לו) נתמסמסה הריאה. (לז) נשתנו מראיה. (לח) נהפך הושט במראיו. (לט) חסרה הריאה ממנין האונות. (מ) נתחלפו האונות. (מא) הותירו האונות מגבה. (מב) נסרכה אונה לאונה שלא כסדרן. (מג) נמצאה הריאה בלא חיתוך אזנים. (מד) חסר מקצת הריאה. (מה) יבש מקצת גופה. (מו) נמצאה הריאה נפוחה ועומדת. (מז) צמקה הריאה מפחד אדם. (מח) חסר הרגל בין מתחלת ברייתו בין שנחתך. (מט) או שהיתה יתירה רגל. (נ) ניטלה צומת הגידים. (נא) ניטלה הכבד. (נב) ניטל לחי העליון. (נג) כוליא שהקטינה ביותר. (נד) כוליא שלקתה. (נה) כוליא שנמצאת בה ליחה. (נו) כוליא שנמצאו בה מים עכורין אע\"פ שאינן סרוחין. (נז) כוליא שנמצאו בה מים סרוחין. (נח) נפסק חוט השדרה. (נט) נמרך מוח חוט השדרה ונתמסמס. (ס) נקרע רוב הבשר החופה את הכרס. (סא) נגלד העור שעליה. (סב) נתרסקו איבריה מנפילה. (סג) נדלדלו הסימנין. (סד) נשתברו רוב צלעותיה. (סה) נעקרו רוב צלעותיה. (סו) נעקרה צלע אחת בחלייתה. (סז) נעקרה חוליה אחת. (סח) נשמט הירך מעיקרו. (סט) חסרה הגולגולת כסלע. (ע) נחבס רוב הגולגולת ונתרוצץ.", + "אלו השבעים חוליים שאוסרין את הבהמה ואת החיה משום טריפה כבר נתבאר כל אחד מהן ומשפטיו, וכל שאפשר מהן שימצא בעוף באיברין המצויין לעוף ולבהמה דינו בבהמה ובעוף אחד הוא, חוץ מטריפות שבכוליא ושבטחול ושבאונות הריאה, מפני שהעוף אין לו חיתוך אונות כבהמה, ואם ימצא אין לו מנין ידוע, וטחול העוף עגול כמו עינב ואינו כטחול בהמה, וטריפות שבכוליא ושבטחול לא מנו אותן בבהמה כדי שיהיה כנגדן בעוף ולפיכך לא נתנו לכוליא שהקטינה שיעור בעוף וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "ושתי טריפות יש בעוף יתר על הבהמה ואע\"פ שיש לה אותן האיברים, ואלו הן: עוף שנשתנו מראה בני מעיו מחמת האור, ועוף המים שניקב עצם ראשו.", + "ואין להוסיף על טריפות אלו כלל, שכל שאירע לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף חוץ מאלו שמנו חכמי דורות הראשונים והסכימו עליהן בבתי דיני ישראל אפשר שתחיה, ואפילו נודע לנו מדרך הרפואה שאין סופה לחיות.", + "וכן אלו שמנו ואמרו שהן טריפה אף על פי שיראה בדרכי הרפואה שבידינו שמקצתן אינן ממיתין ואפשר שתחיה מהן אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך.", + "כל טבח שהוא יודע הטריפות האלו והרי הוא בחזקת כשרות מותר לו לשחוט ולבדוק לעצמו ולמכור ואין בזה חשש, שעד אחד נאמן באיסורין בין יש לו הנייה בעדותו בין אין לו הנייה בעדותו, וכבר ביארנו שאין לוקחין בשר מטבח ששוחט ובודק לעצמו בחוצה לארץ או בארץ ישראל בזמן הזה, אלא אם כן היה מומחה, ואם יצאת טריפה מתחת ידו מנדין אותו ומעבירין אותו ואינו חוזר לכשרותו עד שילך למקום שאין מכירים אותו ויחזיר אבידה בדבר חשוב או יוציא טריפה לעצמו בדבר חשוב.." + ], + [ + "כל בהמה או עוף שנולד בהן ספק טרפות מטריפות אלו, כגון בהמה שנפלה ולא הלכה, או שנדרסה בידי חיה ואין ידוע אם האדים בשר כנגד בני מעים או לא האדים, או שנחבסה גולגלתה ואין ידוע אם רובה או מיעוטה וכיוצא בדברים אלו, אם היה זכר ושהה שנים עשר חדש הרי זו בחזקת שלימה כשאר כל הבהמות, ואם היתה נקבה עד שתלד, ובעוף בזכר שנים עשר חדש, ובנקבה עד שתלד כל הביצים של טעינה הראשונה ותטעון טעינה שנייה ותלד.", + "ואסור למכור ספק טריפה זו לנכרי בתוך זמן זה שמא ימכרנה לישראל.", + "כל בהמה חיה ועוף בחזקת בריאים הם ואין חוששין להם שמא יש בהן טריפה, לפיכך כשישחטו שחיטה כשירה אינן צריכין בדיקה שמא יש בהן אחת מן הטריפות, אלא הרי הן בחזקת היתר עד שיולד להן דבר שחוששין לו ואח\"כ בודקין על אותו דבר בלבד.", + "כיצד כגון שנשמט הגף של עוף בודקין את הריאה שמא ניקבה, נפלה הבהמה בודקין אותה שמא נתרסקו איבריה, נתרצץ עצם הראש בודקין קרום של מוח שמא ניקב, הכה אותה קוץ או נזרק בה חץ או רומח וכיוצא בהן ונכנס לחללה חוששין לה וצריכה בדיקה כנגד כל החלל שמא ניקב אחד מן האיברין שתטרף בנקיבתן, וכן כל כיוצא בזה.", + "לפיכך ריאה שהעלתה צמחין או שנמצאו סירכות כמו חוטין תלויין ממנה ולדופן או ללב או לטרפש הכבד חוששין לה שמא ניקבה וצריכה בדיקה, וכן אם נמצא בה אבעבוע מלא לחה חוששין שמא נקב סימפון שתחתיו וצריכה בדיקה.", + "מן הדין היה על דרך זו שאם נמצאת הריאה תלויה בסירכות כמו חוטין, אם היו מן האום של ריאה ולדופן או שהיו ללב או לטרפש הכבד שחותכים את הסירכא ומוציאין את הריאה ונופחין אותה בפושרין, אם נמצאת נקובה טריפה, ואם לא נתבעבע המים הרי היא שלימה מכל נקב ומותרת וסירכא זו לא היתה במקום נקב או שמא ניקב קרום העליון בלבד, ומעולם לא ראינו מי שהורה כך ולא שמענו מקום שעושין בו כך.", + "ואע\"פ שאלו הן הדברים הנראין מדברי חכמי הגמרא, המנהג הפשוט בישראל כך הוא, כששוחטין את הבהמה או את החיה קורעין את הטרפש של כבד ובודקין את הריאה במקומה, אם לא נמצאה תלויה בסרכא, או שנמצאה סרכא בין אוזן מאזני הריאה ולבשר שבמקום רביצתה בין בשר שבין הצלעות בין בשר שבחזה, או שנמצאה סירכא מאזן לאזן על הסדר או מן האום לאזן הסמוכה לה הרי אלו מתירין אותה.", + "ואם נמצא חוט יוצא מן האום של ריאה לאיזה מקום שימשך ואפילו היה כחוט השערה אוסרין אותה.", + "וכן אם היה מן הריאה חוט משוך ללב או לטרפש הכבד או לכיס הלב או לורדא, בין שהיה החוט מן האום של ריאה בין שהיה מן האוזן ואפילו היה כחוט השערה אוסרין אותה, וכן ורדא שנמצאת דבוקה בכיסה או חוט יוצא ממנה לכיסה אוסרין אותה, וחוט היוצא מאזן לאזן שלא על הסדר אוסרין אותה.", + "יש מקומות שמנהגן אם מצאו סירכא מן האוזן לבשר ולעצם שבצלעות והסרכא דבוקה בשתיהן אוסרין אותה, ואבא מרי מן האוסרין ואני מן המתירין, ומיעוט מקומות מתירין אפילו נדבקה בעצם לבדו ואני אוסר.", + "ויש מקומות שנופחין הריאה שמא יש בה נקב, ורוב המקומות אין נופחין שהרי לא נולד דבר שגורם לחשש, ומעולם לא נפחנו ריאה בספרד ובמערב אלא אם נולד לנו דבר שחוששים לו.", + "ודברים האלו כולן אינן על פי הדין אלא על פי המנהג כמו שביארנו, ומעולם לא שמענו במי שבדק עוף אלא אם נולד לו חשש.", + "מי ששחט את הבהמה וקרע את הבטן, וקודם שיבדוק את הריאה בא כלב או עכו\"ם ונטל את הריאה והלך לו הרי זו מותרת, ואין אומרים שמא נקובה היתה או שמא דבוקה היתה, שאין מחזיקין איסור, אלא הרי זו בחזקת היתר עד שיודע במה נטרפה, וכשם שאין חוששין לקרום מוח ולשדרה וכיוצא בהן כך לא נחוש לריאה שאבדה, ואין בזה מנהג שדבר שאינו מצוי אין בו מנהג.", + "בא העכו\"ם או הישראל והוציא הריאה קודם שתבדק והרי היא קיימת נופחין אותה ואף על פי שאין אנו יודעין אם היו שם צמחין או לא היו, מפני פישוט המנהג.", + "יש מקומות שאם נמצאו סרכות מדולדלות מן הריאה אע\"פ שאינן דבוקות לא לדופן ולא למקום אחר אוסרין אותה, ודבר זה הפסד גדול הוא ואיבוד ממון לישראל, ומעולם לא נהגו זה לא בצרפת ולא בספרד ולא נשמע זה במערב, ואין ראוי לנהוג במנהג זה, אלא נופחין אותה בלבד אם נמצאת שלימה מן הנקב הרי זו מותרת.." + ], + [ + "השוחט אותו ואת בנו ביום אחד הבשר מותר באכילה והשוחט לוקה שנאמר אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, ואינו לוקה אלא על שחיטת האחרון, לפיכך אם שחט אחד משניהן ובא חבירו ושחט את השני חבירו לוקה.", + "איסור אותו ואת בנו נוהג בכל זמן ובכל מקום בחולין ובמוקדשין, בין קדשים הנאכלין בין קדשים שאינן נאכלין, לפיכך הראשון ששחט בעזרה והשני בחוץ, או הראשון בחוץ והשני בעזרה, בין שהיו שניהן חולין או שניהן קדשים, בין שהיה אחד מהן חולין ואחד קדשים, זה ששחט אחרון לוקה משום אותו ואת בנו.", + "אין איסור אותו ואת בנו נוהג אלא בשחיטה בלבד שנאמר לא תשחטו בשחיטת שניהן הוא האיסור, אבל אם נחר הראשון או נתנבל בידו מותר לשחוט, וכן אם שחט הראשון ונחר השני או נתנבל בידו פטור.", + "חרש שוטה וקטן ששחטו בינם לבין עצמן את הראשון מותר לשחוט שני אחריהם, לפי שאין שחיטתן שחיטה (כלל).", + "השוחט את הראשון והרי הוא ספק נבלה אסור לשחוט השני, ואם שחטו אינו לוקה.", + "שחיטה שאינה ראויה לאכילה שמה שחיטה, לפיכך הראשון ששחט חולין בעזרה או טריפה או שור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה ופרה אדומה או ששחט לעכו\"ם ובא האחרון ושחט את השני לוקה, וכן אם שחט הראשון את האחד ובא האחרון ושחט את השני והרי הוא חולין בעזרה או שור הנסקל או עגלה ערופה ופרה אדומה הרי זה לוקה.", + "שחטו לעכו\"ם פטור משום אותו ואת בנו שהרי נתחייב בנפשו, ואם התרו בו משום אותו ואת בנו ולא התרו בו משום עכו\"ם לוקה.", + "אין איסור אותו ואת בנו נוהג אלא בבהמה טהורה בלבד שנאמר ושור או שה אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, ונוהג בכלאים, כיצד צבי שבא על העז ושחט העז ואת בנה לוקה, אבל העז שבא על הצביה אסור לשחוט אותה ואת בנה ואם שחט אינו לוקה, פרה ובנה אסרה תורה לא צביה ובנה.", + "היתה בת הצביה הזאת נקבה וילדה בן ושחט את הנקבה בת הצביה ואת בנה לוקה, וכן כלאים הבא ממין כבש וממין עז בין מכבש עם העז בין מעז עם הכבשה לוקה משום אותו ואת בנו.", + "מותר לשחוט את המעוברת עובר ירך אמו הוא, ואם יצא העובר חי אחר שחיטה והפריס על גבי קרקע אין שוחטין אותו ביום אחד ואם שחט אינו לוקה.", + "איסור אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות שזה בנה ודאי, ואם נודע ודאי שזה הוא אביו אין שוחטין שניהן ביום אחד ואם שחט אינו לוקה, שהדבר ספק אם נוהג בזכרים או אינו נוהג.", + "השוחט את הפרה ואחר כך שחט שני בניה לוקה שתי מלקיות, שחט את בניה ואחר כך שחט היא לוקה אחת, שחטה ואת בתה ואת בן בתה לוקה שתים, שחטה ואת בן בתה ואחר כך שחט את הבת לוקה אחת בין הוא בין אחר.", + "שנים שלקחו שתי בהמות זה האם וזה הבת ובאו לדין, זה שלקח ראשון ישחוט ראשון והשני ימתין למחר, ואם קדם השני ושחט זכה וימתין הראשון עד למחר.", + "בארבעה פרקים בשנה המוכר בהמה לחבירו צריך להודיעו ולומר לו כבר מכרתי אמה או בתה לאחר לשחוט כדי שימתין זה האחרון ולא ישחוט עד למחר, ואלו הן: ערב יום טוב האחרון של חג, וערב יום טוב הראשון של פסח, וערב עצרת, וערב ראש השנה.", + "במה דברים אמורים כשראה זה שלקח באחרונה נחפז לקנות והיה בסוף היום שחזקתו שהוא שוחט עתה, אבל אם היה ריוח ביום אינו צריך להודיעו שמא לא ישחוט אלא למחר.", + "והמוכר את האם לחתן והבת לכלה צריך להודיען, שודאי ביום אחד שוחטין וכל כל כיוצא בזה.", + "יום אחד האמור באותו ואת בנו היום הולך אחר הלילה, כיצד הרי ששחט ראשון בתחלת ליל רביעי לא ישחוט השני עד תחלת ליל חמישי, וכן אם שחט הראשון בסוף יום רביעי קודם בין השמשות שוחט השני בתחלת ליל חמישי, שחט ראשון בין השמשות של ליל חמישי לא ישחוט השני עד ליל ששי ואם שחט ביום חמישי אינו לוקה.." + ], + [ + "הלוקח אם על הבנים ושחטה, הבשר מותר באכילה ולוקה על שחיטת האם שנאמר לא תקח האם על הבנים, וכן אם מתה קודם שישלחנה לוקה, ואם שלחה אחר שלקחה פטור.", + "וכן כל מצות לא תעשה שניתקה לעשה חייב לקיים עשה שבה ואם לא קיימו לוקה.", + "בא אחד וחטף האם מידו ושלחה או שברחה מתחת ידו שלא מדעתו לוקה שנאמר שלח תשלח עד שישלח מעצמו והרי לא קיים עשה שבה.", + "נטל אם על הבנים וקצץ אגפיה כדי שלא תעוף ושלחה מכין אותו מכת מרדות, ומשהה אותה אצלו עד שיגדלו כנפיה ומשלחה, ואם מתה קודם לזה או ברחה ואבדה לוקה שהרי לא קיים עשה שבה.", + "וכיצד משלח האם אוחז בכנפיה ומפריחה, שלחה וחזרה ושלחה וחזרה אפילו ארבע וחמש פעמים חייב לשלח שנאמר שלח תשלח.", + "האומר הריני נוטל את האם ומשלח את הבנים חייב לשלח את האם שנאמר שלח תשלח את האם.", + "לקח את הבנים והחזירן לקן ואח\"כ חזרה האם עליהן פטור מלשלח, שלח את האם וחזר וצד אותה הרי זה מותר, לא אסרה תורה אלא לצוד אותה והיא אינה יכולה לפרוח בשביל הבנים שהיא מרחפת עליהן שלא ילקחו שנאמר והאם רובצת על האפרוחים, אבל אם הוציאה מתחת ידו וחזר וצד אותה מותר.", + "שלוח האם אינו נוהג אלא בעוף טהור שאינו מזומן כגון יוני שובך ועלייה ועופות שקננו בפרדס שנאמר כי יקרא, אבל המזומן כגון אווזין ותרנגולין ויונים שקננו בבית אינו חייב לשלח.", + "היו האפרוחין מפריחין שאינן צריכין לאמן או ביצים מוזרות אינו חייב לשלח, היו אפרוחין טרפות הרי אלו כביצים מוזרות ופטור מלשלח.", + "זכר שמצאו רובץ על הקן פטור מלשלח, עוף טמא רובץ על ביצי עוף טהור, או עוף טהור רובץ על ביצי עוף טמא פטור מלשלח.", + "היתה רובצת על ביצים שאינן מינה והן טהורין הרי זה משלח, ואם לא שלח אינו לוקה, היתה האם טרפה חייב לשלחה.", + "שחט מקצת סימנין בתוך הקן קודם שיקחנה חייב לשלח ואם לא שלח אינו לוקה.", + "היתה מעופפת, אם כנפיה נוגעות בקן חייב לשלח, ואם לאו פטור מלשלח, היתה מטלית או כנפים חוצצות בין כנפיה ובין הקן הרי זה משלח, ואם לא שלח אינו לוקה.", + "היו שני סדרי ביצים וכנפיה נוגעות בסדר העליון או שהיתה רובצת על ביצים מוזרות ותחתיהן ביצים יפות או שהיתה אם על גבי אם, או שהיה הזכר על הקן והאם על הזכר הרי זה לא יקח ואם לקח ישלח ואם לא שלח אינו לוקה.", + "היתה יושבת בין האפרוחים או בין הביצים ואינה נוגעת בהן פטור מלשלח, וכן אם היתה בצד הקן וכנפיה נוגעות בקן מצדו פטור מלשלח.", + "היתה על שני בדי אילן והקן ביניהן רואין כל שאילו ינטלו הבדין תפול על הקן חייב לשלח.", + "היתה רובצת על אפרוח אחד או על ביצה אחת חייב לשלח, המוצא קן על פני המים או על גבי בעלי חיים חייב לשלח, לא נאמר אפרוחים או ביצים ולא נאמר בכל עץ או על הארץ אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה.", + "אסור לזכות בביצים כל זמן שהאם רובצת עליהן, לפיכך אפילו היתה רובצת על הביצים או על האפרוחים בעלייתו ושובכו אינן מזומנין, ולא קנה לו חצרו כשם שאינו יכול לזכות בהן לאחרים כך לא תזכה לו חצרו בהן ולפיכך חייב לשלח.", + "אסור ליטול אם על הבנים ואפילו לטהר בהן את המצורע שהיא מצוה, ואם לקח חייב לשלח, ואם לא שלח לוקה, שאין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה, (ועשה) ולא עשה דוחה עשה.", + "המקדיש עוף לבדק הבית ופרח מידו והרי הוא מכירו ומצאו רובץ על האפרוחים או על הביצים לוקח הכל ומביאן לידי גזבר, שאין שילוח האם נוהג במוקדשין שנאמר ואת הבנים תקח לך ואלו אינן שלך.", + "עוף שהרג את הנפש פטור מלשלח מפני שהוא מצווה להביאו לבית דין לדון אותו.." + ], + [ + "מצות עשה לכסות דם שחיטת חיה טהורה או עוף טהור שנאמר אשר יצוד ציד חיה או עוף אשר יאכל ושפך את דמו וכסהו בעפר, לפיכך חייב לברך קודם שיכסה בא\"י אמ\"ה אקב\"ו על כיסוי הדם.", + "כסוי הדם נוהג במזומן ובשאינו מזומן, לא נאמר אשר יצוד אלא בהווה, ונוהג בחולין ולא במוקדשין, בין קדשי המזבח בין קדשי בדק הבית ואם עבר ושחטן אינו חייב לכסות את דמן.", + "שחט חיה ועוף ואחר כך הקדישן או הקדיש את הדם חייב לכסות.", + "כלאים הבא מבהמה וחיה וכן בריה שהיא ספק בהמה או חיה צריך לכסות ואינו מברך, השוחט לחולה בשבת חייב לכסות לאחר שבת וכן השוחט ספק או כלאים ביום טוב מכסה דמו לאחר יום טוב.", + "השוחט עופות ומיני חיה במקום אחד מברך ברכה אחת לכולן וכסוי אחד לכולן.", + "דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראה דם חייב לכסות ואם לאו פטור, נתערב ביין או בדם בהמה רואין אותן כאילו הם מים, אם אפשר שיראה מראה הדם שחייב לכסותו כשיעור זה אילו היה מים חייב לכסות הכל ואם לאו פטור.", + "כסהו ונתגלה אינו חייב לכסותו פעם אחרת, כסתהו הרוח אינו חייב לכסות, חזר ונתגלה אחר שכסתהו הרוח חייב לכסות.", + "דם הניתז ושעל הסכין אם אין שם דם אלא הוא חייב לכסות.", + "שחט ונבלע הדם בקרקע אם רישומו ניכר חייב לכסות, ואם לאו הרי זה כמי שכסתהו הרוח ופטור מלכסות.", + "אין חייב בכסוי אלא דם שחיטה הראויה לאכילה שנאמר אשר יאכל, לפיכך השוחט ונמצאת טרפה, או השוחט חולין בעזרה, או השוחט חיה ועוף שנגמר דינן לסקילה והשוחט ונתנבלה בידו פטור מלכסות, וכן חרש שוטה וקטן ששחטו בינן לבין עצמן פטורין מלכסות דם שחיטתן.", + "במה מכסין בסיד ובגפסית בזבל דק ובחול דק שאין היוצר צריך לכותשו ובשחיקת אבנים וחרשים ובנעורת של פשתן דקה ובנסורת חרשים דקה ובלבינה וחרסית ומגופה שכתשה שכל אלו מין עפר הן, אבל אם כפה עליו כלי או כסהו באבנים אין זה כיסוי שנאמר בעפר.", + "לפיכך אין מכסים בזבל גס וחול גס וקמח וסובין ומורסן ושחיקת כלי מתכות לפי שאין אלו מין עפר, חוץ משחיקת הזהב בלבד שמכסין בהם מפני שנקרא עפר שנאמר ועפרות זהב לו ואומר עד אשר דק לעפר.", + "מכסין בשיחור והוא פיח הכבשן ובכוחל ובנקרת פסילים ובאפר בין אפר עצים בין אפר בגדים אפילו אפר בשר שנשרף שהרי כתוב מעפר שריפת החטאת, ומותר לכסות בעפר עיר הנדחת.", + "השוחט צריך ליתן עפר למטה ואחר כך ישחוט בו ואחר כך יכסה בעפר אבל לא ישחוט בכלי ויכסה בעפר.", + "ומי ששחט הוא יכסה שנאמר וכסהו בעפר, ואם לא כסהו וראהו אחר חייב לכסות שזו מצוה בפני עצמה ואינה תלויה בשוחט לבד.", + "וכשמכסה לא יכסה ברגלו אלא בידו או בסכין או בכלי כדי שלא ינהוג בו מנהג בזיון ויהיו מצות בזויות עליו, שאין הכבוד לעצמן של מצות אלא למי שצוה בהן ברוך הוא והצילנו מלמשש בחשך וערך אותנו נר ליישר המעקשים ואור להורות נתיבות היושר, וכן הוא אומר נר לרגלי דבריך ואור לנתיבתי.", + "נגמר ספר חמישי והוא ספר קדושה ומנין פרקיו שלשה וחמשים:הלכות איסורי ביאה שנים ועשרים פרקים, הלכות מאכלות אסורות שבעה עשר פרקים, הלכות שחיטה ארבעה עשר פרקים. ובכאן נשלם החלק השני, ה' במעגלי צדק ינחני." + ] + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/merged.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac64a9d3187ea50ded9764c298eb65ec5cbab585 --- /dev/null +++ b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/Hebrew/merged.json @@ -0,0 +1,335 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter", + "language": "he", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Ritual_Slaughter", + "text": [ + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לֶאֱכל בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכַל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ\". וְנֶאֱמַר בִּבְכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם (דברים יב כב) \"אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֶת הַצְּבִי וְאֶת הָאַיָּל\". הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁחַיָּה כִּבְהֵמָה לְעִנְיַן שְׁחִיטָה. וּבְעוֹף הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז יג) \"וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ\" מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁפִיכַת דַּם הָעוֹף כִּשְׁפִיכַת דַּם הַחַיָּה: \n", + "וְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בְּכֻלָּן אַחַת הֵן. לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף מְבָרֵךְ תְּחִלָּה אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְאִם לֹא בֵּרֵךְ בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר. וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִן הַשְּׁחוּטָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת. וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וַהֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל (ויקרא יט כו) \"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם\" וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמֻתָּר לַחְתֹּךְ מִמֶּנָּה אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכְלֶנּוּ: \n", + "דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִים שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא אֲסִיפָתָן הִיא הַמַּתֶּרֶת אוֹתָן. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (במדבר יא כב) \"הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם וּמָצָא לָהֶם אִם אֶת כָּל דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם\", אֲסֵפַת דָּגִים כִּשְׁחִיטַת בָּקָר וְצֹאן. וּבַחֲגָבִים נֶאֱמַר (ישעיה לג ד) \"אֹסֶף הֶחָסִיל\", בַּאֲסִיפָה לְבַדָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵתוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן בְּתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם מֻתָּרִין. וּמֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן חַיִּים: \n", + "זְבִיחָה זוֹ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ אוֹתָהּ וְלֵידַע בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מִן הַבְּהֵמָה שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וּבְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר שׁוֹחֲטִין. וּמָתַי שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְהֵיכָן שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכֵיצַד שׁוֹחֲטִין. וּמַה הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַמַּפְסִידִין אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וּמִי הוּא הַשּׁוֹחֵט. וְעַל כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ צִוָּנוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְאָמַר (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ\" וְגוֹ' שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ עַל פֶּה צִוָּה בָּהֶן כִּשְׁאָר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שֶׁהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת (שמות כד יב) \"מִצְוָה\" כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּתְחִלַּת חִבּוּר זֶה: \n", + "מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִן הַחַי הוּא הַצַּוָּאר. וְכָל הַצַּוָּאר כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד. בַּוֵּשֶׁט מִתְּחִלַּת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁכְּשֶׁחוֹתְכִין אוֹתוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּץ עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּשְׂעִיר וְיַתְחִיל לִהְיוֹת פְּרָצִין פְּרָצִין כְּכֶרֶס. זֶה הוּא מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּוֵּשֶׁט: \n", + "שָׁחַט לְמַעְלָה מִמָּקוֹם זֶה וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ לְמַטָּה מִמָּקוֹם זֶה וְהוּא מִתְּחִלַּת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְשִׁעוּר תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה לְמַעְלָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחַז בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּבְעוֹף הַכּל לְפִי גָּדְלוֹ וְקָטְנוֹ. וּלְמַטָּה עַד הַזֶּפֶק: \n", + "וְאֵי זֶה הוּא מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה. מִשִּׁפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה עַד רֹאשׁ כְּנַף הָרֵאָה כְּשֶׁתִּמְשֹׁךְ הַבְּהֵמָה צַוָּארָהּ לִרְעוֹת. זֶה הוּא מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה. וְכָל שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה מִבַּחוּץ נִקְרָא צַוָּאר: \n", + "אָנְסָה הַבְּהֵמָה עַצְמָהּ וּמָשְׁכָה צַוָּארָהּ הַרְבֵּה אוֹ שֶׁאִנֵּס הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַסִּימָנִין וּמְשָׁכָן לְמַעְלָה וְשָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה בַּצַּוָּאר וְנִמְצֵאת הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה אוֹ בַּוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "וְצָרִיךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט בְּאֶמְצַע הַצַּוָּאר. וְאִם שָׁחַט מִן הַצְּדָדִין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְכַמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. שְׁנֵי הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁהֵן הַקָּנֶה וְהַוֵּשֶׁט הַשְּׁחִיטָה הַמְעֻלָּה שֶׁיֵּחָתְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה בֵּין בְּעוֹף. וְלָזֶה יִתְכַּוֵּן הַשּׁוֹחֵט. וְאִם שָׁחַט רֹב אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּעוֹף וְרֹב הַשְּׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט הָאֶחָד כֻּלּוֹ וְחֶצְיָהּ הַשֵּׁנִי בִּבְהֵמָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְרֻבּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁחַט מִכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶלָּא יֶתֶר עַל חֶצְיוֹ כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט יֶתֶר עַל חֶצְיוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא רֻבּוֹ הוּא: \n", + "שָׁחַט חֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְחֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל זֶה אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. קָנֶה שֶׁהָיָה חֶצְיוֹ פָּסוּק וְשָׁחַט עַל מָקוֹם הֶחָתוּךְ מְעַט וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְרֹב בֵּין שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט בַּמָּקוֹם הַשָּׁלֵם וּפָגַע בַּחֲתָךְ בֵּין שֶׁהִכְנִיס אֶת הַסַּכִּין בַּחֲתָךְ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְרֹב שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כָּל הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק הַסִּימָנִין לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם לֹא בָּדַק וְנֶחְתַּךְ הָרֹאשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבָּדֵק הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַשּׁוֹחֵט זָרִיז וּמָהִיר: \n", + "כָּל בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "ובְּאֵי זֶה דָּבָר שׁוֹחֲטִין. בְּכָל דָּבָר בֵּין בְּסַכִּין שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בֵּין בְּצוּר אוֹ בִּזְכוּכִית אוֹ בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קְנֵה הָאֲגַם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִדְּבָרִים הַחוֹתְכִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּיהָ חַד וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָּהּ פְּגָם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה כְּמוֹ תֶּלֶם בְּחֻדּוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר שֶׁשּׁוֹחֲטִין בּוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַתֶּלֶם קָטָן בְּיוֹתֵר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "הָיָה הַתֶּלֶם הַזֶּה מֵרוּחַ אַחַת לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ. וְאִם שָׁחַט דֶּרֶךְ הָרוּחַ שֶׁאֵין הַפְּגִימָה נִכֶּרֶת בָּהּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. סַכִּין שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק בְּהוֹלָכָה וְלֹא תַּרְגִּישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגָם וּכְשֶׁתַּחְזִיר אוֹתָהּ בַּהֲבָאָה תַּרְגִּישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגָם. אִם שָׁחַט בָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ הוֹלָכָה וְלֹא הֵבִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הֵבִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "סַכִּין שֶׁהִיא עוֹלָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת כְּנָחָשׁ וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וסַכִּין שֶׁפִּיהָ חָלָק וְאֵינָהּ חַדָּה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא בָּהּ כָּל הַיּוֹם עַד שֶׁשָּׁחְטָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "סַכִּין חַדָּה שֶׁהֻשְׁחֲזָה וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ חֲלָקָה אֶלָּא מַגָּעָתָהּ כְּמַגָּע רֹאשׁ הַשִּׁבּלֶת שֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּבֵּךְ בְּאֶצְבַּע. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ: \n", + "הַתּוֹלֵשׁ קָנֶה אוֹ שֵׁן אוֹ שֶׁקָּצַץ צוּר אוֹ צִפֹּרֶן וַהֲרֵי הֵן חַדִּין וְאֵין בָּהֶן פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהֶן. וְאִם נְעָצָן בַּקַּרְקַע לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן נְעוּצִין. וְאִם שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט בָּהֶן כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִין מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָן קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲקֹר אוֹתָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם פְּגָם: \n", + "לָקַח לְחִי בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שִׁנַּיִם חַדּוֹת וְשָׁחַט בָּהֶן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּמַגָּל. אֲבָל בְּשֵׁן אַחַת הַקְּבוּעָה בַּלֶּחִי שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא קְבוּעָה בּוֹ: \n", + "לִבֵּן הַסַּכִּין בָּאוּר וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. סַכִּין שֶׁצִּדָּהּ אֶחָד מַגָּל וְצִדָּהּ הַשֵּׁנִי יָפֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בַּצַּד הַיָּפֶה לְכַתְּחִלָּה גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁחֹט בַּצַּד הָאַחֵר. וְאִם שָׁחַט הוֹאִיל וּבַצַּד הַיָּפֶה שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק הַסַּכִּין בְּחֻדָּהּ וּמִצַּד זֶה וּמִצַּד זֶה. וְכֵיצַד בּוֹדְקָהּ. מוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ עַל בְּשַׂר אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ עַל צִפָּרְנוֹ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁהֵן פִּיהָ וּשְׁנֵי צְדָדָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בָּהּ פְּגָם כְּלָל וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ: \n", + "וְצָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק כֵּן אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִם מָצָא בָּהּ פְּגָם אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה שֶׁמָּא בָּעוֹר נִפְגְּמָה וּכְשֶׁשָּׁחַט הַסִּימָנִים בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה שָׁחַט. לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמוֹת רַבּוֹת אוֹ עוֹפוֹת רַבִּים צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק בֵּין כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. שֶׁאִם לֹא בָּדַק וּבָדַק בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְנִמְצֵאת סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הֲרֵי הַכּל סְפֵק נְבֵלוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה: \n", + "בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּדָקָהּ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁבַר בָּהּ עֶצֶם אוֹ עֵץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּדַק וּמְצָאָהּ פְּגוּמָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁחֶזְקַת הַסַּכִּין שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה בַּדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה שֶׁשָּׁבַר בָּהּ. וְכֵן אִם פָּשַׁע וְלֹא בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה הַסַּכִּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִבְדֹּק שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כָּל טַבָּח שֶׁלֹּא בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ לִפְנֵי חָכָם וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ לְעַצְמוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם נִמְצֵאת יָפָה וּבְדוּקָה מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ לְפִי שֶׁיִּסְמֹךְ עַל עַצְמוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת וְתִהְיֶה פְּגוּמָה וְיִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ. ואִם נִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ וּמְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ וּמַכְרִיזִין עַל כָּל בָּשָׂר שֶׁשָּׁחַט שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "כַּמָּה הוּא אֹרֶךְ הַסַּכִּין שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט. כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה דָּבָר דַּק שֶׁנּוֹקֵב וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵט כְּמוֹ רֹאשׁ הָאִזְמֵל הַקָּטָן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: \n", + "וּמָתַי שׁוֹחֲטִין. בְּכָל זְמַן. בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה אֲבוּקָה עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה. וְאִם שָׁחַט בַּאֲפֵלָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת בְּשׁוֹגֵג אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיָה מֵזִיד הָיָה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ אוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב מַלְקוֹת עַל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n" + ], + [ + "בְכָל מָקוֹם מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט חוּץ מִן הָעֲזָרָה. שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּעֲזָרָה אֶלָּא קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל הַחֻלִּין אָסוּר לְשָׁחֳטָן בָּעֲזָרָה בֵּין בְּהֵמָה בֵּין חַיָּה בֵּין עוֹף. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בִּבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה (דברים יב כא) \"כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"וְאָכַלְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ\". הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה אֶלָּא חוּץ לַמָּקוֹם (דברים יב כא) \"אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר ה'\": \n", + "וְזֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לַמָּקוֹם הוּא שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ בְּכָל הַשְּׁעָרִים. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה כְּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְקוֹבְרִים אוֹתוֹ וְאֶפְרוֹ אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לַאֲכִילַת עַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לְהַאֲכִיל לִכְלָבִים. אֲבָל הַנּוֹחֵר בָּעֲזָרָה. וְהַמְעַקֵּר. וְעַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׁחַט. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף הַטְּמֵאִים בָּעֲזָרָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָה: \n", + "וְלֹא בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא כָּל הַחֻלִּין אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיסָן לַעֲזָרָה. אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה אוֹ פֵּרוֹת וּפַת. אִם עָבַר וְהִכְנִיסָן מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה כְּשֶׁהָיוּ. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה הֵן. וְכָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹ הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר חֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ חֻלִּין. אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה בָּעֲזָרָה וְלָדָהּ מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתוֹ בְּרִחוּק מָקוֹם: \n", + "אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים וּנְהָרוֹת שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ עוֹבֵד מַיִם הוּא זֶה וְנִרְאֶה כְּמַקְרִיב לַמַּיִם. וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט לִכְלִי מָלֵא מַיִם שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ לַצּוּרָה שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה בַּמַּיִם שָׁחַט. וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט בְּתוֹךְ כֵּלִים וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ הַגֻּמָּא שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ עוֹבְדֵי עַכּוּ\"ם. וְאִם שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שׁוֹחֲטִין לִכְלִי מַיִם עֲכוּרִין שֶׁאֵין הַצּוּרָה נִרְאֵית בָּהֶן. וְכֵן שׁוֹחֵט חוּץ לְגֻמָּא וְהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת וְיוֹרֵד לַגֻּמָּא. וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵּן שֶׁמָּא יְחַקֶּה אֶת הַמִּינִים. וְאִם שָׁחַט לְגֻמָּא בַּשּׁוּק אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּבְדְּקוּ אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא מִין הוּא. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט עַל דֹּפֶן הַסְּפִינָה וְהַדָּם שׁוֹתֵת עַל הַדֹּפֶן וְיוֹרֵד לַמַּיִם. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֵּלִים: \n", + "כֵּיצַד שׁוֹחֲטִין. מוֹתֵחַ אֶת הַצַּוָּאר וּמוֹלִיךְ הַסַּכִּין וּמְבִיאָהּ עַד שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רְבוּצָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת וְאָחַז בְּעָרְפָּהּ וְהַסַּכִּין בְּיָדוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה וְשָׁחַט הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "נָעַץ אֶת הַסַּכִּין בַּכֹּתֶל וְהֶעֱבִיר הַצַּוָּאר עָלֶיהָ עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה צַוָּאר הַבְּהֵמָה לְמַטָּה וְסַכִּין לְמַעְלָה. שֶׁאִם הָיָה צַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה מִן הַסַּכִּין שֶׁמָּא תֵּרֵד הַבְּהֵמָה בְּכֹבֶד גּוּפָהּ וְתֵחָתֵךְ בְּלֹא הוֹלָכָה וַהֲבָאָה וְאֵין זוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה עוֹף בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה צַוָּארוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִן הַסַּכִּין הַנְּעוּצָה אוֹ לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְלֹא הֱבִיאָהּ אוֹ הֱבִיאָהּ וְלֹא הוֹלִיכָהּ וְשָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא עַד שֶׁחָתַךְ הָרֹאשׁ וְהִתִּיזוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא אוֹ הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ וְהִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּהוֹלָכָה בִּלְבַד אוֹ בַּהֲבָאָה בִּלְבַד. אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא שְׁנֵי צַוָּארִים מִצַּוְּארֵי הַנִּשְׁחָט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִם לָאו שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים כְּאֶחָד שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ בְּסַכִּין אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד מִצַּד זֶה וְשֵׁנִי מִצַּד אַחֵר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וְשָׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ שְׁנֵי סַכִּינִין וְשָׁחֲטוּ כְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת בַּצַּוָּאר שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט זֶה הַוֵּשֶׁט בִּלְבַד אוֹ רֻבּוֹ וְהַשֵּׁנִי שָׁחַט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הַקָּנֶה אוֹ רֻבּוֹ הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְכֵן שְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּקֻלְמוֹס וּשְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּמַסְרֵק כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "אֵין שְׁחִיטַת הַחֻלִּין צְרִיכָה כַּוָּנָה אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט כְּמִתְעַסֵּק אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק סַכִּין לְנָעֳצָהּ בַּכֹּתֶל וְשָׁחֲטָה בַּהֲלִיכָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה כָּרָאוּי בִּמְקוֹמָהּ וְשִׁעוּרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ קָטָן אוֹ שִׁכּוֹר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה דַּעְתּוֹ וּמִי שֶׁאֲחָזַתּוּ רוּחַ רָעָה שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וַאֲחֵרִים רוֹאִין אוֹתָם שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּתִקְנָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲבָל סַכִּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְשָׁחֲטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ\" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַזּוֹבֵחַ אָדָם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁחִיטָה: \n", + "גַּלְגַּל שֶׁל אֶבֶן אוֹ שֶׁל עֵץ שֶׁהָיְתָה הַסַּכִּין קְבוּעָה בּוֹ וְסִבֵּב אָדָם אֶת הַגַּלְגַּל וְשָׂם צַוַּאר הָעוֹף אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בִּסְבִיבַת הַגַּלְגַּל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הַמַּיִם הֵן הַמְסַבְּבִין אֶת הַגַּלְגַּל וְשָׂם אֶת הַצַּוָּאר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁסִּבֵּב וְנִשְׁחַט הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם פָּטַר אָדָם אֶת הַמַּיִם עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ וְסִבְּבוּ אֶת הַגַּלְגַּל וְשָׁחַט בִּסְבִיבָתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי מִכֹּחַ אָדָם בָּא. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּסְבִיבָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁהִיא מִכֹּחַ הָאָדָם אֲבָל מִסְּבִיבָה שְׁנִיָּה וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ אֵינָהּ מִכֹּחַ הָאָדָם אֶלָּא מִכֹּחַ הַמַּיִם בְּהִלּוּכָן: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם הָרִים לְשֵׁם גְּבָעוֹת לְשֵׁם יַמִּים לְשֵׁם נְהָרוֹת לְשֵׁם מִדְבָּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוִּן לְעָבְדָן אֶלָּא לִרְפוּאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מִדִּבְרֵי הֲבַאי שֶׁאוֹמְרִין הָעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט לְשֵׁם מַזַּל הַיָּם אוֹ מַזַּל הָהָר אוֹ לְכוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָיָה כְּכָל תִּקְרֹבֶת עַכּוּ\"ם: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר חֶלְבָּהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁלְּמֵדִין מַחֲשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּחֻלִּין מִמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים בִּפְנִים. שֶׁמַּחֲשָׁבָה כָּזוֹ פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין: \n", + "שְׁחָטָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָשַׁב לִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר חֶלְבָּהּ לְעַכּוּ\"ם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה מִסָּפֵק. שֶׁמָּא סוֹפוֹ הוֹכִיחַ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ וּבְמַחֲשָׁבָה כָּזוֹ שָׁחַט: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין וְנִדָּרִים כְּמוֹתָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁזֶּה כְּשׁוֹחֵט קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. שָׁחַט לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הוֹאִיל וְהַפֶּסַח מַפְרִישׁ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל הַשָּׁנָה בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הֲרֵי הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְדָבָר הַנִּדָּר וְהַנִּדָּב. שָׁחַט לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם וַדַּאי לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי לְשֵׁם בְּכוֹר לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֵׂר לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת וְשָׁחַט וְאָמַר לְחַטָּאתִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָיָה לוֹ קָרְבָּן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְשָׁחַט וְאָמַר לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרַת זִבְחִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵמִיר בּוֹ: \n", + "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת וְאָמְרָה זוֹ לְעוֹלָתִי שְׁחִיטָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁאֵין עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת בָּאָה בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּבָה בְּעוֹלָה. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא הִפִּילָה. שֶׁכָּל הַמַּפֶּלֶת קוֹל יֵשׁ לָהּ. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת נָזִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָזִיר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה שֶׁעִקַּר הַנְּזִירוּת נֵדֶר מִן הַנְּדָרִים: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין. אֶחָד מִתְכַּוֵּן לְשֵׁם דָּבָר שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט לוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וְהַשֵּׁנִי לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ כַּוָּנָה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לְשֵׁם דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר לְהִתְכַּוֵּן לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט זֶה אַחַר זֶה וְהִתְכַּוֵּן הָאֶחָד מֵהֶן לְשֵׁם דָּבָר הַפָּסוּל פּוֹסֵל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפוּת אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ שֻׁתָּפוּת אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאֵין כַּוָּנָתוֹ אֶלָּא לְצַעֲרוֹ: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְעַכּוּ\"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ\"ם מִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין אֶלָּא לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזּוֹבֵחַ לֹא לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת בַּעַל הַבְּהֵמָה. לְפִיכָךְ עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n" + ], + [ + "חֲמִשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַפְסִידִין אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְעִקַּר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה לְהִזָּהֵר בְּכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁהִיָּה. דְּרָסָה. חֲלָדָה. הַגְרָמָה. וְעִקּוּר: \n", + "שְׁהִיָּה כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט וְהִגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגְמֹר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְשָׁהָה בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס וְחָזַר הוּא אוֹ אַחֵר וְגָמַר אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם שָׁהָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי זֶה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וְאִם הָיְתָה גַּסָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וּבְעוֹף כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט: \n", + "שָׁחַט מְעַט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט וְחָזַר וְשָׁחַט מְעַט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט עַד שֶׁגָּמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְלֹא שָׁהָה בְּפַעַם אַחַת שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁהִיָּה אֲבָל כְּשֶׁתַּחְשֹׁב כָּל זְמַן הַשְּׁהִיּוֹת יִצְטָרֵף מִכֻּלָּן שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וּכְדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט כְּמוֹ מִעוּט הַסִּימָנִין בִּלְבַד לֹא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט שְׁחִיטָה גְּמוּרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט רֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף אוֹ רֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁהָה חֲצִי הַיּוֹם וְחָזַר וְגָמַר חֲתִיכַת הַסִּימָנִין הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בָּהּ כַּשִּׁעוּר הֲרֵי זֶה כִּמְחַתֵּךְ בְּשַׂר הַשְּׁחוּטָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט בַּקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ חֶצְיוֹ אוֹ מִעוּטוֹ וְשָׁהָה זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְגוֹמֵר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט רֹב הַקָּנֶה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקֵּב בַּוֵּשֶׁט כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְשָׁהָה כַּשִּׁעוּר בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְגָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִתְחִיל בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁחִיטָה גְּמוּרָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב הַקָּנֶה שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ נְבֵלָה וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "הִנֵּה נִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ שֶׁאֵין שְׁהִיָּה בַּקָּנֶה בָּעוֹף כְּלָל. שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט רֹב הַקָּנֶה וְשָׁהָה כְּבָר נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֶׁחָזַר וְגָמַר מְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר הוּא. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּמִעוּט הַקָּנֶה וְשָׁהָה הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵק רֹב הַקָּנֶה: \n", + "שָׁחַט הָעוֹף וְשָׁהָה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ לֹא נִקַּב חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת וּבוֹדֵק הַוֵּשֶׁט מִבִּפְנִים. אִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ טִפַּת דָּם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב וּכְשֵׁרָה: \n", + "חֲלָדָה כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכְנִיס הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן. בֵּין שֶׁפָּסַק הַסִּימָן הָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַעְלָה בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַטָּה שֶׁהוּא דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "הִכְנִיס אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הָעוֹר וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי הַסִּימָנִים כְּדַרְכָּן. אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרַס מַטְלִית עַל הַסַּכִּין וְעַל הַצַּוָּאר וְשָׁחַט תַּחַת הַמַּטְלִית הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַסַּכִּין גְּלוּיָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט מִעוּט הַסִּימָנִים בְּהַחְלָדָה וְגָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַחְלָדָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "דְּרָסָה כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכָּה בְּסַכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּכִּין בְּסַיִף וְחָתַךְ הַסִּימָנִין בְּבַת אַחַת בְּלֹא הוֹלָכָה וְלֹא הוֹבָאָה. אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַסַּכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר וְדָחַק וְחָתַךְ לְמַטָּה כְּחוֹתֵךְ צְנוֹן אוֹ קִישׁוּת עַד שֶׁחָתַךְ הַסִּימָנִין הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "הַגְרָמָה כֵּיצַד. זֶה הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה. וּכְמוֹ שְׁנֵי חִטִּים יֵשׁ בְּסוֹף הַקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה בְּטַבַּעַת גְּדוֹלָה. שָׁחַט בְּתוֹךְ הַחִטִּים אִם שִׁיֵּר מֵהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא לְמַעְלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁחַט מִשִּׁפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה. וְהוּא מִן הַמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם לֹא שִׁיֵּר מֵהֶן כְּלוּם אֶלָּא שָׁחַט לְמַעְלָה מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻגְרֶמֶת וּפְסוּלָה: \n", + "שָׁחַט רֹב הָאֶחָד אוֹ רֹב הַשְּׁנַיִם וְהִשְׁלִים הַשְּׁחִיטָה בִּדְרָסָה אוֹ בְּהַגְרָמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁחַט הַשִּׁעוּר כָּרָאוּי. הִגְרִים בַּתְּחִלָּה שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן כְּשֵׁרָה. הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם דָּרַס אוֹ הֶחְלִיד בֵּין בַּשְּׁלִישׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין בַּשְּׁלִישׁ הָאֶמְצָעִי הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה: \n", + "עִקּוּר כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְהִיא הַקָּנֶה אוֹ הַוֵּשֶׁט וְנִשְׁמַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד בָּעוֹף אוֹ רֻבּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמַט הַסִּימָן הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "נִשְׁמַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. שָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִמְצָא הַשֵּׁנִי שָׁמוּט וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמַט אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "נִמְצָא הַסִּימָן הַשָּׁחוּט שָׁמוּט הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁוַּדַּאי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נֶעֱקַר. שֶׁאִלּוּ נֶעֱקַר קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה הָיָה מִתְדַּלְדֵּל וְלֹא נִשְׁחָט: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס הַסִּימָנִין בְּיָדוֹ כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט. אֲבָל אִם תְּפָסָן וְשָׁחַט אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט אַחַר הָעִקּוּר וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת שְׁמוּטָה וּשְׁחוּטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וְאִם אָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיא מִידֵי נְבֵלָה אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּטַּל יָרֵךְ שֶׁלָּהּ וַחֲלָלָה עִמָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה חֲסֵרָה כְּשֶׁתִּרְבַּץ הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ חֶצְיָהּ וְנֶחְלְקָה לִשְׁנֵי גּוּפוֹת וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְכֵן אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה מִפְרֶקֶת וְרֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרְעָה מִגַּבָּהּ כְּדָג אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב הַקָּנֶה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה מֵחַיִּים וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְאֶחָד הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד הָעוֹף בְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה: \n", + "שְׁנֵי עוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַוֵּשֶׁט. הַחִיצוֹן אָדֹם וְהַפְּנִימִי לָבָן. נִקַּב הָאֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּלְבַד כְּשֵׁרָה. נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וּבֵין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה נְבֵלָה: \n", + "נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט וְעָלָה בּוֹ קְרוּם וּסְתָמוֹ אֵין הַקְּרוּם כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי הוּא נָקוּב כְּשֶׁהָיָה. נִמְצָא קוֹץ עוֹמֵד בַּוֵּשֶׁט הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט וְעָלָה קְרוּם בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא הַקּוֹץ לְאָרְכּוֹ בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁרֹב הַבְּהֵמוֹת הַמִּדְבָּרִיּוֹת אוֹכְלוֹת הַקּוֹצִים תָּמִיד: \n", + "וֵשֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים. כֵּיצַד. הוֹפְכוֹ וּבוֹדֵק. אִם נִמְצָא עָלָיו טִפַּת דָּם בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהָיָה נָקוּב: \n", + "גַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב חֲלָלָה בַּמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן אִם נִקְּבָה כְּאִיסָר. נִקְּבָה נְקָבִים קְטַנִּים אִם נְקָבִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן הֵם מִצְטָרְפִין לְרֻבָּהּ וְאִם נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם חֶסְרוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְאִיסָר. וְכֵן אִם נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנָּה רְצוּעָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לִכְאִיסָר. וּבְעוֹף כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ מְקַפֵּל הָרְצוּעָה אוֹ הַנְּקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן וּמַנִּיחָן עַל פִּי הַקָּנֶה אִם חוֹפֶה אֶת רֻבּוֹ נְבֵלָה וְאִם לָאו כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "נִקְּבָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדֶיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס אִיסָר לְרָחְבּוֹ נְבֵלָה. נִסְדְּקָה לְאָרְכָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִן הַמָּקוֹם הָרָאוּי בָּהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ לְמַעְלָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ לְמַטָּה כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "גַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבָה. נוֹקְבִין אוֹתָהּ עַתָּה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמְדַמִּין הַנֶּקֶב לְנֶקֶב אִם נִדְמֶה לוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵין מְדַמִּין אֶלָּא מֵחֻלְיָא גְּדוֹלָה לְחֻלְיָא גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ מִקְּטַנָּה לִקְטַנָּה. אֲבָל לֹא מִקְּטַנָּה לִגְדוֹלָה שֶׁכָּל הַקָּנֶה חֻלְיוֹת חֻלְיוֹת הוּא וּבֵין כָּל חֻלְיָא וְחֻלְיָא חֻלְיָא אַחַת קְטַנָּה מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן וְרַכָּה: \n" + ], + [ + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁמַּפְסִידִין אֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְשָׁחַט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ. לֹא הוּא וְלֹא אֲחֵרִים. וַהֲרֵי זוֹ קְרוֹבָה לִסְפֵק נְבֵלָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת: \n", + "וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בְּפָנֵינוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שְׁחִיטָה נְכוֹנָה וּגְמוּרָה אָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה. הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דְּבָרִים הַמַּפְסִידִים אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּפְסִיד הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְהוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה אוֹ יִדְרֹס אוֹ יִשְׁחֹט בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָתוֹ: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט בִּפְנֵי חָכָם פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רָגִיל וְזָרִיז. וְאִם שָׁחַט תְּחִלָּה בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הַיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁחַט בִּפְנֵי חָכָם עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה רָגִיל הוּא הַנִּקְרָא מֻמְחֶה. וְכָל הַמֻּמְחִין שׁוֹחֲטִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן. וַאֲפִלּוּ נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים אִם הָיוּ מֻמְחִין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שׁוֹחֲטִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה: \n", + "חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן וְשִׁכּוֹר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָתָן פְּסוּלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דַּעַת שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁחֲטוּ בִּפְנֵי הַיּוֹדֵעַ וְרָאָה אוֹתָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ כַּהֹגֶן שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אֶצְלֵנוּ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצָא יוֹדֵעַ עִקְּרֵי הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "הֲרֵי שֶׁרָאִינוּ יִשְׂרְאֵלִי מֵרָחוֹק שֶׁשָּׁחַט וְהָלַךְ לוֹ וְלֹא יָדַעְנוּ אִם יוֹדֵעַ אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ צֵא וּשְׁחֹט לִי וּמָצָא הַבְּהֵמָה שְׁחוּטָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם שְׁלוּחוֹ שְׁחָטָהּ אוֹ אַחֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁרֹב הַמְּצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מֻמְחִין הֵן: \n", + "אָבַד לוֹ גְּדִי אוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל וּמְצָאוֹ שָׁחוּט בַּבַּיִת מֻתָּר. שֶׁרֹב הַמְּצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מֻמְחִים הֵן. מְצָאוֹ בַּשּׁוּק אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא נִתְנַבֵּל וּלְפִיכָךְ הֻשְׁלַךְ. וְכֵן אִם מְצָאוֹ בָּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת אָסוּר: \n", + "מֻמְחֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק וַהֲרֵי הוּא מֵבִין וְשׁוֹמֵעַ וְדַעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט: \n", + "הַסּוּמָא לֹא יִשְׁחֹט לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אֲחֵרִים רוֹאִים אוֹתוֹ וְאִם שָׁחַט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּסַכִּין יָפָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן שְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה וְלוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לד טו) \"וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ\". מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִזְהִיר שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִזִּבְחוֹ אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁזִּבְחוֹ אָסוּר וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה: \n", + "וְגָדֵר גָּדוֹל גָּדְרוּ בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ עַכּוּ\"ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה: \n", + "הִתְחִיל הָעַכּוּ\"ם לִשְׁחֹט מִעוּט סִימָנִין וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ הִתְחִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר הָעַכּוּ\"ם פְּסוּלָה. יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָתוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט הָעַכּוּ\"ם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֲצִי הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בִּלְבַד וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר לַעֲבֵרָה מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁהָיָה מֻמְחֶה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְצָרִיךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּשֵׁר לִבְדֹּק אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְּנֶנָּה לְמוּמָר זֶה לִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵחַ לִבְדֹּק. וְאִם הָיָה מוּמָר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אוֹ מְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא אוֹ אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס וְהוּא הַכּוֹפֵר בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעַכּוּ\"ם וּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ נְבֵלָה: \n", + "מִי שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת בַּעֲבֵרָה מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹחֵט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ אִם הָיָה מֻמְחֶה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵנִיחַ דָּבָר מֻתָּר וְאוֹכֵל דְּבַר אִסּוּר. שֶׁזּוֹ חֲזָקָה הִיא עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָרְשָׁעִים מֵהֶן: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַצְּדוֹקִין וְהַבַּיְתוֹסִין וְתַלְמִידֵיהֶן וְכָל הַטּוֹעִים אַחֲרֵיהֶן שֶׁאֵינָן מַאֲמִינִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שְׁחִיטָתָן אֲסוּרָה. וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ בְּפָנֵינוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר שְׁחִיטָתָן אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא יְקַלְקְלוּ וְהֵם אֵינָן מַאֲמִינִין בְּתוֹרַת הַשְּׁחִיטָה לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר לֹא קִלְקַלְנוּ: \n", + "כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא נִצְטַוּוּ בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַחֻלִּין אֶלָּא הָיוּ נוֹחֲרִין אוֹ שׁוֹחֲטִין וְאוֹכְלִין כִּשְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת. וְנִצְטַוּוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִשְׁחֹט לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא שְׁלָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ג) \"אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ד) \"וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ה) \"לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ\" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ה) \"וְזָבְחוּ זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לַה'\" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל הָרוֹצֶה לִנְחֹר וְלֶאֱכל בַּמִּדְבָּר הָיָה נוֹחֵר: \n", + "וּמִצְוָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת אֶלָּא בַּמִּדְבָּר בִּלְבַד בְּעֵת הֶתֵּר הַנְּחִירָה. וְנִצְטַוּוּ שָׁם שֶׁכְּשֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ תֵּאָסֵר הַנְּחִירָה וְלֹא יֹאכְלוּ חֻלִּין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. וְיִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם לְעוֹלָם חוּץ לַעֲזָרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כ) \"כִּי יַרְחִיב ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבוּלְךָ\" וְגוֹ' (דברים יב כא) \"וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ\" וְגוֹ'. וְזוֹ הִיא הַמִּצְוָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת לִשְׁחֹט וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאָכֵל: \n" + ], + [ + "כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת שֶׁהַטְּרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא הַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת. וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) \"טְרֵפָה\" אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בָּהוֹוֶה כְּגוֹן שֶׁטְּרָפָהּ אֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וּשְׁבָרָהּ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ שָׁם חֳלָאִים אֲחֵרִים אִם יֶאֶרְעוּ לָהּ תֵּחָשֵׁב טְרֵפָה וְהֵן הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וּשְׁמוֹנָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמשֶׁה בְּסִינַי וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. דְּרוּסָה. נְקוּבָה. חֲסֵרָה. נְטוּלָה. פְּסוּקָה. קְרוּעָה. נְפוּלָה. וּשְׁבוּרָה: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הֵן. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לְךָ בְּפֵרוּשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא דְּרוּסָה הֶחְמִירוּ בָּהּ. וְכָל סָפֵק שֶׁיִּסְתַּפֵּק בִּדְרוּסָה אָסוּר. וּשְׁאָר שִׁבְעָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן סְפֵקִין מֻתָּרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "הַדְּרוּסָה הוּא שֶׁיִּטְרֹף הָאֲרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה וְיִדְרֹס עָלֶיהָ בְּיָדוֹ. אוֹ יִדְרֹס הַנֵּץ וְהַנֶּשֶׁר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן עַל הָעוֹף. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה בִּבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה וּבְחַיָּה גַּסָּה אֶלָּא לַאֲרִי בִּלְבַד. וּבִבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה מִן הַזְּאֵב וּלְמַעְלָה. וּבִגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים אֲפִלּוּ חָתוּל וְשׁוּעָל וּנְמִיָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרִיסָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּעוֹפוֹת: \n", + "וְהַנֵּץ יֵשׁ לוֹ דְּרִיסָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת הַדּוֹרְסִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן דְּרִיסָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁכְּמוֹתָן. וְאֵין לָהֶן דְּרִיסָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ לְחֻלְדָּה דְּרִיסָה בְּעוֹפוֹת. וְכֶלֶב אֵין לוֹ דְּרִיסָה כָּל עִקָּר לֹא בְּעוֹף וְלֹא בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה. וְהַנֵּץ יֵשׁ לוֹ דְּרִיסָה בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים וְהוּא שֶׁיִּקֹּב בְּצִפָּרְנָיו לְבֵית הֶחָלָל: \n", + "אֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא בְּיַד הַטּוֹרֵף אֲבָל בְּרַגְלָיו אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא בְּצִפֹּרֶן אֲבָל בְּשֵׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִקַּב עַד בֵּית הֶחָלָל בּוֹדְקִין שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב אֶחָד מִן הָאֵיבָרִים שֶׁנִּטְרֶפֶת בִּנְקִיבָתָן. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא בְּכַוָּנַת הַטּוֹרֵף. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל הַדּוֹרֵס וְנִשְׁתַּקְּעוּ צִפָּרְנָיו בַּנִּטְרַף אֵין זוֹ דְּרִיסָה. וְאֵין דְּרִיסָה אֶלָּא מֵחַיִּים. אֲבָל אִם דָּרַס וְנֶהֱרַג וַעֲדַיִן יָדוֹ בַּדְּרוּסָה וְלֹא שָׁמַט צִפָּרְנָיו מִמֶּנָּה אֶלָּא אַחַר מוֹתוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד דִּין הַדְּרוּסָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַנִּטְרָף וּבוֹדְקִין כָּל הֶחָלָל שֶׁלּוֹ מִכַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַקָּדְקֹד. אִם נִמְצֵאת כֻּלָּהּ שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא נִמְצָא בָּהּ רשֶׁם הַדְּרִיסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִמְצָא בָּהּ רשֶׁם הַדְּרִיסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה וַאֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה: \n", + "אֵי זֶה הוּא רשֶׁם הַדְּרִיסָה. שֶׁיַּאְדִּים הַבָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְאִם נִמֹּק הַבָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְרוֹ מִן הַחַבּוּרָה רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר כְּאִלּוּ חָסֵר וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "וְאִם דָּרַס בַּסִּימָנִין מִשֶּׁיַּאֲדִימוּ טְרֵפָה וּדְרִיסָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶאֱדִים בָּהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲמַת דְּרִיסָה טְרֵפָה: \n", + "סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק כִּדְרוּסָה וַדָּאִית. כֵּיצַד. אֲרִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין שְׁוָרִים וְנִמְצָא צִפֹּרֶן בְּגַבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא אֲרִי דְּרָסוֹ. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא בַּכֹּתֶל נִתְחַכֵּךְ. וְכֵן שׁוּעָל אוֹ נְמִיָּה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין הָעוֹפוֹת וְהוּא שׁוֹתֵק וְהֵן מְקַרְקְרִין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא דָּרַס. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הוּא נוֹהֵם וְהֵם מְקַרְקְרִין מִיִּרְאָתוֹ וּמִנְּהִימָתוֹ הֵן מְקַרְקְרִין. וְכֵן אִם קָטַע רֹאשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן הִנֵּה נָח רָגְזוֹ. וְכֵן אִם שָׁתַק הוּא וְהֵם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁאִלּוּ הִזִּיק הָיוּ מְקַרְקְרִין: \n", + "סָפֵק שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְכָאן טוֹרֵף אוֹ לֹא נִכְנַס. אוֹ שֶׁרָאִינוּ וְלֹא נוֹדַע אִם זֶה מִן הַטּוֹרְפִין אוֹ אֵינוֹ מִן הַטּוֹרְפִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין. וְכֵן עוֹף שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵין הָעֵצִים אוֹ לְבֵין הַקָּנִים וְיָצָא וְרֹאשׁוֹ מְנַטֵּף דָּם אוֹ צַוָּארוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִטְרַף אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא בָּעֵצִים נִזַּק: \n" + ], + [ + "נְּקוּבָה כֵּיצַד. אַחַד עָשָׂר אֵיבָרִים הֵן שֶׁאִם נִקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחֲלָלוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט. וּקְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ הָרֹאשׁ. וְהַלֵּב עִם הַקָּנֶה שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַמָּרָה. וּקְנֵה הַכָּבֵד. וְהַקֵּבָה. וְהַכֶּרֶס. וְהֶמְסֵס. וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת. וְהַדַּקִּין. וְהָרֵאָה עִם הַקָּנֶה שֶׁלָּהּ: \n", + "תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שִׁעוּרוֹ וְשֶׁהוּא הַמָּקוֹם מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה לְמַעְלָה מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט. אִם נִקַּב לַחֲלָלוֹ בְּמַה שֶּׁהוּא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "שְׁנֵי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ לַמֹּחַ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ. אִם נִקַּב הָעֶלְיוֹן הַסָּמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִקַּב הַתַּחְתּוֹן הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֹּחַ טְרֵפָה. וּמִשֶּׁיַּתְחִיל הַמֹּחַ לְהִמָּשֵׁךְ לַשִּׁדְרָה וְהוּא מִחוּץ לַפּוֹלִין שֶׁהֵן תְּחִלַּת הָעֹרֶף יִהְיֶה לִקְרוּמוֹ דִּין אַחֵר. וְאִם נִקַּב חוּץ לַפּוֹלִין מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַמֹּחַ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִּקַּב אוֹ נִתְמַעֵךְ וְהַקְּרוּם קַיָּם כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם נִשְׁפַּךְ כַּמַּיִם אוֹ נָמֵס כַּדּוֹנַג טְרֵפָה: \n", + "הַלֵּב שֶׁנִּקַּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ. בֵּין לְחָלָל גָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּשְׂמֹאל בֵּין לְחָלָל קָטָן שֶׁבְּיָמִין טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִקַּב בְּשַׂר הַלֵּב וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ לַחֲלָלוֹ מֻתָּר. וּקְנֵה הַלֵּב וְהוּא הַמִּזְרָק הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ לָרֵאָה הֲרֵי הוּא כַּלֵּב וְאִם נִקַּב לַחֲלָלוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "מָרָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְכָבֵד סוֹתְמָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא נִסְתַּם הַנֶּקֶב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לַכָּבֵד טְרֵפָה: \n", + "נְזִיָּה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּמָּרָה אִם הָיְתָה כְּמוֹ גַּרְעִינָהּ שֶׁל תְּמָרָה שֶׁאֵין רֹאשָׁהּ חַד מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם רֹאשָׁהּ חַד כְּגַרְעִינַת הַזַּיִת אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִקְּבָה אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה. וְזֶה שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָאֶה הַנֶּקֶב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֻגְלַד פִּי הַמַּכָּה: \n", + "קְנֵי הַכָּבֵד וְהֵן הַמִּזְרְקִין שֶׁבּוֹ שֶׁבָּהֶן הַדָּם מִתְבַּשֵּׁל. אִם נִקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּחִתּוּךְ הַכָּבֵד אִם הָיְתָה מַחַט גְּדוֹלָה וְהָיָה הַקָּצֶה הַחַד שֶׁלָּהּ לְפָנִים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּקְּבָה כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה. וְאִם הָיָה הָרֹאשׁ הֶעָגל לְפָנִים אוֹמְרִין דֶּרֶךְ סִמְפּוֹנוֹת הָלְכָה וּמֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "הָיְתָה מַחַט קְטַנָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין וַדַּאי נִקְּבָה. וְאִם נִמְצֵאת בַּסִּמְפּוֹן הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּכָּבֵד וְהוּא הַקָּנֶה הָרָחָב שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע שֶׁבּוֹ נִכְנַס הַמַּאֲכָל לַכָּבֵד הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וּבְשַׂר כָּבֵד שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "קֵבָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְחֵלֶב טָהוֹר סוֹתֵם אֶת הַנֶּקֶב מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן כָּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הַחֵלֶב הַמֻּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה סוֹתֵם אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. חוּץ מֵחֵלֶב הַלֵּב וְהַקְּרוּם שֶׁעַל הַלֵּב כֻּלּוֹ. וְהַמְּחִצָּה שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַבֶּטֶן הַמַּבְדֶּלֶת בֵּין אֵיבְרֵי הַמַּאֲכָל וְאֵיבְרֵי הַנְּשִׁימָה. וְהִיא שֶׁקּוֹרְעִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ תֵּרָאֶה הָרֵאָה. וְהִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת טַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד. וְהַמָּקוֹם הַלָּבָן שֶׁבְּאֶמְצָעָהּ. וְחֵלֶב הַמְּעִי הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבְּאֵיבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אֵין מְגִנִּין לְפִי שֶׁהֵן קָשִׁין. וְנֶקֶב שֶׁנִּסְתַּם בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ כְּסָתוּם. וְחֵלֶב חַיָּה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה אָסוּר אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", + "כֶּרֶס שֶׁנִּקַּב טְרֵפָה. וְאֵין לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁיִּסְתֹּם אוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעָלָיו אָסוּר. וְכֵן הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחוּץ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקַּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְתוֹךְ חֲלַל חֲבֵרוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּעֳבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם נִקְּבָה נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ לְתוֹךְ חֲלַל בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת טִפַּת דָּם בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב טְרֵפָה שֶׁוַּדַּאי קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקַּב. אֲבָל אִם אֵין דָּם בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר שֶׁוַּדַּאי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דָּחֲקָה הַמַּחַט וְנִקְּבָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִלְעִיטָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁנּוֹקֵב בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ כְּגוֹן קֹרֶט שֶׁל חִלְתִּית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁוַּדַּאי נוֹקֵב. וְאִם הָיָה סָפֵק נוֹקֵב סָפֵק אֵינוֹ נוֹקֵב תִּבָּדֵק. כָּל אֶחָד מִן בְּנֵי הַמֵּעַיִם שֶׁפְּסלֶת הַמַּאֲכָל סוֹבֶבֶת בָּהֶן וְהֵן הַנִּקְרָאִים דַּקִּין שֶׁנִּקַּב טְרֵפָה. וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן מְלֻפָּפִין וּמֻקָּפִין זוֹ לְפָנִים מִזּוֹ בְּעִגּוּל כְּמוֹ נָחָשׁ שֶׁנִּכְרָךְ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִים הַדְרָא דְּכַנְתָּה. אִם נִקֵּב אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחֲבֵרוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ מֵגֵן עָלָיו: \n", + "וּמֵעַיִם שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ וְלֵחָה סוֹתַמְתָּן טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ סְתִימָה עוֹמֶדֶת. בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁבָּא זְאֵב אוֹ כֶּלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וּנְטָלָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן נְקוּבִין אַחַר שֶׁהִנִּיחָן תּוֹלִין בּוֹ וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נִקַּב. נִמְצְאוּ נְקוּבִין וְלֹא נוֹדַע אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבוּ אִם אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נוֹקְבִין בָּהֶן נֶקֶב אַחֵר וּמְדַמִּין לוֹ. אִם הָיָה הַנֶּקֶב הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּמוֹתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִקַּב וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם מִשְׁמְשׁוּ הַיָּדַיִם בְּנֶקֶב הַסָּפֵק כָּךְ צָרִיךְ לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בַּנֶּקֶב שֶׁמְּדַמִּין לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ עוֹרְכִין זֶה לָזֶה: \n", + "בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לַחוּץ וְלֹא נִקְּבוּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִתְהַפְּכוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקְּבוּ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אַחַר שֶׁנֶּהֶפְכוּ וְאֵינָהּ חַיָּה: \n", + "הַמְּעִי הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה וְאֵין בּוֹ עִקּוּם וְהוּא שֶׁהָרְעִי יוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִן הָעֶרְוָה וְהוּא דָּבוּק בֵּין עִקְּרֵי הַיְרֵכַיִם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא חַלְחלֶת. אִם נִקַּב בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה כִּשְׁאָר הַמֵּעַיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּקַּב לַחֲלַל הַבֶּטֶן. אֲבָל אִם נִקַּב בַּמָּקוֹם הַדָּבוּק בַּיְרֵכַיִם מֻתֶּרֶת. וַאֲפִלּוּ נָטַל מִמֶּנּוּ מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק כֻּלּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּיֵּר מֵאָרְכּוֹ בַּשּׁוֹר כְּמוֹ אַרְבַּע אֶצְבָּעוֹת: \n", + "הָעוֹף אֵין לוֹ כֶּרֶס וְלֹא הֶמְסֵס וְלֹא בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת. אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ כְּנֶגְדָּן זֶפֶק וְקֻרְקְבָן. וְכָל הַטְּרֵפוֹת שָׁווֹת הֵן בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְזֶפֶק שֶׁנִּקַּב גַּגּוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. וְאֵי זֶהוּ גַּגּוֹ שֶׁל זֶפֶק זֶה שֶׁיִּמָּתַח עִם הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּשֶׁיַּאֲרִיךְ הָעוֹף צַוָּארוֹ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַזֶּפֶק שֶׁנִּקַּב מֻתָּר: \n", + "שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין יֵשׁ בַּקֻּרְקְבָן. הַחִיצוֹן אָדֹם כְּמוֹ בָּשָׂר. וְהַפְּנִימִי לָבָן כְּמוֹ עוֹר. נִקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה מֻתֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּנָּקְבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. וְאִם נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה מֻתָּר: \n", + "הַטְּחוֹל אֵינוֹ מִן הָאֵיבָרִין שֶׁנְּקִיבָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא מָנוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים בִּכְלָלָן אֶלָּא יֵשׁ לַנֶּקֶב שֶׁלּוֹ שִׁעוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּכֻלּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הַטְּחוֹל רֹאשׁוֹ הָאֶחָד עָבֶה וְהַשֵּׁנִי דַּק כִּבְרִיַּת הַלָּשׁוֹן. אִם נִקַּב בָּרֹאשׁ הֶעָבֶה נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקַּב נֶקֶב שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפֻלָּשׁ אִם נִשְׁאָר תַּחְתָּיו כָּעֳבִי דִּינָר שֶׁל זָהָב מֻתָּר. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְפֻלָּשׁ וּטְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִקַּב הַדַּק כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "כָּל אֵיבָר שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בּוֹ שֶׁאִם נִקַּב בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה כָּךְ אִם נִטַּל כֻּלּוֹ טְרֵפָה. בֵּין שֶׁנִּטַּל בְּחלִי אוֹ בַּיָּד בֵּין שֶׁנִּבְרָא חָסֵר. וְכֵן אִם נִבְרָא בִּשְׁנֵי אֵיבָרִים מֵאוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר טְרֵפָה שֶׁכָּל הַיָּתֵר כְּנָטוּל הוּא חָשׁוּב. כֵּיצַד. נִטַּל אֶחָד מִן הַמֵּעַיִם אוֹ הַמָּרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא בָּהֶן שְׁתֵּי מְרָרוֹת אוֹ שְׁנֵי מֵעַיִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם נִטַּל הַטְּחוֹל אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל הַמְּנוּיִין: \n", + "הַמְּעִי הַיָּתֵר שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף בּוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה הוּא הַיָּתֵר מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי מֵעַיִם זֶה בְּצַד זֶה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כִּמְעֵי הָעוֹף אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַמְּעִי יוֹצֵא כְּעָנָף מִן הַבַּד וַהֲרֵי הוּא מֻבְדָּל בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה. אֲבָל אִם חָזַר וְנִתְעָרֵב עִם הַמְּעִי וְנַעֲשָׂה אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי רָאשָׁיו וַהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם מֻבְדָּלִין בָּאֶמְצַע הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת וְאֵין כָּאן יָתֵר: \n" + ], + [ + "שְׁנֵּי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ עַל הָרֵאָה. אִם נִקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן טְרֵפָה. אֲפִלּוּ נִגְלַד הַקְּרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן כֻּלּוֹ וְהָלַךְ לוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְהַקָּנֶה שֶׁנִּקַּב מִן הֶחָזֶה וּלְמַטָּה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ טְרֵפָה. וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה בַּקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה: \n", + "הִתְחִיל בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁחַט כָּל הַקָּנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ גָּמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְנִקְּבָה קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "אֶחָד מִסִּמְפּוֹנֵי רֵאָה שֶׁנִּקַּב אֲפִלּוּ נִקַּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְרֵאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְעָלָה קְרוּם בַּמַּכָּה וְנִסְתַּם הַנֶּקֶב אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם. נִקְבָּה הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֹּפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקְּבָה בִּמְקוֹם חִתּוּךְ הָאֻנּוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁרוֹבֶצֶת עָלָיו כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁסָּתַם מְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב שֶׁבָּאֻנּוֹת בָּשָׂר. אֲבָל אִם נִסְמַךְ הַנֶּקֶב לָעֶצֶם אֵינוֹ מֵגֵן. וְאִם הָיָה נֶקֶב הָאֻנּוֹת דָּבוּק בָּעֶצֶם וּבַבָּשָׂר מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת סְמוּכָה לַדֹּפֶן. בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱלַת צְמָחִים בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלַת חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ. מְפָרְקִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַדֹּפֶן וְנִזְהָרִין בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּנָּקֵב. אִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה וְנִמְצָא בַּדֹּפֶן מַכָּה בִּמְקוֹם הַנֶּקֶב תּוֹלִין בַּמַּכָּה וְאוֹמְרִים אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִקְּבָה כְּשֶׁנִּפְרָק מִן הַמַּכָּה. וְאִם אֵין מַכָּה בַּדֹּפֶן בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנֶּקֶב זֶה בָּרֵאָה הָיָה קֹדֶם הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "הָרֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ מָקוֹם אָטוּם כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁאֵין הָרוּחַ נִכְנֶסֶת בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִתְפָּח הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּנְקוּבָה וּטְרֵפָה. וְכֵיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. קוֹרְעִין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּח בִּשְׁעַת נְפִיחָה. אִם נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ לֵחָה מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת הַלֵּחָה לֹא נִכְנְסָה שָׁם הָרוּחַ. וְאִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ לֵחָה נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו מְעַט רֹק אוֹ תֶּבֶן אוֹ כָּנָף וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ אִם נִתְנַדְנֵד כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִם לָאו טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵין הָרוּחַ נִכְנֶסֶת לְשָׁם: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁתִּשָּׁמַע בָּהּ הֲבָרָה כְּשֶׁנּוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ אִם נִכָּר הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ תִּשָּׁמַע הַהֲבָרָה מוֹשִׁיבִין עָלָיו רֹק אוֹ תֶּבֶן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אִם נִתְנַדְנֵד בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא נְקוּבָה וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִכַּר הַמָּקוֹם מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם פּוֹשְׁרִין וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם בִּקְבֵּק הַמַּיִם טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁקְּרוּם הַתַּחְתּוֹן בִּלְבַד נִקַּב וְהָרוּחַ תְּנַהֵג בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַקְּרוּמוֹת וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יִשָּׁמַע בָּהּ קוֹל דְּמָמָה בִּשְׁעַת נְפִיחָה: \n", + "זֶה עִקָּר גָּדוֹל יִהְיֶה בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁכָּל רֵאָה שֶׁנּוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין וְלֹא יְבַקְבֵּק הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל נֶקֶב: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּשְׁפְּכָה כְּקִיתוֹן וּקְרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ קַיָּם שָׁלֵם בְּלֹא נֶקֶב. אִם הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת עוֹמְדִים בִּמְקוֹמָם וְלֹא נִמּוֹחוּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִם נִמּוֹחַ אֲפִלּוּ סִמְפּוֹן אֶחָד טְרֵפָה. כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין. נוֹקְבִין אוֹתָהּ וְשׁוֹפְכִין אוֹתָהּ בִּכְלִי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹעַ בַּאֲבָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אִם נִרְאֶה בָּהּ חוּטִין לְבָנִין בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּמֹּקּוּ הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו בְּשַׂר הָרֵאָה בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁנִּמּוֹק וּכְשֵׁרָה: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת אִם הָיוּ מְלֵאִים רוּחַ אוֹ מַיִם זַכִּים אוֹ לֵחָה הַנִּמְשֶׁכֶת כִּדְבַשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אוֹ לֵחָה יְבֵשָׁה וְקָשָׁה אֲפִלּוּ כְּאֶבֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִמְצֵאת בָּהֶן לֵחָה סְרוּחָה אוֹ מַיִם סְרוּחִין אוֹ עֲכוּרִין הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וּכְשֶׁמּוֹצִיא הַלֵּחָה וּבוֹדֵק אוֹתָהּ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק הַסִּמְפּוֹן שֶׁתַּחְתֶּיהָ. אִם נִמְצָא נָקוּב טְרֵפָה: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת סְמוּכוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר קָרוֹב הַרְבֵּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ נֶקֶב בֵּינֵיהֶן וְאֵין לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ בְּדִיקָה. הָיְתָה אַחַת וְנִרְאֶה כִּשְׁתַּיִם נוֹקְבִין הָאַחַת. אִם שָׁפְכָה לָהּ הָאַחֶרֶת אַחַת הִיא וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְאִם לָאו טְרֵפָה: \n", + "הָרֵאָה שֶׁנִּתְמַסְמְסָה טְרֵפָה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת שְׁלֵמָה וּכְשֶׁתּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ תֵּחָתֵךְ וְתִפּל חֲתִיכוֹת חֲתִיכוֹת. רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיַּד הַטַּבָּח מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ מֻתֶּרֶת וְתוֹלִין בְּיָדוֹ וְאוֹמְרִין מִיַּד הַטַּבָּח נִקְּבָה אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. נִמְצָא הַנֶּקֶב בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נוֹקְבִין בָּהּ נֶקֶב אַחֵר וּמְדַמִּין כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם: \n", + "וְאֵין מְדַמִּין מֵרֵאָה שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה לְרֵאָה שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶלָּא מִדַּקָּה לְדַקָּה וּמִגַּסָּה לְגַסָּה. נִמְצָא הַנֶּקֶב בְּאֶחָד מִן הָאֲבַעְבּוּעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין נִקּוֹב אֲבַעְבּוּעַ אַחֵר וְנַעֲרֹךְ שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר נִכָּר: \n", + "מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּרֵאָה נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ. אִם לֹא יָצָא מִמֶּנָּה רוּחַ בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁזֹּאת הַמַּחַט דֶּרֶךְ סִמְפּוֹנוֹת נִכְנְסָה וְלֹא נִקְּבָה. וְאִם נִתְחַתְּכָה הָרֵאָה קֹדֶם נְפִיחָה וְנִמְצֵאת בָּהּ הַמַּחַט הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה שֶׁהַדָּבָר קָרוֹב שֶׁנִּקְּבָה כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסָה: \n", + "תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּרֵאָה וְנִקְּבָה וְיָצְאָה וַהֲרֵי הָרֵאָה נְקוּבָה בְּתוֹלַעַת הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. חֶזְקָתָהּ שֶׁאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה תִּקּוֹב וְתֵצֵא. יֵשׁ שָׁם מַרְאוֹת שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה מַרְאֵה הָאֵיבָר לְאוֹתוֹ הַמַּרְאֶה הָרַע הֲרֵי הוּא כְּנָקוּב שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאָיו לְמַרְאֶה זֶה כְּמֵת הוּא חָשׁוּב וּכְאִלּוּ הוּא הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנֶּהֱפַךְ עֵינוֹ אֵינוֹ מָצוּי. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יג י) \"וּמִחְיַת בָּשָׂר חַי בַּשְׂאֵת\" (ויקרא יג יד) \"וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי\" מִכְּלָל שֶׁשְּׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה אֵינוֹ חַי: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאֶיהָ. בֵּין מַרְאֵה כֻּלָּה בֵּין מַרְאֵה מִקְצָתָהּ. אִם נִשְׁתַּנֵּית לְמַרְאֶה הַמֻּתָּר אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁתַּנֵּית כֻּלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּנָּה לְמַרְאֶה הָאָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהַמַּרְאֶה הָאָסוּר כְּנֶקֶב הוּא חָשׁוּב כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְחָמֵשׁ מַרְאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת יֵשׁ בָּרֵאָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁחוֹרָה כִּדְיוֹ. אוֹ יְרֻקָּה כְּעֵין כְּשׁוּת. אוֹ כְּעֵין חֶלְמוֹן בֵּיצָה. אוֹ כְּעֵין חֲרִיעַ. אוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה הַבָּשָׂר. וַחֲרִיעַ הוּא הַצֶּבַע שֶׁצּוֹבְעִים בּוֹ הַבְּגָדִים וְהוּא דּוֹמֶה לִשְׂעָרוֹת אֲדֻמּוֹת מְעַט וְנוֹטוֹת לִירֻקָּה: \n", + "נִמְצֵאת כְּעֵין חֲרָיוֹת שֶׁל דֶּקֶל אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ מִסָּפֵק שֶׁזֶּה קָרוֹב לְמַרְאֶה הָאָסוּר. וְכָל הַמַּרְאוֹת הָאֵלּוּ אֵין אוֹסְרִין בָּהֶם עַד שֶׁנּוֹפְחִים אוֹתָהּ וּמְמָרֵס בָּהּ בְּיָדוֹ. אִם נִשְׁתַּנֵּית לַמַּרְאֶה הַמֻּתָּר מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם עָמְדָה בְּעֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "אַרְבַּע מַרְאוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהּ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁחוֹרָה כִּכְחוֹל. אוֹ יְרֻקָּה כְּחָצִיר. אוֹ אֲדֻמָּה. אוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה הַכָּבֵד. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָרֵאָה כֻּלָּהּ טְלָאִים טְלָאִים נְקֻדּוֹת נְקֻדּוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע מַרְאוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁנָּפַל לָאוּר וְהוֹרִיק לִבּוֹ אוֹ כְּבֵדוֹ אוֹ קֻרְקְבָנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהֶאְדִּימוּ הַמֵּעַיִם שֶׁלּוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁכָּל הַיְרֻקִּים שֶׁהֶאְדִּימוּ אוֹ הָאֲדֻמִּים שֶׁהוֹרִיקוּ מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר בָּעוֹף הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִי שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ וּטְרֵפָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ בְּמַרְאֶה זֶה אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁלְקוּ אוֹתָן מְעַט וּמְמָרְסִין בָּהֶן: \n", + "כָּל עוֹף שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת הַכָּבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם. אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ שְׁאָר בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם וְעָמְדוּ בְּשִׁנּוּיָן אַחַר שְׁלִיקָה וּמְרִיסָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנָּפַל לָאוּר וְנֶחְמְרוּ בְּנֵי מֵעָיו וּטְרֵפָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁל עוֹף שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא בָּהֶם שִׁנּוּי וּכְשֶׁנִּשְׁלְקוּ נִשְׁתַּנּוּ וְהֶאְדִּימוּ הַיְרֻקִּים וְהוֹרִיקוּ הָאֲדֻמִּים. בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנָּפַל לָאוּר וְנֶחְמְרוּ בְּנֵי מֵעָיו וּטְרֵפָה. וְכֵן הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּמְצָא הָעוֹר הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ לָבָן וְהַפְּנִימִי אָדֹם בֵּין בָּעוֹף בֵּין בַּבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ וּטְרֵפָה: \n" + ], + [ + "חֲסֵרָה כֵּיצַד. שְׁנֵי אֵיבָרִים הֵן שֶׁאִם חָסֵר מִמִּנְיָנָם טְרֵפָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הָרֵאָה וְהָרַגְלַיִם. וְחָמֵשׁ אֻנּוֹת יֵשׁ לָרֵאָה כְּשֶׁיִּתְלֶה אוֹתָהּ אָדָם בְּיָדוֹ וּפְנֵי רֵאָה כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו. שָׁלֹשׁ מִן הַיָּמִין. וּשְׁתַּיִם מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל. וּבְצַד יָמִין מִמֶּנָּה כְּמוֹ אֹזֶן קְטַנָּה וְאֵינָהּ בְּצַד הָאֻנּוֹת וְיֵשׁ לָהּ כְּמוֹ כִּיס בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ הַכִּיס. וְאֹזֶן זוֹ קְטַנָּה הִיא הַנִּקְרָא וַרְדָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא דּוֹמָה לְוֶרֶד וְאֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם לֹא נִמְצֵאת הַוַּרְדָּא מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁכָּךְ הִיא דַּרְכָּהּ יֵשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת תִּמָּצֵא בָּהֶם וְיֵשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת לֹא תִּמָּצֵא בָּהֶם. וְאִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכִּיס שֶׁלָּהּ סוֹתֵם אֶת הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "חָסֵר מִנְיַן הָאֻנּוֹת וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַת מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם מִן הַיָּמִין טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתַּיִם בְּיָמִין וְזֹאת הַוַּרְדָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "נִתְחַלְּפוּ הָאֻנּוֹת וְנִמְצְאוּ שָׁלֹשׁ מִן שְׂמֹאל וּשְׁתַּיִם מִן הַיָּמִין בְּלֹא וֶרֶד. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַוֶּרֶד עִם הַשָּׁלֹשׁ בְּצַד שְׂמֹאל. הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁהִיא חֲסֵרָה מִצַּד הַיָּמִין: \n", + "נִתְוַסְּפוּ הָאֻנּוֹת בְּמִנְיָנָם אִם הָיְתָה הָאֹזֶן הַיְתֵרָה בְּצַד הָאֻנּוֹת אוֹ מִלִּפְנֵי הָרֵאָה שֶׁהוּא לְעֻמַּת הַלֵּב מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם הָיְתָה עַל גַּבָּהּ שֶׁהוּא לְעֻמַּת הַצְּלָעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁהַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה כְּמוֹ עָלֶה שֶׁל הֲדַס. אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה אֵינָהּ אֹזֶן וּמֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "אֹזֶן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הַסְּמוּכָה לָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִסְמְכוּ שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּסְמְכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית טְרֵפָה: \n", + "נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי הָאֻנּוֹת כְּאֻנָּה אַחַת וְאֵינָן נִרְאוֹת כִּשְׁתַּיִם דְּבוּקוֹת אִם הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ עֲלֵה הַהֲדַס בֵּין בְּעִקָּרָן בֵּין בְּאֶמְצָעָן בֵּין בְּסוֹפָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיֻּכַּר שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם דְּבוּקוֹת מֻתֶּרֶת וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲסֵרָה וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "נִמְצֵאת כֻּלָּהּ שְׁתֵּי עֲרוּגוֹת וְאֵין לָהּ חִתּוּךְ אָזְנַיִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם חָסֵר גּוּף הָרֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקְּבָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁחָסֵר מִנְיַן הָאֻנּוֹת וּטְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצָא מִמֶּנָּה מָקוֹם יָבֵשׁ עַד שֶׁיִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפֹּרֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּחָסֵר וּטְרֵפָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא: \n", + "רֵאָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת נְפוּחָה כְּמוֹ עִקַּר חֲרָיוֹת שֶׁל דֶּקֶל אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ מִסָּפֵק. שֶׁזּוֹ תּוֹסֶפֶת מְשֻׁנָּה בְּגוּפָהּ וְשֶׁמָּא הַתּוֹסֶפֶת בַּגּוּף כְּחִסָּרוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בְּמִנְיָן: \n", + "הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁפָּחֲדָה וְיָרְאָה עַד שֶׁצָּמְקָה הָרֵאָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְקָרְבָה לִהְיוֹת יְבֵשָׁה. אִם פָּחֲדָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה קוֹל רַעַם אוֹ רָאֲתָה זִקִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם פָּחֲדָה בִּידֵי אָדָם כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ לְפָנֶיהָ בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ כַּחֲסֵרָה וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ. מוֹשִׁיבִין אֶת הָרֵאָה בְּמַיִם מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם הָיָה זְמַן הַקֹּר מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם פּוֹשְׁרִין וּבִכְלִי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּיִם מִתְמַצִּין מִגַּבּוֹ וְנֹזְלִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִצֹּנּוּ בִּמְהֵרָה. וְאִם הָיָה זְמַן הַחֹם מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם צוֹנֵן בִּכְלִי שֶׁהַמַּיִם מִתְמַצִּין מִגַּבּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ קָרִים. אִם חָזְרָה לִבְרִיָּתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם וּמֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא חָזְרָה בִּידֵי אָדָם הִיא וּטְרֵפָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהָיְתָה חֲסֵרָה רֶגֶל בִּתְחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה רֶגֶל. שֶׁכָּל הַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר הוּא. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ יָדַיִם אוֹ יד אַחַת מֻתֶּרֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶחְתַּךְ הַיָּד שֶׁלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. נֶחְתַּךְ הָרֶגֶל מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה טְרֵפָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה מֻתֶּרֶת. בְּאֵי זוֹ אַרְכֻּבָּה אָמְרוּ בְּאַרְכֻּבָּה שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַיָּרֵךְ הַסָּמוּךְ לַגּוּף: \n", + "נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה אִם יָצָא כֻּלּוֹ אוֹ רֻבּוֹ לַחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ וְנָפַל וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָעוֹר חוֹפֶה רֹב עָבְיוֹ וְרֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ שֶׁל עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ נָפַל מִקְצָת הָעֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. וְגִידִים הָרַכִּים אֵינָן חֲשׁוּבִין כְּבָשָׂר: \n", + "צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין הֵן בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה לְמַעְלָה מִן הֶעָקֵב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁתּוֹלִין בּוֹ הַטַּבָּחִים הַבְּהֵמָה. וְהֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּידִין לְבָנִים. אֶחָד עָבֶה וּשְׁנַיִם דַּקִּים. וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁיַּתְחִיל וְהֵן קָשִׁים וּלְבָנִים עַד שֶׁיָּסוּר הַלֹּבֶן מֵהֶן וְיַתְחִילוּ לְהִתְאַדֵּם וּלְהִתְרַכֵּךְ הוּא צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים. וְהוּא כְּאֹרֶךְ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אֶצְבָּעוֹת בְּשׁוֹר: \n", + "וּמִנְיַן גִּידִים אֵלּוּ בָּעוֹף שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר גִּידִין. תְּחִלָּתָן מִן הָעֶצֶם שֶׁל מַטָּה מֵאֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה עַד סוֹף הָרֶגֶל שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי קַשְׂקַשִּׂים קַשְׂקַשִּׂים: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ בִּמְקוֹם צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין טְרֵפָה. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ וְתֹאמַר כֵּיצַד תַּחְתֹּךְ לְמַעְלָה מִצֹּמֶת הַגִּידִים וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁתַּחְתֹּךְ לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאִם נֶחְתַּךְ לְמַטָּה מִצֹּמֶת הַגִּידִים אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁבִּטְרֵפוֹת תַּחְתֹּךְ מִכָּאן וְתִחְיֶה וּמִכָּאן וְתָמוּת. וְלֹא נֶאֶסְרָה בְּהֵמָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא חֲתוּכַת רֶגֶל מִמָּקוֹם זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ הַגִּידִין שֶׁחֲתִיכָתָן מִכְּלַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר: \n", + "נְטוּלָה כֵּיצַד. שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵיבָרִים הֵן שֶׁאִם נִטְּלוּ טְרֵפָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דִּין נֶקֶב וְלֹא דִּין חֶסְרוֹן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים. וְהַכָּבֵד. וּלְחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן: \n", + "וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ רַגְלָהּ וְכֵן הָעוֹף בִּמְקוֹם צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים לֹא נַעֲשׂוּ טְרֵפָה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ הַגִּידִין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶחְתְּכוּ הַגִּידִים לְבַדָּם וְהָרֶגֶל קַיֶּמֶת טְרֵפָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִטְּלָה צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים: \n", + "נֶחְתַּךְ בִּבְהֵמָה הָאֶחָד הֶעָבֶה לְבַדּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁאֲרוּ שְׁנַיִם. נֶחְתְּכוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם הַדַּקִּין מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאֶחָד הֶעָבֶה גְּדוֹל שְׁנֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי לֹא נִטַּל כָּל הַצֹּמֶת אֶלָּא מִעוּטָהּ. נֶחְתַּךְ רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן טְרֵפָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ כֻּלָּן אוֹ נִטְּלוּ כֻּלָּן: \n", + "וּבָעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ נֶחְתַּךְ רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל (כָּל) אֶחָד מִן הַשִּׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר טְרֵפָה: \n", + "וְעוֹף שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרוּ אֲגַפָּיו מֻתָּר כִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ יָדֶיהָ: \n", + "כָּבֵד שֶׁנִּטְּלָה כֻּלָּהּ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ וּכְזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. נִדַּלְדְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וַהֲרֵי הִיא מְעֹרָה בַּטַּרְפַּשׁ שֶׁלָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת. נִטַּל מִמֶּנָּה מָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ וּמְקוֹם הַמָּרָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁאָר קַיָּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה: \n", + "נִשְׁאַר בָּהּ כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה וּכְזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲבָל הָיָה מְפֻזָּר מְעַט בְּכָאן וּמְעַט בְּכָאן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְרֻדָּד אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אָרֹךְ כִּרְצוּעָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה: \n", + "לְחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁנִּטַּל טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִטַּל הַתַּחְתּוֹן כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּגְמַם עַד מְקוֹם הַסִּימָנִין וְלֹא נֶעֶקְרוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "כָּל אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ שֶׁאִם הָיָה חָסֵר טְרֵפָה כָּךְ אִם נִטַּל טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ אִם נִטַּל טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת אֶלָּא אִם נֶחְתַּךְ אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר. אֲבָל אִם נִבְרֵאת חֲסֵרָה אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאִם לֹא תֹּאמַר כֵּן נִמְצֵאת הַחֲסֵרָה וְהַנְּטוּלָה אַחַת. וְכָל אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ שֶׁאִם נִטַּל מֻתֶּרֶת קַל וָחֹמֶר אִם חָסֵר מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתָהּ וְלֹא נִבְרָא שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ וְהוּא בֵּית הָרֶחֶם אוֹ שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִבְרֵאת בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת אוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ כְּלָיוֹת מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם נִקְּבָה הַכּוּלְיָא מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּטְּלָה אוֹ חֲסֵרָה מֻתֶּרֶת אִם נִמְצֵאת קְטַנָּה בְּיוֹתֵר. וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּדָקָה עַד כְּפוֹל וּבְגַסָּה עַד כְּעֵנָב. טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם לָקְתָה הַכּוּלְיָא וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה בְּשָׂרָהּ כִּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁהִבְאִישׁ אַחַר יָמִים שֶׁאִם תֶּאֱחֹז בְּמִקְצָתוֹ יִתְמַסְמֵס וְיִפּל וְהִגִּיעַ חלִי זֶה עַד הַלָּבָן שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכּוּלְיָא הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצֵאת בַּכּוּלְיָא לֵחָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ סְרוּחָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ מַיִם עֲכוּרִין אוֹ סְרוּחִים הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם זַכִּים הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n" + ], + [ + "פְּסוּקָה כֵּיצַד. חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַק הָעוֹר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַמֹּחַ טְרֵפָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵק רֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִסְדַּק הָעוֹר לְאָרְכּוֹ אוֹ נִקַּב מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ הַמֹּחַ שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַחוּט וְנִתְנַדְנֵד הוֹאִיל וְעוֹרוֹ קַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "הֻמְרַךְ הַמֹּחַ וְנִשְׁפַּךְ כַּמַּיִם אוֹ כְּדוֹנַג שֶׁנָּמֵס עַד שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא הַחוּט כְּשֶׁמַּעֲמִידוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד מִפְּנֵי כָּבְדּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק: \n", + "עַד הֵיכָן חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה. תְּחִלָּתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ לַפּוֹלִין שֶׁבִּתְחִלַּת הָעֹרֶף עַד סוֹף פָּרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית הַסְּמוּכָה לִתְחִלַּת הָאַלְיָה: \n", + "וְשָׁלֹשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הֵן וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. שְׁלֹשָׁה עֲצָמוֹת דְּבוּקִין זֶה בָּזֶה לְמַטָּה מֵחֻלְיוֹת שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה. וְחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה בָּעוֹף עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִים. אֲבָל לְמַטָּה מִמְּקוֹמוֹת אֵלּוּ אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל הַחוּט הַנִּמְשָׁךְ לְשָׁם בֵּין שֶׁנִּפְסַק עוֹרוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְרַךְ הַמֹּחַ: \n", + "קְרוּעָה כֵּיצַד. בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רֹב הַכֶּרֶס וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם מִן הַבֶּטֶן שֶׁאִם יִקָּרַע יֵצֵא הַכֶּרֶס אִם נִקְרַע בָּשָׂר זֶה טְרֵפָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ הַקֶּרַע לַכֶּרֶס עַד שֶׁנִּרְאֵית. אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְרַע רֹב עֳבִי הַבָּשָׂר הַזֶּה אוֹ נִטַּל טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר הַקֶּרַע בְּאָרְכּוֹ אֹרֶךְ טֶפַח. וְאִם הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה קְטַנָּה וְנִקְרַע רֹב אֹרֶךְ הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַכֶּרֶס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּאֹרֶךְ הַקֶּרַע טֶפַח טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְנִקְרַע רֻבָּהּ: \n", + "נִקְדַּר הַבָּשָׂר הַזֶּה בְּעִגּוּל אוֹ בְּאֹרֶךְ אִם הָיָה יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע וְהוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ גַּרְעִינֵי תְּמָרָה זוֹ בְּצַד זוֹ בְּדֹחַק הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. שֶׁאִם יִמָּתַח קֶרַע זֶה יַעֲמֹד עַל טֶפַח: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּפְשַׁט הָעוֹר שֶׁעָלֶיהָ כֻּלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּקְרַע בַּיָּד אוֹ בְּחלִי וְנִמְצָא בָּשָׂר בְּלֹא עוֹר הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת גְּלוּדָה. וְאִם נִשְׁאַר מִן הָעוֹר רֹחַב סֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי כָּל הַשִּׁדְרָה וְרֹחַב סֶלַע עַל הַטַּבּוּר וְרֹחַב סֶלַע עַל רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם נִטַּל כְּרֹחַב סֶלַע מֵעַל כָּל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה אוֹ מֵעַל הַטַּבּוּר אוֹ מֵעַל רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרֶיהָ וּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעוֹר קַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁמַּתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "נְפוּלָה כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּפְלָה הַבְּהֵמָה מִמָּקוֹם גָּבוֹהַּ שֶׁגָּבְהוֹ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים אוֹ יֶתֶר וְנִתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵיצַד הוּא הָרִסּוּק. שֶׁיִּתְרוֹצֵץ הָאֵיבָר וְיֶחֱלֶה מֵחֲמַת הַנְּפִילָה עַד שֶׁתִּפָּסֵד צוּרָתוֹ וְתָאֳרוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב וְלֹא נִסְדַּק וְלֹא נִשְׁבַּר הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְּמַטֶּה וְרִצֵּץ אֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ טְרֵפָה. בְּאֵי זֶה אֵיבָרִים אָמְרוּ בְּאֵיבָרִים שֶׁבַּחֲלַל הַגּוּף: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגַּג אִם הָלְכָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאִם עָמְדָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. קָפְצָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. הִנִּיחָהּ לְמַעְלָה וּמְצָאָהּ לְמַטָּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נָפְלָה: \n", + "זְכָרִים הַמְנַגְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. נָפְלוּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְגָרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה: \n", + "גַּנָּבִים שֶׁגּוֹנְבִין הַטְּלָאִים וּמַשְׁלִיכִין אוֹתָן לַאֲחוֹרֵי הַדִּיר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן מִשּׁוּם רִסּוּק אֵיבָרִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁלִיכִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בְּכַוָּנָה שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ. וְאִם הֶחֱזִירוּם וְהִשְׁלִיכוּם לַדִּיר מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. מֵחֲמַת תְּשׁוּבָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהַחֲזִירָם שְׁלֵמִים וְיִזָּהֲרוּ בְּהַשְׁלָכָתָן: \n", + "שׁוֹר שֶׁהִרְבִּיצוּהוּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּפַל נְפִילָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קוֹל בְּעֵת שֶׁמַּפִּילִין אוֹתוֹ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֵץ צִפָּרְנָיו וּמִתְחַזֵּק עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָאָרֶץ: \n", + "הִכָּה הַבְּהֵמָה עַל רֹאשָׁהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ הַמַּכָּה כְּלַפֵּי זְנָבָהּ אוֹ עַל זְנָבָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ כְּלַפֵּי רֹאשָׁהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ בַּמַּטֶּה עַל כָּל הַשִּׁדְרָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאִם יֵשׁ בַּמַּטֶּה חֻלְיוֹת חֻלְיוֹת חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְאִם הִגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ הַמַּטֶּה לְמִקְצָת הַשִּׁדְרָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. וְכֵן אִם הִכָּה לְרֹחַב הַשִּׁדְרָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁנֶּחְבַּט עַל דָּבָר קָשֶׁה כְּגוֹן כְּרִי שֶׁל חִטִּים אוֹ קֻפָּה שֶׁל שְׁקֵדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְרִסּוּק אֵיבָרִים. וְאִם נֶחְבַּט עַל דָּבָר רַךְ כְּגוֹן כְּסוּת כְּפוּלָה וְהַתֶּבֶן וְהָאֵפֶר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ: \n", + "נִדְבְּקוּ כְּנָפָיו בְּדֶבֶק בִּשְׁעַת צִידָה וְנִתְחַבֵּט. אִם בְּכָנָף אַחַת נֶאֱחַז אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ. וְאִם נֶאֱחַז בִּשְׁתֵּי כְּנָפָיו וְנִתְחַבֵּט בְּגוּפוֹ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ: \n", + "נֶחְבַּט עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם אִם שָׁט מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה לְעֵמַּת הַמַּיִם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם שָׁט מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה עִם הִלּוּךְ הַמַּיִם חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא הַמַּיִם הֵם הַמּוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם קָדַם לְתֶבֶן אוֹ קַשׁ שֶׁמְּהַלְּכִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי זוֹ שָׁט מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ: \n", + "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט מִיָּד. וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ אִם שְׁחָטָהּ צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הֶחָלָל כֻּלּוֹ מִקָּדְקֹד הָרֹאשׁ עַד הַיָּרֵךְ. אִם מָצָא בָּהּ טְרֵפָה מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנִינוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר מִן הָאֵיבָרִים שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְנִפְסְדָה צוּרָתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְרַסֵּק אֵיבָר מִן הָאֵיבָרִים שֶׁאִם נִטְּלוּ כְּשֵׁרָה כְּגוֹן טְחוֹל וּכְלָיוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה חוּץ מִבֵּית הָרֶחֶם שֶׁאִם נִתְרַסֵּק הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "וְהַסִּימָנִין אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה בְּכָאן שֶׁאֵין הַנְּפִילָה מְמַעֶכֶת אוֹתָן: \n", + "נָפְלָה מִן הַגַּג וְלֹא עָמְדָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁהֵא מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וּכְשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹתָהּ אַחַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "וְכֵן מִי שֶׁדָּרַס בְּרַגְלוֹ עַל הָעוֹף אוֹ שֶׁדְּרָסַתּוּ בְּהֵמָה אוֹ שֶׁטְּרָפוֹ לַכֹּתֶל וַהֲרֵי הוּא מְפַרְכֵּס מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n", + "סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ רֻבָּן טְרֵפָה וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת נְפִילָה. וְכֵן אִם נִתְקַפְּלוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל אִם נִתְפָּרֵק רֹב תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט מִן הַלֶּחִי הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין הַתַּרְבַּץ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ: \n" + ], + [ + "שְבוּרָה כֵּיצַד הוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. וְצַלְעוֹת הַבְּהֵמָה הֵן אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִיכָּן וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִיכָּן. נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ שֵׁשׁ מִיכָּן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן אוֹ אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן טְרֵפָה. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵחֶצְיָן שֶׁל מוּל הַשְּׂדֵרָה: \n", + "נִשְׁבְּרוּ שֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן אִם הָיוּ צְלָעוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מֹחַ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן רֹב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרוּ כְּלַפֵּי הַשִּׁדְרָה מֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן אִם נֶעֶקְרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נֶעֶקְרָה אֲפִלּוּ צֶלַע אַחַת וַחֲצִי חֻלְיָתָהּ עִמָּהּ שֶׁהַצֶּלַע תְּקוּעָה בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נֶעֶקְרָה מִן הַשִּׁדְרָה חֻלְיָא אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מִן הַחֻלְיוֹת שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִן הַכְּסָלִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן צְלָעוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט הַיָּרֵךְ שֶׁלָּהּ מֵעִקָּרוֹ וְיָצָא מִן הַכַּף שֶׁלּוֹ אִם נִתְאַכְּלוּ נִיבָיו וְהֵן הַיְתֵדוֹת שֶׁבְּעֶצֶם הַכַּף שֶׁיּוֹצֵאת עַל הָעֶצֶם הַזָּכָר וְאוֹחֶזֶת אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִתְאַכְּלוּ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n", + "וְכֵן בָּעוֹף אִם נִשְׁמַט יְרֵכוֹ טְרֵפָה. נִשְׁמַט כְּנָפוֹ מֵעִקָּרוֹ חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה שֶׁלּוֹ וּלְפִיכָךְ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵאָכֵל. וּבְהֵמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יָדָהּ מֵעִקָּרָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ: \n", + "גֻּלְגּלֶת בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁנִּטַּל מִמֶּנָּה כְּסֶלַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב הַקְּרוּם טְרֵפָה. וְאִם נִקְּבוּ נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן כֻּלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְסֶלַע: \n", + "וְכֵן גֻּלְגּלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבַּס רֹב גָּבְהָהּ וְרֹב הֶקֵּפָהּ טְרֵפָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקְּרוּם שָׁלֵם וְלֹא חָסֵר מִמֶּנָּה כְּלוּם. נֶחְבַּס רֹב גָּבְהָהּ וַהֲרֵי רֹב הֶקֵּפָהּ קַיָּם אוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְבַּס רֹב הֶקֵּפָהּ וַהֲרֵי רֹב גָּבְהָהּ קַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק טְרֵפָה. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם כְּגוֹן אֲוָזִים אִם נִקַּב עֶצֶם גֻּלְגָּלְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ טְרֵפָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּרוּמוֹ רַךְ. עוֹף הַיַּבָּשָׁה שֶׁהִכַּתּוּ חֻלְדָּה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּגַּף בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְּעֵץ מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ בְּצַד הַנֶּקֶב וְנוֹעֵץ אוֹ מַכְנִיס יָדוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְדוֹחֵק לְמַעְלָה. אִם יָצָא הַמֹּחַ מִן הַנֶּקֶב בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּקַּב הַקְּרוּם וּטְרֵפָה. וְאִם לָאו מֻתָּר: \n", + "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאָחֲזָהּ דָּם אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְעֻשֶּׁנֶת אוֹ מְצֻנֶּנֶת אוֹ שֶׁאָכְלָה סַם שֶׁהוֹרֵג הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שָׁתְתָה מַיִם הָרָעִים הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. אָכְלָה סַם שֶׁהוֹרֵג אֶת הָאָדָם אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ נָחָשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה וַאֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת: \n", + "נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הַטְּרֵפוֹת הַמְּנוּיוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּפָּרְטוּ וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּמָּצְאוּ בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שִׁבְעִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן עַל הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֲרוּ בְּחִבּוּר זֶה. א) דְּרוּסָה. ב) נִקַּב תַּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט. ג) נִקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ. ד) נִתְמַסְמֵס הַמֹּחַ עַצְמוֹ. ה) נִקַּב הַלֵּב עַצְמוֹ לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ. ו) נִקַּב קְנֵה הַלֵּב. ז) נִקְּבָה הַמָּרָה. ח) נִקְּבוּ קְנֵי הַכָּבֵד. ט) נִקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה. י) נִקַּב הַכֶּרֶס. יא) נִקַּב הֶמְסֵס. יב) נִקַּב בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת. יג) נִקְּבוּ מֵעֶיהָ. יד) יָצְאוּ הַמֵּעַיִם לַחוּץ וְנֶהֶפְכוּ. טו) נִקַּב הַטְּחוֹל בְּעָבְיוֹ. טז) חֲסֵרָה הַמָּרָה. יז) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי מְרָרוֹת. יח) חֲסֵרָה הַקֵּבָה. יט) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי קֵבוֹת. כ) חָסֵר הַכֶּרֶס. כא) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּרֵסִים. כב) חָסֵר הֶמְסֵס. כג) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי מְסָסִים. כד) חָסֵר בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת. כה) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי הַכּוֹסוֹת. כו) חָסֵר אֶחָד מִן הַמֵּעַיִם. כז) נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי מֵעַיִם. כח) נִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה. כט) נִקַּב הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה. ל) נִקַּב סִמְפּוֹן מִסִּמְפּוֹנֵי רֵאָה אֲפִלּוּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לא) נֶאֱטַם מָקוֹם מִן הָרֵאָה. לב) נִמֹּק סִמְפּוֹן מִסִּמְפּוֹנֵי הָרֵאָה. לג) נִמְצְאָה לֵחָה סְרוּחָה בָּרֵאָה. לד) נִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם סְרוּחִים. לה) נִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם עֲכוּרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִסְרִיחוּ. לו) נִתְמַסְמְסָה הָרֵאָה. לז) נִשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאֶיהָ. לח) נֶהֱפַךְ הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַרְאָיו. לט) חֲסֵרָה הָרֵאָה מִמִּנְיַן הָאֻנּוֹת. מ) נִתְחַלְּפוּ הָאֻנּוֹת. מא) הוֹתִירוּ הָאֻנּוֹת מִגַּבָּהּ. מב) נִסְרְכָה אֻנָּה לְאֻנָּה שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן. מג) נִמְצְאָה הָרֵאָה בְּלֹא חִתּוּךְ אָזְנַיִם. מד) חָסֵר מִקְצָת הָרֵאָה. מה) יָבֵשׁ מִקְצָת גּוּפָהּ. מו) נִמְצְאָה הָרֵאָה נְפוּחָה וְעוֹמֶדֶת. מז) צָמְקָה הָרֵאָה מִפַּחַד אָדָם. מח) חָסֵר הָרֶגֶל בֵּין מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ. מט) אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה יְתֵרָה רֶגֶל. נ) נִטְּלָה צֹמֶת הַגִּידִים. נא) נִטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד. נב) נִטַּל לֶחִי הָעֶלְיוֹן. נג) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה בְּיוֹתֵר. נד) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁלָּקְתָה. נה) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּהּ לֵחָה. נו) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם עֲכוּרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן סְרוּחִין. נז) כּוּלְיָא שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מַיִם סְרוּחִין. נח) נִפְסַק חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה. נט) נִמְרַךְ מֹחַ חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִתְמַסְמֵס. ס) נִקְרַע רֹב הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַכֶּרֶס. סא) נִגְלַד הָעוֹר שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. סב) נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ מִנְּפִילָה. סג) נִדַּלְדְּלוּ הַסִּימָנִין. סד) נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. סה) נֶעֶקְרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. סו) נֶעֶקְרָה צֶלַע אַחַת בְּחֻלְיָתָהּ. סז) נֶעֶקְרָה חֻלְיָה אַחַת. סח) נִשְׁמַט הַיָּרֵךְ מֵעִקָּרוֹ. סט) חֲסֵרָה הַגֻּלְגּלֶת כְּסֶלַע. ע) נֶחְבַּס רֹב הַגֻּלְגּלֶת וְנִתְרוֹצֵץ: \n", + "אֵלּוּ הַשִּׁבְעִים חֳלָיִים שֶׁאוֹסְרִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶת הַחַיָּה מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו. וְכָל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בָּעוֹף בָּאֵיבָרִין הַמְּצוּיִין לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה דִּינוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְעוֹף אֶחָד הוּא. חוּץ מִטְּרֵפוֹת שֶׁבְּכוּלְיָא וְשֶׁבַּטְּחוֹל וְשֶׁבְּאֻנּוֹת הָרֵאָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹף אֵין לוֹ חִתּוּךְ אֻנּוֹת כִּבְהֵמָה. וְאִם יִמָּצֵא אֵין לוֹ מִנְיָן יָדוּעַ. וּטְחוֹל הָעוֹף עָגל כְּמוֹ עֵנָב וְאֵינוֹ כִּטְחוֹל בְּהֵמָה. וּטְרֵפוֹת שֶׁבַּכּוּלְיָא וְשֶׁבַּטְּחוֹל לֹא מָנוּ אוֹתָן בִּבְהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נָתְנוּ לְכוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה שִׁעוּר בָּעוֹף. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "וּשְׁתֵּי טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בָּעוֹף יֶתֶר עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אוֹתָן הָאֵיבָרִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עוֹף שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ מַרְאֵה בְּנֵי מֵעָיו מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר. וְעוֹף הַמַּיִם שֶׁנִּקַּב עֶצֶם רֹאשׁוֹ: \n", + "וְאֵין לְהוֹסִיף עַל טְרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ כְּלָל. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵרַע לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ לְחַיָּה אוֹ לְעוֹף חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ חַכְמֵי דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהִסְכִּימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּבָתֵּי דִּינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ נוֹדַע לָנוּ מִדֶּרֶךְ הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָהּ לִחְיוֹת: \n", + "וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן טְרֵפָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְמִיתִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) \"עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ\": \n", + "כָּל טַבָּח שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ הַטְּרֵפוֹת הָאֵלּוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת מֻתָּר לוֹ לִשְׁחֹט וְלִבְדֹּק לְעַצְמוֹ וְלִמְכֹּר וְאֵין בָּזֶה חֲשָׁשׁ. שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן בְּאִסּוּרִין בֵּין יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲנָיָה בְּעֵדוּתוֹ בֵּין אֵין לוֹ הֲנָיָה בְּעֵדוּתוֹ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין לוֹקְחִין בָּשָׂר מִטַּבָּח שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט וּבוֹדֵק לְעַצְמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה מֻמְחֶה. וְאִם יָצָאת טְרֵפָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִים אוֹתוֹ וְיַחֲזִיר אֲבֵדָה בְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב אוֹ יוֹצִיא טְרֵפָה לְעַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב: \n" + ], + [ + "כָּל בְּהֵמָה אוֹ עוֹף שֶׁנּוֹלד בָּהֶן סְפֵק טְרֵפוֹת מִטְּרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ. כְּגוֹן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדְרְסָה בִּידֵי חַיָּה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם הֶאֱדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם אוֹ לֹא הֶאֱדִים. אוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה גֻּלְגָּלְתָּהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם רֻבָּהּ אוֹ מִעוּטָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אִם הָיָה זָכָר וְשָׁהָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁלֵמָה כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה נְקֵבָה עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. וּבְעוֹף בְּזָכָר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּבִנְקֵבָה עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד כָּל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁל טְעִינָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְתִטְעֹן טְעִינָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתֵלֵד: \n", + "וְאָסוּר לִמְכֹּר סְפֵק טְרֵפָה זוֹ לְנָכְרִי בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: \n", + "כָּל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּחֶזְקַת בְּרִיאִים הֵם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן טְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיִּשָׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהֶן דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין עַל אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר בִּלְבַד: \n", + "כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט הַגַּף שֶׁל עוֹף בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הָרֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה. נָפְלָה הַבְּהֵמָה בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ. נִתְרַצֵּץ עֶצֶם הָרֹאשׁ בּוֹדְקִין קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב. הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ קוֹץ אוֹ נִזְרַק בָּהּ חֵץ אוֹ רֹמַח וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַחֲלָלָהּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הֶחָלָל שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב אֶחָד מִן הָאֵיבָרִין שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף בִּנְקִיבָתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ רֵאָה שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִין אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ סִרְכוֹת כְּמוֹ חוּטִין תְּלוּיִין מִמֶּנָּה וְלַדֹּפֶן אוֹ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא בָּהּ אֲבַעְבּוּעַ מָלֵא לֵחָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה: \n", + "מִן הַדִּין הָיָה עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שֶׁאִם נִמְצֵאת הָרֵאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּסִרְכוֹת כְּמוֹ חוּטִין. אִם הָיוּ מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה וְלַדֹּפֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד שֶׁחוֹתְכִים אֶת הַסִּרְכָא וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָרֵאָה וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין. אִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִתְבַּעְבֵּעַ הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל נֶקֶב וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְסִרְכָא זוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב אוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב קְרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן בִּלְבַד. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא רָאִינוּ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה כָּךְ וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מָקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ כָּךְ: \n", + "וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּרְאִין מִדִּבְרֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא. הַמִּנְהָג הַפָּשׁוּט בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ הוּא. כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ אֶת הַחַיָּה קוֹרְעִין אֶת הַטַּרְפַּשׁ שֶׁל כָּבֵד וּבוֹדְקִין אֶת הָרֵאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. אִם לֹא נִמְצְאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּסִרְכָא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה סִרְכָא בֵּין אֹזֶן מֵאָזְנֵי הָרֵאָה וְלַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם רְבִיצָתָהּ בֵּין בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֵּין הַצְּלָעוֹת בֵּין בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֶּחָזֶה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה סִרְכָא מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹ מִן הָאוֹם לָאֹזֶן הַסְּמוּכָה לָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "וְאִם נִמְצָא חוּט יוֹצֵא מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה לְאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּשֵׁךְ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "וְכֵן אִם הָיָה מִן הָרֵאָה חוּט מָשׁוּךְ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד אוֹ לְכִיס הַלֵּב אוֹ לַוַּרְדָּא. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַחוּט מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מִן הָאֹזֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכֵן וַרְדָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בְּכִיסָהּ אוֹ חוּט יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה לְכִיסָהּ אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְחוּט הַיּוֹצֵא מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ: \n", + "יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמִּנְהָגָן אִם מָצְאוּ סִרְכָא מִן הָאֹזֶן לַבָּשָׂר וְלָעֶצֶם שֶׁבַּצְּלָעוֹת וְהַסִּרְכָא דְּבוּקָה בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאַבָּא מָרִי מִן הָאוֹסְרִין וַאֲנִי מִן הַמַּתִּירִין. וּמִעוּט מְקוֹמוֹת מַתִּירִין אֲפִלּוּ נִדְבְּקָה בָּעֶצֶם לְבַדּוֹ וַאֲנִי אוֹסֵר: \n", + "וְיֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנּוֹפְחִין הָרֵאָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהּ נֶקֶב. וְרֹב הַמְּקוֹמוֹת אֵין נוֹפְחִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נוֹלַד דָּבָר שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לַחֲשָׁשׁ. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא נָפַחְנוּ רֵאָה בִּסְפָרַד וּבַמַּעֲרָב אֶלָּא אִם נוֹלַד לָנוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁים לוֹ: \n", + "וּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן אֵינָן עַל פִּי הַדִּין אֶלָּא עַל פִּי הַמִּנְהָג כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּמִי שֶׁבָּדַק עוֹף אֶלָּא אִם נוֹלַד לוֹ חֲשָׁשׁ: \n", + "מִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְקָרַע אֶת הַבֶּטֶן. וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק אֶת הָרֵאָה בָּא כֶּלֶב אוֹ עַכּוּ\"ם וְנָטַל אֶת הָרֵאָה וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא נְקוּבָה הָיְתָה אוֹ שֶׁמָּא דְּבוּקָה הָיְתָה. שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין אִסּוּר. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִקְרוּם מֹחַ וְלַשִּׁדְרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כָּךְ לֹא נָחוּשׁ לַרֵאָה שֶׁאָבְדָה. וְאֵין בָּזֶה מִנְהָג שֶׁדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי אֵין בּוֹ מִנְהָג: \n", + "בָּא הָעַכּוּ\"ם אוֹ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְהוֹצִיא הָרֵאָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק וַהֲרֵי הִיא קַיֶּמֶת נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם הָיוּ שָׁם צְמָחִין אוֹ לֹא הָיוּ. מִפְּנֵי פִּשּׁוּט הַמִּנְהָג: \n", + "יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאִם נִמְצְאוּ סִרְכוֹת מְדֻלְדָּלוֹת מִן הָרֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן דְּבוּקוֹת לֹא לַדֹּפֶן וְלֹא לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְדָבָר זֶה הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל הוּא וְאִבּוּד מָמוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא נָהֲגוּ זֶה לֹא בְּצָרְפַת וְלֹא בִּסְפָרַד וְלֹא נִשְׁמַע זֶה בַּמַּעֲרָב. וְאֵין רָאוּי לִנְהֹג בְּמִנְהָג זֶה. אֶלָּא נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בִּלְבַד. אִם נִמְצֵאת שְׁלֵמָה מִן הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת: \n" + ], + [ + "הַשׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) \"אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד\". וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל שְׁחִיטַת הָאַחֲרוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי חֲבֵרוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל מָקוֹם. בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמֻקְדָּשִׁין. בֵּין קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין בֵּין קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בַּעֲזָרָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּחוּץ. אוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּחוּץ וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּעֲזָרָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֻלִּין אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן קָדָשִׁים. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֻלִּין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים. זֶה שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַחֲרוֹן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ: \n", + "אֵין אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) \"לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ\" בִּשְׁחִיטַת שְׁנֵיהֶן הוּא הָאִסּוּר. אֲבָל אִם נָחַר הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ נִתְנַבֵּל בְּיָדוֹ מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִחָר הַשֵּׁנִי אוֹ נִתְנַבֵּל בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר: \n", + "חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ בֵּינָם לְבֵין עַצְמָן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט שֵׁנִי אַחֲרֵיהֶם. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָתָן שְׁחִיטָה (כְּלָל): \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וַהֲרֵי הוּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי. וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. לְפִיכָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֻלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ טְרֵפָה אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְעַכּוּ\"ם וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן אֶת הָאֶחָד וּבָא הָאַחֲרוֹן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וַהֲרֵי הוּא חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אוֹ עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה: \n", + "שְׁחָטוֹ לְעַכּוּ\"ם פָּטוּר מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְאִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ וְלֹא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם עַכּוּ\"ם לוֹקֶה: \n", + "אֵין אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב כח) \"וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד\". וְנוֹהֵג בְּכִלְאַיִם. כֵּיצַד. צְבִי שֶׁבָּא עַל הָעֵז וְשָׁחַט הָעֵז וְאֶת בְּנָהּ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל הָעֵז שֶׁבָּא עַל הַצִּבְיָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת בְּנָהּ. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. פָּרָה וּבְנָהּ אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה לֹא צִבְיָה וּבְנָהּ: \n", + "הָיְתָה בַּת הַצִּבְיָה הַזֹּאת נְקֵבָה וְיָלְדָה בֵּן וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַנְּקֵבָה בַּת הַצִּבְיָה וְאֶת בְּנָהּ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִמִּין כֶּבֶשׂ וּמִמִּין עֵז בֵּין מִכֶּבֶשׂ עִם הָעֵז בֵּין מֵעֵז עִם הַכִּבְשָׂה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ: \n", + "מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט אֶת הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת. עֻבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֻבָּר חַי אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְהִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "אִסּוּר אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת שֶׁזֶּה [] בְּנָהּ וַדַּאי. וְאִם נוֹדַע וַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה הוּא אָבִיו אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁחַט אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים אוֹ אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ לוֹקֶה שְׁתֵּי מַלְקִיּוֹת. שָׁחַט אֶת בָּנֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט הִיא לוֹקֶה אַחַת. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בִּתָּהּ וְאֶת בֶּן בִּתָּהּ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בֶּן בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַבַּת לוֹקֶה אַחַת בֵּין הוּא בֵּין אַחֵר: \n", + "שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת זֶה הָאֵם וְזֶה הַבַּת וּבָאוּ לְדִין. זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח רִאשׁוֹן יִשְׁחֹט רִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי יַמְתִּין לְמָחָר. וְאִם קָדַם הַשֵּׁנִי וְשָׁחַט זָכָה וְיַמְתִּין הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד לְמָחָר: \n", + "בְּאַרְבָּעָה פְּרָקִים בְּשָׁנָה הַמּוֹכֵר בְּהֵמָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ כְּבָר מָכַרְתִּי אִמָּהּ אוֹ בִּתָּהּ לְאַחֵר לִשְׁחֹט כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּמְתִּין זֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן וְלֹא יִשְׁחֹט עַד לְמָחָר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. וְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח. וְעֶרֶב עֲצֶרֶת. וְעֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה: \n", + "בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁרָאָה זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה נֶחְפָּז לִקְנוֹת וְהָיָה בְּסוֹף הַיּוֹם שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹחֵט עַתָּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רֶוַח בַּיּוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא לְמָחָר: \n", + "והַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הָאֵם לֶחָתָן וְהַבַּת לַכַּלָּה צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן. שֶׁוַּדַּאי בְּיוֹם אֶחָד שׁוֹחֲטִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה: \n", + "יוֹם אֶחָד הָאָמוּר בְּאֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל רְבִיעִי לֹא יִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי עַד תְּחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּסוֹף יוֹם רְבִיעִי קֹדֶם בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שׁוֹחֵט הַשֵּׁנִי בִּתְחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי. שָׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁל לֵיל חֲמִישִׁי לֹא יִשְׁחֹט הַשֵּׁנִי עַד לֵיל שִׁשִּׁי. וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n" + ], + [ + "הַלוֹקֵחַ אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וּשִׁחָטָהּ. הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְלוֹקֶה עַל שְׁחִיטַת הָאֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים\". וְכֵן אִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּחֶנָּה לוֹקֶה. וְאִם שִׁלְּחָהּ אַחַר שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ פָּטוּר: \n", + "וְכֵן כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּתְּקָה לַעֲשֵׂה חַיָּב לְקַיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ. וְאִם לֹא קִיְּמוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "בָּא אֶחָד וְחָטַף הָאֵם מִיָּדוֹ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ אוֹ שֶׁבָּרְחָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח\" עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּחַ מֵעַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ: \n", + "נָטַל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וְקִצֵּץ אֲגַפֶּיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּעוּף וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וּמַשְׁהֶה אוֹתָהּ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ וּמְשַׁלְּחָהּ. וְאִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם לָזֶה אוֹ בָּרְחָה וְאָבְדָה לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ: \n", + "וְכֵיצַד מְשַׁלֵּחַ הָאֵם. אוֹחֵז בִּכְנָפֶיהָ וּמַפְרִיחָהּ. שִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְשִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח\": \n", + "הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֵם וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הַבָּנִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם\": \n", + "לָקַח אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחֱזִירָן לַקֵּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. שִׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם וְחָזַר וְצָד אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לָצוּד אוֹתָהּ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִפְרֹחַ בִּשְׁבִיל הַבָּנִים שֶׁהִיא מְרַחֶפֶת עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא יִלָּקְחוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים\". אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיאָהּ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְחָזַר וְצָד אוֹתָהּ מֻתָּר: \n", + "שִׁלּוּחַ הָאֵם אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזֻמָּן כְּגוֹן יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וַעֲלִיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"כִּי יִקָּרֵא\". אֲבָל הַמְזֻמָּן כְּגוֹן אֲוָזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין וְיוֹנִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּבַּיִת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיוּ הָאֶפְרוֹחִין מַפְרִיחִין שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן אוֹ בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. הָיוּ אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּבֵיצִים מוּזָרוֹת וּפָטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "זָכָר שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ רוֹבֵץ עַל הַקֵּן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר אוֹ עוֹף טָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל בֵּיצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מִינָהּ וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. הָיְתָה הָאֵם טְרֵפָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלְּחָהּ: \n", + "שָׁחַט מִקְצָת סִימָנִין בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּקָּחֶנָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת. אִם כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. הָיְתָה מַטְלִית אוֹ כְּנָפַיִם חוֹצְצוֹת בֵּין כְּנָפֶיהָ וּבֵין הַקֵּן הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "הָיוּ שְׁנֵי סִדְרֵי בֵּיצִים וּכְנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּסֵּדֶר הָעֶלְיוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן בֵּיצִים יָפוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵם עַל גַּבֵּי אֵם. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַזָּכָר עַל הַקֵּן וְהָאֵם עַל הַזָּכָר. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקַּח. וְאִם לָקַח יְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n", + "הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּין הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵּין הַבֵּיצִים וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת בָּהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה בְּצַד הַקֵּן וּכְנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן מִצִּדּוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיְתָה עַל שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי אִילָן וְהַקֵּן בֵּינֵיהֶן רוֹאִין כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ יִנָּטְלוּ הַבַּדִּין תִּפּל עַל הַקֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ עַל בֵּיצָה אַחַת חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. הַמּוֹצֵא קֵן עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"אֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵּיצִים\" וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) \"בְּכָל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ\" אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בְּהוֹוֶה: \n", + "אָסוּר לִזְכּוֹת בַּבֵּיצִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ וּשׁוֹבָכוֹ אֵינָן מְזֻמָּנִין. וְלֹא קָנָה לוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת בָּהֶן לַאֲחֵרִים כָּךְ לֹא תִּזְכֶּה לוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ בָּהֶן. וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ: \n", + "אָסוּר לִטּל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לְטַהֵר בָּהֶן אֶת הַמְצֹרָע שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה. וְאִם לָקַח חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. (וַעֲשֵׂה) וְלֹא עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה עֲשֵׂה: \n", + "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹף לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּפָרַח מִיָּדוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַכִּירוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ רוֹבֵץ עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים לוֹקֵחַ הַכּל וּמְבִיאָן לִידֵי גִּזְבָּר. שֶׁאֵין שִׁלּוּחַ הָאֵם נוֹהֵג בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) \"וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ\" וְאֵלּוּ אֵינָן שֶׁלְּךָ: \n", + "עוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית דִּין לָדוּן אוֹתוֹ: \n" + ], + [ + "מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְכַסּוֹת דּם שִׁחִיטַת חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה אוֹ עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר\". לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְבָרֵךְ קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּכַסֶּה בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹקֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל כִּסּוּי הַדָּם: \n", + "כִּסּוּי הַדָּם נוֹהֵג בִּמְזֻמָּן וּבְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזֻמָּן. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד\" אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה. וְנוֹהֵג בְּחֻלִּין וְלֹא בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין. בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת. וְאִם עָבַר וּשְׁחָטָן אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת אֶת דָּמָן: \n", + "שָׁחַט חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁן אוֹ הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַדָּם חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת: \n", + "כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וְכֵן בְּרִיָּה שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ. הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת לְאַחַר שַׁבָּת. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט סָפֵק אוֹ כִּלְאַיִם בְּיוֹם טוֹב מְכַסֶּה דָּמוֹ לְאַחַר יוֹם טוֹב: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹפוֹת וּמִינֵי חַיָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּן וְכִסּוּי אֶחָד לְכֻלָּן: \n", + "דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּמַּיִם אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאֵה דָּם חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן אוֹ בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִלּוּ הֵם מַיִם. אִם אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּרְאֶה מַרְאֵה הַדָּם שֶׁחַיָּב לְכַסּוֹתוֹ כְּשִׁעוּר זֶה אִלּוּ הָיָה מַיִם חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת הַכּל וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר: \n", + "כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹתוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת. כִּסַּתְהוּ הָרוּחַ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת. חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה אַחַר שֶׁכִּסַּתְהוּ הָרוּחַ חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת: \n", + "דָּם הַנִּתָּז וְשֶׁעַל הַסַּכִּין אִם אֵין שָׁם דָּם אֶלָּא הוּא חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת: \n", + "שָׁחַט וְנִבְלַע הַדָּם בַּקַּרְקַע אִם רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת. וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁכִּסַּתְהוּ הָרוּחַ וּפָטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת: \n", + "אֵין חַיָּב בְּכִסּוּי אֶלָּא דָּם שְׁחִיטָה הָרְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל\". לְפִיכָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה. אוֹ הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה. אוֹ הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וְעוֹף שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָן לִסְקִילָה וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְּיָדוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְכֵן חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן פְּטוּרִין מִלְּכַסּוֹת דַּם שְׁחִיטָתָן: \n", + "בַּמֶּה מְכַסִּין בְּסִיד וּבְגַפְסִית בְּזֶבֶל דַּק וּבְחוֹל דַּק שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹצֵר צָרִיךְ לְכָתְשׁוֹ וּבִשְׁחִיקַת אֲבָנִים וַחֲרָשִׁים וּבִנְעֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן דַּקָּה וּבִנְסֹרֶת חָרָשִׁים דַּקָּה וּבִלְבֵנָה וְחַרְסִית וּמְגוּפָה שֶׁכְּתָשָׁהּ שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ מִין עָפָר הֵן. אֲבָל אִם כָּפָה עָלָיו כְּלִי אוֹ כִּסָּהוּ בַּאֲבָנִים אֵין זֶה כִּסּוּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"בֶּעָפָר\": \n", + "לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְכַסִּים בְּזֶבֶל גַּס וְחוֹל גַּס וְקֶמַח וְסֻבִּין וּמוֹרְסָן וּשְׁחִיקַת כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מִין עָפָר. חוּץ מִשְּׁחִיקַת הַזָּהָב בִּלְבַד שֶׁמְּכַסִּין בָּהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּקְרָא עָפָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כח ו) \"וְעַפְרֹת זָהָב לוֹ\" וְאוֹמֵר (דברים ט כא) \"עַד אֲשֶׁר דַּק לְעָפָר\": \n", + "מְכַסִּין בְּשִׁחוֹר וְהוּא פִּיחַ הַכִּבְשָׁן וּבְכוֹחַל וּבְנִקְרַת פְּסִילִים וּבְאֵפֶר בֵּין אֵפֶר עֵצִים בֵּין אֵפֶר בְּגָדִים אֲפִלּוּ אֵפֶר בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתוּב (במדבר יט יז) \"מֵעֲפַר שְׂרֵפַת הַחַטָּאת\". וּמֻתָּר לְכַסּוֹת בְּעָפָר עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת: \n", + "הַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ לִתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁחֹט בּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְכַסֶּה בְּעָפָר אֲבָל לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בִּכְלִי וִיכַסֶּה בְּעָפָר: \n", + "וּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט הוּא יְכַסֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז יג) \"וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר\". וְאִם לֹא כִּסָּהוּ וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר חַיָּב לְכַסּוֹת שֶׁזּוֹ מִצְוָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה בַּשּׁוֹחֵט לְבַד: \n", + "וּכְשֶׁמְּכַסֶּה לֹא יְכַסֶּה בְּרַגְלוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ בְּסַכִּין אוֹ בִּכְלִי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֹג בּוֹ מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן וְיִהְיוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין הַכָּבוֹד לְעַצְמָן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁצִּוָּה בָּהֶן בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְהִצִּילָנוּ מִלְּמַשֵּׁשׁ בַּחשֶׁךְ וְעָרַךְ אוֹתָנוּ נֵר לְיַשֵּׁר הַמַּעֲקַשִּׁים וְאוֹר לְהוֹרוֹת נְתִיבוֹת הַיּשֶׁר. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים קיט קה) \"נֵר לְרַגְלִי דְבָרֶךָ וְאוֹר לִנְתִיבָתִי\": \n", + "נגמר ספר חמישי והוא ספר קדושה ומנין פרקיו שלשה וחמשים:הלכות איסורי ביאה שנים ועשרים פרקים, הלכות מאכלות אסורות שבעה עשר פרקים, הלכות שחיטה ארבעה עשר פרקים. ובכאן נשלם החלק השני, ה' במעגלי צדק ינחני." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Torat Emet 363", + "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads" + ], + [ + "Wikisource Mishneh Torah", + "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9D" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Kedushah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file