6600c617560f4a2e7cbf91cc1b63399a3bb87f46f5fbced53646107ea0f6524d

.gitattributes

@@ -44,3 +44,8 @@ json/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/Vocalized[[:space:]]Zohar,[[:space:]]Israel[[:s
 json/Mishnah/Modern[[:space:]]Commentary[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Mishnah/Notes[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Rabbi[[:space:]]Yehoshua[[:space:]]Hartman[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Derekh[[:space:]]Chayim/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 json/Mishnah/Modern[[:space:]]Commentary[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Mishnah/Notes[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Rabbi[[:space:]]Yehoshua[[:space:]]Hartman[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Derekh[[:space:]]Chayim/Hebrew/Derech[[:space:]]Chaim,[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]footnotes[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]annotations[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Rabbi[[:space:]]Yehoshua[[:space:]]D.[[:space:]]Hartman,[[:space:]]Machon[[:space:]]Yerushalyim,[[:space:]]2005-2010.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 json/Musar/Acharonim/Shenei[[:space:]]Luchot[[:space:]]HaBerit/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Beit[[:space:]]Yosef/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Bach/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Prisha/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Drisha/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/Halakhah/Arukh[[:space:]]HaShulchan/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/English/Hupah veKiddushin, trans. by Norman T. Roman. HUC, 1975.json

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+    "versionSource": "http://library.huc.edu/pdf/theses/Roman%20Norman-CN-Rab-1985%20rdf.pdf",
+    "versionTitle": "Hupah veKiddushin, trans. by Norman T. Roman. HUC, 1975",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 2.0,
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionNotes": "<a href=\"https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/378906\">Hupah veKiddushin: Translator’s Preface</a>",
+    "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+    "shortVersionTitle": " Norman T. Roman. HUC, 1975",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [],
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "": [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "A betrothed woman is considered married (lit. the wife of a man) completely, and one who intentionally has intercourse with her (a betrothed woman) is subject to the death penalty; the penalty here is stricter than (in the case of one who has intercourse with) a married woman, for with a married woman it (the penalty) is strangulation, and with a betrothed woman it is stoning.<br>One who has betrothed (a woman) cannot free himself from (lit. dismiss) her except with a “get”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Bill of divorce, granted by the husband to the wife.</i>.<br>Nonetheless, it is prohibited for one to have intercourse with his betrothed before (the ceremony known as) “ḥupah”. This is what the Men of the Great Assembly<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to some scholars, an organization whose framework dates to the time of Ezra. Commonly considered to be a loosely-knit, representative body which met at irregular occasions to pass major legislation. Possibly led to the development of the formal Sanhedrin (Synedrion).</i> established in the marriage benedictions: “And He prohibited to us (for intercourse) those (merely) betrothed”, so that one would not have intercourse with his betrothed before “ḥupah” and (there) reciting the benedictions. This is a rabbinic prohibition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A law with some Biblical foundation; but, nonetheless, instituted by the rabbis. An offender against a rabbinic prohibition is subject only to the rabbinic penalties, but never to the “karet” punishment (cf. footnote 28).</i>, similar to their injunction regarding (intercourse) with an unmarried (single) woman. Therefore, one who has intercourse with his betrothed while (she is still) in his father-in-law’s house (i.e. before the marriage ceremony) must receive the “rabbinic lashes”.<br>And so did the sages say: “A bride without (before the marriage) benediction is as prohibited to her husband as is a menstruant” (Tractate Kallah). The sages also prohibited “yiḥud” with her, similar to their injunction regarding “yiḥud” with an unmarried woman (<i>Bet Josef</i>). And similarly, a “negotiated-for” woman (i.e. before betrothal) is prohibited from having “yiuḥud” with her “negotiator”, for all women prohibited from intercourse are (also) prohibited from “yiḥud” (<i>Ḥelkat M<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>ḥokek</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses ben Isaac Judah Lima (17th century) Eastern Europe. Commentary on Even HaEzer.</i>).<br>Therefore, there are those who say that they should not dwell together (in the same house) so that they will not grow tired of each other. There is even a suspicion (as to whether or not they should be alone together even) after the preliminary arrangements (have been made) but before the betrothal.<br>And more than (just) this, there is suspicion that they may not (be able to) control their (sexual) desires, and (thereby) sin. And not only this, but perhaps they might perform a prohibited act which carries the “karet” punishment<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lit. “cutting off” (originally perhaps “excommunication”). According to the rabbis, divine punishment over which mortal man had no jurisdiction, until the rabbis ordained that it be replaced by flogging.</i>, for she may be a menstruant if she is of age.<br>Therefore (it should be remembered that) the fear of (respect for) God’s word will keep one far from this and similar things (type of sin).",
+                    "Even if he has betrothed (sanctified) her by intercourse, he is prohibited from having intercourse with her a second time until the time of marriage, for it is established for us that intercourse constitutes (legal) betrothal, but not marriage, as was explained in Chapter 33.<br>Marriage is (legally, the ceremony know as) the “ḥupah”, although the Halakhic authorities (lit. the Poskim<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those scholars whose intellectual efforts were concentrated on determining the specific halakha (law) that should be practiced.</i>) differed (in their opinions) as to what exactly is the “ḥupah”, as will be explained in paragraph IV.",
+                    "The Rambam<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses ben Maimon (1135-1204), Egypt. Considered to be the greatest scholar of post-Talmudic times. His <i>magnum opus</i> is a compendium known as the <i>Mishne Torah</i>.</i>, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote in Chapter 10<br>One’s betrothed is prohibited (to him) until he brings her into his hosue and (there) has “yiḥud” with her, thereby formally setting her apart for him. This “yiḥud” is called taking her into the “ḥupah” and is universally recognized as (legal) marriage. (In the case of) one who has intercourse with his betrothed for the sake of marriage after he has betrothed her - she is considered married from the moment of initial sexual (genital) contact; she is then his wife in all matters.<br>From the moment when the betrothed enters into the “ḥupah”, it is permissable (for him) to have intercourse with her whenever he wishes: for behold, she is his wife completely, in every respect. And after she has entered the “ḥupah”, she is called “married” (i.e. their marriage is recognized [acknowledged] from the moment when she enters the “ḥupah”), even though he may not have had intercourse with her; provided, that is, that she is fit (permissable) for having intercourse (she is not menstruating at the time). But, if she was menstruating (at the time), even though she entered into the “ḥupah” and he may have been alone with her (“yiḥud”), the marriage is not completed, and, hence, she is still (to be considered) as betrothed.",
+                    "From his (the Rambam’s) words, it is clear that the essence of the “ḥupah” is really “yiḥud” for the sake of marriage. This “yiḥud” must be with the (proper forms of) preparation (lit. preparation and invitation) to live with her as man and wife; hence, he must bring her into his house, have “yiḥud” with her (there) and formally set her apart for himself. The bringing (her) into his house constitutes the “preparation”, and the setting her apart (designation) constitutes the “invitation” to live with him forever (from that moment on).<br>The “yiḥud” can take the place of intercourse even if he does not have intercourse with her, (it is) only (necessary) that she be fit (permissable) for intercourse (with him), as I wrote.<br>But, if the “yiḥud” is not to be a permanent one, even if there has been the proper (forms of) preparation, e.g. he took her to his house for several days, after which she was to return to her father’s house, (in such a case) even if he has had “yiḥud” with her, it is nothing (i.e. this “yiḥud” has no legal character). And it is an obvious thing, for even if the “yiḥud” was not in his house, e.g. if he arranged for a rendezvous place to (there) have “yiḥud” with her and set her apart for himself, after which he will take her to his house, from that moment (the time of the “yiḥud”, whatever it may be), she is legally a married woman, as it is written in Chapter 57.<br>When he has “yiḥud” with her, he must recite the seven benedictions at the place of marriage (wherever it may be): that is, any rendezvous place for “yiḥud”, or he takes her to his house. The benedictions must precede marriage, although (the omission of) the benedictions do not hinder the validity of marriage, <i>ex post facto</i>, as it is written in Chapter 33. For this is what we have learned, that “a bride without the benediction is prohibited (for intercourse)”, (“without the benediction”) means to say “without marriage”, for marriage, in general, means only with (after) the benediction; on the other hand, the groom’s benedictions (in and of themselves) are insignificant (i.e. if there is no “ḥupah” the seven benedictions have no validity), as the Rambam wrote:<br>(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman and recites the groom’s benediction, but does not have “yiḥud” with her in his house - she is still considered only betrothed, for the groom’s benediction does not constitute marriage, only entrance into the “ḥupah” (does).<br>(In the case of) one who betrothes and enters into the “ḥupah”, but did not say the groom’s benediction - behold, this is a complete marriage. He should say the benediction later, even after many days.",
+                    "This is what he (the Rambam) wrote: “If he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, she is considered married”, and it is clear from his words that, with (an act of) intercourse for the sake of marriage, she is considered married, even if he has not set her apart for himself, to take her to his house. And, in considering his words, one must make a distinction; for what the sages have said: (in the case of) one who has intercourse with his betrothed is to be flogged applies only if his intentions were not clearly for the sake of marriage; however, if the intention was (for the sake of) marriage, she is considered married because of (with) this intercourse.<br>[illegible] (see above) is merely to take her to his house, for if such were the case, there would be no need for intercourse - “yiḥud” alone would suffice. Rather, he certainly holds, that since the sages decided that with “yiḥud” subsequent to the preparations (see above) she is considered married, and the “yiḥud” is only a preparation for (an act of) intercourse, how much the less is any preparation required for the intercourse proper.<br>It is possible that there is no need for witnesses to the “yiḥud” (leading) to this intercourse, for this intercourse is not similar to intercourse for the sake of betrothal which requires witnesses; for it (intercourse) is the first stage in his acquisition (of her).<br>Intercourse (for the sake of) marriage can be compared to intercourse (with) a “y<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>bamah”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A childless widow who has a brother-in-law. The brother-in-law may marry her with intercourse alone, without a preceding ceremony. (Later, the rabbis instituted a ceremony in this case, also.).</i>.<br>And also (the case of) such an intercourse (i.e. for marriage) is more lenient than intercourse for (the sake of) betrothal, for in that (latter) case, complete intercourse is required, according to the opinions of the Rif<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Isaac of Fez (1013 - 1103), North Africa. His <i>Malakhot</i> is the earliest medieval major compendium.</i> and the Rambam, as it is written in Chapter 33 paragraph 4. However, (in the case of) intercourse for (the sake of) marriage, the Rambam has written that (mere) sexual-genital contact suffices (his source is y<sup>e</sup>bamot 55b. As the Rif wrote there, and see the Rin to Chapter 1, they are questionning the version in the G<sup>e</sup>mara.) Intercourse for (the sake of) marriage of “ḥupah”, since it is revealed for all (too see their entering the chamber together), behold, they are like witnesses, as it is written in Chapter 149, and see what is written in Chapter 26, paragraph 5.",
+                    "There are those who say the “ḥupah” is not (constituted by) “yiḥud”, rather (“ḥupah” is) only when the husband (to-be) brings her from her father’s house to his house for the sake of marriage, even if he has not had ‘yiḥud” with her, for behold, it is written: “If she made a vow in the house of her husband” (Numbers 30:11), the meaning is that at all times when she is in her husband’s house, she is under his authority<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Should be understood conversely, that she is the responsibility of her father or her husband.</i> (Rin) to the first Chapter of Ketubot). And thus taught the sages: she is always under the authority of the (her) father, until she enters under the authority of the (her) husband in marriage; consequently, the essence of marriage is her entering under the authority (entering the domain) of the husband.<br>The Rambam holds that it is true: (her) entering under his domain constitutes marriage, but only in conjunction with “yiḥud”, because generally when he brings her into his house, he has “yiḥud” with her. But also, the opinion agrees with the Rambam, that, on the road, the essence (of valid marriage) is the “yiḥud”, as apparent in Chapter 57. (Ketubot 12b: “our rabbis taught [in a Baraita]: ‘he took her to his house … and she had witnesses so that it [her going with him, i.e. “yiḥud”] would not be hidden.’ ” There is no contradiction between the Rambam and the Tosafot, indeed, he does not rely on them. On the contrary, because of how remarkable in his reasoning, we suspend [the other opinion]. And the Rambam, at the beginning of Chapter 12, does away with witnesses, as it will be explained, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 67.)",
+                    "There are those who say that “ḥupah” is (when) the (her) father delivers her, leading her into a house which has something new in it for the sake of that “ḥupah”, for example, embroidered sheets, which some make of roses or myrtles: and there they have “yiḥud” (<i>Bet Josef</i>, Chapter 61, quoting the <i>Tur</i>).<br>This then is the expression “entrance into the ‘ḥupah’ ”: this is a special place, a sort of canopy where the groom and bride sit with their attendants.<br>In the Jerusalem Talmud (at the end of Tractate Sotah), the grooms’ “ḥupah” comes to be (described as having) embroidered sheets with gold-embroidered ribbons hanging on them.<br>Hence it is clear that this was a place decorated especially for the “ḥupah”.",
+                    "The Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote (Chapter 2 of Tractate Sukkah, paragraph 8):<br>It must be examined (exactly) what constitutes the “ḥupah”; is it a place where one recites the marriage benedictions, meaning (only that it is) the first stage of marriage and hence called the “ḥupah”? It is impossible to say this, for somethimes they recite the benedictions in the city street while the people are crowding about. Rather, the main dwelling place of the groom and bride is what is called “ḥupah”. It is not a place used (lit. made) by mere chance. And there (the fomer place) they recite the benedictions for seven days.<br>The custom in Ashkenaz (Germany) is to make a litter and place the groom and bride (on it), and this is called the “ḥupah”.<br>This is in accordance with an ancient view (custom) and it has Biblical support: “A groom will go out of his chamber, and a bride from her canopy (‘ḥupah’)” (Joel 2:16).<br>Behold, there is an established (fixed) place that, for this time (the marriage ceremony), is called a “ḥupah”, as it is written: “He is like a groom going out from his canopy (‘ḥupah’)” (Psalms 19:6), meaning (he goes out) from the tent wherein is the “ḥupah”, as it is written in the previous verse: “He placed in them a tent for the sun”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is possible that the author is basing his proof-text on a now reading of verse 5; changing the vocalization of two words leads to the translation: “to serve there as a tent for them.”</i> (Psalms 19:5).",
+                    "Our rabbi, the Remah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses ben Israel Isserles (1530 - 1572), Poland. Ashkenazi commentator to the S<sup>e</sup>fardi-oriented <i>Shulḥan Arukh</i>.</i>, wrote; “There are those who say that the ‘ḥupah’ is when they spread a cloth over their heads at the time of the benediction.” This view has been rejected (cf. <i>Ḥelkat M<sup>e</sup>ḥokek</i>, Chapter 107), but the intention (purpose) of this opinion is that, similarly to our custom, they place beams with a curtain spread over them, and in ordinary language this is called a “ḥupah”. It is positioned in a special place, e.g. in the synagogue courtyard (see below and Chapter 3) or a similar place, (whereupon) the groom and the bride are led under it with their “friends” (grooms’ men, attendants), and there they recite the benedictions.",
+                    "He (the R<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>mah) also wrote: “There are those who say that the ‘ḥupah’ of a virgin is (from the moment that) she is carried in the ‘marriage litter’, and that of a widow, when she has ‘yiḥud’ ”. This is found in the Mishna, that a virgin goes out (from her father’s house) in a marriage litter bareheaded (Ketubot, beginning of Chapter 2), for it was customary to lead the virgins from the father’s house to the marriage house “with her hair (down) to her shoulder” (Rashi<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Solomon ben Isaac (1030 - 1105), Troyes. The most famous and prolific commentator on the Bible and Talmud.</i>). The word <span dir=\"rtl\">הינזמא</span> means a veil on her head hanging down over her eyes, and sometimes she dozed behind it, for her eyes were not revealed; therefore, it was called <span dir=\"rtl\">הינזמא</span> because of <span dir=\"rtl\">תנזמה</span> (“dozing”) (Ketubot 17b).<br>There are those who say that the “ḥupah” is when they hand her to the (her) groom, before the benediction (Mordecai’s commentary to the first Chapter of Ketubot).<br>The intent of these two opinions is not that she is considered married immediately upon (the) placing on her (of the) <span dir=\"rtl\">הינזמא</span> (veil), or immediately upon their bringing her to the (her) groom, rather, the intent is according to our custom: they seat the bride (on a chair), braid her hair, and make music before her with (various) musical instruments; (then) the groom comes and covers her face with a scarf, and from there they walk to the “ḥupah” - this (then) is the <span dir=\"rtl\">הינזמא</span> the transmission (leading her over) to the groom. In our custom, it is obvious that she is not (considered) as married (yet), for he has not betrothed her yet, and there can be no marriage before betrothal. Rather, this is the beginning of the marriage, to be completed (only) after the betrothal and the benedictions.<br>(It should be understood that) similarly, the intent of the above opinions is that this is the beginning of the procedure of the marriage (so it appears to me; cf. Mordecai to the first Chapter of Ketubot, and <i>Ḥelkat M<sup>e</sup>ḥokek</i>, Chapter 109).",
+                    "He (the R<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>mah) also wrote:<br>The custom is widespread now: to call the “ḥupah” that place where a spread curtain is brought in (placed) on (four) poles, under which the bride and groom are led in public and he betrothes her there, and the benedictions of betrothal and marriage are pronounced; after which they are led to their house and they eat together in a private place. This is the customary “ḥupah” nowadays.<br>According to this (then), the basic completion of the “ḥupah” is their eating together in a private place, for this is (like) “yiḥud”. Therefore, others should be prevented from going there (to the private place with them) <i>(Bayit</i> <i>Ḥadash</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Joel Sirkhes (1561 - 1640), Poland. Commentary on the <i>Tur</i>.</i>). Not even one person should enter there, for if such were the case (if someone else was with them), the “yiḥud” would not be fitting for (an act of) intercourse. Hence, (care must be taken to) prevent anyone from entering there, so it can be a complete “yiḥud” (<i>Bet Shmuel</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Samuel ben Uri Phoebus (17th century), Germany. Commentary on Even HaEzer.</i>, Chapter 105).<br>In our time, since we do not have the custom of the groom and the bride eating together in one room where no one can enter (there); on the contrary, (since) all the attendants and members of the bridal party are there, (we) must know (exactly) what now constitutes the “ḥupah” which makes her (the bride) married (officially).",
+                    "I found that one of the “Rishonim”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lit. “the first ones” or “the earlier ones”. Those rabbinical authorities whose decisions preceded the <i>Shulḥan Arukh</i>.</i> wrote:<br>It appears to me that the things are as follows (thus): the father delivers his daughter first to his son-in-law amidst a group of his friends to be his wife; this is what is called marriage. After she has stood (stayed) one or two days, preparing the necessities for meals and dress, a house would be especially designated for (them) to rejoice there with the wedding guests and friends, and to make a meal, so that (in that house) they can have intercourse that night - there they bring in the bride; that house which has been prepared for his purpose is called a “ḥupah”. This is what is said in the Jerusalem Talmud: “The “ḥupah” is not an end in and of itself, rather (it is) a house wherein is a “ḥupah”, that is to say, that even though they have not yet placed (her) in the (marriage) litter, rather in a house wherein there is a litter, she immediately eats of the ‘T<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>rumah’”. (If she is the wife of a Cohen, she now has the privilege of eating the “T<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>rumah” - offering).<br>Therefore (based on this) I say that our (idea of) “ḥupah” is the bringing of the bride when we lead her into a house where there are embroidered sheets; behold, the (exact) time of marriage in this case is the time of the father’s delivering (her) to the husband. He (the groom) may (now) inherit her, but he may not be defiled because of her, nor does he have the right to annul her vows, until she enters the “ḥupah”. And once she enters the “ḥupah.”, she is (considered) as his wife in all matters, except that he is forbidden from having intercourse with her until he recites the seven benedictions. And if he does have intercourse with her after the marriage but without the “ḥupah” (i.e. without the benedictions), he has not properly acquired her with respect to these matters. For whenever (he lives with her without the “ḥupah”) it is considered a lewd act. (Quoted in the <i>Shulḥan Arukh</i> of Shneor Zalman in the commentary on <i>Ḥafets Ḥayyim</i>.)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Shneor Zalman ben Baruch of Liady (1747-1812). Leader of the rational Ḥasidic movement known as ḤaBaD.</i>",
+                    "From these things it is clear that the term “nisuin” and the term “ḥupah” are two different things, and thus one can infer from the wording of the Mishna, where it is taught: “Always, she is under the authority of the father until she enters the authority of the husband through marriage.” (Ketubot 4:5) And it is also taught (in the Mishnah): The woman may not eat of the heave-offering until she has entered the ‘ḥupah’”. (ibid. 5:3) (Therefore) since there is a difference in wording, (we) learn from this that they (“nisuin” and “ḥupah”) are two different things.<br>But, we have not heard this (opinion) from any of the Halakhic authorities, and in the words of the Rambam which we (have already) brought, it is written: “This ‘yiḥud’ is called entrance into the ‘ḥupah’, and is (also) called (it constitutes) marriage universally.” Behold, this proves that it (“nisuin” and “ḥupah”) in (only) one thing. Thus it is in the Mishnah: “until she enters the authority of the husband for ‘nisuin’ ”. This definition means “ḥupah” because this has reference to the heave-offering; thus Rashi’s comment: “That is to say she enters the ‘ḥupah’ for the sake of marriage.”<br>There are those who read that this is the true meaning of “until she enters the ‘ḥupah’ ”, but we have found in the Gemera[illegible] in a Baraita where it is taught: “One who has intercourse with a married woman - (with her being defined as a married woman) as soon as she had entered under the authority of her husband in marriage” (ibid. 49a). Behold, this is (a crime punishable) by strangulation. The inference is made here (that they are two different things), (for) even though (it is not stated) “she entered under the ‘ḥupah’ yet”, behold these are two (separate) things, so it is necessary to say (add) that the term “nisuin” is an inclusive term, and lasts from before the “ḥupah” until after the “ḥupah”; the beginning of the “nisuin” is not yet the “ḥupah”, rather, “ḥupah” is the end of the “nisuin”.",
+                    "In my humble opinion, the Halakhic authorities do not differ at all, for behold, it is true that the word “ḥupah” is not written in the Torah, only the word (for) marriage, as it is written: “(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman but has not (yet) taken her…”<br>[illegible] marriage, since, according to Torah law proper, when he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, she is (considered) his wife completely and she is (considered) married. So wrote the Rambam.<br>However, it is not the way for Israelites to have this intercourse in public, and therefore, we would require witnesses to the “yiḥud” for intercourse. And even if it was possible that there was no need for witnesses to this (“yiḥud”), as it is written in paragraph 5, in every instance the matter would be in public (in reality) - for behold, (we) must bless them with the seven benedictions immediately before the marriage (ceremony). Therefore, our rabbis, may their memories be for a blessing, established that the “ḥupah” will be (can be) in place of the “nisuin” (i.e. the two terms can be used synonymously). It has always been this way; even in the time of the prophets, as it is written: “like a groom going out from his ‘ḥupah’ ” (Psalm 19:6), and, it says: “and a bride from her ‘ḥupah’ ” (Joel 2:16). (Cf. VIII) Obviously (then), thus did Moses our Rabbi instruct (lead) Israel.",
+                    "The interpretation of “ḥupah” is from the expression: “He covers (protects) him all day” (Deuteronomy 33:12); this is an expression of covering and separating (them) from other people. And in the Aggadic literature, our sages, may their memories be for a blessing, wrote: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to make for each righteous man seven ‘ḥupot’ ” (Baba Batra 75a), meaning (special) coverings of honor, to distinguish them from other people, as it is written: “For on all glory shall be a ‘ḥupah’ ” (Isaiah 4:5). It was established to make a “ḥupah” of honor, and to recite the seven benedictions over them, and with this she is (considered) married completely. The (omission of) intercourse will not hinder (the validity of marriage) “everyone knows why the bride enters the ‘ḥupah’ ”. (Ketubot 8b). So there is no need for witnesses to the “yiḥud”, or ten men (to witness) the wedding benedictions, (because) immediately afterwards they will have intercourse, and this would be indecent (for others to be present).<br>Every kind of “ḥupah” that has been customary constitutes acquiring (a woman) through marriage, since their intent is (always) marriage, and now they are separated from other people. The two of them stand in one place for the sake of marriage, for example, when he leads her into his house and has “yiḥud” with her, as the Rambam wrote (Cf. III). And it would appear to me that the Rambam’s intention is also not that it is a complete “yiḥud” if the two of them are alone in one room, rather (when) they have “yiḥud” to live together as a man and his wife; they stand next to each other, and the seven benedictions are recited for them. Therefore, the opinion that we wrote in paragraph 6, viz. that “ḥupah” is not (only) “yiḥud” but the bringing her into his house for the sake of marriage, is essentially the opinion of the Rambam; for it is obvious that this opinion also acknowledges that, if he brings her to his house but is not with her, this is nothing. It is also obvious that he must be together with her, and recite the seven benedictions for then.<br>However, regarding this opinion, what the Halakhic authorities worte with respect to the opinion of the Rambam, that he holds that complete “yiḥud” in one room is necessary, and that no one else should be with them - this is the opinion concerning which there is disagreement. But, (in) our interpretation of the opinion of the Rambam: this and this are one (the same).",
+                    "Thus, (no matter) if some are accustomed to different types of “ḥupot”, as (described) in paragraph 7 where they make a place especially decorated for the groom and the bride, or like our (custom) of placing poles with a spread curtain under which the wedding attendants lead the groom and the bride - first they seat the bride and the groom covers her (with a veil), and upon their return from the “ḥupah”, they go together and sit at the table (to eat) next to each other, and this is the sign of marriage. Everyone knows that this is (in) preparation for intercourse in an accepted manner; there is no need to fear that, at the proper hour, he will not be able to have intercourse with her, for behold, the intention has already been demonstrated (made) without (there being) so much excitement.<br>And the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, who was apprehensive, because the place for the “ḥupah” is a temporary one, also acknowledges that a place should be especially chosen for them to be together before the (actual) “ḥupah” and after the “ḥupah”, this being so, it is obvious: that all this matter (all these aspects) constitutes the “ḥupah”, and immediately (after) the seven benedictions have been recited for them, she is (considered) married completely.<br>This is where one of the Rishonim disagreed, (differentiating) between marriage and “ḥupah”, as we wrote in paragraph 12. But it is also his intention (to show) that the beginning of the marriage (ceremony) is a place where they (the bride and groom) sit before (entering) the “ḥupah”, where he covers her head; this is where he takes her under his authority. But this is not the complete “ḥupah”, and not more effective than (her father) delivering her to her husband, for this (seating and covering) relates only to inheritance, as it is written in Chapter 57.<br>The completion is (when they are) under the “ḥupah”, (only) then is the marriage (ceremony) completed. The sign of the completed marriage (ceremony) is (when) they recite the seven benedictions for them.",
+                    "The general rule is according to the basis of the law of the Torah proper: marriage is intercourse for the sake of marriage or the preparation for it, where the “ḥupah” (in the broad sense of the term) is the preparation (for this). Which (type of) preparation depends upon local custom. Since this thing (albeit in many forms) is called “ḥupah”, and (since) the benedictions are recited, the marriage is completed and the end of the preparations for all “ḥupot” is from that moment on (when) she enters under his authority and he (accepts that he) is ready to live with her as man with his wife.<br>Therefore, the Rambam insisted that she (the bride) be ritually clean; since the essence of the “ḥupah” is intercourse, it is required that she be (ritually) proper for that intercourse. But the majority of the Halakhic authorities disagree with him, with the opinion that we should not be concerned for her to be (ritually) proper for intercourse at the exact hour of the “ḥupah”, for certainly there will be (at least) ten men there for (to witness) the benedictions. It is impossible for him to have intercourse (with her) then. Rather, we should say (only) that she be (ritually) proper for intercourse after a time, and if such is the case, there is no difference (in saying) after an hour, or after one day or two days.",
+                    "In regards to those among us who designate the “ḥupah” in the courtyard of the synagogue, there is great reasoning for this: for the essence of the “ḥupah” is the (bride’s) going out from the authority of the (her) father to the authority of the (her) husband; this (is the case) if the husband takes her to his house.<br>But, in many instances, it is customary for us to make everything in the house of the bride’s father, for often the bride’s father takes him (the groom) into his house for a time, also, and, therefore, how is it evident that she (the bride) has gone out from the authority of the father to the authority of the husband? Therefore, we place the “ḥupah” in the courtyard of the synagogue, for this is a congregational (communal) place, and at the time of the “ḥupah” it is in the mind of the congregation to make this groom acquire this land, as (with) the congregation’s “etrog” at the time of the blessing on the first day of Sukkot, (which) is considered to belong to everyone. Since (in the mind of the congregation) this land is (considered) his (for the time of the “ḥupah”), it is considered like his bringing her into his authority (the G<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>rah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Elijah Gaon of Vilna (1720 - 1797).</i>).<br>The poles and the spread curtain which we call the “ḥupah” is (so called) in reality - for it covers the groom and the bride, separating them from the rest of the people and (still) showing them cleaving to each other. And in regards to the attendants standing under the “ḥupah”, also, this is all because of the friendship with the groom and bride, and therefore they stand bound together, close together.",
+                    "And also, it appears to me, that even according to the Rambam and those that agree with his position, the (omission of the) benedictions do not hinder (the validity of marriage <i>ex post facto</i>), like all benedictions do not hinder (the validity); in this “ḥupah”, as he (the Rambam) wrote, only (the omission of) intercourse for the sake of marriage or (of) a real “yiḥud” in a closed room fitting for intercourse at that moment (do).<br>But, all “ḥupot” except for those which are only “preparations” to point to this couple’s completed marriage, for as long as the seven benedictions have not been recited for them, the marriage has not been completed. Perhaps this is the reason for the Halakhic authorities who hold that (omission of the) benedictions does hinder the validity of the “ḥupah”, and therefore it is a necessity that the groom’s benedictions be recited, before the marriage is completed. (On the essence of the matters that we are discussing, the G<sup>e</sup>rah wrote in Chapter 109: “There is no need for ‘yiḥud’ at all, only that she be under his authority.” See there. And we explained that the Rambam also holds this opinion. See Rashi’s commentary to Kiddushin 10b: “s.v.<span dir=\"rtl\">זו זכז ׳זנשאת פשיטא זכו׳</span> everything that is ritually pure in your house may be eaten.” See there. And see Rashi’s commentary to Y<sup>e</sup>bamot 110a: “s.v. <span dir=\"rtl\">אבי</span><br><span dir=\"rtl\">כירסיא</span> on a bridal canopy; this seems to mean, like the rest of the “ḥupot”, he is not yet her husband.” See there and give it thorough thought.)",
+                    "There is one who says that it is correct that, at the time when he betrothes (sanctifies) her (i.e. during the ceremony itself), in our custom this betrothal comes at the time of the “ḥupah”, the groom and the bride should not stand under the spread curtain on poles that is the “ḥupah”, rather, they should stand in front of it. Only afterwards, when they begin to recite the seven benedictions, do they stand under the “ḥupah” (<i>Bayit Ḥadash</i>); the principle being that the “ḥupah” should not precede the betrothal.<br>We have not seen anyone cocerned about this (matter); for behold, according to what the major authorities wrote, that the essence of the “ḥupah” is when they (the couple) eat together after (the ceremony) in a private place, certainly there can be no concern about this (<i>Bayit</i> <i>Ḥadash</i>).<br>And even according to our custom, there is no concern for this, for we have already explained that our “ḥupah” is (derived from) their accepting the fact that, for them, this is the “ḥupah” and the completion of the marriage (ceremony), making her his wife completely. This is after they have completed (reciting) the seven benedictions, as it is written: “for then is the completion of the ‘ḥupah’ ”, not before. The result is that, when the betrothal precedes the “ḥupah”, which precedes the benediction, there is no “ḥupah” for betrothal (lit. on this). And (with regards to) the fact that the “preparations” for marriage precede the betrothal; there is no concern at all on this (matter).",
+                    "Since one who betrothes and his betrothed are prohibited to have “yiḥud”, therefore, wrote our rabbi, the R<sup>e</sup>mah: “one who betrothes, when he is with his betrothed in one house (i.e. in private), he must recite the seven benedictions, lost they have ‘yiḥud’ ”. And even though the benedictions without “ḥupah” do not constitute anything (officially) anyhow according to what the Rambam wrote. “(if) his intention is for the sake of marriage there is no need for a ‘ḥupah’ ” - therefore, they should recite the seven benedicitons, for then it is obvious that if he has intercourse with her, his intention is for marriage; “One will not let stand what is permitted and eat what is forbidden” (Avodah Zarah 39b).<br>In addition, (we cite) the Halakhic authorities, that (the omission of) the benedictions hinders (the validity of the marriage); it is necessary to recite the benedictions for them (<i>Bet Shmuel</i>, Note #1).<br>In addition, since they have stayed together in the house for a long period of tine, it becomes like a courtyard (i.e. an extension of their house) for the two of then, and their (this) “yiḥud” is a (valid) marriage; she is permissable to hin (for intercourse) after the benediction (<i>Ḥelkat M<sup>e</sup>ḥokek</i>, Note #1).<br>All this (the above) is according to their custom, that she is already betrothed (from before). But, according to our custom, where the betrothal is at the time of the “ḥupah”, the benedictions (in this case) do not count, for behold, he has not yet betrothed her. Therefore, he must keep himself far away from his fiancee, until the time of the wedding.",
+                    "We have already written in the name of the Rambam:<br>(In the case of) one who betrothes a woman and recites the groom’s benedictions, but does not have “yiḥud” with her in his house - she is still considered only betrothed, for the groom’s benediction does not constitute marriage, only entrance into the “ḥupah” (does).<br>However, if he has intercourse with her for the sake of marriage, it is all right (i.e. she is then considered married) as it is written: “the Rambam’s intention is (to show) that if he doess not have intercourse with her, or (if) they do not have ‘yiḥud’ immediately, the benedictions are voided” (see <i>Ḥelkat M<sup>e</sup>ḥokek</i>, Note #11).",
+                    "And also the opposite (case can arise): if he betrothed and entered into the “ḥupah” but did not recite the groom’s benedictions - behold, this is a complete marriage; he should return and recite the benedictions, even after several days. And even though all blessings must precede tha act (cf. Pesaḥim 7b), anyhow, among those blessings, those for marriage are not mentioned at all; one may recite the (marriage) benedictions even afterwards. But, the betrothal blessing must be recited before the betrothal (i.e. that part of the marriage ceremony which is still called betrothal), as all the (other) blessings which must precede the act.",
+                    "Pome of the Halakhic authorities wrote that there is no “ḥupah” for a widow, and their basis is from the Jerusalem Talmud. But it will be explained, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 64, that the Jerusalem Talmud does not prove the point.<br>It is obvious - according to the opinion of the Rambam, that the “ḥupah” is the “yiḥud”, and likewise (for) those who have the opinion that the “ḥupah” is (her) going out into his authority - why should there be a difference between (the “ḥupah” of) a virgin and a widow? However, for those who have the opinion that the essence of the “ḥupah” is the house that is especially prepared for the dwelling of the groom and the bride, with embroidered sheets; and for those who have the opinion that the essence of the “ḥupah” is the spreading of the canopy or the marriage litter - certainly, for a widow, this is not done, for (this type of) “ḥupah” does not apply. And the essence of (his) acquiring her is in a “yiḥud” that is proper for intercourse.<br>And therefore, according to our (customary) “ḥupot”, where we do not make a public demonstration for a widow when she marries a widower, and she does not cover her head, and they do not have attendants or musical instruments, nor do we lead them to the courtyard of the synagogue, rather, in a quiet way we place the poles with a spread canopy in the house, and he betrothes her (there), and they recite the seven benedictions. This “ḥupah” does not constitute an acquisition; he must acquire her with a “yiḥud” proper for intercourse. This will be explained further, with the help of heaven, in Chapter 64.",
+                    "Before entrance into the “ḥupah”, he (the groom) must write for her (the bride) a “Ketubah”, after which he is permitted to (have intercourse with) his wife, for thus did our sages, may their memories be for a blessing, say: “It is prohibited for him to be with his wife even for one hour without (his having written) a ‘Ketubah’ ”. Thus did the Rambam rule, and our rabbi, the <i>Bet Josef</i>, quotes it (the Rambam’s ruling) in paragraph 3: “There is no reason to question why his obligation is to write (the ‘Ketubah’) before the ‘ḥupah’; let him write it after the ‘ḥupah’ (so long as it is) before he has intercourse with her.” For there is (validity) to the Rambam’s position when he holds the opinion that a “ḥupah” proper for intercourse is necessary, and (a “ḥupah”) without a “Ketubah” is not proper for intercourse (<i>Har HaMor</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mordecai Benett (1753 - 1829).</i>, Chapter 10, Halakha #7).<br>And, according to this, we, who are not following this (the Rambam’s position) on this, as it is written in Chapter 61: “he was permitted to write (the ‘Ketubah’) also afterward (i.e. after the ‘ḥupah’)”, the fact that our rabbi, the R<sup>e</sup>mah, did not make a Hagah on this, because according to our custom - we pause (in the ceremony) by reading the “Ketubah” under the “ḥupah”, between the benedictions of betrothal and marriage. This being so, even without the reasoning of the Rambam, it is necessary (for him) to write it (the “Ketubah”) before the “ḥupah”. And such is the custom.",
+                    "However, the “Ketubah” alone does not make (for a valid) marriage. Therefore, (in the case of) the one who betrothes a woman, writes for her a “Ketubah”, but she does not enter the “ḥupah” - she is still (considered) betrothed and not married, for the “Ketubah” (alone) does not make (for a valid) marriage.<br>If he dies or divorces her, the Rambam wrote that she collects “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ” only from the free property but not from the mortgaged property<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Property bought from a person who owes a debt collectible from his estate.</i>. She does not collect “the additional ‘Ketubah’ ” at all, even if he has written (the “Ketubah”) for her, his reasoning being that the “Ketubah” itself is nothing (i.e. does not make her married), for he only wrote (it) for her in order to marry her. And (therefore) “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ” is only like an oral loan; hence, she collects only from the free property.<br>But if he betrothed a woman and did not write for her a “Ketubah”, and (then) dies or divorces her, she is (still only) betrothed and she receives nothing, even “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ”; for they did not institute “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ” for her until she is married, or until he writes (the “Ketubah” for her). This is the opinion of the Rambam.",
+                    "There are some among our rabbis who hold that a betrothed woman has a “Ketubah”, for this appears to be so in several places in the Talmud. If he did not write (a “Ketubah”) for her, she collects from the free property, and if he did write (it) for her, she collects also from the mortgaged property, as (is the principle) with all documents (pertaining to monetary matters). But if he did not write (it) for her, it appears that, with this opinion also, she does not collect from the mortgaged property.<br>However, the Rosh, may his memory be for a blessing, wrote: “even if he did not write (it) for her, she collects from the mortgaged property because of the ‘K<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>t<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>nai Bet Din’ ” (a stipulation of the rabbinical court that a woman without a “Ketubah” is still entitled to the benefits of a “Ketubah”) (Ketubot, Chapter 4, paragraph 64). And it appears, in the words of the Rosh in another place, that he is in doubt with respect to this law (ibid. Chapter 5, paragraph 5). And not only this, (but) “even if he wrote (it) for her from the betrothal, and later wrote (it again) for her from the marriage, she foregoes her claim to the mortgaged property from the first (of the two ‘Ketubot’)” (ibid.), and she can only collect from the purchasers that which has been sold since the time of marriage.<br>All this is in the matter of “the basic ‘Ketubah’ ”, but in the matter of “the additional ‘Ketubah’ ” everyone agrees that, even if he did write (it) for her, she does not collect from the time of the betrothal, for it is (based on the) general assumption that he only wrote (it) for her in order to marry her.<br>The Halakhic authorities wrote that the custom is according to the Rambam, not to let a betrothed woman collect the “Ketubah”, for in all the places where in the G<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">e</sup>mara it is clear that a betrothed woman has a “Ketubah”, the Rambam shows that (in those cases indeed) he did actually write (it) for her.<br>And, the same is the position of the G<sup>e</sup>onim<sup>44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Singular “Gaon”, Lit. “pride”; the title given to the heads of the two rabbinic academies in Babylonia (Sura and Pumbedita). During the G<sup>e</sup>onic Period” (late sixth to early eleventh centuries), these men were considered the highest religious authorities, and were a strong unifying force for the Jewish community of the Diaspora.</i> that, since in the G<sup>e</sup>mara it is questioned whether or not a betrothed woman has a “Ketubah”, and it is not solved there (Baba M<sup>e</sup>tsia 17a), she does not receive the “Ketubah”.",
+                    "(In the case of) one whose betrothed daughter is widowed or divorced after the betrothal (but before the marriage), even several times before she reaches adulthood - her “Ketubah” (money) belongs to her father, for she only goes out from the authority of the father by becoming an adult or by marriage. Therefore, if she is married and (then) widowed or divorced from the marriage, even before (she reaches) maturity, i.e. even if she is still a minor, her father receives nothing with respect to the first “Ketubah” written at the betrothal: “we do not consider the date of the writing of the ‘Ketubah’, saying that, since it was written (while she was still) under the authority of the father, it belongs to the father; rather, we consider the date of the collection, and the collection is only after the marriage” (Rashi commentary, Ketubot 43b).",
+                    "(In the case of) one whose betrothed (woman) died - if the betrothed man is a Cohen, he may not defile himself because of her, as it is written: “except for his relatives” (Leviticus 21:2), and this means near kin. And a betrothed is not his near kin, even if he has betrothed her by (an act of) intercourse, since she is (supposedly) prohibited to him (for further intercourse) until the marriage.<br>If he (the one who betrothes) dies, she is not obligated to defile herself because of him, even though it is a commandment to defile oneself for all near kin. Nevertheless, (defiling herself) for her betrothed man is no “mitsvah” (good deed) but doing it constitutes no prohibition, even if she is a female Cohen, for the daughters of Aaron were not commanded regarding the defiling, as it is written” “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1); (it says) “the sons of Aaron” and not “the daughters of Aaron” (i.e. the prohibition against defiling oneself applies to men only).",
+                    "And it is a similar matter with her inheritance when she (a betrothed woman) dies: he (the one who betrothes) is not eligible for her inheritance, for also in the matter of inheritance is it written: “his near kin”. And since he does not inherit her, he is not obligated to bury her (i.e. provide for her burial). Rather, her father will inherit her and he will bury her. And even if the father does not bury her, he (the father) will (still) inherit her. Even, if there remains no inheritance from her at all, it is not incumbent upon the one who betrothed to bury her or to make any payments (whatsoever).<br>And even if she was married to him in a place where he does not inherit her because of the ordinance in Chapter 53<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Chapter 53 of <i>Arukh HaShulḥan</i> Even HaEzer details all of the rabbinic ordiances and injunctions concerning inheritance upon the death of either member of the betrothed couple.</i>, he is not obligated to bury her. And in a place where he inherits half of her dowry, there are those who say that the burial is incumbent upon both of them (the one who betrothed and the father) (<i>Ḥelkat M<sup>e</sup>ḥokek</i>). And there are those who say (that the burial is incumbent) upon the husband alone (<i>Bet Shmuel</i>).",
+                    "Similarly, the one who betrothes is not obligated (to provide) for the sustenance of his betrothed, because as long as she is not married, and he is not obligated to (provide) her conjugal rights, he is not obligated to (provide) her sustenance and garments, unless she was a minor (and an) orphan being provided sustenance by her brothers - for in this case, the one who betrothes is obligated to her sustenance, since she only receives sustenance from her brothers until she is betrothed or reaches maturity. This one (the orphan who is a minor) has not reached maturity to provide for her own sustenance, rather she is only a minor or a young maiden. And no man wants his betrothed to degrade herself by going out and begging at doors (to seek sustenance). Therefore, even if he (the one who betrothes) says that he is not concerned about this (i.e. her having to beg), we force hin to provide her sustenance; he is obligated (to do so) according to rabbinic injunction. This is the opinion of the Rambam.<br>There are those who say that the one who betrothes is not obligated for her sustenance, even in a case like this (i.e. where she is a minor and an orphan) - and she must be provided for by her brothers (it depends on the version, cf. Ketubot 53b).<br>It is an obvious thing that a negotiated-for (“engaged”) woman does not have any of the legal rights (status) of a married woman, not like (those of a) betrothed woman, for even if he wrote for her a “Ketubah”, it is nothing (i.e. it has no validity) if they retracted (broke the engagement) before betrothal: because he: wrote (it) for her only in order to betrothe her and enter (with) her (into the “ḥupah”) (<i>Ḥelkat M<sup>e</sup>ḥokek</i>). How much the more so that with the other things (besides sustenance) she has none of the legal rights of a betrothed woman."
+                ]
+            ],
+            "Seder HaGet": [],
+            "Seder Chalitza": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+        "enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר הגט",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/English/Wikisource.json

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+    "versionSource": "http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%97_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%90",
+    "versionTitle": "Wikisource",
+    "license": "CC-BY-SA",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [
+                "It is written: “The path of life is above the intelligent person, in order that he turn away from the grave below.” (Mishlei 15:24). This verse's intent requires a preface: The angels were created as part of the spiritual world on the second day, and although it is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is stated in the Midrash and alluded to in the Psalm (Tehilim 104:3-4) – “Who roofs His upper chambers with water; Who makes clouds His chariot, which go on the wings of the wind. He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers.” [NOTE: The psalmist is referring to the primordial water and the angels together, since both were created on the second day]. The animals were created as part of the physical world on the fifth day. Angels are intelligent, serve their creator, and do not have self-serving, physical drives. Animals, on the other hand, have such drives, but lack intelligence. The result is that angels cannot receive reward for their service, as they have no negative drives to overcome, and animals cannot be punished for their actions, as they do not have the intelligence necessary to overcome their drives.",
+                "Therefore G-d found it necessary to create man on the sixth day, and He created him with competing drives: Man possesses a spiritual soul that enables him to recognize the creator as does an angel, as the verse states: “Man’s soul is G-d’s lamp…” (Mishlei 20:27). He also possesses an animalistic nature due to his physical body, which drives him to animal behaviors, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping.This state of affairs gives rise to a constant struggle within man all the days of his life, with his animal nature pining for physical desires, while his pure soul opposes such pursuits, inspiring man to turn to his real purpose, to serve G-d like an angel. His soul further insists that even necessary physical needs, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping, should be done with intent to better serve G-d, and on this the verse has been stated: “I have placed G-d before me constantly.” (Psalms 16:8). After man’s death he is shown on high that all his actions were recorded, as though in a book, with his own signature. If he has followed the path of Torah and mitzvos, he inherits heaven (Lit. 'Gan Eden') which is a limitless and endless spiritual joy. Of these people the verse proclaims \"They will be sated from the fat of Your house, and with the stream of Your delights You give them to drink. For with You is the source of life; in Your light we will see light. \" (Psalms 36:9). If G-d forbid his actions were the opposite, he inherits Gehenom, to which all the pains of this life are as naught in comparison. On these people the verse states: \"And they shall go out and see the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh.\" (Yishayahu 66:24). There are seven descriptions given to Gehenom: Nether-world (or Sheol), Destruction, Pit, Tumultuous Pit, Miry Clay, Shadow of Death and the Underworld. (Eruvin 19a). One who is seduced by his base inclinations falls there, and that is why it is also called 'seducer', as the verse states \"For Tophteh (Heb. related to the word 'seduce') is set up from yesterday, that too has been prepared for the king (Sennacherib and his army), it deepened, it widened its pile, of fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord is like a stream of brimstone, burning therein.(Yishayahu 30:33). (Eruvin 19a).",
+                "Returning to the advice of King Solomon stated above, that \"The path of life is above the intelligent person, in order that he turn away from the grave below.\" (Mishlei 15:24). The explanation can now be said to be: \"Man, consider that you have two paths before you, either to raise your eyes and heart to the Creator, blessed be He, and that is the path of life, or to cast your stare downward to the base animal instincts. Therefore I command you that your life's path should only be to look upwards, in order that you remove yourself from the pit below.\" The point here is that if you train your stare towards your base instincts you will as consequence be led by them to fall to the pit - \"Sheol\", the first of the levels, and from there your path will descend lower and lower.",
+                "Anyone possessing intelligence should also consider the following: If you see a human king building a grand palace, you will notice opposites among the construction materials. There will be precious stones, such as jasper and onyx, as well as other fine materials. There will also be cement, clay, and earth. Does one think that the intent of the king is for the clay and earth? Of course not! Certainly the purpose of the building is to showcase the fine materials and precious stones, while the cement, clay, and earth only serve to strengthen the structure. Similarly, the King of Kings the Holy One blessed be He created man from a pure spiritual soul which is a part of the divine, and she returns to G-d after death. And as for the biological material that the body is made of, which in reality is no different than clay and earth, can anyone think that the purpose of man is for that material? Anyone who thinks so can only be a fool, and not in his right mind. This, then is what Akavia ben Mahalalel meant when he said (Pirkei Avot 3:1) \"Look to three things and you will not come to sin. Know where you came from, where you are going...\" - this means the soul, which is a part of the divine and will return to its source, and it’s opposite, the body: \"where you came from...\" - from a fetid drop (of semen). \"...and to where are you going...\" - To a place of earth and the worm. Here too, the explanation is that the purpose of man is his G-dly soul. Therefore, since one's purpose is G-dliness and matters of the soul, before all else a person needs to know the foundation concepts of our holy and pure Torah.",
+                "The foundation of Torah and the pillar of the divine service is to know that there is one God. who is singular and unique, and that He created the Worlds(i.e this world and the next world), and that he is constantly watching us. If, God forbid, he suddenly stopped watching and guiding the world even for a moment, it would revert to chaos and disorder. This is the essence of what is stated: (Deuteronomy 6:4) 'Listen, oh Israel, Hashem, your God, is One'.",
+                "This G-d we are obligated to love with a complete and unreserved love, until the love of oneself, one's wife, sons, daughters and money are completely nullified in the presence of his love for G-d, as though they did not exist. This also has been stated in Torah (Devarim 4.5): \"You should love G-d, your G-d, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your money (Heb. 'Mo-adecha'). This term 'Mo-adecha' is related to the Hebrew 'Ma-od', meaning 'very much', as if to say: \"whatever is very much beloved by you should be considered null and void in the presence of your love for G-d.\" \"...all your heart...\" - Our Rabbis have expounded on this: \"with both of your inclinations, the good inclination as well as the evil.\" This means to say that one should not ask 'If the evil inclination only tries to seduce one to transgress the will of G-d, why was it created?' The truth is that the intent of the evil inclination is that man should overpower him and not listen to him, but G-d has nevertheless created him to test whether man will transgress G-d's will, in order that one should serve G-d through free will and not as one forced by instinct. This is the ultimate purpose of the creation of man, and through this ability he is even greater than an angel, as I have written in section 1. [It is also explained in the Zohar along these lines PERHAPS VOLUME 3, FOLIO 68.2]",
+                "In the Sifrei (Dvarim, 32) we find the following exposition: \"Rabbi Meir said: When it states \"And you should love G-d, your G-d, with all your heart...\" it means to love G-d like Avraham, as it states: \"Avraham, my beloved\", and also \"...and you found his heart faithful before you.\" \"...with all your soul\" (end of section 32) - like Yitzchak, who allowed himself to be brought on the altar. \"...with all your money\" (end of section 32) - admit to him how much in his debt you are, like Yaakov, who said \"I have been made small by all your kindness...\" The text continues: \"And you should love...\" - Make Him be loved by all people, as Avraham you father did, as the verse states: \"...the souls he made in Charan.\" The meaning here is to behave like Abraham, who called on the populous to believe in G-d and engage in His service because of the great love for G-d that he had in his heart and soul. We read further: \"Even though the Torah proclaims 'And you should love Him...' I still do not know how. Therefore, the verse states further 'These words that I command you today should be on your heart...' - that through these words you will recognize Him who spoke and created the world.\" This text is explaining that contemplation of the Torah will certainly implant love for G-d in one's heart. (Sefer haChinuch, Mitzvah 417)",
+                "We are also commanded to fear the Blessed One, as the verse states (Devarim 6.13): \"The L-ord your G-d you should fear\", and here are the words of the Rambam concerning this trait in Sefer haMitzvos, mitzvah 4: \"He has commanded us to be consciously aware of His exalted presence, and to tremble before Him, and not be like the heretics who presumptuously follow their own hearts; rather we should be concerned and mindful of His corrective punishment at all times, which is a consequence of sinful behavior. This then is the meaning of \"The L-ord your G-d you should fear.\" That is his comment in the above source. In his great work (the Mishna Torah), in the beginning of the second chapter of the fundamentals of the Torah, he writes thus: \"What is the path towards love and fear of G-d? When a person contemplates the wondrous actions and creations of G-d, and he sees in them wisdom without end or measure, immediately he loves, praises and glorifies Him. He also experiences a great desire to know his great name [TO KNOW HIM?], as Dovid has said: \"My soul thirsts for the L-ord, the living G-d\". When he continues to think about such matters, he has an immediate reflex to shrink away, and he experiences a fear and trembling, realizing that he is a small and inconsequential creation, with little intellect compared to the One of complete knowledge. Dovid has also stated regarding this: \"When I see the heavens, the work of your fingers, I ask 'what is man that you take notice of him'?\" Until here is his language. As can be seen, in the Sefer haMitzvos the explanation of 'simple fear' is fear of punishment, while here the Rambam refers to a higher fear, which is fear from the recognition of G-d's great loftiness. On this subject the Sifrei (Dvarim, 32) has stated: \"There is no love in fear's place, nor fear in love's place, except for that of G-d alone.\" (see there). This means to say that fear and love are opposites, but through fear of G-d's vast loftiness they can dwell together, that through the recognition of the great, exalted stature of the Blessed One he is feared with an 'enlightened fear', and he is loved with all of one's heart and soul.",
+                "And we have been commanded to walk along G-d's path of goodness and righteousness, as the verse says, \"you should travel in His ways\"  (Deut. 26:13). Furthermore it says, \"After Hashem your G-d you shall go\" (Deut. 13:5). And furthermore it says, \"'to travel in all of His ways' (Deut 10:12)- just as He is gracious, you shall also be gracious. Just as he is merciful, you shall also be merciful\" (a similar idea appears on Sotah 14b)\". And [we are commanded] to emulate His positive actions and positive righteous  traits to the best of our ability. It is a positive commandment to be attached to wise men and their students in order to learn from their actions as the verse says, \"and to him you shall be devoted\" (Deut. 13:5). Is it possible for one to be attached to the Sechinah (divine presence) if it is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24)? Rather, to be attached to the wise men and their students (Ketuvos 111b), to spread dirt before their feet and to drink their knowledge with thirst, as the verse says, \"he who goes with the wise will become wise\" (Proverbs 13:20). And furthermore it says, \" the praises of a man are that he did not follow the counsel of the wicked\" (Psalms 1:1).",
+                "The Smag (Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos) wrote in the seventeenth positive commandment: It is a positive commandment to justify the judgement on all events as it says, \"you shall know with your heart that when a man chastens his son, Hashem your G-d chastens you\" (Deut. 8:5). Until here are his words. And us, Children of Israel are tired from the times, without rest for close to two thousand years- we are obligated to know that this is for our benefit and our merit, like the prophet Zachariah said, \"I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call my name and I will answer them. I will say, 'they are my people', and they will say, 'Hashem is my G-d'\" (Zechariah 13:9). The explanation of that which is written: to believe with total belief that all of our troubles and all of our being jolted is not on the path of revenge, G-d forbid, but rather to refine us. If not so, we would not have any remainders over the course of the many centuries, and there is no  sign or great wonder from this that we have stood such for such a long period of time as this. For this is only the supervision of the Almighty over us,  that has not disappear nor will disappear for even one moment, like a father who supervises his only son and agonizes him for his benefit. A proof for this: Surely, for all time in exile \"he will call me name and I will answer him\" (Psalms 91).  Meaning, when we pray to Him, the Almighty,- He answers us in every time of trouble and distress. \"I will say, 'they are my people', and they will say...\" (Zechariah 13:9). Meaning, that we surely see this entire prolonged period of time the nation of the Children of Israel travel on the path of Torah and commandment, He Almight calls us \"my people\" and we call him, \"G-d of Israel\".",
+                "  ",
+                "    ..."
+            ],
+            [
+                "We have already written that even when one is in the most secluded setting, one must act modestly, because the Holy One Blessed Be He fills the entire world with His Glory.Therefore, if one slept naked, one should not rise from his bed naked, but should rather dress while lying down; one cannot even dress (naked) while sitting, because (if one does so), half of his body will be exposed. (The proper way of dressing is as follows:) one should take his clothing, enter his head and arms in lying, thus when he arises he is dressed. The same when he go to sleep and put his clothing off, he may not do this standing or sitting- but lying and covered. And he may put the clothing near so when he wakes up he won't have to sit exposed. And this is of the modesty trait. And he may not say- \"who sees me?\"- because His glory full all the earth. (And it doesn't matter if his feet bare, nor in the shower).",
+                "He may keep his clothing straight- that the inner side won't be turned out and then the stitches and fringes of the clothing will be seen and he will be disregarded in the eyes of people. And this was said about the \"chaluk\"- a clothing that has little difference between the outer and inner sides- so it's simple in other clothings. The way a man have to keep from people gossip, he may keep from people thinking bad of him. In tractate Shabbath we learn: \"Who is Talmid Chaham? the one who keep his clothing straight to turn it\". I.e. even if he has already gotten dressed and he now sees that it's inside out, he turns it right side out. And a regular man is not careful to do so. But the best is that everyone will do so. And if for \"Chaluk\" it is so, -- then how much more so, for other clothes. In Bava Batra we learn: \"How is the clothing of Talmid Chaham? a garment such that the body is not seen under (through) it. Rashbam explains it's for people going barefooted and they need long clothing so his feet won't be seen. In our days it's irrelevant. But the Rambam (Maimonides) in the fifth chapter of Laws of Human Dispositions explains that the Talmud refers to thin clothes, that are so thin that the body can be seen through them. We also learn there: \"How is Tallit of a Talmid Chaham? A long one thus the Chaluk is not seen beneath it \"Tefach\" (about 8 cm.). \"Tallit\" is the upper cloth and the meaning is that the lower cloth won't be longer than the upper. Any Talmid Chaham who has \"Revav\" on his clothing, i.e. fat or grease or any kind of dirt - deserves capital punishment because he makes people hate the Torah. (Shabbath there). But his clothes will be clean. And Talmid Chaham may not wear patched shoes such that one patch is on the other, for he will be disgraced, except for the winter that he goes in mood."
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "": [
+                []
+            ],
+            "Seder HaGet": [],
+            "Seder Chalitza": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            []
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+        "enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר הגט",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/English/YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash.json

@@ -0,0 +1,769 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+    "versionSource": "http://www.torontotorah.com",
+    "versionTitle": "YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "... The Levush seemed to say that it is good toadd to the number of people called to ‎the Torah [a.k.a. “hosafot”]; he wrote regarding addition, “We ascend in sanctity.” It does not ‎appear so, though, from all of the authorities; it seems that they only permitted addition[and did ‎not encourage it]. According to Rashi, one may add because adding will not keep people from their ‎work. According to the Ran adding is permitted because Shabbat has great sanctity…",
+                "",
+                "Some say that the mishnaic permission to add ascendants ‎referred only to the time of the mishnah, when the middle ascendants‏ ‏did not recite blessings. ‎Today, when each ascendant recites blessings, adding‏ ‏ascendants adds blessings, and is close to‏ ‏introducing purposeless blessings. These‏ ‏blessings were never instituted. This‏ ‏argument is correct, ‎but this opinion has never been accepted. Most authorities did not‏ ‏agree to it, for even in the time ‎of the gemara‏ ‏each ascendant recited blessings, and yet‏ ‏early authorities all wrote that one may ‎add. This is the custom which has spread.‎",
+                "The same ‎permission extends to Yom Kippur, when it occurs on Shabbat. Some are careful not to add ‎ascendants on Yom Kippur even if it occurs on Shabbat, though; the beginnings of each portion are ‎about atonement, and so it is good not to change them. However, what can we do? The people ‎will not listen to us, saying that they must add ascendants due to complaints by the laity who wish ‎to ascend to the Torah. Since there is no prohibition‏ ‏involved, it is not worthwhile to stand in ‎argument against it and to protest. "
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "It is written, \"If you will restrain your feet‏ ‏on Shabbat; refrain from accomplishing your own needs ‎on My holy day…and you will honour it by not engaging in your own‏ ‏affairs, not seeking your own ‎needs, not‏ ‏discussing matters.\" (Isaiah 58:13) One‏ ‏may not perform on Shabbat any business‏ ‏or ‎commercial activity, even if there is no‏ ‏violation of an‏ ‏av melachah‏ ‏‎[one of the‎‏ ‏thirty-nine ‎categories of prohibited‏ ‏activities]. This is what the verse refers to‏ ‏as \"your own needs,\" as if to ‎say weekday‏ ‏needs. The Torah warned us about acting‏ ‏out our business, as well as speaking‏ ‏about ‎it. The Sages expounded that speaking [about‏ ‏business] is forbidden, but thinking about‏ ‏it is ‎permitted (Shabbat 150a); one may‏ ‏think about his business in one’s heart.‎‏ ‏Nevertheless, on ‎account of oneg Shabbat (pleasure on Shabbat), there is a‎‏ ‏commandment to not think about it at ‎all,‎‏ ‏and his work should appear completed in‏ ‏his eyes. The Sages only permitted [business]‎‏ ‏thought which will not cause a discomfortof the heart and worrying. An example of this occurs ‎when a person’s business is‏ ‏going well and is successful, and there is‏ ‏no scattering of the soul. ‎However, thinking which causes worrying and discomfort of the heart is forbidden, for there could ‎be no‏ ‏greater abdication of oneg Shabbat.‎‏ ‏A midrash (Mechilta Shemot 20:9) on the‏ ‏verse, \"For six ‎days you shall work and‏ ‏perform all of your work\", explains that all‏ ‏of a person’s work should ‎appear‏ ‏completed in his eyes when Shabbat‏ ‏arrives. It is impossible for a person to‏ ‏complete all of ‎his work in one week.‎‏ ‏Rather, it should‏ ‏appear to a person on‏ ‏each Shabbat as if he had completed ‎all of his work. There could be no greater‏ ‏oneg Shabbat than this. (Tur)Similarly, we say in davening ‎‎[Shabbat‎‏ ‏minchah] \"a rest of peace and tranquillity,‎‏ ‏calm and security, a complete rest that You‏ ‏desire.\" Also, in the blessing after meals we‏ ‏say, \"there should be neither distress nor‏ ‏grief on our ‎day of rest.\" (Beit Yosef in the‏ ‏name of the Ri) There is great reward for observing this.‎‏ ‏Even in this ‎world, a person is rewarded in‏ ‏his livelihood, as recorded in a Talmudic braita: A righteous person‏ ‏had a breach in his field's fence, and‏ ‏he decided to fix it. He then‏ ‏remembered that it was Shabbat, ‎and‏ ‏he refrained from fixing it. (He did not‏ ‏fix it during the week, either, as a self-imposed penalty ‎for thinking about‏ ‏fixing it on Shabbat.) A miracle‏ ‏happened, and a caper bush grew [in‏ ‏the ‎breach], and from this plant he‏ ‏received enough livelihood to support‏ ‏him and his family (Shabbat ‎‎150b).‎"
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "For some decades, due to our great sins, leprosy has spread among cantors.  These cantors hold a ‎small silver fork or a lump of iron (termed‏ ‏kamar tone) when standing before the platform on ‎Shabbat and Yom Tov, for setting the song’s pitch. The cantors place the fork between their teeth, ‎and they hear a musical sound; they then know how to arrange the song.‎ This is, literally, a musical instrument, designed to produce music. We do not have the power to ‎protest their claims that they cannot generate music without these instruments. Due to our great ‎sins, our generation is loose and the masses support these cantors. Not only are we unable to ‎protest, but even exiting the synagogue causes a fight, as is known. Perhaps we could suggest that ‎this device is not among the “musical instruments” which our sages prohibited, for the following ‎reasons:  The sound of this music is not heard other than from the cantor’s mouth to his ear, the ‎sound is only momentary, and  the purpose is to generate vocal song, which was never forbidden.  ‎This matches what we have written regarding whistling and placing one’s hand in one’s mouth [on ‎Shabbat]. We need to justify this; it would be disgraceful to say that the Jewish nation would ‎stumble in a Shevut, all the more so when standing in prayer before the King of Kings, G-d Himself!‎ Further, regarding the practice of saying words, and repeating them twice and three times, and ‎spreading notes before the platform to sing in the style of a performance‏ ‏‎– all who have awe of ‎heaven are pained by this, and they cannot protest, for the masses are undisciplined, and they will ‎not listen to the words of the sages in this matter! They say that this is their enjoyment of Shabbat ‎and Yom Tov! In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before G-d will ‎flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose ‎eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said that one‏ ‏silences a cantor only for ‎repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not‏ ‏true for other words that they repeat ‎twice and three times. As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a ‎reason to state a clear prohibition‏ ‏here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to ‎practice in error, etc.”‎",
+                "‎[Further, regarding the practice of saying words, and repeating them twice and three times, and ‎spreading notes before the platform to sing in the style of a performance‏ ‏‎– all who have awe of ‎heaven are pained by this, and they cannot protest, for the masses are undisciplined, and they will ‎not listen to the words of the sages in this matter! They say that this is their enjoyment of Shabbat ‎and Yom Tov! In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before G-d will ‎flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of Israel, whose ‎eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said that one‏ ‏silences a cantor only for ‎repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not‏ ‏true for other words that they repeat ‎twice and three times. As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present a ‎reason to state a clear prohibition‏ ‏here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to ‎practice in error, etc.” In truth, perhaps there is no prohibition in this, but one who is good before ‎G-d will flee therefrom. We have come to justify the actions of the sanctified descendants of ‎Israel, whose eyes are sealed. Perhaps, from the fact that our Sages said that one silences a cantor ‎only for repeating the word “Shema,” we may say that this is not true for other words that they ‎repeat twice and three times. As to the notes they spread before the platform, we cannot present ‎a reason to state a clear prohibition here, and so, “Let Israel practice as it will; better for them to ‎practice in error, etc.”]‎"
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "",
+                "The increasing of the number of meals that we partake in  [on Chanukah] are ‘voluntary  meals’ [as opposed to meals which are a mitzvah], because [the Sages] did not set [the days of  Chanukah] for drinking and rejoicing, as they did on Purim. [This is because] the decree of Haman was on the body, to destroy, kill, and wipe out [all of the Jews] (Esther 3:13), therefore, we need to celebrate with our bodies. But the decree of Antiochus was abolition of Torah learning and mitzvot,  and even though this is worse than a decree of  physical [annihilation], nevertheless, they were decrees against our souls. Therefore, we need to gladden our  souls  with Hallel, thanks, melodies, songs and praises, and the body has no connection to these [methods of rejoicing]. (And this also answers the question of the Taz 670:3 [who asked that if it is worse to cause one to sin rather than kill him per Rashi Devarim 23:9, why do we not celebrate this holiday more  than, or at least equally to, Purim?]) However, there are those who say [Rama Orach Chaim 670:2, in the name of Rabbi Avraham Kara of Prague] that there is a slight mitzvah  to increase the number of meals, first, because celebration of the soul is somewhat dependent on the happiness of the body, as we can sense. Additionally, [we rejoice physically] to remember the dedication of the Mishkan, which was set as [a holiday of]  drinking and rejoicing. One should also sing songs and praises at these meals, and then it will certainly be considered a ‘mitzvah meal’. But those who play with cards-their punishment is great,  and due to our many sins, this plague of tzara’athas spread  through the house of Israel. Woe to us that this has happened in our days, and many types of sins are caused by this activity! And may He, the merciful, forgive sin, and one who has the ability to abolish this [practice], his merit will be very great. "
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "": [
+                []
+            ],
+            "Seder HaGet": [],
+            "Seder Chalitza": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            []
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+        "enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר הגט",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/Hebrew/ סימן ב [דין שחיטת כותי ושחיטת רשע ובו כ׳׳א סעיפים]..json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+    "versionSource": "http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9106&st=&pgnum=12",
+    "versionTitle": " סימן ב [דין שחיטת כותי ושחיטת רשע ובו כ׳׳א סעיפים].",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [
+            [],
+            [
+                " שנו חכמים במשנח [י\"ג.] שחיטת כותי נבילה ואפילו שחט כראוי בסכין בדוק ובעומד ע\"ג מן התורה שחיטתו נבילה כדמפרש בתוספתא ריש חולין שנאמר וזבחת ואכלת ולא שחיטת כותי ע\"ש וה\"פ וזבחת ואכלת מה שאתה זובח אתה אוכל [תוס' ג':] מפני שהכותי לא נצטוה על השחיטה לפיכך שחיטתו אינה שחיטה כלל ואפילו אינו עובד כוכבים כיון שלא נצטוה על השחיטה והרמב״ם דייק לה מדכתיב וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו משמע שאפילו זובח בביתך בהכשר שחיטה אסור דאין לפרש מזבחו שזובח בביתו כדרכו דהא בזה כבר הזהירה התורה שלא לאכול טריפה ונבילה וחלב ודם ובביתו כולהו איתניהו אלא וודאי שאפילו זובח כדין שחיטה אסור [ב\"ח] וגם להרמב\"ם אסור מן התורה אפילו כשאינו עובד כוכבים [ש\"ך סק\"א] וזה שכתב הרמב\"ם בפ\"ד וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו כותי שאינו עובר אסור זהו על הכותים השמרונים [שם] דעשאום כעובדי כוכבים והצדוקים והבייתוסים והמינים והאפיקורסים שאין מאמינים בתורה שבע״פ שחיטתן אסורה לגמרי [עש\"ך סקכ\"ד מ\"ש בשם תשו' ר\"ב אשכנזי]: ",
+                " איתא בגמ' [י'.] אמר רבא ישראל עבריין אוכ נבילות לתיאבון בודקין סכין ונותנין לו ומותר לאכול משחיטתו ביאור הדברים דנבילה מקריא כל שלא נשחט בהכשר והוא רשע בעל תאוה ולא להכעיס ודרכו כשמוצא בשר כשר לא יאכל נבילה אך כשאינו מוצא בשר אינו מטריח עצמו לבקש כשר ואוכל נבילה ולכן א״א להאמין לו על השחיטה ולא יטריח עצמו להעמיד הסכין בהכשר וכשיתנו לו סכין בדוק ושוחט השחיטה כשירה גם כלא עומד ע\"ג דבוודאי ישחוט בהכשר כיון שהוא אומן ומומחה הרי אין בזה טרחא לשחוט בהכשר ולא יכשיל רבים שהרי לבד תאוותו אינו חשוד להאכיל איסור ולעבור על לפני עור לא תתן מכשול ודווקא שיודעין בו שיורע הלכות שחיטה והוא אומן דברשע כזה א\"א להעמיד על רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן ולבד בדיקת סכין אינו מועיל לו כלום אפילו כשישראל יוצא ונכנס דמצינו בגמ' בכותים השמרונים שמועיל מפני שמתיירא לשחוט בסכין פגום כשישראל יוצא ונכנס אבל בעבריין אינו מועיל שהרי חוא מחזיק א״ע כישראל גמור וגם בעיני הבריות הוא כישראל גמור ואינו מדמה שיבדוקו אחריו [תוס' ורא\"ש] ואפשר ליתן לו לכתחלה לשחוט בלי בדיקת סכין אפילו כשמומחה עומד ע\"ג ויבדוק הסכין אחר שחיטה מ\"מ אסור ליתן לו על סמך זה משום דחיישינן שמא לא יבדוק אח\"כ ויהיה אסור בדיעבד וכל שבדיעבד אסור אין ליתן על סמך בדיקה אחר שחיטה כמ\"ש בסי' א' סעי' ב' דרק במקום שמותר בדיעבד מותר ליתן על סמך זה ע\"ש ואם אירע שנתנו לו לשחוט בלי בדיקת סכין אסור לאכול עד שיבדקו סכינו אחר השחיטה ואם נמצא יפה מותר לאכול ואפילו לא ראינו באיזה סכין שחט נאמן לומר שבסכין זה שחט ולא חיישינן שמא שחט בסכין פגום ואח\"כ נזדמן לו סכין זה [ש\"ך סק\"ז] שלבד תאוותו אינו חשוד ודווקא מיד אחר השחיטה אבל אם נמשך זמן מה איני נאמן [ע\"ש בש\"ך]",
+                " כתב רבינו ירוחם יש מי שכתב שכיון שבדקו להעבריין את הסכין קודם השחיטה שוב א\"צ לבודקו אחר השחיטה והגאונים כתבו שלכתחלה צריך לבודקו אחר השחיטה וכן עיקר עכ\"ל ורבינו הב\"י בספרו הגדול הכריע שא\"צ ע\"ש ובש\"ע לא נזכר מזה כלל והנה דבר פשוט הוא כיון דקיי\"ל בסי' י\"ח שכל שוחט צריך שיבדוק הסכין קודם שחיטה ולאחר שחיטה ורק בדיעבד מותר כשלא בדקו אחר שחיטה לא עדיף שחיטת עבריין משחיטת ישראל כשר וגם זהו פשיטא דלסמוך על בדיקת העבריין אחר השחיטה אינו כלום דהא עיקר הבדיקה הוא דשמא ימצא שהסכין נפגם יטריף הבהמה וזה העבריין וודאי דלא יעשה כן שהרי אפילו להעמיד סכין הוא חשוד כמ\"ש וכ\"ש שלא יטריף כשימצא הסכין פגום וא\"כ בדיקתו לאחר השחיטה לאו כלום הוא ובוודאי שצריכין לבדוק הסכין אחר שחיטה לכתחלה כדברי הגאונים וצ\"ל דכוונת החולקים כן הוא דלדברי הגאונים בהכרח צריכים לראות שיבא לפנינו תיכף אחר השחיטה כדי לבודקו ולפ\"ז אם נבדוק סכין והוא ירצה לשחוט במקום רחוק מאתנו באופן שלא נראה הסכין אחר השחיטה אסור לדעת הגאונים ובזה חולקים כיון דהבדיקה אחר השחיטה אינו מעכב בדיעבד אין בנו כח לאוסרו לשחוט במקום אחר כשבדקנו לו את הסכין דכן משמע לשון הש\"ס ונחשב זה בדיעבר [וזהי כוונת הט\"ז בסק״ב ודברי הש\"ך סק\"י שכתב דאמרינן שמסתמא בדקו ומצאו יפה וכו' צ\"ע לאטו יש לסמוך על בדיקתו והרי הוא כאלו לא בדקו ודו\"ק]:"
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "": [
+                []
+            ],
+            "Seder HaGet": [],
+            "Seder Chalitza": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            []
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+        "enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר הגט",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/Hebrew/Aruch HaShulchan Chelek 218 Siman 1.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+    "versionSource": "https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%97_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%97",
+    "versionTitle": "Aruch HaShulchan : Chelek 218 : Siman 1",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "": [
+                []
+            ],
+            "Seder HaGet": [],
+            "Seder Chalitza": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            []
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+        "enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר הגט",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/Hebrew/Aruch HaShulchan.json

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Aruch_HaShulchan.1.472?lang=he",
+    "versionTitle": "Aruch HaShulchan",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Yoreh De'ah": [
+            []
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "": [
+                []
+            ],
+            "Seder HaGet": [],
+            "Seder Chalitza": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            []
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ערוך השולחן",
+        "enTitle": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "key": "Arukh HaShulchan",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh De'ah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר הגט",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder HaGet"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "סדר חליצה",
+                        "enTitle": "Seder Chalitza"
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Arukh HaShulchan/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0fbb9664ffd18aed51e760e12bf5fa29253871835fafe8bba691b14e94df6d2a
+size 33288396

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Bach/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,363 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Bach",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ב\"ח",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And there are three further blessings, etc.. in Menachot 43b, and he brings the Ro\"sh and the Ri\"f in Berakhot 60b. And Rashi explains that an idol worshipper and a woman, since they are not commanded people, it is better to bless [on not being them?]. And in the Gemara a question is raised that there is no difference between a slave and a woman regarding mitzvot [...] and we teach that a slave is worse [and therefore Jewish men bless on both being free and being male]. And some question why it was not established \"Who made me Jewish\", like all the other blessings established about the kindness done for us, in the positive! As with \"who gave the heart understanding\", \"who clothes the naked\", \"who makes the blind see\", etc. And we explain according to the words of our rabbis of blessed memory: it would be better for man not to have been created, but since man has been created they should do <i>mitzvot</i> (Eruvin 13b). And this orients these blessings; one says \"I wish I had not been made [as the rabbis indicate]! But since I have been created I will bless God, who has not made me an idol worshipper or a slave or a woman.\" And it is nice to expound this, but there is no question here. Since if one had blessed \"Who made me a Jew\", one would not be able to bless \"Who made me free\" and \"Who made me a man\", for the language of \"Who made me a Jew [ישראל]\" includes the understanding of free, and also, Jew is a gendered word since women are called Jewess [ישראלית]. And if so, one would not bless three blessings but rather only one, and it was not the intent to shorten but rather to extend in praise and to bless God for every kindness individually. And because of this one blesses \"Who has not made me an idol worshipper\" and further on the kindness \"who has not made me a slave\" (who is worse) and further \"who has not made me a woman\". And the explanation of \"who has not made me an idol worshipper/slave/woman\" is that God did not by means of God's angel suffer the soul to descend into the body of an idol worshipper, slave, or woman, at the beginning of their creation. Because of this, the convert does not bless \"Who has not made me an idol worshipper\", and so writes the Beit Yosef, and  Abudarham who writes thus, see there, and the Rama\"h, that the convert is also unable to bless \"who made me Jewish\" since they entered into the Jewish religion by their own free will which God surrendered into human hand, and it's not appropriate to say that the Blessed One made them a convert, since they accepted the religion of Moshe and Israel. And so a convert blesses only two of these three blessings, who has not made me a slave and who has not made me a woman. And this is not like the note of the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote that a convert can bless \"Who has made me Jewish\", and it isn't."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And the same law applies to men and women, in that they are obligated in the Kiddush of the day. This is the wording of the Kol Bo and the explanation of Rosh - \"even to exempt others who do not know how to say the Kiddush on their own.\" The Bais Yosef brings this down and rules this way in Shulchan Arukh, but concerning Megillah (689)  he writes in Shulchan Arukh that women may not exempt men. An he writes according to the Behag that our rabbi brought there, who disagrees with Rashi who wrote that women may exempt men. And here, he ruled like Rashi, as brought down in the Kol Bo. And the authorities contradict one another, because it appears that there should be no difference between Kiddush and Megillah. According to my opinion, it is better to be more stringent regarding Kiddush, just like we are regarding Megillah, that women may not exempt men. I have seen this written as well by Maharshal."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [],
+        "Even HaEzer": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Rambam wrote: since her husband was overseas etc the Shulhan Arukh [4:14] wrote that since it's a dispute the child is a safek mamzer nevertheless the Behag only deemed the child fit when the husband was not in our presence but if he was in our presence and he said that he did not arrive discreetly then the child is a mamzer and see ahead to the end of this sefer [in the kunters aharon]."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "The Bet Yosef writes, “One may ask [why the understanding isn’t] that [these are] three things through which the world was created that are sufficient for its continued existence? For one who causes something to exist all the more so [allows] for its continued existence! One may answer that Shimon HaTzaddik was speaking according to his times, when the Bet Hamikdash stood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who lived during the time of the destruction, came to say that even though the Bet Hamikdash no longer stands, and we cannot do the service, and we cannot even learn Torah and do acts of lovingkindness in the proper way because of the burdens of the exile, nevertheless, the world continues to exist through three other things that are similar to them…” It is clear from his words that he understood when Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, “The world stands…”, he meant that once it was created, the world had nothing keeping it in existence, and it would have returned to Tohu vaVohu chaos, once we had no service, and no Torah, and no acts of kindness in the proper way, if it were not for these three things: judgement, truth, and peace. And this is a wonderment, for isn’t it explicit in the words of Rabbi Yona that he holds as obvious that with these three things, which are the cause for the matter to be, all the more so its continued existence, that [the world] would not return to Tohu vaVohu chaos! Rather, the explanation is that when Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, “The world stands…”, he meant that civilized society stands [on these three things]. For the wicked who steal and rob destroy the world, meaning they destroy civilized society, because with robbery, commerce is made completely void, and consequently, civilized society is made void. And the judge breaks the jaws of the robbers and takes the stolen goods from them, preserving civilized society and community, that it shouldn’t be destroyed. And this is simple. The explanation of Rabbi Yona is that the explanation is not: It appears that he means to say that if it were that the explanation of it is that “Because of three things was the world created”, it would be difficult either way you look at it. For if he were arguing against Shimon HaTzaddik, who said that the world stands on three things, Torah, service, and acts of kindness, if that were true, the Tanna should have taught them together in one mishna, and indicating the argument. Rather, it must be that they are not arguing, and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was saying that because of these three things the world stands. And Shimon HaTzaddik was saying that once the world was created, it is preserved through these three things, Torah etc. And according to this it is not necessary that there be law in every place and every time, for the world is already preserved through Torah etc. But if this were true, it would be difficult, for why is it taught at the beginning of the chapter [of Avot] that there are three things that the world stands on once it had been created, and at the end of the chapter, it teaches that there are three things that because of them was the world created from the start. It should have been taught in the opposite order! Rather, the beginning of the chapter teaches that because of three things was the world created from the start, and the end of the chapter teaches that three things preserve the world which had already been created. This makes more sense, for there is no question about why [the explanation isn’t that] aren’t these three things that are enough to preserve the world so that it shouldn’t return to Tohu vaVohu chaos, for the fact that is says “which preserves the world” can be explained that even though it would not return to Tohu vaVohu chaos, nevertheless, civilized society and community would not be preserved, because of the wicked thieves and robbers, and any powerful person. But because of justice, truth, and peace, the community is preserved, as was explained. And accordingly our rabbi [the Tur] came to teach that it is a great mitzvah to appoint judges and officers in all places and all times, for through this the world is preserved. Therefore, he brought the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and the explanation of Rabbi Yona, and wrote at the end of his remarks that through judges who judge between man and his fellow, the world is preserved, for without justice, any powerful person… etc. And he said that this was the intention of the sages, all judgement should be the true law…etc. And that is because it fulfills the will of the Creator, Blessed be He, who created things to be preserved and not to be destroyed through the theft of the wicked, and he went on at length about this, and he concluded that for this reason are we obligated to appoint judges in the land of Israel in every province and city...etc. And this is only so the civilized world and community could be preserved to complete the will of our Creator, Blessed is His name."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ב\"ח",
+        "enTitle": "Bach",
+        "key": "Bach",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Bach/English/YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash.json

@@ -0,0 +1,692 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Bach",
+    "versionSource": "http://www.torontotorah.com",
+    "versionTitle": "YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "ישיבה-יוניברסיטי בית מדרש תורה מציון",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ב\"ח",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "... It is written in Terumat haDeshen 119,‎‏ ‏‎“One should instruct them to give the‎‏ ‏chametz to the non-‎Jew outside the‏ ‏house,” indicating that the chametz‏ ‏itself must be outside the home. And so‏ ‏wrote Maharil, that the Jew should not‏ ‏be as one who is charged with holding‏ ‏the non-‎‎ Jew’s chametz‏ ‏‎…‎ ‎ In this land, where most commerce is in‏ ‏whisky and one cannot sell it to a non- Jew outside the ‎home, and especially for‏ ‏those who hold a license for selling‏ ‏liquor, there is room to permit sale to ‎a‏ ‏non-Jew of all chametz in the room, as‏ ‏well as the room itself.‎ However, since we rule that a non-Jew‏ ‏only acquires land with a deed and‏ ‏presentation of ‎payment (Kiddushin 14b), and it would be burdensome to‎‏ ‏write a deed, and because ‎this [presenting a deed] might also lead the‏ ‏non-Jew to hold the chametz and not‏ ‏reverse it since ‎he is holding a deed,‎‏ ‏which would involve great loss,‎‏ ‏therefore, one must make a condition‏ ‏with ‎the non-Jew. One should say to‏ ‏him, “I am assigning this room to you in‏ ‏exchange for the money ‎you are giving‏ ‏me, even though I have not recorded a‏ ‏deed for this sale.” This declaration will‏ ‏be ‎effective for this transaction, as per‏ ‏Choshen Mishpat 194‎‏ ‏‎…‎ ‎  Still, one must give the non-Jew the key‏ ‏as well. Otherwise, since the Jew‏ ‏intends to re-purchase ‎this chametz‏ ‏after Pesach, he would just be as one‏ ‏who has rented out his home‏ ‏‎… Further,‎‏ ‏since ‎the Jew holds the key and can‏ ‏enter the room and remove the chametz,‎‏ ‏the non-Jew does not ‎view it as a full‏ ‏sale‏ ‏‎…‎‏ ‏Certainly, the Jew may not place his seal on the room so that the non-Jewish ‎purchaser will not enter. Were one to do this, there would be no sale, for his deed – placing his ‎seal on the room –  would‏ ‏cancel the “I sell to you completely”‎‏ ‏declaration he makes to the non-‎Jew.‎‏ ‏One should compel and ex-communicate them for such conduct.‎"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One should take note of the Purim practice‏ ‏of men and women wearing clothing of the‏ ‏opposite ‎gender. No one protests this, but‏ ‏based on what I have written regarding‏ ‏attractive clothing, all ‎authorities agree‏ ‏that one may not do this with intent to‏ ‏resemble [the opposite gender]. R' ‎Yehudah Mintz already addressed this,‎‏ ‏saying that since this is done only for‏ ‏Purim joy, there is no ‎prohibition; it is like‏ ‏‎[a male] cutting the hair of an underarm or‎‏ ‏ervah to avoid pain. [Per Bach, a ‎male may‏ ‏not cut this hair for the sake of‏ ‏beautification. -‎‏ ‏MT]… In my humble opinion, R' Yehudah ‎Mintz's‏ ‏words are clearly overridden by those of R'‎‏ ‏Eliezer of Metz, who prohibited such dress‏ ‏even at weddings. We see that even when‏ ‏this is done for joy of a mitzvah, we do not‏ ‏compare it ‎to doing it in order to avoid pain[which is permitted]. Also, even doing it to‏ ‏avoid pain is permitted ‎only when there is no other way, but there are many other‏ ‏ways to create joy for a groom and ‎bride,‎‏ ‏and to celebrate Purim, without violating‏ ‏the prohibition of, \"A man shall not wear‏ ‏the ‎garment of a woman, etc.\" There is no‏ ‏doubt that R' Yehudah Mintz would not‏ ‏have written this, ‎had the words of R' Eliezer of Metz not been hidden from him.‎‏ ‏R' Yehudah Mintz also wrote that ‎since one‏ ‏may grab food from others on Purim‏ ‏without being charged with theft, one may‏ ‏also ‎alter his clothing. This is shocking;‎‏ ‏regarding financial matters we do rule,\"Beit din may declare ‎property‏ ‏ownerless\" (Gittin 36b), and so the latter‏ ‏day authorities have written that one‏ ‏should ‎not summon people to court for‏ ‏Purim theft if it is kept within the norms of‏ ‏the city, as established ‎by the city's‏ ‏leaders… but no court has the power to‏ ‏permit biblical or rabbinic prohibitions for‏ ‏the ‎sake of the mitzvah of Purim joy!...Further, these people wear‏ ‏shatnez!‎‏ ‏Further, this causes men ‎to be able to pass‏ ‏among women, and women among men, for‏ ‏the purpose of adultery! Further, it ‎is‏ ‏particularly bad when they cover their‏ ‏faces with masks to avoid recognition!‎‏ ‏All we can say in ‎this is, \"Leave Israel be;‎‏ ‏even invoke this principle regarding‏ ‏biblical prohibitions. However, every‏ ‏person who feels awe of heaven should‏ ‏instruct his household and those who‏ ‏listen to his voice, ‎lest they violate a‏ ‏prohibition on Purim or in gladdening a‏ ‏groom and bride. May blessing come to‏ ‏him, to remove stumbling blocks from‏ ‏the path of our nation, and no longer‏ ‏will they practice ‎inappropriate‏ ‏customs.‎"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ב\"ח",
+        "enTitle": "Bach",
+        "key": "Bach",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Bach/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,740 @@
+{
+    "title": "Bach",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Bach",
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And there are three further blessings, etc.. in Menachot 43b, and he brings the Ro\"sh and the Ri\"f in Berakhot 60b. And Rashi explains that an idol worshipper and a woman, since they are not commanded people, it is better to bless [on not being them?]. And in the Gemara a question is raised that there is no difference between a slave and a woman regarding mitzvot [...] and we teach that a slave is worse [and therefore Jewish men bless on both being free and being male]. And some question why it was not established \"Who made me Jewish\", like all the other blessings established about the kindness done for us, in the positive! As with \"who gave the heart understanding\", \"who clothes the naked\", \"who makes the blind see\", etc. And we explain according to the words of our rabbis of blessed memory: it would be better for man not to have been created, but since man has been created they should do <i>mitzvot</i> (Eruvin 13b). And this orients these blessings; one says \"I wish I had not been made [as the rabbis indicate]! But since I have been created I will bless God, who has not made me an idol worshipper or a slave or a woman.\" And it is nice to expound this, but there is no question here. Since if one had blessed \"Who made me a Jew\", one would not be able to bless \"Who made me free\" and \"Who made me a man\", for the language of \"Who made me a Jew [ישראל]\" includes the understanding of free, and also, Jew is a gendered word since women are called Jewess [ישראלית]. And if so, one would not bless three blessings but rather only one, and it was not the intent to shorten but rather to extend in praise and to bless God for every kindness individually. And because of this one blesses \"Who has not made me an idol worshipper\" and further on the kindness \"who has not made me a slave\" (who is worse) and further \"who has not made me a woman\". And the explanation of \"who has not made me an idol worshipper/slave/woman\" is that God did not by means of God's angel suffer the soul to descend into the body of an idol worshipper, slave, or woman, at the beginning of their creation. Because of this, the convert does not bless \"Who has not made me an idol worshipper\", and so writes the Beit Yosef, and  Abudarham who writes thus, see there, and the Rama\"h, that the convert is also unable to bless \"who made me Jewish\" since they entered into the Jewish religion by their own free will which God surrendered into human hand, and it's not appropriate to say that the Blessed One made them a convert, since they accepted the religion of Moshe and Israel. And so a convert blesses only two of these three blessings, who has not made me a slave and who has not made me a woman. And this is not like the note of the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote that a convert can bless \"Who has made me Jewish\", and it isn't."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And the same law applies to men and women, in that they are obligated in the Kiddush of the day. This is the wording of the Kol Bo and the explanation of Rosh - \"even to exempt others who do not know how to say the Kiddush on their own.\" The Bais Yosef brings this down and rules this way in Shulchan Arukh, but concerning Megillah (689)  he writes in Shulchan Arukh that women may not exempt men. An he writes according to the Behag that our rabbi brought there, who disagrees with Rashi who wrote that women may exempt men. And here, he ruled like Rashi, as brought down in the Kol Bo. And the authorities contradict one another, because it appears that there should be no difference between Kiddush and Megillah. According to my opinion, it is better to be more stringent regarding Kiddush, just like we are regarding Megillah, that women may not exempt men. I have seen this written as well by Maharshal."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "... It is written in Terumat haDeshen 119,‎‏ ‏‎“One should instruct them to give the‎‏ ‏chametz to the non-‎Jew outside the‏ ‏house,” indicating that the chametz‏ ‏itself must be outside the home. And so‏ ‏wrote Maharil, that the Jew should not‏ ‏be as one who is charged with holding‏ ‏the non-‎‎ Jew’s chametz‏ ‏‎…‎ ‎ In this land, where most commerce is in‏ ‏whisky and one cannot sell it to a non- Jew outside the ‎home, and especially for‏ ‏those who hold a license for selling‏ ‏liquor, there is room to permit sale to ‎a‏ ‏non-Jew of all chametz in the room, as‏ ‏well as the room itself.‎ However, since we rule that a non-Jew‏ ‏only acquires land with a deed and‏ ‏presentation of ‎payment (Kiddushin 14b), and it would be burdensome to‎‏ ‏write a deed, and because ‎this [presenting a deed] might also lead the‏ ‏non-Jew to hold the chametz and not‏ ‏reverse it since ‎he is holding a deed,‎‏ ‏which would involve great loss,‎‏ ‏therefore, one must make a condition‏ ‏with ‎the non-Jew. One should say to‏ ‏him, “I am assigning this room to you in‏ ‏exchange for the money ‎you are giving‏ ‏me, even though I have not recorded a‏ ‏deed for this sale.” This declaration will‏ ‏be ‎effective for this transaction, as per‏ ‏Choshen Mishpat 194‎‏ ‏‎…‎ ‎  Still, one must give the non-Jew the key‏ ‏as well. Otherwise, since the Jew‏ ‏intends to re-purchase ‎this chametz‏ ‏after Pesach, he would just be as one‏ ‏who has rented out his home‏ ‏‎… Further,‎‏ ‏since ‎the Jew holds the key and can‏ ‏enter the room and remove the chametz,‎‏ ‏the non-Jew does not ‎view it as a full‏ ‏sale‏ ‏‎…‎‏ ‏Certainly, the Jew may not place his seal on the room so that the non-Jewish ‎purchaser will not enter. Were one to do this, there would be no sale, for his deed – placing his ‎seal on the room –  would‏ ‏cancel the “I sell to you completely”‎‏ ‏declaration he makes to the non-‎Jew.‎‏ ‏One should compel and ex-communicate them for such conduct.‎"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One should take note of the Purim practice‏ ‏of men and women wearing clothing of the‏ ‏opposite ‎gender. No one protests this, but‏ ‏based on what I have written regarding‏ ‏attractive clothing, all ‎authorities agree‏ ‏that one may not do this with intent to‏ ‏resemble [the opposite gender]. R' ‎Yehudah Mintz already addressed this,‎‏ ‏saying that since this is done only for‏ ‏Purim joy, there is no ‎prohibition; it is like‏ ‏‎[a male] cutting the hair of an underarm or‎‏ ‏ervah to avoid pain. [Per Bach, a ‎male may‏ ‏not cut this hair for the sake of‏ ‏beautification. -‎‏ ‏MT]… In my humble opinion, R' Yehudah ‎Mintz's‏ ‏words are clearly overridden by those of R'‎‏ ‏Eliezer of Metz, who prohibited such dress‏ ‏even at weddings. We see that even when‏ ‏this is done for joy of a mitzvah, we do not‏ ‏compare it ‎to doing it in order to avoid pain[which is permitted]. Also, even doing it to‏ ‏avoid pain is permitted ‎only when there is no other way, but there are many other‏ ‏ways to create joy for a groom and ‎bride,‎‏ ‏and to celebrate Purim, without violating‏ ‏the prohibition of, \"A man shall not wear‏ ‏the ‎garment of a woman, etc.\" There is no‏ ‏doubt that R' Yehudah Mintz would not‏ ‏have written this, ‎had the words of R' Eliezer of Metz not been hidden from him.‎‏ ‏R' Yehudah Mintz also wrote that ‎since one‏ ‏may grab food from others on Purim‏ ‏without being charged with theft, one may‏ ‏also ‎alter his clothing. This is shocking;‎‏ ‏regarding financial matters we do rule,\"Beit din may declare ‎property‏ ‏ownerless\" (Gittin 36b), and so the latter‏ ‏day authorities have written that one‏ ‏should ‎not summon people to court for‏ ‏Purim theft if it is kept within the norms of‏ ‏the city, as established ‎by the city's‏ ‏leaders… but no court has the power to‏ ‏permit biblical or rabbinic prohibitions for‏ ‏the ‎sake of the mitzvah of Purim joy!...Further, these people wear‏ ‏shatnez!‎‏ ‏Further, this causes men ‎to be able to pass‏ ‏among women, and women among men, for‏ ‏the purpose of adultery! Further, it ‎is‏ ‏particularly bad when they cover their‏ ‏faces with masks to avoid recognition!‎‏ ‏All we can say in ‎this is, \"Leave Israel be;‎‏ ‏even invoke this principle regarding‏ ‏biblical prohibitions. However, every‏ ‏person who feels awe of heaven should‏ ‏instruct his household and those who‏ ‏listen to his voice, ‎lest they violate a‏ ‏prohibition on Purim or in gladdening a‏ ‏groom and bride. May blessing come to‏ ‏him, to remove stumbling blocks from‏ ‏the path of our nation, and no longer‏ ‏will they practice ‎inappropriate‏ ‏customs.‎"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Rambam wrote: since her husband was overseas etc the Shulhan Arukh [4:14] wrote that since it's a dispute the child is a safek mamzer nevertheless the Behag only deemed the child fit when the husband was not in our presence but if he was in our presence and he said that he did not arrive discreetly then the child is a mamzer and see ahead to the end of this sefer [in the kunters aharon]."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "The Bet Yosef writes, “One may ask [why the understanding isn’t] that [these are] three things through which the world was created that are sufficient for its continued existence? For one who causes something to exist all the more so [allows] for its continued existence! One may answer that Shimon HaTzaddik was speaking according to his times, when the Bet Hamikdash stood, and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who lived during the time of the destruction, came to say that even though the Bet Hamikdash no longer stands, and we cannot do the service, and we cannot even learn Torah and do acts of lovingkindness in the proper way because of the burdens of the exile, nevertheless, the world continues to exist through three other things that are similar to them…” It is clear from his words that he understood when Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, “The world stands…”, he meant that once it was created, the world had nothing keeping it in existence, and it would have returned to Tohu vaVohu chaos, once we had no service, and no Torah, and no acts of kindness in the proper way, if it were not for these three things: judgement, truth, and peace. And this is a wonderment, for isn’t it explicit in the words of Rabbi Yona that he holds as obvious that with these three things, which are the cause for the matter to be, all the more so its continued existence, that [the world] would not return to Tohu vaVohu chaos! Rather, the explanation is that when Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, “The world stands…”, he meant that civilized society stands [on these three things]. For the wicked who steal and rob destroy the world, meaning they destroy civilized society, because with robbery, commerce is made completely void, and consequently, civilized society is made void. And the judge breaks the jaws of the robbers and takes the stolen goods from them, preserving civilized society and community, that it shouldn’t be destroyed. And this is simple. The explanation of Rabbi Yona is that the explanation is not: It appears that he means to say that if it were that the explanation of it is that “Because of three things was the world created”, it would be difficult either way you look at it. For if he were arguing against Shimon HaTzaddik, who said that the world stands on three things, Torah, service, and acts of kindness, if that were true, the Tanna should have taught them together in one mishna, and indicating the argument. Rather, it must be that they are not arguing, and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was saying that because of these three things the world stands. And Shimon HaTzaddik was saying that once the world was created, it is preserved through these three things, Torah etc. And according to this it is not necessary that there be law in every place and every time, for the world is already preserved through Torah etc. But if this were true, it would be difficult, for why is it taught at the beginning of the chapter [of Avot] that there are three things that the world stands on once it had been created, and at the end of the chapter, it teaches that there are three things that because of them was the world created from the start. It should have been taught in the opposite order! Rather, the beginning of the chapter teaches that because of three things was the world created from the start, and the end of the chapter teaches that three things preserve the world which had already been created. This makes more sense, for there is no question about why [the explanation isn’t that] aren’t these three things that are enough to preserve the world so that it shouldn’t return to Tohu vaVohu chaos, for the fact that is says “which preserves the world” can be explained that even though it would not return to Tohu vaVohu chaos, nevertheless, civilized society and community would not be preserved, because of the wicked thieves and robbers, and any powerful person. But because of justice, truth, and peace, the community is preserved, as was explained. And accordingly our rabbi [the Tur] came to teach that it is a great mitzvah to appoint judges and officers in all places and all times, for through this the world is preserved. Therefore, he brought the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and the explanation of Rabbi Yona, and wrote at the end of his remarks that through judges who judge between man and his fellow, the world is preserved, for without justice, any powerful person… etc. And he said that this was the intention of the sages, all judgement should be the true law…etc. And that is because it fulfills the will of the Creator, Blessed be He, who created things to be preserved and not to be destroyed through the theft of the wicked, and he went on at length about this, and he concluded that for this reason are we obligated to appoint judges in the land of Israel in every province and city...etc. And this is only so the civilized world and community could be preserved to complete the will of our Creator, Blessed is His name."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash",
+            "http://www.torontotorah.com"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ב\"ח",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ב\"ח",
+        "enTitle": "Bach",
+        "key": "Bach",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Bach/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:d95b23c576c53304a30790ca39e8e4d5286059d2ad5a8c0d810eda3ee27223ce
+size 22178409

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Beit Yosef/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,1509 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Beit Yosef",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "I had the idea that after all the study I would decide the halacha and adjudicate between the various arguments. This is the purpose - for us to have a single Torah and standardized law. However, I realized that if I was to decide between the jurists using talmudical arguments and proofs - then Tosafot, Ramban, Rashba and Ran are full of such arguments and proofs in support of each position. Who is ready to come forward and add arguments and proofs? Who dares place his head between the mountains, mighty mountains, to decide between them using arguments and proofs to undo what they clarified or to decide what they left undecided. For on account of our many sins, our gray matter is too thin to understand their words and certainly not to place our wisdom above them. Even if we were able to trod such a path it would not be appropriate to do so as it is much too long.",
+            "Therefore I made up my mind that since there are three teachers upon whose teachings the House of Israel leans, behold they are the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh - I decided that where two of them agree on a law then we will decide the law like them - except for in a handful of places where all the Sages of Israel or most dispute their view and/or a contrary custom has spread."
+        ],
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "One should be very careful with The blessings of Torah. As it is introduced in the last chapter of Masechet Nedarim (81A) - \"Why are Torah scholars not meriting to have children who are Torah scholars? ",
+                    "Ravina says: Because they do not recite the berachot of the Torah from the beginning. This refers to the beginning of their daily Torah study. Since Torah scholars are busy studying and accustomed to it, they are not careful to bless properly. Therefore, their blessing is not established. As it says, and we along with our children should be learning Torah. This is how it is explained. "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "The Ba'al HaManhig wrote, \"If one who reads or chants Torah and makes a mistake it is better to not correct their mistake in public etc.\" Because even though they erred, they are still yotzei from [their obligation of] reading. For it comes in a midrash that if one reads \"Aaron\" as \"Aron\" they are yotzei. The Tosafot wrote in \"Ein Mamidin\" (Avodah Zara 22b) an explanation; that even though one did not pronounce the alef [his standard over me is love, SHS 2:4]. The Ri wrote, my friend, his memory be a blessing, this is what he wrote, \"That if one who reads errs, we do not make him return to it.\" This is difficult for what was written above in the name of the Rosh, that the public is not yotzei in the reading of one who does not know. And it should be said that this is \"b'deiavad\" [i.e. after a reader made an error] and the Rosh’s words speak of \"l'khatchilah\" [i.e. when a reader doesn’t know how to read it correctly]. It should also be said that what the Ba'al HaManhig wrote is about an error that doesn’t include a change to the meaning, while the words of the Rosh refer to [an error] in te’amim which are the meaning of the pasuk itself."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And in any event, the money retains its holiness, which is to say that even though the village people are permitted to sell their synagogue, in any event the proceeds retain their holiness and the people are not permitted to reduce their holiness level, as I have explained.  And the reason is that we were considering  city residents who sold without knowledge of their Parnasim, but if the 7 Tovei HaIr agreed with the sale and it was in a Maamad of the people of the city, then they are permitted to use the money for anything they want to, as I will explain later."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "As for [eating] meat after cheese, that is permitted immediately etc. (Talmud Chullin 105a). /    If it is day and one can see that his hands are clean, he does not need to clean them.  This is clear in the Chapter of \"All Meat\"/Kol HaBassar (Chullin 104b).  Rabbi Yitzchak (Ri) wrote that the same rule applies at night: If he has an effective lamp, he does not need to clean (his hands).  However, our master (the Tur) in Yoreh Deah chapter 89 wrote in the name of Rabbenu Peretz that \"one must wash his hands even by day, since there are times that the cheese is greasy and clings to the moistness of the hands without one's being aware.\"  Hagahot Maimoniot wrote similarly in the name of Sefer Mitzvot Katan (SeMaK).   Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit that the reason that it is permitted to eat meat after cheese immediately is because the cheese if soft and does not linger between the teeth.  Hagahot Maimoniot wrote similarly.  / Yet there are those who practice a personal stringency not to eat meat after cheese at one meal because it is written in the Book of the Zohar in the Portion of Mishpatim (Zohar 2:125a:9) as follows:  \"We have found that [after] one consumes these foods [=milk and meat] together either at the same time [שעתא] or at the same meal, for forty days a kid roasted with its skin appears to those above.  An impure company come near him, causing judgments to be aroused in the world, judgments that are not holy.  If he begets a child during these days, it is lent a soul from the Other Side [=Sitra Achara], which is not holy.\" / The Mordechai has already written that Maharam [of Rothenburg] had a personal practice not to eat the meat of domesticated or wild animals after cheese, because once, between one meal and another, he found cheese between his teeth.  He decreed a stringency for himself.  This is not considered dissenting with the Talmud and is not in the category of 'adding which is subtracting,' for we find in the Chapter of Kol HaBasar \"I am in this respect like vinegar derived from wine...(for while my father waited a day after eating meat before eating mik, I only wait from one meal to the next).\"  Everyone may be strict with himself in order to effect a defense (against sin).  He was not lenient [the text should read: lenient] in regard to fowl (after cheese), since cheese and fowl may be eaten without restraint.  / It is certain that he [=Maharam], may his memory be a blessing, did not see the Zohar.  Nevertheless, he practiced a personal stringency on account of an event that happened.  Although he was lenient with fowl, that is because he had not seen the Zohar.  As for us, who have merited to see it, it is good and proper to be strict even with the meat of fowl."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "Our rabbis taught in a baraita, “A person may not rent his vessels to a non-jew on the eve of the Sabbath,” etc. This is from the first chapter of Shabbat (19a). But Alfasi omitted it. Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Nissim wrote that he had done so because he had concluded that this baraita had its origins in a position of Beit Shamai. For they said that a person must allow their vessels to rest [on the Sabbath]. But as for us, we who follow the opinion of Beit Hillel that a person is not obliged to rest their vessels [on the Sabbath, we hold that] it is permitted even on the eve of the Sabbath. This is also the opinion of Maimonides. For he wrote in the 6 chapter that it is permitted to lend and rent out one's vessels to a non-Jew even though he will perform prohibited labor with them on the Sabbath, since we are not obliged to rest our vessels. However, the opinion of the authors of the Tosafot, Rabbenu Asher, Rabbenu Nissim, and Rabbenu Zachariah Ha-Levi was that [this baraita] had its origins in a position of both [Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel]. And the same was written by the authors of the Sefer Mitzvot Qatan, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, the Sefer Ha-Yashar, and the annotations of the Mordecai to the first chapter of tractate Shabbat. And they wrote--may their memories be for a blessing-- that the reason for the prohibition is that it appears as if a person is taking monetary recompense on the Sabbath. However on Wednesday or Thursday it is permitted, but only by the principle of subsumption. If, for example, they rented [the vessel] to them for a year, or for a month. Daily-term rental is prohibited even on a Wednesday or a Thursday. And this is in accordance with the teaching in a baraita at the end of Pereq Ha-Zahav (B. Bava Metzia  58a)  regarding one who hires a worker to watch his cow or his child. For even if the hire was made on the principle of subsumption, it is nonetheless prohibited on the eve of the Sabbath because of the appearance of the thing. Since it is so near and so proximate that it looks as if he is hiring them for the Sabbath itself. Therefore, even though a Jewish [renter] is permitted on the basis of the subsumption of a week’s time or a month’s, a gentile [renter] is prohibited."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "One who extinguishes a lamp out of fear of the gentiles, etc. The Mishnah in chapter \"With What do We Light? (Shabbat 29b)\" reads: \"One who extinguishes a lamp because he fears the gentiles, because of bandits, because of an evil spirit, or so that a sick person may sleep is exempt.\" The Gemara explains (31b) that the Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yehudah, who said that a melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah incurs a sin offering, and that the Mishnah refers to a sick person in mortal danger. Then, it would make sense for the Mishnah to say \"allowed (instead of 'exempt').\" Since the end of the Mishnah needed to teach \"incurs a sin offering,\" the beginning of the Mishnah taught \"exempt.\" But if the sick person is not in mortal danger, extinguishing a lamp for them incurs a sin offering. But according to Rabbi Shimon, doing this for a sick person in mortal danger is permitted, and a for a sick person not in mortal danger, one is exempt, as he holds that we are exempt from penalty when we perform a melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah. Our rabbis rule like Rabbi Shimon, and according to the Ramban, as the Ran wrote at the end of Tractate Shabbat, and he, of blessed memory, said so in chapter \"One who Hides....\" (chapter 10), that he holds like Rabbi Shimon. The Rambam wrote in Chapter 1 of Hilchot Shabbat (Mishneh Torah) that this is the opinion of the later rabbis, but the Rambam himself ruled like Rabbi Yehudah. In accordance with the Rif, the Ran wrote in the tenth chapter of Tractate Shabbat that he holds like Rabbi Shimon....and this is the opinion of Rashba, and even though from what he wrote in the third chapter, it seems that he holds like Rabbi Yehudah."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And regarding cooked food Rabbi Meir holds if done not extra permitted even on the same day (on shabbat)"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The Rav Ephraim wrote that they are forbidden even though they did not split. The same is written there by the Rosh. And the Ran wrote regarding soaking the opinion of the Ra'ah that the measure of splitting only applies to barley, but wheat since it has slits, that is a fissure in the wheat grains, it is considered as if they are split. And he (the Ran) wrote that he does not agree. And regarding the boat that sank, he (the Ra'ah) wrote that the reason they don't distinguish between split and unsplit is because it is wheat, and for wheat one does not need splitting. These are the words of the Ra'ah. But as I (the Ran) wrote above that some of the grains were split, and we are concerned that perhaps they will be sold to Jews, and they will not be informed. Or, perhaps the non-Jew will grind them, and then sell the flour to the Jews. Until here the words of the Ran. And the Ha'ga (?) wrote in Perek 5 in the name of the Re'em (?) that one one needs splitting by soaking, where there is less water, but with excessive resting, even if they are not split they are forbidden. And Rabenu Yerucham wrote in the name of the Sar Mekutsi (Count of Coucy) according to the words of the Ra'ah, and also the Ha'ga in Perek 5 in the name of the Rirsv\"a. But the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam is that there is no difference between Wheat and barley, and this is how we rule. "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And even if one has only enough for sufficient sustenance for two meals, one should sell them in order to purchase [sufficient] wine for four cups etc. At the beginning of the chapter Arvei Fesachim (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim, Ch. 10, 99a), we are taught in the Mishnah: One should not have fewer than four cups of wine, and that is even if [one's finances are accumulated] via the communal donation-pot. And our Rabbi teaches, just as RaShBam taught in his commentary on \"even if one's finances are accumulated via the communal donation-pot of charity,\" that this is the poorest among poor people--and if the charity-collectors have not given to that person, that person should sell their clothing or loan or rent out their very self for the sake of wine for the four cups. And the Mordokhai wrote in his commentary that this is regarding [only] one who has sustenance for two meals, and we [do] say: One who has [sufficient sustenance for] two meals should not collect from the communal donation-pot, and, if [that person additionally does] not [have sufficient finances] for four cups, one would not be required to collect from the communal donation-pot. And for the sake of [the] four cups, it said, the charity-collectors should give to that person charity, even from the communal donation-pot, and thus is the teaching in the Jerusalem Talmud."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "An individual whose friend has not blown shofar may blow shofar for them etc. This is a baraita in the second chapter of Tractate Rosh HaShana (34b): \"An individual whose friend has not blown shofar may blow for them and an individual who has not made a blessing, their friend may not make a blessing for them.\" And the RA\"N wrote, \"'Their friend may not make a blessing for them,' meaning that although we say that all of blessings, even though you have already made them, you can still make them for others, they already excluded from this rule, in Tractate Berachot, in the Jerusalem Talmud, the blessing after meals, and the  reading of Shema and the daily prayers. And the reason for the daily prayers is because it makes sense that everybody should ask for mercy for themselves. However, this refers to a person who knows how to make the blessing. But if they do not know how to make the blessing, their friend can make it for them. As it says in the chapter, \"Three who ate together\"(45a), \"If one is a scholar and one is an ignoramous, the scholar makes the blessing and the ignoramous get's credit.\" And this is written in the Mordechai and in the Haghot Asheri at the end of the first chapter of Tractate Rosh HaShana. And this is not according to the position of the RI\"Z Giat and Rav Shrira which our Master (the Tur) wrote."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "“What is Hanukkah? The Sages taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev… they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest…” (Shabbat 21a). One could ask – so what if it was sealed with the seal of the High Priest? We may be able to claim that even if it were touched from the outside it remains pure (because clay vessels only become impure from the inside not the outside), but nonetheless we must be concerned that it was tipped and thus became impure. The Tosafot addressed this difficulty by saying that if these events took place after the Sages had decreed all idolaters to have the impurity of a bodily issue, then we must say that it was placed in the ground and sealed in such a fashion that the vessel could not be tipped. The same seems true in the words of Rashi who wrote “with the seal, meaning that it was hidden away and sealed with his ring and thus recognizably untouched.” The Ran answered this problem by saying that if they had found it and tipped it, they would have broken it open to see if it held gold or jewels. Therefore, since it was found sealed with the seal of the High Priest it was certainly not found by the defilers. It is possible that this was Rashi’s intent as well when he wrote that it was ‘recognizably untouched.’: The reason that it was necessary to use that one jar of oil to light for eight days is that all of Israel were presumed to have the impurity of contact with the dead and it was therefore impossible to prepare pure oil until seven days had passed from they day of their defilement. Add to this one more day for crushing and preparing the olives to produce pure oil and you have eight. The Ran writes that there was pure oil four days away, and that they therefore needed eight days to go there and back. One could ask why they established an eight day celebration at all. After all, since there was enough oil in the sealed jar to light for one night then the miracle actually was for seven nights. One could answer that they divided the oil they found into eight parts and placed one portion in the menorah each night, which nonetheless burned until morning. Thus a miracle occurred every night. Further you could say that after they filled the menorah on the first night the jar remained full of oil as it was in the beginning, and thus the miracle was recognizable even on the first night. Alternatively, they poured all the oil into the menorah on the first night and though the candles burned all night they found them still full of oil in the morning, and so it happened each night."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "As to the Tur's mention of lighting a Channukah candle in the synagogue, it seems to me that this was instituted for guests who did not have their own home to light a candle in, just as Kiddush was instituted in the synagogues for those guests who ate and drank in the synagogue. This is the reason given by the Kolbo, who also brought another reason: in order to publicise the miracle before the entire people, and to recite the blessings together. This is an enormous public declaration for the Holy One, and a sanctification of God's name, to be blessed in large groups. The Rivash added: the custom to light candles in the synagogue is ancient, because of publicising the miracle, and because we were not able to light individually at home as a result of the oppression of the gentiles. We bless over this just as we recite the blessing over Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, even though it is only a <i>minhag</i>. However, this lighting in the synagogue isn't a fulfilment of the mitzvah, and each person should go and light at home."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "\"And so too if it stood in it for one day, for pickling is like cooking.\" This is explained in 105:4. And it seems from our rabbi's words that, according to Rif and Rambam, even a stomach salted with its milk or it stood for many days would be permitted to make cheese out of, since it is not milk but excrement, and we have no difference between congealed or clear. And for Rabbenu Tam also regarding congealed. This also is implied from the response of Rabbenu Shimshon that the Mordekhai brought: \"The taste that comes out of the meat becomes excrement when it is absorbed in the stomach, and the reason is because there is not enough power in the taste that receives this excrement from the skin to join afterwards with full milk, which from it comes cheese, such that the taste of meat is carried with it and it becomes afterwards meat and milk. For behold the fish that receive the flavour of meat are allowed to combine them afterwards with milk—all the more so this which is excrement and a small amount. For there is no strength to receive the flavour of meat and to transfer this flavour with it to join it with the milk of the cheese that comes out of it to become then meat and milk. For this is less effective than secondary flavour transfer (נ״ט בר נ״ט wrt the fish) because it is only excrement. But Rabbenu Yeruham wrote: There is someone who wrote that, even according to the opinion of the Geonim, if the keivah is salted in the stomach that it is forbidden to make this into cheese, for even though it is merely excrement, regardless it already took the taste of meat, and when it is made into cheese it will be meat and milk, and this seems correct.\" This also what the Mordekhai wrote in the name of Avi Ha-Ezri and the Sefer Ha-Terumah. He [Mordekhai] also wrote: \"There is someone who wrote that, if the milk stood for many days in the stomach to dry—if it dried it is forbidden, for this is like pickling which is like salting (all the more so if they made cheese with smoke to dry it out for this is like the keivah that is salted in its skin). But this is not because of meat and milk, since we already said that meat and milk, even if it waited all day it is fine, but rather for the reason that it is the keuvah of nevelah or treifah, or because of what I wrote that even though the keivah is just excrement, regardless it takes flavour of the skin and it becomes meat and milk.\" But for the purposes of halakhah, even according to us who hold by the Rif and the Rambam, there are those who are strict to not make cheese with the milk of the stomach that was salted in its stomach, or that stood in it for a day. However, if it was already curdled, bedi'avad it is enough to rely on the lenient opinions. It is written in the Shibbolei Ha-Leket: \"The stomach lining that they salt and dry and fill it with milk—it is permitted, since when the skin is dried it becomes nothing more than wood and there is no moisture of meat.\" We teach at the end of PKhB: \"One who makes cheese with the skin of the stomach, if there is enough to impart flavour—it is forbidden.\" And the Rashba wrote: \"This is surprising to me since it teaches something obvious, for meat and milk always has the law of if it imparts flavour it is forbidden! Perhaps it is teaching us that it is only if it imparts flavour that it is forbidden and because of meat and milk. But if it did not impart flavour it would be permitted, even though it is curdling—the Torah hooks meat and milk upon flavour, as Rava says above, 'The way of cooking the Torah forbids.' But this is not true for curdling in the skin of nevelah, for we go after the curdling even if there is no imparted flavour, we see it as if the nevelah were in in front of us.\" So too wrote the Ran there and in chapter 2 of Avodah Zarah in the name of R. Yosef Ha-Levi on what Shmuel said: \"Why did they forbid non-Jewish cheese? Because they curdle it with nevelah stomach skin\": \"The reason he mentioned \"nevelah stomach skin\" is because it itself would be forbidden—since it is the source of curdling, it would not be nullified. But kosher stomach skin, which is permitted by itself and there is nothing forbidden unless combined with milk, it is not possible to say this, therefore whenever it does not impart flavour it is not meat and milk, rather this stands on its own and this stands on its own.\" And so are the words of the Rambam that wrote in Hilkhot Ma'akhlot Asurot 3:13: \"In the days of the mishnaic sages, they decreed against non-Jewish cheese and forbade it because they curdle it with the stomach skin of their slaughtered animals, i.e. nevelah. And if you say: But isn't the skin of the stomach a small thing against the large amount of milk it stands with? Why wouldn't it be nullified? Because it curdles the cheese, and since it is a forbidden item that did the curdling the whole thing is forbidden.\" And in 9:15 he wrote: \"It is forbidden to curdle cheese with the skin of the stomach of a slaughtered animal. But if one did so—they taste the cheese; if there is the flavour of meat it is forbidden, but if not it is permitted, since the curdling was something which was forbidden—the stomach of a slaughtered animal—and there is nothing forbidden other than meat and milk which is measured with imparting flavour. However, one who curdles with the skin of a nevelah stomach or terefah or non-kosher animal, since the curdling was a thing that was forbidden by itself, the cheese becomes forbidden because of nevelah, and not because of meat and milk. And it was because of this concern that they forbade the cheese of non-Jews, as I explained.\" From these words, what Rabbenu Yeruham wrote is clarified: \"The law of the keivah and its skin to curdle with it cheese, the skin of the stomach is obviously forbidden whether from a kosher animal or nevelah according to everyone because it is meat and milk. And if one curdled it, a non-Jew should taste it. But there is someone who wrote that curdling cheese is not nullified, and this seems right. And so too wrote the Rambam: 'Therefore, they forbade non-Jewish cheese because they curdle it with the skin of the stomach'. It appears from his words that for the Rambam, curdling with kosher skin would also not be nullified.\" But this is not true, since the Rambam did not write this but rather curdling with the stomach skin of a *forbidden* animal, while curdling with the stomach skin of a *kosher* animal is with imparting flavour, as our mishnah taught. The Mordekhai wrote: \"Even though Rabbenu Tam wrote that curdling only forbids in 60:1 ratio, he did not say this for practical purposes, for it is possible to dismiss his evidence, that even when there is in the milk more than 60:1 against the forbidden item, since the forbidden item curdles—it imparts flavour.\" The Mordekhai wrote: \"About the keivah that they curdled with much milk and made cheese with it, but it was found after a while in the bag that the keivah was given a bit [of flavour] from the intestines, and Rabbenu Shimshon permitted the cheeses, and went on at length regarding the reasons. But Rabbenu Barukh permitted for a different reason, that one assumes it did not curdle all of the milk from the clear milk but rather also from the congealed, and then it is two things that combine to be permitted.\" The Mordekhai also wrote in the name of Rabbenu Shimshon:  Who knows if the cheeses are [not] considered to be like the piece of meat that is appropriate to give honour with, and if it is known that one of them was made from the forbidden keivah it would forbid all the others?\" It is written in the Hagahat Ashiri in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah: \"It is possible to be doubtful about the meat and milk that the sages forbade (such as that waited cold more than one day, or was salted) if they are forbidden to benefit or not. And the one who permits benefit—they do not prevent them too much, for there is not evidence to forbid it.\" And so too wrote the Mordekhai in chapter 2 of Avodah Zarah."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>The Laws of <i>Niddah</i></b><br>\"When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days\" (Leviticus 15:19). Our sages learnt from explication of the verses that not all blood flows render the discharger impure, but specifically those of uterine blood (a braita from Torat Kohanim). The Ri\"f writes in the second chapter of Tractate Shevuot, and the Rosh at the end of Niddah, and this is his language: \"'When a woman has a discharge' (ibid.) -- I could have thought any flow of blood would be impure. The Torah teaches therefore 'he has uncovered the source [uterus] of her blood' (Leviticus 20:18) -- teaching regarding the blood that it speaks only of uterine blood.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And that which is written, \"not all blood which comes from the uterus is impure, only five specific kinds of blood\", is a gezeira shava: \"It could be that all appearances of discharge will be impure? But to contradict this, the Torah teaches \"blood\" -- and blood is only red. When it says \"her bloods\", it teaches that many bloods are impure -- the red, the black, the saffron-hued, the muddy-water coloured, and the colours of mixed wine. The meaning is in chapter \"every hand\" (Niddah 19a), since it says \"her bloods\" \"her bloods\", behold there are four types. An explanation: since it says \"and she revealed the source of her bloods\" (Leviticus 20:18), behold there are two here. \"And she will be pure from the source of her bloods\" (Leviticus 12:7), behold there are two here. Behold four; and are there not five? We teach: this black is only faded red."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And that which is written \"And even with these she does not become impure until she senses the discharge of blood\" in chapter \"The woman who sees a stain\" (Niddah 57b). Shmuel says, she checks earth [and finds it blood-free] and sits on it and finds blood upon it, she is pure, as it says \"in her flesh\" - until she senses it in her flesh."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "It is a positive commandment to write the portion of Shema, and it is to be found in the mizuzah of the door, as it is written and written, etc. In the chapter on the kitz (28), two passages in the mezuzah impede each other and even write one of the impediments and interpretations of the verse. Spelling and writing on the mezuzot of your home, etc.:"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "It is imperative to be very careful in the same way as the one who has tefillin on his head and his arm, etc. And a mezuzah on his mouth is held for him not to sin, etc. Chapter 34:"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And all who warned him would prolong his days and the days of his sons, etc. The sages also demanded that a mezuzah be given to his sons and daughters as small dead on the second day of Leviticus (Lev."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And greater than the house kept by her, etc. Food warned her to prolong his days and days in New York Kai and Aguatar preferred person longevity from the house maintenance because the length of days is a hidden miracle and the preservation of the house is a miracle revealed in other homes that do not have a mezuzah Nzukin Hadar in a house that has a mezuzah Ie, keeping the house large, because the house is a royal custom of the BW, which is inside and its servants keep it from the outside Kriya large:"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "A male slave who was immersed [by his Jewish master] for the purpose of becoming a [Canaanite] slave is prohibited to an Israelite woman, and an Israelite man is prohibited to a female slave who was immersed [by her Jewish master] for the purpose of becoming a [Canaanite] female slave, regardless of whether she was his slave or another's [slave] this is obvious."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "Regarding what the Tur writes: However, after his master frees him, or abandons him, or lays phylacteries on him, or if his master was a prayer leader and called him to go up to the Torah [ for an aliyah] behold he comes like an Israelite in all matters. This is in Perek HaSholeah (Gittin 40a) where we say one who abandons his slave [the slave] goes free and we say that if his master lays phylacteries on him he goes free and there it is also taught that the same is true if his master was a prayer leader and called him to go up to the Torah [ for an aliyah] that he [the slave] also goes free nevertheless there is reason to wonder why our master [the Tur] wrote that he is like an Israelite in every regard that teacher that he [the freed slave] is permitted to marry an Israelite woman for regarding one who abandons his slave in the Gemara over there we says that the [freed slave] requires a bill of manumission and regarding his master laying phylacteries on him or his master instructing him to read [his aliyah] from the Torah Maimonides writes that he he requires a bill of manumission and our master wrote his [Maimonides'] words in the Tur Yoreh Deah Cap. 267 and since a bill of manumission is a sine qua non how is he allowed to [marry] an Israelite daughter? We may answer that he [the Tur] is of the opinion that whenever [the Talmud] says he [the slave] goes free and needs a bill of manumission he is allowed to marry an Israelite daughter on account of the reason that the Rosh wrote there regarding one who marrys off his slave and I will write his words below and I will write that on this matter the Ramah disagrees."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "What [the Tur]: ...but if he lay phylacteries in the presence of his master or called him or read the Torah in his presence [during an aliyah] he does not go out to freedom this is a Baraita there (Gittin 40a) in Perek HaSholeah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "What [the Tur] writes: If his master married him off to an Israelite woman or even if he married an Israelite woman in the presence of his master, the betrothal takes effect etc ibid [Gittin 40a]: Rabbi Zeira says: In the case of a slave who marries a free woman in the presence of his master, he is emancipated. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him Rabbi Zeira: You possess such an extreme halakha, but I teach this halakha: With regard to one who writes a document of betrothal for his maidservant, stating: You are hereby betrothed to me, Rabbi Meir says: She is betrothed, and the Rabbis argue and say: She is not betrothed, here the context of Rabbi Zeira’s statement is not that of a slave who married a woman in his master’s presence but a case where the slave’s master himself provided a wife for him [as this is certainly proof that he had emancipated him. The Gemara questions this answer:] Is there anything like this, where for his slave he would not violate a prohibition[, and by providing a wife for his slave he indicates that he must have emancipated the slave,] but he himself might violate the prohibition[, as he is suspected of marrying his maidservant without having freed her]? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he said to the maidservant when he gave her the document of betrothal: Become emancipated with this and become betrothed to me with this. Rabbi Meir holds that this formulation written in the document of betrothal: You are hereby betrothed to me, contains a formulation of emancipation and therefore serves both as a bill of manumission and a document of betrothal. And the Rabbis hold: This formulation is not a formulation of emancipation. The Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh conclude with that which R. Zeira said: not only this but we forces his master to write for him a bill of manumission and the Rosh explains that the reason we require him [to write] a bill of manumission is to prevent the master from claiming \"I did not emancipate him him and he is my slave\" and certainly we we follow the intelligent estimate that certainly he emancipated him and we release him [the slave] from him [the master] and he is permitted to marry a free woman since he [the Talmud] did not say that he is prohibited to his wife until he [the master] frees him and the Ramah did not explain it this way until here is hi  [ the Rosh's] language. The words of the one who disagrees with this our master wrote in the Tur Yoreh Deah Cap. 267 but here he presented his words anonymously according to the opinion of the Rosh. There is reason to question what he wrote that in a case where he [the slave] married in the presence of his master the rule is the same as when his master marries him off to a woman for behold in the Gemara it suggests that only when his master marries him off to a woman because had he not emancipated him he would not have done a prohibition with his slave to marry him off to woman but when the slave marries in his master's presence he does not go free and this is what the Rif and the Rosh write explicitly and so to did our master the Tur in Yoreh Deah Cap. 267 Maybe it is possible to suggest that [the slave who marries in the presence of his master] does not go free nevertheless, regarding the prohibition of a married woman, we are concerned for had he not emancipated him he would not have allowed him to do a prohibition in his presence and therefore we says his betrothal works on her because of uncertainty and according to this it is prohibited for him to remain with her until [his master] emancipates him nevertheless his words are very unclear and require study."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Rambam wrote regarding a woman whose husband went overseas and she gave birth behold her child is assumed to have the status of a mamzer that means to stay if he [the husband] stayed there more then twelve months for the child does not remain in its mother's womb for more than twelve months [as Rambam recorded] in Cap. XV of laws of Issurei Biah and the reason is taught in the Cap. Ha'arel [Yevamot] 80b the action taken by Rava Tosfa’a concerning a woman whose husband went overseas and her baby was delayed in her womb for the twelve months of the year following her husband’s departure, and Rava Tosfa’a rendered the child fit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "Regarding what our master the Tur wrote in the name of the Behag that the child is not presumed to have the status of a mamzer for we attribute it to the possibility that maybe her husband arrived [home] discreetly and copulated [with her] and the Rosh wrote this [too] at the beginning of the Cap. Asara Yuchsin [in Kiddushin 4:7] and it appears from his words that the view of the Behag does not appear [to be correct] to him and see what I wrote at the end of this Tur [meaning Even Haezer #178] and Teshuvot Maimuni re. Sefer Nashim [#25] and the Hagahot Mordechai to Yevamot Cap. 9 [#121-122]."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "...It is written in Orchot Chaim that Rav Natronai wrote of a kohen who married a divorced woman, or any one of the woman invalid to him, and they excommunicated him two or three times, and he has not left her, and he says, I don’t want to be a kohen: We excommunicate him forever until he separates from her and divorces her, as we say (Yevamot 88b) “he is holy against his will”. And in another responsum of the Gaon he required him to separate, and we make an announcement regarding him that other kohanim should separate from him, so that it won’t be casual to them. And they require him to be excommunicated until he spearates from her, and they whip him. And if we suspect that he will go to a different place and perform the spreading his hands [i.e. birkat kohanim], we chop off the ends of his fingers, establishing blemishes in him, so that he can’t spread his hands...\n"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And the Rosh wrote that today we do not write in the deed that it be written in the markets (per the Talmud Baba Batra 40b:) but these words were not written for Halakha for now it seems they contradict each others. In the beginning he wrote \"today we do not write in the deed that it be written in the markets\" seems to indicate that they did not write this phrase in the deeds. And afterwards close by he wrote that the custom is to write this phrase in all gift deeds. But the language used by the Rosh is not difficult, for it is as if he wrote \"today we are not concerned about deeds that don't include the phrase, because the custom is to include the phrase in all gift deeds\". And this is what he writes later \"today when we are not concerned about deeds that don't include the phrase\" meaning we are not concerned that the one giving the gift did not use the phrase when instructing the witnesses, and we do not require him to say this phrase, because the custom is include the phrase in writing in all gift deeds. Thus when he instructs the witnesses it is understood that he wants them to write it properly (which means including the phrase). And this explanation seems better because these are also the words of Tosafot there (Baba Batra 40b): \"It is difficult to the Ri that we rule that we are concerned when the phrase is missing, and if so how do we approve of all gifts since the giver never tells the witnesses to write the deed in a public place, but since the custom today is to include in the written deed this phrase (it was written in the market and signed in public) therefore we say that in the verbal instructions he also had the same intentions as those written in the deed. And in the days of the Amoraim they did nit have the custom to include the phrase in writing, therefore the giver had to explicitly say the phrase when instructing the witnesses.\" However, Rabenu (the Tur) who wrote in the name of the Rosh: \"today we do not write in the deed that it be written in the markets\" we should not use the second explanation, but the first explanation. And Tosafot further wrote there: \"And Rabenu Chanan'el wrote that the giver told the witnesses not to sit in the outside market, and considers this to be the unspecified case, because he did not tell them neither to hide nor to publicize and that is considered unspecified, meaning not to publicize nor hide. But if he just instructs the witnesses to hide (without further details) that is not considered unspecified and is valid according to Rabenu Chanan'el. Therefore the custom to write the phrase in the written gift deeds only improves the deed (but it would be valid without it). However, the word unspecified does not seem to mean this.\" And this is what Rav Yonah wrote: \"If the giver instructs the witnesses to write the gift deed with all embellishments, this includes asking them to include the phrase, but it is better if the witnesses clarify this explicitly with the giver. The Ramban wrote that even though our deeds include many embellishments, they are worthless if they do not include all the rabbinical requirements as explained by Rabenu Tam and Rav Yonah, because the scribes write them properly as we explained, and the giver wants they testify in writing that he is gifting with a full heart, and it appears from his words that this should be widely taught\". And these are further words of the Ramban: \"The conclusion is that we are concerned about a concealed gift for unspecified deeds. And there are those who say that our deeds given that they are written with all embellishments they write them and publicize them, because the scribes benefit, and we do not agree\". And the Ran (Ketubot 78a) wrote: \"The Rif wrote in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on that we are not normally concerned with wills that do not include a (publicity) clause. It is an everyday event that we remove assets, for it is a mitzvah at a time of death, through gifts, and transfers are completed, and we are not concerned that they do not include a publicity clause. And he further wrote that a person on his deathbed who says do  not publicize this request until after I die, is not considered a concealed gift, for since it will be carried out after his death, at that time it was not concealed, for he told the witnesses that after he dies it will be revealed, and clearly it will be revealed, for he told them that after his death they should do what is in the will, and there is no need to be concerned with a concealed gift.\" And we have to deduce that since we conclude to be concerned about a concealed gift, how can Rav Hai Ga'on not be concerned about an unspecified deed.  And the Rif agrees with him! But from the words of the Rosh it seems that he believes that the reasoning of Rav Hai Ga'on is because the custom was to include a written phrase in the gift deeds. As this is what he meant when the Rosh wrote that today we are not concerned about unspecified deeds because there is a custom to include the phrase in all gift deeds. And these are the same words used by Rav Hai Ga'on \"today we are not concerned about unspecified deeds\". But this is still difficult because Rav Hai Ga'on and the Rif should have explained themselves by giving the reasoning and not be mute. To me it seems that Rav Hai Ga'on and the Rif only said \"today we are not concerned about unspecified deeds\" when dealing with death related gifts. And this is also the view of the Rambam in Perek 9 of Hilchot Zechiya Umatana Halakha 2: \"If he (a person on his deathbed) commands due to death he does not have to say make the gift public. Even though it is written unspecified (without an explicit clause to publicize the gift) we are not concerned that it is a concealed gift.\" And possibly the reason for this, is that the reason for concealed gifts is that he is not willingly giving  but only to endear himself to the recipient. For a gift due to death we don not have to be concerned about this, for he will be dead, and it makes no difference if the recipient likes him or not. Or also, just like Shimon Shizuri allowed in the case of a person in danger who says to write a divorce for his wife, to write and give the divorce, because of his preoccupation he did not say write and give, here also because of his preoccupation he did not say write it in the market. And that which the Rif wrote in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on: \"A person on his deathbed who says not to publicize a wish (to give a gift) until after he dies, the Rosh and the Tur in (Choshen Mishpat) Siman 253 and the Rambam in Perek 9 of Hilchot Zechiya Umatana, specify that it is a valid gift as long as he instructed the gift to be public after his death, if he instructs to hide the gift then it is not. And this is what the Rambam meant when  he wrote in Perek 5, Halacha 1: \"If one presents a gift, whether in a state of good health or in illness, it should be open and publicized.\" The Ran wrote: \"Rav Yehuda said that a concealed gift deed is not used in a transaction. Since it says it is not used, and it does not say it is worthless, it means that we don't use it because perhaps he does not mean it, but if the recipient already has the goods, or shows it him and he does not object, the deed is good, because the giver reveals that he did not intend to conceal the gift, but a full intention to give the gift. And this is the ruling of the Rif\". and the Nemuke Yosef and the Ramban wrote the same. And I already wrote about this earlier. "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One who finds a lost object is only obligated to announce something that has an identifying mark on itself, or when its location is fitting to give as an identifying mark, etc.; or if he gives an identifying mark in its knots or its amount, etc.: It is explained in the chapter [entitled] Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 21a) that one is not obligated to announce [the finding of] anything that does not have an identifying mark. And this is an obvious thing; for what is the purpose of announcing [it], when there is no identifying mark by which to return it......"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And that which he wrote, \"But if it does not have an identifying mark in itself or its location, etc.: If it something that can be assumed that its owners noticed very soon [after] it fell from them, etc., it is surely the finders, etc. But if [the object was] not [like this, the finder] is obligated to return it - even though [the owners] abandoned it afterwards - since it came to his hand before [its] abandonment\" - I have written at the end of Section 259 the disagreement of Abbaye and Rava about abandonment without awareness, and that the law is decided like Abbaye, who said it is not [considered] abandonment..."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And that which he wrote, \"One who finds scattered coins, round cakes of figs, etc., they are surely his,\" is a mishnah there (Bava Metzia 21a). And that which he wrote, \"As with all of these, the owners would notice their falling: Coins, a person feels in his purse all the time; so too, are strips of combed purple wool significant\" - it is already explained that it is so in the gemara. And that which he wrote, \"Round cakes of figs, bread and strings [of fish] are edible items and significant, so he feels for them; unprocessed wool fleeces and flax stalk, one feels when they fall because of their heaviness\" - so did the Rosh write there. But one can wonder about him, why did the switch the approach of the gemara? As they said, concerning round cakes of figs and bread, \"since they are weighty (<i>yakirei</i>),\" he feels them. And it is possible that he, may his memory be blessed, did not understand, \"weighty,\" to be an expression of heaviness, but rather as an expression of significance. And also (another answer) - even if you say that he understood \"weighty,\" to be an expression of heaviness - since there is no heaviness to strings [of fish] and he must give the reason that it is significant because of it being an edible item, that reason is also sufficient for the round cakes of figs; so there is no longer a need for the reason of heaviness. And that which he wrote in the name of the Rambam, \"If one finds scattered produce in the manner of being [intentionally] placed, he should not touch them; in the manner of being dropped, they are surely [the finders],\" is in Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 15:8. And that which he wrote, \"And it appears to me, that in the gemara, it establishes the mishnah (Bava Metzia 21a) of one who finds produce [...], it is surely his, in [the case of gathering [grain] on the threshing floor, etc.\" - his reason is that when Abbaye, who says abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment, is challenged from our mishnah; that if he found scattered produce, they are surely his; it answered, it is in [a case of] gathering on the threshing floor. And if it were like the words of the Rambam, it would have been preferable to establish [the case of the mishnah] as when we find it in the manner of being dropped. And the impressive sage wrote on that which our rabbi wrote, \"And it appears to me [it is not clear], etc.,\" [Rambam's] words are clear and enlightening: As that which we challenge - \"What are the circumstances; if he [found them] in the manner of being dropped, even more [would be the finder's], etc. - we also challenge according to Abbaye, whom the law follows. For since they are weighty, [the owner] will certainly know [that he dropped it, and then abandon it], as we say about round cakes of figs. And that which Abbaye is challenged from our mishnah, and we answer that [the mishnah's case] is in the gathering on the threshing floor - is before we knew the reasoning of heaviness. But after we know it, our mishnah is established [to refer] to all cases [even] according to Abbaye. To here are his words. And like his words writes Ramban, may his memory be blessed, on that which the gemara says about that which we learned in the mishnah - scattered produce [...] are his - \"And how much? Rabbi Yitzchak said, 'One <i>kav</i> in four cubits.' What are the circumstances? If [the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a <i>kav</i> would require announcement]; if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a <i>kav</i> would belong to the finder]. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said, 'We are dealing with the gathering on the threshing floor.'\" And Ramban and Tosafot raise the difficulty for us, why does he establish the mishnah to be [a case of] one <i>kav</i> in four cubits and in the gathering on the threshing floor; let it be in the manner of being dropped and even more. And they answer because of that [position of] Abbaye, who said that abandonment without intention is not [considered] abandonment, it could not establish it to be in the way of being dropped. And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote, \"And that which our rabbi, may his memory be blessed, brought in the Halakhot (Rif Bava Metzia 12a) - 'If [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a <i>kav</i> would belong to the finder]' - is not correct according to what we have written (since the law follows Abbaye). And one must say that [the Halakhot of the Rif] holds that after we answer [up other parts of the mishnah according to Abbaye] in the gemara (Bava Metzia 21b), [that] it is on account of their weightiness and their significance, these [sheaves of grain] are also weighty and significant - so Abbaye would not need that [qualification] of Rav Ukva.\" To here are his words. And so too is it written in Nimmukei Yosef. ..."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+        "enTitle": "Beit Yosef",
+        "key": "Beit Yosef",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Beit Yosef/English/Tur Choshen Mishpat Vilna, 1923.json

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Beit Yosef",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001935970",
+    "versionTitle": "Tur Choshen Mishpat: Vilna, 1923",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "טור חושן משפט: וילנא, 1923",
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Vilna, 1923",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "Orach Chaim": [],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    " שטר<i data-commentator=\"Hagahot\" data-order=\"1\"></i> שיוצא מתחת יד שליש והלוה טוען כי הוא מזוייף או פרוע וכו'. (ט) שליש שהושלש שטר בידו לזמן ידוע וכו' עד ושכח להודיעו לשליש הם דברי בעל התרומות בשער נ\"ב. וכתב שכן השיב הרי\"ף: ובמ\"ש שאם מת הלוה לא יפרע המלוה אלא בשבועה סיים והוא שאין נאמנות בשטרו ונאמנות זה אם צריך שיפרע שמאמינו על יורשיו או אם סגי בנאמנות סתם יתבאר בדברי רבינו בסימן ע\"א: <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> התובע לשליש שמסר השטר לשכנגדו והשליש טוען שהשליש שלישותו כמו שנמסר בידו אם צריך לברר דבריו ולפרש על איזה תנאי נמסר בידו ואם צריך לישבע ואם אינו זוכר התנאי בתשובות הרא\"ש כלל ק\"ה סימן ג': <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> שליש שהושלש שטר בידו ע\"מ שלא יתננו כ\"ז שהנותן קיים ומתו המקבל והנותן ותבע בן המקבל השטר ונמצא מחק באחורי השטר בכלל הנזכר סימן ד': <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> חברים שהשלישו שטרי חובות ביד שליש וטען אחד מהם שאין לחבירו עליו מכל חשבונות שביניהם אלא אותו שטר בלבד והלוה מכחישו בכלל הנזכר סימן ה' <i data-commentator=\"Darchei Moshe\" data-order=\"1\"></i>: <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> מצאתי כתוב אשר שאלת שעשו אותך נאמן משטרי ראובן ושמעון שאם יעבור הזמן שלא יתן זקוק שתמסור השטר לשכנגדו ואינך יודע אם ראובן קוים נראה שאתה חייב ליתן השטר ליד שמעון דאם איתא דפרעיה לדידך הוי מודע כדי לקרוע השטר או למיכתב שובר עכ\"ל: כתב הרשב\"א<i data-commentator=\"Hagahot\" data-order=\"1\"></i> בתשובה מסתברא שהשליש נאמן שאין שטר השלישות מכחיש את דברי השליש שלא כלל לשון השלישות תנאי נישואי לאה אלא שלא נכתב בשטר השלישות אלא מקצת התנאים והוא אם יגיע הזמן ולא ישלימו זה לזה התנאים שיהא על השליש להחזיר שטרי המסרב לחבירו ואע\"פ שלא תינשא לאה לבעל ואינו מוציא מכלל זה תנאי הנשואים ואילו היינו אומרים ובאים מצד תנאי השלישות לבד וכגון שלא אמר השליש כלום באמת לא היינו מחייבים את השליש לעשות יותר ממה שכתוב בשטר השלישות אבל אם השליש טוען ברי שעל ידי תנאי זה נמסר בידו נאמן לפי שאין שטר השלישות כלל תנאי נישואי לאה אלא אפשר שישנו מוסיף על מה שנכתב ושליש נ��מן ומ\"מ אם לא נזכר בשלישות מעכשיו בשעה שנמסר בידו מסתברא לי שיש כאן משום אסמכתא בהחזרת השטרות לפי שמעכשיו הכתוב בשטר אינו מועיל להחזרת השטר ותדע לך שהרי מי שפרע מקצת חובו והשליש את שטרו דקי\"ל כמ\"ד לא יחזיר ומשום אסמכתא ואע\"פ שיש בשטר החוב מעכשיו וזכורני שדנתי כן זה זמן רב לפני הרמב\"ן עכ\"ל: "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+        "enTitle": "Beit Yosef",
+        "key": "Beit Yosef",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Beit Yosef/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,1524 @@
+{
+    "title": "Beit Yosef",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Beit_Yosef",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "",
+            "I had the idea that after all the study I would decide the halacha and adjudicate between the various arguments. This is the purpose - for us to have a single Torah and standardized law. However, I realized that if I was to decide between the jurists using talmudical arguments and proofs - then Tosafot, Ramban, Rashba and Ran are full of such arguments and proofs in support of each position. Who is ready to come forward and add arguments and proofs? Who dares place his head between the mountains, mighty mountains, to decide between them using arguments and proofs to undo what they clarified or to decide what they left undecided. For on account of our many sins, our gray matter is too thin to understand their words and certainly not to place our wisdom above them. Even if we were able to trod such a path it would not be appropriate to do so as it is much too long.",
+            "Therefore I made up my mind that since there are three teachers upon whose teachings the House of Israel leans, behold they are the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh - I decided that where two of them agree on a law then we will decide the law like them - except for in a handful of places where all the Sages of Israel or most dispute their view and/or a contrary custom has spread."
+        ],
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "One should be very careful with The blessings of Torah. As it is introduced in the last chapter of Masechet Nedarim (81A) - \"Why are Torah scholars not meriting to have children who are Torah scholars? ",
+                    "Ravina says: Because they do not recite the berachot of the Torah from the beginning. This refers to the beginning of their daily Torah study. Since Torah scholars are busy studying and accustomed to it, they are not careful to bless properly. Therefore, their blessing is not established. As it says, and we along with our children should be learning Torah. This is how it is explained. "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "The Ba'al HaManhig wrote, \"If one who reads or chants Torah and makes a mistake it is better to not correct their mistake in public etc.\" Because even though they erred, they are still yotzei from [their obligation of] reading. For it comes in a midrash that if one reads \"Aaron\" as \"Aron\" they are yotzei. The Tosafot wrote in \"Ein Mamidin\" (Avodah Zara 22b) an explanation; that even though one did not pronounce the alef [his standard over me is love, SHS 2:4]. The Ri wrote, my friend, his memory be a blessing, this is what he wrote, \"That if one who reads errs, we do not make him return to it.\" This is difficult for what was written above in the name of the Rosh, that the public is not yotzei in the reading of one who does not know. And it should be said that this is \"b'deiavad\" [i.e. after a reader made an error] and the Rosh’s words speak of \"l'khatchilah\" [i.e. when a reader doesn’t know how to read it correctly]. It should also be said that what the Ba'al HaManhig wrote is about an error that doesn’t include a change to the meaning, while the words of the Rosh refer to [an error] in te’amim which are the meaning of the pasuk itself."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And in any event, the money retains its holiness, which is to say that even though the village people are permitted to sell their synagogue, in any event the proceeds retain their holiness and the people are not permitted to reduce their holiness level, as I have explained.  And the reason is that we were considering  city residents who sold without knowledge of their Parnasim, but if the 7 Tovei HaIr agreed with the sale and it was in a Maamad of the people of the city, then they are permitted to use the money for anything they want to, as I will explain later."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "As for [eating] meat after cheese, that is permitted immediately etc. (Talmud Chullin 105a). /    If it is day and one can see that his hands are clean, he does not need to clean them.  This is clear in the Chapter of \"All Meat\"/Kol HaBassar (Chullin 104b).  Rabbi Yitzchak (Ri) wrote that the same rule applies at night: If he has an effective lamp, he does not need to clean (his hands).  However, our master (the Tur) in Yoreh Deah chapter 89 wrote in the name of Rabbenu Peretz that \"one must wash his hands even by day, since there are times that the cheese is greasy and clings to the moistness of the hands without one's being aware.\"  Hagahot Maimoniot wrote similarly in the name of Sefer Mitzvot Katan (SeMaK).   Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit that the reason that it is permitted to eat meat after cheese immediately is because the cheese if soft and does not linger between the teeth.  Hagahot Maimoniot wrote similarly.  / Yet there are those who practice a personal stringency not to eat meat after cheese at one meal because it is written in the Book of the Zohar in the Portion of Mishpatim (Zohar 2:125a:9) as follows:  \"We have found that [after] one consumes these foods [=milk and meat] together either at the same time [שעתא] or at the same meal, for forty days a kid roasted with its skin appears to those above.  An impure company come near him, causing judgments to be aroused in the world, judgments that are not holy.  If he begets a child during these days, it is lent a soul from the Other Side [=Sitra Achara], which is not holy.\" / The Mordechai has already written that Maharam [of Rothenburg] had a personal practice not to eat the meat of domesticated or wild animals after cheese, because once, between one meal and another, he found cheese between his teeth.  He decreed a stringency for himself.  This is not considered dissenting with the Talmud and is not in the category of 'adding which is subtracting,' for we find in the Chapter of Kol HaBasar \"I am in this respect like vinegar derived from wine...(for while my father waited a day after eating meat before eating mik, I only wait from one meal to the next).\"  Everyone may be strict with himself in order to effect a defense (against sin).  He was not lenient [the text should read: lenient] in regard to fowl (after cheese), since cheese and fowl may be eaten without restraint.  / It is certain that he [=Maharam], may his memory be a blessing, did not see the Zohar.  Nevertheless, he practiced a personal stringency on account of an event that happened.  Although he was lenient with fowl, that is because he had not seen the Zohar.  As for us, who have merited to see it, it is good and proper to be strict even with the meat of fowl."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "Our rabbis taught in a baraita, “A person may not rent his vessels to a non-jew on the eve of the Sabbath,” etc. This is from the first chapter of Shabbat (19a). But Alfasi omitted it. Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Nissim wrote that he had done so because he had concluded that this baraita had its origins in a position of Beit Shamai. For they said that a person must allow their vessels to rest [on the Sabbath]. But as for us, we who follow the opinion of Beit Hillel that a person is not obliged to rest their vessels [on the Sabbath, we hold that] it is permitted even on the eve of the Sabbath. This is also the opinion of Maimonides. For he wrote in the 6 chapter that it is permitted to lend and rent out one's vessels to a non-Jew even though he will perform prohibited labor with them on the Sabbath, since we are not obliged to rest our vessels. However, the opinion of the authors of the Tosafot, Rabbenu Asher, Rabbenu Nissim, and Rabbenu Zachariah Ha-Levi was that [this baraita] had its origins in a position of both [Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel]. And the same was written by the authors of the Sefer Mitzvot Qatan, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, the Sefer Ha-Yashar, and the annotations of the Mordecai to the first chapter of tractate Shabbat. And they wrote--may their memories be for a blessing-- that the reason for the prohibition is that it appears as if a person is taking monetary recompense on the Sabbath. However on Wednesday or Thursday it is permitted, but only by the principle of subsumption. If, for example, they rented [the vessel] to them for a year, or for a month. Daily-term rental is prohibited even on a Wednesday or a Thursday. And this is in accordance with the teaching in a baraita at the end of Pereq Ha-Zahav (B. Bava Metzia  58a)  regarding one who hires a worker to watch his cow or his child. For even if the hire was made on the principle of subsumption, it is nonetheless prohibited on the eve of the Sabbath because of the appearance of the thing. Since it is so near and so proximate that it looks as if he is hiring them for the Sabbath itself. Therefore, even though a Jewish [renter] is permitted on the basis of the subsumption of a week’s time or a month’s, a gentile [renter] is prohibited."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "One who extinguishes a lamp out of fear of the gentiles, etc. The Mishnah in chapter \"With What do We Light? (Shabbat 29b)\" reads: \"One who extinguishes a lamp because he fears the gentiles, because of bandits, because of an evil spirit, or so that a sick person may sleep is exempt.\" The Gemara explains (31b) that the Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yehudah, who said that a melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah incurs a sin offering, and that the Mishnah refers to a sick person in mortal danger. Then, it would make sense for the Mishnah to say \"allowed (instead of 'exempt').\" Since the end of the Mishnah needed to teach \"incurs a sin offering,\" the beginning of the Mishnah taught \"exempt.\" But if the sick person is not in mortal danger, extinguishing a lamp for them incurs a sin offering. But according to Rabbi Shimon, doing this for a sick person in mortal danger is permitted, and a for a sick person not in mortal danger, one is exempt, as he holds that we are exempt from penalty when we perform a melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah. Our rabbis rule like Rabbi Shimon, and according to the Ramban, as the Ran wrote at the end of Tractate Shabbat, and he, of blessed memory, said so in chapter \"One who Hides....\" (chapter 10), that he holds like Rabbi Shimon. The Rambam wrote in Chapter 1 of Hilchot Shabbat (Mishneh Torah) that this is the opinion of the later rabbis, but the Rambam himself ruled like Rabbi Yehudah. In accordance with the Rif, the Ran wrote in the tenth chapter of Tractate Shabbat that he holds like Rabbi Shimon....and this is the opinion of Rashba, and even though from what he wrote in the third chapter, it seems that he holds like Rabbi Yehudah."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And regarding cooked food Rabbi Meir holds if done not extra permitted even on the same day (on shabbat)"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "The Rav Ephraim wrote that they are forbidden even though they did not split. The same is written there by the Rosh. And the Ran wrote regarding soaking the opinion of the Ra'ah that the measure of splitting only applies to barley, but wheat since it has slits, that is a fissure in the wheat grains, it is considered as if they are split. And he (the Ran) wrote that he does not agree. And regarding the boat that sank, he (the Ra'ah) wrote that the reason they don't distinguish between split and unsplit is because it is wheat, and for wheat one does not need splitting. These are the words of the Ra'ah. But as I (the Ran) wrote above that some of the grains were split, and we are concerned that perhaps they will be sold to Jews, and they will not be informed. Or, perhaps the non-Jew will grind them, and then sell the flour to the Jews. Until here the words of the Ran. And the Ha'ga (?) wrote in Perek 5 in the name of the Re'em (?) that one one needs splitting by soaking, where there is less water, but with excessive resting, even if they are not split they are forbidden. And Rabenu Yerucham wrote in the name of the Sar Mekutsi (Count of Coucy) according to the words of the Ra'ah, and also the Ha'ga in Perek 5 in the name of the Rirsv\"a. But the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam is that there is no difference between Wheat and barley, and this is how we rule. "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And even if one has only enough for sufficient sustenance for two meals, one should sell them in order to purchase [sufficient] wine for four cups etc. At the beginning of the chapter Arvei Fesachim (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim, Ch. 10, 99a), we are taught in the Mishnah: One should not have fewer than four cups of wine, and that is even if [one's finances are accumulated] via the communal donation-pot. And our Rabbi teaches, just as RaShBam taught in his commentary on \"even if one's finances are accumulated via the communal donation-pot of charity,\" that this is the poorest among poor people--and if the charity-collectors have not given to that person, that person should sell their clothing or loan or rent out their very self for the sake of wine for the four cups. And the Mordokhai wrote in his commentary that this is regarding [only] one who has sustenance for two meals, and we [do] say: One who has [sufficient sustenance for] two meals should not collect from the communal donation-pot, and, if [that person additionally does] not [have sufficient finances] for four cups, one would not be required to collect from the communal donation-pot. And for the sake of [the] four cups, it said, the charity-collectors should give to that person charity, even from the communal donation-pot, and thus is the teaching in the Jerusalem Talmud."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "An individual whose friend has not blown shofar may blow shofar for them etc. This is a baraita in the second chapter of Tractate Rosh HaShana (34b): \"An individual whose friend has not blown shofar may blow for them and an individual who has not made a blessing, their friend may not make a blessing for them.\" And the RA\"N wrote, \"'Their friend may not make a blessing for them,' meaning that although we say that all of blessings, even though you have already made them, you can still make them for others, they already excluded from this rule, in Tractate Berachot, in the Jerusalem Talmud, the blessing after meals, and the  reading of Shema and the daily prayers. And the reason for the daily prayers is because it makes sense that everybody should ask for mercy for themselves. However, this refers to a person who knows how to make the blessing. But if they do not know how to make the blessing, their friend can make it for them. As it says in the chapter, \"Three who ate together\"(45a), \"If one is a scholar and one is an ignoramous, the scholar makes the blessing and the ignoramous get's credit.\" And this is written in the Mordechai and in the Haghot Asheri at the end of the first chapter of Tractate Rosh HaShana. And this is not according to the position of the RI\"Z Giat and Rav Shrira which our Master (the Tur) wrote."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "“What is Hanukkah? The Sages taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev… they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest…” (Shabbat 21a). One could ask – so what if it was sealed with the seal of the High Priest? We may be able to claim that even if it were touched from the outside it remains pure (because clay vessels only become impure from the inside not the outside), but nonetheless we must be concerned that it was tipped and thus became impure. The Tosafot addressed this difficulty by saying that if these events took place after the Sages had decreed all idolaters to have the impurity of a bodily issue, then we must say that it was placed in the ground and sealed in such a fashion that the vessel could not be tipped. The same seems true in the words of Rashi who wrote “with the seal, meaning that it was hidden away and sealed with his ring and thus recognizably untouched.” The Ran answered this problem by saying that if they had found it and tipped it, they would have broken it open to see if it held gold or jewels. Therefore, since it was found sealed with the seal of the High Priest it was certainly not found by the defilers. It is possible that this was Rashi’s intent as well when he wrote that it was ‘recognizably untouched.’: The reason that it was necessary to use that one jar of oil to light for eight days is that all of Israel were presumed to have the impurity of contact with the dead and it was therefore impossible to prepare pure oil until seven days had passed from they day of their defilement. Add to this one more day for crushing and preparing the olives to produce pure oil and you have eight. The Ran writes that there was pure oil four days away, and that they therefore needed eight days to go there and back. One could ask why they established an eight day celebration at all. After all, since there was enough oil in the sealed jar to light for one night then the miracle actually was for seven nights. One could answer that they divided the oil they found into eight parts and placed one portion in the menorah each night, which nonetheless burned until morning. Thus a miracle occurred every night. Further you could say that after they filled the menorah on the first night the jar remained full of oil as it was in the beginning, and thus the miracle was recognizable even on the first night. Alternatively, they poured all the oil into the menorah on the first night and though the candles burned all night they found them still full of oil in the morning, and so it happened each night."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "As to the Tur's mention of lighting a Channukah candle in the synagogue, it seems to me that this was instituted for guests who did not have their own home to light a candle in, just as Kiddush was instituted in the synagogues for those guests who ate and drank in the synagogue. This is the reason given by the Kolbo, who also brought another reason: in order to publicise the miracle before the entire people, and to recite the blessings together. This is an enormous public declaration for the Holy One, and a sanctification of God's name, to be blessed in large groups. The Rivash added: the custom to light candles in the synagogue is ancient, because of publicising the miracle, and because we were not able to light individually at home as a result of the oppression of the gentiles. We bless over this just as we recite the blessing over Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, even though it is only a <i>minhag</i>. However, this lighting in the synagogue isn't a fulfilment of the mitzvah, and each person should go and light at home."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "\"And so too if it stood in it for one day, for pickling is like cooking.\" This is explained in 105:4. And it seems from our rabbi's words that, according to Rif and Rambam, even a stomach salted with its milk or it stood for many days would be permitted to make cheese out of, since it is not milk but excrement, and we have no difference between congealed or clear. And for Rabbenu Tam also regarding congealed. This also is implied from the response of Rabbenu Shimshon that the Mordekhai brought: \"The taste that comes out of the meat becomes excrement when it is absorbed in the stomach, and the reason is because there is not enough power in the taste that receives this excrement from the skin to join afterwards with full milk, which from it comes cheese, such that the taste of meat is carried with it and it becomes afterwards meat and milk. For behold the fish that receive the flavour of meat are allowed to combine them afterwards with milk—all the more so this which is excrement and a small amount. For there is no strength to receive the flavour of meat and to transfer this flavour with it to join it with the milk of the cheese that comes out of it to become then meat and milk. For this is less effective than secondary flavour transfer (נ״ט בר נ״ט wrt the fish) because it is only excrement. But Rabbenu Yeruham wrote: There is someone who wrote that, even according to the opinion of the Geonim, if the keivah is salted in the stomach that it is forbidden to make this into cheese, for even though it is merely excrement, regardless it already took the taste of meat, and when it is made into cheese it will be meat and milk, and this seems correct.\" This also what the Mordekhai wrote in the name of Avi Ha-Ezri and the Sefer Ha-Terumah. He [Mordekhai] also wrote: \"There is someone who wrote that, if the milk stood for many days in the stomach to dry—if it dried it is forbidden, for this is like pickling which is like salting (all the more so if they made cheese with smoke to dry it out for this is like the keivah that is salted in its skin). But this is not because of meat and milk, since we already said that meat and milk, even if it waited all day it is fine, but rather for the reason that it is the keuvah of nevelah or treifah, or because of what I wrote that even though the keivah is just excrement, regardless it takes flavour of the skin and it becomes meat and milk.\" But for the purposes of halakhah, even according to us who hold by the Rif and the Rambam, there are those who are strict to not make cheese with the milk of the stomach that was salted in its stomach, or that stood in it for a day. However, if it was already curdled, bedi'avad it is enough to rely on the lenient opinions. It is written in the Shibbolei Ha-Leket: \"The stomach lining that they salt and dry and fill it with milk—it is permitted, since when the skin is dried it becomes nothing more than wood and there is no moisture of meat.\" We teach at the end of PKhB: \"One who makes cheese with the skin of the stomach, if there is enough to impart flavour—it is forbidden.\" And the Rashba wrote: \"This is surprising to me since it teaches something obvious, for meat and milk always has the law of if it imparts flavour it is forbidden! Perhaps it is teaching us that it is only if it imparts flavour that it is forbidden and because of meat and milk. But if it did not impart flavour it would be permitted, even though it is curdling—the Torah hooks meat and milk upon flavour, as Rava says above, 'The way of cooking the Torah forbids.' But this is not true for curdling in the skin of nevelah, for we go after the curdling even if there is no imparted flavour, we see it as if the nevelah were in in front of us.\" So too wrote the Ran there and in chapter 2 of Avodah Zarah in the name of R. Yosef Ha-Levi on what Shmuel said: \"Why did they forbid non-Jewish cheese? Because they curdle it with nevelah stomach skin\": \"The reason he mentioned \"nevelah stomach skin\" is because it itself would be forbidden—since it is the source of curdling, it would not be nullified. But kosher stomach skin, which is permitted by itself and there is nothing forbidden unless combined with milk, it is not possible to say this, therefore whenever it does not impart flavour it is not meat and milk, rather this stands on its own and this stands on its own.\" And so are the words of the Rambam that wrote in Hilkhot Ma'akhlot Asurot 3:13: \"In the days of the mishnaic sages, they decreed against non-Jewish cheese and forbade it because they curdle it with the stomach skin of their slaughtered animals, i.e. nevelah. And if you say: But isn't the skin of the stomach a small thing against the large amount of milk it stands with? Why wouldn't it be nullified? Because it curdles the cheese, and since it is a forbidden item that did the curdling the whole thing is forbidden.\" And in 9:15 he wrote: \"It is forbidden to curdle cheese with the skin of the stomach of a slaughtered animal. But if one did so—they taste the cheese; if there is the flavour of meat it is forbidden, but if not it is permitted, since the curdling was something which was forbidden—the stomach of a slaughtered animal—and there is nothing forbidden other than meat and milk which is measured with imparting flavour. However, one who curdles with the skin of a nevelah stomach or terefah or non-kosher animal, since the curdling was a thing that was forbidden by itself, the cheese becomes forbidden because of nevelah, and not because of meat and milk. And it was because of this concern that they forbade the cheese of non-Jews, as I explained.\" From these words, what Rabbenu Yeruham wrote is clarified: \"The law of the keivah and its skin to curdle with it cheese, the skin of the stomach is obviously forbidden whether from a kosher animal or nevelah according to everyone because it is meat and milk. And if one curdled it, a non-Jew should taste it. But there is someone who wrote that curdling cheese is not nullified, and this seems right. And so too wrote the Rambam: 'Therefore, they forbade non-Jewish cheese because they curdle it with the skin of the stomach'. It appears from his words that for the Rambam, curdling with kosher skin would also not be nullified.\" But this is not true, since the Rambam did not write this but rather curdling with the stomach skin of a *forbidden* animal, while curdling with the stomach skin of a *kosher* animal is with imparting flavour, as our mishnah taught. The Mordekhai wrote: \"Even though Rabbenu Tam wrote that curdling only forbids in 60:1 ratio, he did not say this for practical purposes, for it is possible to dismiss his evidence, that even when there is in the milk more than 60:1 against the forbidden item, since the forbidden item curdles—it imparts flavour.\" The Mordekhai wrote: \"About the keivah that they curdled with much milk and made cheese with it, but it was found after a while in the bag that the keivah was given a bit [of flavour] from the intestines, and Rabbenu Shimshon permitted the cheeses, and went on at length regarding the reasons. But Rabbenu Barukh permitted for a different reason, that one assumes it did not curdle all of the milk from the clear milk but rather also from the congealed, and then it is two things that combine to be permitted.\" The Mordekhai also wrote in the name of Rabbenu Shimshon:  Who knows if the cheeses are [not] considered to be like the piece of meat that is appropriate to give honour with, and if it is known that one of them was made from the forbidden keivah it would forbid all the others?\" It is written in the Hagahat Ashiri in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah: \"It is possible to be doubtful about the meat and milk that the sages forbade (such as that waited cold more than one day, or was salted) if they are forbidden to benefit or not. And the one who permits benefit—they do not prevent them too much, for there is not evidence to forbid it.\" And so too wrote the Mordekhai in chapter 2 of Avodah Zarah."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>The Laws of <i>Niddah</i></b><br>\"When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days\" (Leviticus 15:19). Our sages learnt from explication of the verses that not all blood flows render the discharger impure, but specifically those of uterine blood (a braita from Torat Kohanim). The Ri\"f writes in the second chapter of Tractate Shevuot, and the Rosh at the end of Niddah, and this is his language: \"'When a woman has a discharge' (ibid.) -- I could have thought any flow of blood would be impure. The Torah teaches therefore 'he has uncovered the source [uterus] of her blood' (Leviticus 20:18) -- teaching regarding the blood that it speaks only of uterine blood.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And that which is written, \"not all blood which comes from the uterus is impure, only five specific kinds of blood\", is a gezeira shava: \"It could be that all appearances of discharge will be impure? But to contradict this, the Torah teaches \"blood\" -- and blood is only red. When it says \"her bloods\", it teaches that many bloods are impure -- the red, the black, the saffron-hued, the muddy-water coloured, and the colours of mixed wine. The meaning is in chapter \"every hand\" (Niddah 19a), since it says \"her bloods\" \"her bloods\", behold there are four types. An explanation: since it says \"and she revealed the source of her bloods\" (Leviticus 20:18), behold there are two here. \"And she will be pure from the source of her bloods\" (Leviticus 12:7), behold there are two here. Behold four; and are there not five? We teach: this black is only faded red."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And that which is written \"And even with these she does not become impure until she senses the discharge of blood\" in chapter \"The woman who sees a stain\" (Niddah 57b). Shmuel says, she checks earth [and finds it blood-free] and sits on it and finds blood upon it, she is pure, as it says \"in her flesh\" - until she senses it in her flesh."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [
+                    "It is a positive commandment to write the portion of Shema, and it is to be found in the mizuzah of the door, as it is written and written, etc. In the chapter on the kitz (28), two passages in the mezuzah impede each other and even write one of the impediments and interpretations of the verse. Spelling and writing on the mezuzot of your home, etc.:"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "It is imperative to be very careful in the same way as the one who has tefillin on his head and his arm, etc. And a mezuzah on his mouth is held for him not to sin, etc. Chapter 34:"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And all who warned him would prolong his days and the days of his sons, etc. The sages also demanded that a mezuzah be given to his sons and daughters as small dead on the second day of Leviticus (Lev."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And greater than the house kept by her, etc. Food warned her to prolong his days and days in New York Kai and Aguatar preferred person longevity from the house maintenance because the length of days is a hidden miracle and the preservation of the house is a miracle revealed in other homes that do not have a mezuzah Nzukin Hadar in a house that has a mezuzah Ie, keeping the house large, because the house is a royal custom of the BW, which is inside and its servants keep it from the outside Kriya large:"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "A male slave who was immersed [by his Jewish master] for the purpose of becoming a [Canaanite] slave is prohibited to an Israelite woman, and an Israelite man is prohibited to a female slave who was immersed [by her Jewish master] for the purpose of becoming a [Canaanite] female slave, regardless of whether she was his slave or another's [slave] this is obvious."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "Regarding what the Tur writes: However, after his master frees him, or abandons him, or lays phylacteries on him, or if his master was a prayer leader and called him to go up to the Torah [ for an aliyah] behold he comes like an Israelite in all matters. This is in Perek HaSholeah (Gittin 40a) where we say one who abandons his slave [the slave] goes free and we say that if his master lays phylacteries on him he goes free and there it is also taught that the same is true if his master was a prayer leader and called him to go up to the Torah [ for an aliyah] that he [the slave] also goes free nevertheless there is reason to wonder why our master [the Tur] wrote that he is like an Israelite in every regard that teacher that he [the freed slave] is permitted to marry an Israelite woman for regarding one who abandons his slave in the Gemara over there we says that the [freed slave] requires a bill of manumission and regarding his master laying phylacteries on him or his master instructing him to read [his aliyah] from the Torah Maimonides writes that he he requires a bill of manumission and our master wrote his [Maimonides'] words in the Tur Yoreh Deah Cap. 267 and since a bill of manumission is a sine qua non how is he allowed to [marry] an Israelite daughter? We may answer that he [the Tur] is of the opinion that whenever [the Talmud] says he [the slave] goes free and needs a bill of manumission he is allowed to marry an Israelite daughter on account of the reason that the Rosh wrote there regarding one who marrys off his slave and I will write his words below and I will write that on this matter the Ramah disagrees."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "What [the Tur]: ...but if he lay phylacteries in the presence of his master or called him or read the Torah in his presence [during an aliyah] he does not go out to freedom this is a Baraita there (Gittin 40a) in Perek HaSholeah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "What [the Tur] writes: If his master married him off to an Israelite woman or even if he married an Israelite woman in the presence of his master, the betrothal takes effect etc ibid [Gittin 40a]: Rabbi Zeira says: In the case of a slave who marries a free woman in the presence of his master, he is emancipated. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him Rabbi Zeira: You possess such an extreme halakha, but I teach this halakha: With regard to one who writes a document of betrothal for his maidservant, stating: You are hereby betrothed to me, Rabbi Meir says: She is betrothed, and the Rabbis argue and say: She is not betrothed, here the context of Rabbi Zeira’s statement is not that of a slave who married a woman in his master’s presence but a case where the slave’s master himself provided a wife for him [as this is certainly proof that he had emancipated him. The Gemara questions this answer:] Is there anything like this, where for his slave he would not violate a prohibition[, and by providing a wife for his slave he indicates that he must have emancipated the slave,] but he himself might violate the prohibition[, as he is suspected of marrying his maidservant without having freed her]? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he said to the maidservant when he gave her the document of betrothal: Become emancipated with this and become betrothed to me with this. Rabbi Meir holds that this formulation written in the document of betrothal: You are hereby betrothed to me, contains a formulation of emancipation and therefore serves both as a bill of manumission and a document of betrothal. And the Rabbis hold: This formulation is not a formulation of emancipation. The Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh conclude with that which R. Zeira said: not only this but we forces his master to write for him a bill of manumission and the Rosh explains that the reason we require him [to write] a bill of manumission is to prevent the master from claiming \"I did not emancipate him him and he is my slave\" and certainly we we follow the intelligent estimate that certainly he emancipated him and we release him [the slave] from him [the master] and he is permitted to marry a free woman since he [the Talmud] did not say that he is prohibited to his wife until he [the master] frees him and the Ramah did not explain it this way until here is hi  [ the Rosh's] language. The words of the one who disagrees with this our master wrote in the Tur Yoreh Deah Cap. 267 but here he presented his words anonymously according to the opinion of the Rosh. There is reason to question what he wrote that in a case where he [the slave] married in the presence of his master the rule is the same as when his master marries him off to a woman for behold in the Gemara it suggests that only when his master marries him off to a woman because had he not emancipated him he would not have done a prohibition with his slave to marry him off to woman but when the slave marries in his master's presence he does not go free and this is what the Rif and the Rosh write explicitly and so to did our master the Tur in Yoreh Deah Cap. 267 Maybe it is possible to suggest that [the slave who marries in the presence of his master] does not go free nevertheless, regarding the prohibition of a married woman, we are concerned for had he not emancipated him he would not have allowed him to do a prohibition in his presence and therefore we says his betrothal works on her because of uncertainty and according to this it is prohibited for him to remain with her until [his master] emancipates him nevertheless his words are very unclear and require study."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Rambam wrote regarding a woman whose husband went overseas and she gave birth behold her child is assumed to have the status of a mamzer that means to stay if he [the husband] stayed there more then twelve months for the child does not remain in its mother's womb for more than twelve months [as Rambam recorded] in Cap. XV of laws of Issurei Biah and the reason is taught in the Cap. Ha'arel [Yevamot] 80b the action taken by Rava Tosfa’a concerning a woman whose husband went overseas and her baby was delayed in her womb for the twelve months of the year following her husband’s departure, and Rava Tosfa’a rendered the child fit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "Regarding what our master the Tur wrote in the name of the Behag that the child is not presumed to have the status of a mamzer for we attribute it to the possibility that maybe her husband arrived [home] discreetly and copulated [with her] and the Rosh wrote this [too] at the beginning of the Cap. Asara Yuchsin [in Kiddushin 4:7] and it appears from his words that the view of the Behag does not appear [to be correct] to him and see what I wrote at the end of this Tur [meaning Even Haezer #178] and Teshuvot Maimuni re. Sefer Nashim [#25] and the Hagahot Mordechai to Yevamot Cap. 9 [#121-122]."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "...It is written in Orchot Chaim that Rav Natronai wrote of a kohen who married a divorced woman, or any one of the woman invalid to him, and they excommunicated him two or three times, and he has not left her, and he says, I don’t want to be a kohen: We excommunicate him forever until he separates from her and divorces her, as we say (Yevamot 88b) “he is holy against his will”. And in another responsum of the Gaon he required him to separate, and we make an announcement regarding him that other kohanim should separate from him, so that it won’t be casual to them. And they require him to be excommunicated until he spearates from her, and they whip him. And if we suspect that he will go to a different place and perform the spreading his hands [i.e. birkat kohanim], we chop off the ends of his fingers, establishing blemishes in him, so that he can’t spread his hands...\n"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    " שטר<i data-commentator=\"Hagahot\" data-order=\"1\"></i> שיוצא מתחת יד שליש והלוה טוען כי הוא מזוייף או פרוע וכו'. (ט) שליש שהושלש שטר בידו לזמן ידוע וכו' עד ושכח להודיעו לשליש הם דברי בעל התרומות בשער נ\"ב. וכתב שכן השיב הרי\"ף: ובמ\"ש שאם מת הלוה לא יפרע המלוה אלא בשבועה סיים והוא שאין נאמנות בשטרו ונאמנות זה אם צריך שיפרע שמאמינו על יורשיו או אם סגי בנאמנות סתם יתבאר בדברי רבינו בסימן ע\"א: <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> התובע לשליש שמסר השטר לשכנגדו והשליש טוען שהשליש שלישותו כמו שנמסר בידו אם צריך לברר דבריו ולפרש על איזה תנאי נמסר בידו ואם צריך לישבע ואם אינו זוכר התנאי בתשובות הרא\"ש כלל ק\"ה סימן ג': <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> שליש שהושלש שטר בידו ע\"מ שלא יתננו כ\"ז שהנותן קיים ומתו המקבל והנותן ותבע בן המקבל השטר ונמצא מחק באחורי השטר בכלל הנזכר סימן ד': <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> חברים שהשלישו שטרי חובות ביד שליש וטען אחד מהם שאין לחבירו עליו מכל חשבונות שביניהם אלא אותו שטר בלבד והלוה מכחישו בכלל הנזכר סימן ה' <i data-commentator=\"Darchei Moshe\" data-order=\"1\"></i>: <i data-commentator=\"Mystery#2\" data-order=\"1\"></i> מצאתי כתוב אשר שאלת שעשו אותך נאמן משטרי ראובן ושמעון שאם יעבור הזמן שלא יתן זקוק שתמסור השטר לשכנגדו ואינך יודע אם ראובן קוים נראה שאתה חייב ליתן השטר ליד שמעון דאם איתא דפרעיה לדידך הוי מודע כדי לקרוע השטר או למיכתב שובר עכ\"ל: כתב הרשב\"א<i data-commentator=\"Hagahot\" data-order=\"1\"></i> בתשובה מסתברא שהשליש נאמן שאין שטר השלישות מכחיש את דברי השליש שלא כלל לשון השלישות תנאי נישואי לאה אלא שלא נכתב בשטר השלישות אלא מקצת התנאים והוא אם יגיע הזמן ולא ישלימו זה לזה התנאים שיהא על השליש להחזיר שטרי המסרב לחבירו ואע\"פ שלא תינשא לאה לבעל ואינו מוציא מכלל זה תנאי הנשואים ואילו היינו אומרים ובאים מצד תנאי השלישות לבד וכגון שלא אמר השליש כלום באמת לא היינו מחייבים את השליש לעשות יותר ממה שכתוב בשטר השלישות אבל אם השליש טוען ברי שעל ידי תנאי זה נמסר בידו נאמן לפי שאין שטר השלישות כלל תנאי נישואי לאה אלא אפשר שישנו מוסיף על מה שנכתב ושליש נאמן ומ\"מ אם לא נזכר בשלישות מעכשיו בשעה שנמסר בידו מסתברא לי שיש כאן משום אסמכתא בהחזרת השטרות לפי שמעכשיו הכתוב בשטר אינו מועיל להחזרת השטר ותדע לך שהרי מי שפרע מקצת חובו והשליש את שטרו דקי\"ל כמ\"ד לא יחזיר ומשום אסמכתא ואע\"פ שיש בשטר החוב מעכשיו וזכורני שדנתי כן זה זמן רב לפני הרמב\"ן עכ\"ל: "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And the Rosh wrote that today we do not write in the deed that it be written in the markets (per the Talmud Baba Batra 40b:) but these words were not written for Halakha for now it seems they contradict each others. In the beginning he wrote \"today we do not write in the deed that it be written in the markets\" seems to indicate that they did not write this phrase in the deeds. And afterwards close by he wrote that the custom is to write this phrase in all gift deeds. But the language used by the Rosh is not difficult, for it is as if he wrote \"today we are not concerned about deeds that don't include the phrase, because the custom is to include the phrase in all gift deeds\". And this is what he writes later \"today when we are not concerned about deeds that don't include the phrase\" meaning we are not concerned that the one giving the gift did not use the phrase when instructing the witnesses, and we do not require him to say this phrase, because the custom is include the phrase in writing in all gift deeds. Thus when he instructs the witnesses it is understood that he wants them to write it properly (which means including the phrase). And this explanation seems better because these are also the words of Tosafot there (Baba Batra 40b): \"It is difficult to the Ri that we rule that we are concerned when the phrase is missing, and if so how do we approve of all gifts since the giver never tells the witnesses to write the deed in a public place, but since the custom today is to include in the written deed this phrase (it was written in the market and signed in public) therefore we say that in the verbal instructions he also had the same intentions as those written in the deed. And in the days of the Amoraim they did nit have the custom to include the phrase in writing, therefore the giver had to explicitly say the phrase when instructing the witnesses.\" However, Rabenu (the Tur) who wrote in the name of the Rosh: \"today we do not write in the deed that it be written in the markets\" we should not use the second explanation, but the first explanation. And Tosafot further wrote there: \"And Rabenu Chanan'el wrote that the giver told the witnesses not to sit in the outside market, and considers this to be the unspecified case, because he did not tell them neither to hide nor to publicize and that is considered unspecified, meaning not to publicize nor hide. But if he just instructs the witnesses to hide (without further details) that is not considered unspecified and is valid according to Rabenu Chanan'el. Therefore the custom to write the phrase in the written gift deeds only improves the deed (but it would be valid without it). However, the word unspecified does not seem to mean this.\" And this is what Rav Yonah wrote: \"If the giver instructs the witnesses to write the gift deed with all embellishments, this includes asking them to include the phrase, but it is better if the witnesses clarify this explicitly with the giver. The Ramban wrote that even though our deeds include many embellishments, they are worthless if they do not include all the rabbinical requirements as explained by Rabenu Tam and Rav Yonah, because the scribes write them properly as we explained, and the giver wants they testify in writing that he is gifting with a full heart, and it appears from his words that this should be widely taught\". And these are further words of the Ramban: \"The conclusion is that we are concerned about a concealed gift for unspecified deeds. And there are those who say that our deeds given that they are written with all embellishments they write them and publicize them, because the scribes benefit, and we do not agree\". And the Ran (Ketubot 78a) wrote: \"The Rif wrote in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on that we are not normally concerned with wills that do not include a (publicity) clause. It is an everyday event that we remove assets, for it is a mitzvah at a time of death, through gifts, and transfers are completed, and we are not concerned that they do not include a publicity clause. And he further wrote that a person on his deathbed who says do  not publicize this request until after I die, is not considered a concealed gift, for since it will be carried out after his death, at that time it was not concealed, for he told the witnesses that after he dies it will be revealed, and clearly it will be revealed, for he told them that after his death they should do what is in the will, and there is no need to be concerned with a concealed gift.\" And we have to deduce that since we conclude to be concerned about a concealed gift, how can Rav Hai Ga'on not be concerned about an unspecified deed.  And the Rif agrees with him! But from the words of the Rosh it seems that he believes that the reasoning of Rav Hai Ga'on is because the custom was to include a written phrase in the gift deeds. As this is what he meant when the Rosh wrote that today we are not concerned about unspecified deeds because there is a custom to include the phrase in all gift deeds. And these are the same words used by Rav Hai Ga'on \"today we are not concerned about unspecified deeds\". But this is still difficult because Rav Hai Ga'on and the Rif should have explained themselves by giving the reasoning and not be mute. To me it seems that Rav Hai Ga'on and the Rif only said \"today we are not concerned about unspecified deeds\" when dealing with death related gifts. And this is also the view of the Rambam in Perek 9 of Hilchot Zechiya Umatana Halakha 2: \"If he (a person on his deathbed) commands due to death he does not have to say make the gift public. Even though it is written unspecified (without an explicit clause to publicize the gift) we are not concerned that it is a concealed gift.\" And possibly the reason for this, is that the reason for concealed gifts is that he is not willingly giving  but only to endear himself to the recipient. For a gift due to death we don not have to be concerned about this, for he will be dead, and it makes no difference if the recipient likes him or not. Or also, just like Shimon Shizuri allowed in the case of a person in danger who says to write a divorce for his wife, to write and give the divorce, because of his preoccupation he did not say write and give, here also because of his preoccupation he did not say write it in the market. And that which the Rif wrote in the name of Rav Hai Ga'on: \"A person on his deathbed who says not to publicize a wish (to give a gift) until after he dies, the Rosh and the Tur in (Choshen Mishpat) Siman 253 and the Rambam in Perek 9 of Hilchot Zechiya Umatana, specify that it is a valid gift as long as he instructed the gift to be public after his death, if he instructs to hide the gift then it is not. And this is what the Rambam meant when  he wrote in Perek 5, Halacha 1: \"If one presents a gift, whether in a state of good health or in illness, it should be open and publicized.\" The Ran wrote: \"Rav Yehuda said that a concealed gift deed is not used in a transaction. Since it says it is not used, and it does not say it is worthless, it means that we don't use it because perhaps he does not mean it, but if the recipient already has the goods, or shows it him and he does not object, the deed is good, because the giver reveals that he did not intend to conceal the gift, but a full intention to give the gift. And this is the ruling of the Rif\". and the Nemuke Yosef and the Ramban wrote the same. And I already wrote about this earlier. "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "One who finds a lost object is only obligated to announce something that has an identifying mark on itself, or when its location is fitting to give as an identifying mark, etc.; or if he gives an identifying mark in its knots or its amount, etc.: It is explained in the chapter [entitled] Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 21a) that one is not obligated to announce [the finding of] anything that does not have an identifying mark. And this is an obvious thing; for what is the purpose of announcing [it], when there is no identifying mark by which to return it......"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "And that which he wrote, \"But if it does not have an identifying mark in itself or its location, etc.: If it something that can be assumed that its owners noticed very soon [after] it fell from them, etc., it is surely the finders, etc. But if [the object was] not [like this, the finder] is obligated to return it - even though [the owners] abandoned it afterwards - since it came to his hand before [its] abandonment\" - I have written at the end of Section 259 the disagreement of Abbaye and Rava about abandonment without awareness, and that the law is decided like Abbaye, who said it is not [considered] abandonment..."
+                ],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "And that which he wrote, \"One who finds scattered coins, round cakes of figs, etc., they are surely his,\" is a mishnah there (Bava Metzia 21a). And that which he wrote, \"As with all of these, the owners would notice their falling: Coins, a person feels in his purse all the time; so too, are strips of combed purple wool significant\" - it is already explained that it is so in the gemara. And that which he wrote, \"Round cakes of figs, bread and strings [of fish] are edible items and significant, so he feels for them; unprocessed wool fleeces and flax stalk, one feels when they fall because of their heaviness\" - so did the Rosh write there. But one can wonder about him, why did the switch the approach of the gemara? As they said, concerning round cakes of figs and bread, \"since they are weighty (<i>yakirei</i>),\" he feels them. And it is possible that he, may his memory be blessed, did not understand, \"weighty,\" to be an expression of heaviness, but rather as an expression of significance. And also (another answer) - even if you say that he understood \"weighty,\" to be an expression of heaviness - since there is no heaviness to strings [of fish] and he must give the reason that it is significant because of it being an edible item, that reason is also sufficient for the round cakes of figs; so there is no longer a need for the reason of heaviness. And that which he wrote in the name of the Rambam, \"If one finds scattered produce in the manner of being [intentionally] placed, he should not touch them; in the manner of being dropped, they are surely [the finders],\" is in Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 15:8. And that which he wrote, \"And it appears to me, that in the gemara, it establishes the mishnah (Bava Metzia 21a) of one who finds produce [...], it is surely his, in [the case of gathering [grain] on the threshing floor, etc.\" - his reason is that when Abbaye, who says abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment, is challenged from our mishnah; that if he found scattered produce, they are surely his; it answered, it is in [a case of] gathering on the threshing floor. And if it were like the words of the Rambam, it would have been preferable to establish [the case of the mishnah] as when we find it in the manner of being dropped. And the impressive sage wrote on that which our rabbi wrote, \"And it appears to me [it is not clear], etc.,\" [Rambam's] words are clear and enlightening: As that which we challenge - \"What are the circumstances; if he [found them] in the manner of being dropped, even more [would be the finder's], etc. - we also challenge according to Abbaye, whom the law follows. For since they are weighty, [the owner] will certainly know [that he dropped it, and then abandon it], as we say about round cakes of figs. And that which Abbaye is challenged from our mishnah, and we answer that [the mishnah's case] is in the gathering on the threshing floor - is before we knew the reasoning of heaviness. But after we know it, our mishnah is established [to refer] to all cases [even] according to Abbaye. To here are his words. And like his words writes Ramban, may his memory be blessed, on that which the gemara says about that which we learned in the mishnah - scattered produce [...] are his - \"And how much? Rabbi Yitzchak said, 'One <i>kav</i> in four cubits.' What are the circumstances? If [the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a <i>kav</i> would require announcement]; if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a <i>kav</i> would belong to the finder]. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said, 'We are dealing with the gathering on the threshing floor.'\" And Ramban and Tosafot raise the difficulty for us, why does he establish the mishnah to be [a case of] one <i>kav</i> in four cubits and in the gathering on the threshing floor; let it be in the manner of being dropped and even more. And they answer because of that [position of] Abbaye, who said that abandonment without intention is not [considered] abandonment, it could not establish it to be in the way of being dropped. And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote, \"And that which our rabbi, may his memory be blessed, brought in the Halakhot (Rif Bava Metzia 12a) - 'If [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a <i>kav</i> would belong to the finder]' - is not correct according to what we have written (since the law follows Abbaye). And one must say that [the Halakhot of the Rif] holds that after we answer [up other parts of the mishnah according to Abbaye] in the gemara (Bava Metzia 21b), [that] it is on account of their weightiness and their significance, these [sheaves of grain] are also weighty and significant - so Abbaye would not need that [qualification] of Rav Ukva.\" To here are his words. And so too is it written in Nimmukei Yosef. ..."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ],
+        [
+            "Tur Choshen Mishpat: Vilna, 1923",
+            "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001935970"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+        "enTitle": "Beit Yosef",
+        "key": "Beit Yosef",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Beit Yosef/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:89fa32de0f3392743fac35c22d3857e8eebfe0c8fe9762f86297a31850dd4b98
+size 32051058

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Beit Yosef/Hebrew/בית יוסף, אורח חיים, נה, יג.json

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Beit Yosef",
+    "versionSource": "https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%97_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A0%D7%94",
+    "versionTitle": "בית יוסף, אורח חיים, נה, יג",
+    "license": "CC-BY-SA",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "וצריך שיהיו כולם במקום אחד ושליח ציבור עמהם — זה מתבאר מתוך מה שיבוא בסמוך.",
+                    "והעומד תוך הפתח מן המשקוף ולפנים וכו' — בסוף פרק כיצד צולין (דף פה:) תנן: מן האגף ולפנים כלפנים, מן האגף ולחוץ כלחוץ. ופירש רש\"י: אגף קרי כל מקום הגפת הדלת, שהוא חופף ונוקש שם כשסוגרו, דהיינו משפה הפנימית של עובי הפתח עד מקום הנקישה. מן האגף ולפנים, דהיינו תוך העיר ממש, כלפנים, ואוכלים שם קדשים קלים. מן האגף ולחוץ כלחוץ, דהיינו מקום הנקישה, ואגף עצמו לא ידעינן השתא אי כלפנים אי כלחוץ, ובגמרא מפרש ליה. ואמרינן עלה בגמרא, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: וכן לתפילה. ופירש רש\"י: העומד מן האגף ולפנים מצטרף לעשרה, והעומד חוץ לפתח אינו מצטרף, ואף על גב דאמרינן עלה בגמרא: ופליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי, דאמר אפילו מחיצה של ברזל אינה מפסקת בין ישראל לאביהם שבשמים. וכתבו התוספות דמשמע בפרק ואלו נאמרים (סוטה לח ב) דהלכה כרבי יהושע בן לוי, ובפרק כל גגות (עירובין צב א) משמע דמחיצה מפסקת לצירוף, ומתוך כך פירשו בעניין אחר; מכל מקום גם הם מודים דמחיצה מפסקת לצירוף, מההיא דפרק כל גגות. ואם כן, לדידהו מן האגף ולפנים כלפנים וכו' הוי לתפילה אליבא דכולי עלמא. ובגמרא מקשה רישא דמתניתין אסיפא, דמרישא משמע דאגף עצמו כלחוץ, ומסיפא משמע דאגף עצמו כלפנים. ופירש רש\"י: אגף עצמו. עובי השער מן הנקישה ולפנים. ומשני לא קשיא, הא בשערי עזרה, הא בשערי ירושלים. כלומר, דשערי ירושלים לא נתקדש עוביין, מפני שמצורעים מגינים תחתיהם בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים; ושערי עזרה נתקדש עוביין. ומשמע לכאורה דלעניין צירוף לדבר שבקדושה – אגף עצמו כלפנים, דאי לאו דבעלמא הוי כלפנים לא היו מקדשין אותו בשערי עזרה, וגם בשערי ירושלים אי לאו מפני המצורעים היו מקדשין אותו מהאי טעמא. אבל רבינו ירוחם כתב: העומדים באסקופת בית הכנסת בעובי הפתח, נראה לי שאין נמנין מן העשרה שלפנים בבית הכנסת, שהרי אין אותו המקום מכלל הבית. וראיה מפסח, דכתיב (שמות יב מו): \"לא תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה\", ואמרינן בפסח שני: \"מן האגף ולפנים כלפנים\". פירוש אגף, עובי הפתח. מן האגף ולחוץ כלחוץ, והאגף עצמו שהוא עובי הפתח כלחוץ, עכ\"ל. וכן כתב הרמב\"ם בפ\"ט מהלכות קרבן פסח (ה\"א) לעניין הוצאת בשר קרבן פסח מחבורתו, דאגף עצמו כלחוץ, ומשמע דילפינן מיניה לענין תפילה כדברי רבינו ירוחם:",
+                    "תנן תו בפרק כיצד צולין: החלונות ועובי החומה כלפנים. ופירש רש\"י: החלונות שבחומות ירושלים ועובי ראש החומה בגובה, כלפנים. ואף על גב דבעובי השערים לא אמרן הכי, התם כדמפרש טעמא בגמרא מפני המצורעים. וגם בזה כתב הרמב\"ם (שם) דלעניין קרבן פסח קאמר. ואיתא תו התם בגמרא: גגין ועליות לא נתקדשו. וכתב רבינו ירוחם, שנראה לו שבכל זה הוא הדין לבית הכנסת, דגגין ועליות אינם בכלל בית, והחלונות ועובי הכתלים כלפנים. ומשמע לי דהאי דחלונות ועובי הכתלים כלפנים, כשראשו ורובו בחלון או על עובי הכותל הנראה מתוך הבית. ומצאתי שכתב רבינו הגדול מהר\"י אבוהב בשם גאון, דמכניס ראשו בחלון מצטרף עמהם למניין עשרה, ולא חילק בכך. וכן כתב בארחות חיים וזה לשונו: כתב רבינו האיי: מי שעומד אחורי בית הכנסת וביניהם חלון, אפילו גבוה כמה קומות, אפילו אינו רחב ארבע, ומראה להם פניו משם, מצטרף עמהם לעשרה, עכ\"ל:"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "בית יוסף",
+        "enTitle": "Beit Yosef",
+        "key": "Beit Yosef",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Darchei Moshe/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,838 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Darchei Moshe",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "דרכי משה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "In the Maharil (Our teacher, Rabbi Yaakov Levi Moelin): But if his wife and his children [already] ask him [relevant questions], there is no need to say <i>Mah Nishtanah</i> (How is it different). So one just begins from, \"We were slaves.\" Also there: When one reaches, \"Blood, Fires and Pillars of Smoke,\" he should remove [some of the wine in his cup] with his finger. And likewise when one says, \"<i>Datzach, Adash, Baachab</i>\" (the initials of the ten plagues), individually and as groups. The total is sixteen times. And this was the custom of our teacher Rabbi Shalom (of Neustadt). And he said that it is so in the book of Aviah (R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi) - that it corresponds to the sixteen faces of the <i>chayot</i> (a type of angel). To here are his words. But it appears that it hints here to the sword of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is called, <i>Yohakh</i> (<i>Yo</i> has a numerical value of sixteen, and <i>hakh</i> means, strike). And that is [the name of] the angel appointed for vengeance, as is known to the Kabbalists. And it is customary to remove [wine] from the cup with the [fore]finger, to hint at that which is stated (Exodus 8:15), \"This is the finger of God\"; and not like I found written in the Hanhagat Minhagim, that one should sprinkle with the pinkie.  "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Maharik wrote [in] Shoresh 26 in the name of a responsum of the Geonim that on the day of Simchat Torah, our practice is to dance - even the elderly - while we say praises about the Torah scroll. Even though we do not dance on a holiday, our practice is to permit [it] on account of the honor of the Torah. To here are his [words]. And the Maharil wrote: There are places where the practice is for the children to destroy the sukkot (huts) and burn them on Simchat Torah and they give an explanation to permit this. However my father and teacher, may his memory be blessed would protest against me when I was young to not destroy it on a holiday. To here are his [words]. "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "In the Mordechai at the beginning of the chapter Kol HaBasar (Talmud Chullin):  \"A responsum of Maharam (of Rothenburg):  Once, from one meal to the next I found cheese between (my) teeth.  I made a personal decree to be strict (regarding eating) meat following cheese (just as one must wait before eating) cheese following meat; with fowl, I am lenient (to eat fowl directly after cheese),\" end quote. / Here is the discussion of Issur veHeiter Ha'Aroch chapter 40: \"If one ate soft cheese younger than (Hebrew should read: קודם) six months or other kinds of milk (products), he may eat meat immediately at the same meal by means of cleaning out (Hebrew should read: קינוח) and washing his hands and mouth.  However, if one eats twelve-month old cheese or moldy (מתולעת, 'wormy') cheese, even though no prohibition pertains, nevertheless it is a measure of piety not to eat meat afterwards at the same meal, in accordance with the responsum (Hebrew should read: כתשובת) of Maharam,\" end quote. / And so, many have the practice not to eat meat after (eating) hard cheese that sticks between the teeth, just as we do not eat cheese after meat. / And Beit Yosef wrote in Orach Chaim, chapter 173, \"Yet there are those who practice a personal stringency not to eat meat after cheese at the same meal\" and thus one finds in the Zohar that one should be strict in this matter.  Therefore one should be strict even with fowl following cheese.  If the Maharam had seen the Zohar, he would not have been lenient with fowl.  That is the end of his words there.  He quoted the Zohar on this issue.  "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "דרכי משה",
+        "enTitle": "Darchei Moshe",
+        "key": "Darchei Moshe",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Darchei Moshe/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,839 @@
+{
+    "title": "Darchei Moshe",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Darchei_Moshe",
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "In the Maharil (Our teacher, Rabbi Yaakov Levi Moelin): But if his wife and his children [already] ask him [relevant questions], there is no need to say <i>Mah Nishtanah</i> (How is it different). So one just begins from, \"We were slaves.\" Also there: When one reaches, \"Blood, Fires and Pillars of Smoke,\" he should remove [some of the wine in his cup] with his finger. And likewise when one says, \"<i>Datzach, Adash, Baachab</i>\" (the initials of the ten plagues), individually and as groups. The total is sixteen times. And this was the custom of our teacher Rabbi Shalom (of Neustadt). And he said that it is so in the book of Aviah (R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi) - that it corresponds to the sixteen faces of the <i>chayot</i> (a type of angel). To here are his words. But it appears that it hints here to the sword of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is called, <i>Yohakh</i> (<i>Yo</i> has a numerical value of sixteen, and <i>hakh</i> means, strike). And that is [the name of] the angel appointed for vengeance, as is known to the Kabbalists. And it is customary to remove [wine] from the cup with the [fore]finger, to hint at that which is stated (Exodus 8:15), \"This is the finger of God\"; and not like I found written in the Hanhagat Minhagim, that one should sprinkle with the pinkie.  "
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "Maharik wrote [in] Shoresh 26 in the name of a responsum of the Geonim that on the day of Simchat Torah, our practice is to dance - even the elderly - while we say praises about the Torah scroll. Even though we do not dance on a holiday, our practice is to permit [it] on account of the honor of the Torah. To here are his [words]. And the Maharil wrote: There are places where the practice is for the children to destroy the sukkot (huts) and burn them on Simchat Torah and they give an explanation to permit this. However my father and teacher, may his memory be blessed would protest against me when I was young to not destroy it on a holiday. To here are his [words]. "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "In the Mordechai at the beginning of the chapter Kol HaBasar (Talmud Chullin):  \"A responsum of Maharam (of Rothenburg):  Once, from one meal to the next I found cheese between (my) teeth.  I made a personal decree to be strict (regarding eating) meat following cheese (just as one must wait before eating) cheese following meat; with fowl, I am lenient (to eat fowl directly after cheese),\" end quote. / Here is the discussion of Issur veHeiter Ha'Aroch chapter 40: \"If one ate soft cheese younger than (Hebrew should read: קודם) six months or other kinds of milk (products), he may eat meat immediately at the same meal by means of cleaning out (Hebrew should read: קינוח) and washing his hands and mouth.  However, if one eats twelve-month old cheese or moldy (מתולעת, 'wormy') cheese, even though no prohibition pertains, nevertheless it is a measure of piety not to eat meat afterwards at the same meal, in accordance with the responsum (Hebrew should read: כתשובת) of Maharam,\" end quote. / And so, many have the practice not to eat meat after (eating) hard cheese that sticks between the teeth, just as we do not eat cheese after meat. / And Beit Yosef wrote in Orach Chaim, chapter 173, \"Yet there are those who practice a personal stringency not to eat meat after cheese at the same meal\" and thus one finds in the Zohar that one should be strict in this matter.  Therefore one should be strict even with fowl following cheese.  If the Maharam had seen the Zohar, he would not have been lenient with fowl.  That is the end of his words there.  He quoted the Zohar on this issue.  "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "דרכי משה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "דרכי משה",
+        "enTitle": "Darchei Moshe",
+        "key": "Darchei Moshe",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Darchei Moshe/Hebrew/Darchei Moshe, Fürth 1760.json

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Darchei Moshe",
+    "versionSource": "https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01006575169",
+    "versionTitle": "Darchei Moshe, Fürth 1760",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "דרכי משה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur",
+        "Commentary"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": [
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [
+                    "ומיהו אם נשתתף כו׳. כב״י כ״כ התו׳ והרא״ש פ״ד מיתות והר״ן ספ״ק דע״ז בשם ר״ת ואעפ״י שהרשב״ם חולק דעתם מסכמת לדעת ר״ת. וכ׳ הר״ן ספ״ק דע״ז דעכשיו נהגו היתר שותפו׳ עם הנכרי׳ משום שאין הנכרי׳ נשבעין בתרפותם ומ״מ מידת חסידות הוא שלא לעשות שותפו׳ עמו וכ״כ בתא״ו ני״ז ח״ה וז״ל וכ׳ ר״י דיש היתר בזמן הזה כי נשבעי׳ בקדשי׳ שלהן הנקראי׳ עו״ן גליו״ן ואין תופסין ואעפ״י שמזכירי׳ ש״ש וכוונתן וכו׳ מ״מ אין מזכירי׳ שם ע״ז וגם דעתן לעושה שמי׳ וארץ ואע״ג דמשתתפי׳ ש״ש וד״א לא מצינו שאסור לגרום לשתף דלפני עור ליכא דאין הנכרי׳ מוזהרים על השתוף עכ״ל. וכן הוא בתו׳ ריש פ״ק דבכורות:"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ],
+        "Yoreh Deah": [],
+        "Even HaEzer": [],
+        "Choshen Mishpat": []
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "דרכי משה",
+        "enTitle": "Darchei Moshe",
+        "key": "Darchei Moshe",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat"
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Drisha/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f8d38d93adac450aa74d7ae12501558808c22994a51f2f9f4ca68123dd1436e0
+size 10899720

json/Halakhah/Tur/Commentary/Prisha/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ad736b8ed8e2185c1e20a52b947e239229ca5e764849bb66f7069773786d3e32
+size 12617371

json/Halakhah/Tur/Tur/Hebrew/Tur Orach Chaim, Vilna, 1923.json

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Tur",
+    "versionSource": null,
+    "versionTitle": "Tur Orach Chaim, Vilna, 1923",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "טור",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": {
+            "Introduction": [
+                "ברוך ה' אלהי ישראל אשר לו הגדולה והגבורה. לו נאה שיר ושבחה הלל וזמרה. עוז וממשלה. על כל אלהים מאוד נעלה. אם אומר אשמיע כל תהלתו ואהללה. לא אוכל כי אין בלשוני מלה. וכי הוא מרומם על כל ברכה ותהלה. ולו דומיה תהלה. שליט בכל דרי מטה ומעלה. כלם איש איש ממקומו ישתחוו לו בחילה. ראשון לראשונים אין לראשיתו ראש ותחילה. וגם את אחרונים הוא ואין לו קץ ותכלה. בראשית ברא את השמים ואת הארץ ובששת ימים עשה את מלאכתו עד אם כלה. וייצר את האדם עפר מאדמתו. את הכל עשה יפה בעתו בעבור ישראל ראשית תבואתו. ובעבור תורת קנינו ראשית נסיכתו. להנחיל לעם קדשו יעקב חבל נחלתו. וזווג ראשית עם ראשית. טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו. זווגו יפה עלה. כי אמרת ה' צרופה מקושטת בעשרים וארבע ככלה:",
+                "ויתן לנו על יד נאמן ביתו. חוקי דתו ותורתו. ויבדילנו מטומאת גויי הארצות ויקרבנו לעבודתו. ויצוהו עלינו חוקים ומשפטים ללמדנו. ויעש כאשר צוה וילמד חוק ומשפט לישראל. לא עשה כן לכל גוי ומשפטים בל ידעום וחוקי האל. ותורה אשר קבל משה מסיני מסרה ליהושע ויהושע לזקנים וזקנים לנביאים ונביאים מסרוה לאנשי כנסת הגדולה. והם החזירו העטרה ליושנה וברכו במורא. האל הגדול הגבור והנורא. ותקנו כל סדר הברכות קריאת שמע שחרית שתים לפניה ואחת לאחריה וערבית שתים לפניה ושתים לאחריה וסמכום על המקרא שבע ביום הללתיך. וכן כל י\"ח ברכות על הסדר וסמכום על המקראות. ותקנו לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום ולברך על כל דבר ודבר מעין ברכתו והם מסרוה לתלמידיהם וכן דור אחר דור עד היום:",
+                "ויען כי ארכו לנו הימים בגלותינו ותשש כחנו. ושמם לבנו. ורפו ידינו. וכהו עינינו. וכבדו אזנינו. ונאלם לשונינו. ונטל מדברנו. ונסתמו מעיני חכמתינו. ונשתבשו הסברות. וגדלו המחלוקות. ורבו הדעות. ולא נשארה הלכה פסוקה שאין בה דעות שונות. עד כי רבים מועלים בהנאתן מן העולם בלא ברכה. ואמרו רבותינו ז\"ל ילך אדם אצל חכם וילמדנו סדר ברכות כדי שלא יבא לידי מעילה. על כן העירוני רעיוני ומחשבותי ועם לבבי אשיחה אמרים. אקומה נא ואסובבה בבתי יעבץ תרעתים שמעתים סוכתים סופרים ואבינה בספרים. ואלקטה שנים ושלשה גרגרים בראשי האמרים מדברי המחברים. ואחבר ספר בענין התפלות והברכות ואסדרם כל דבר ודבר ברכתו הראויה לו תחלה וסוף ואבררם בענין שלא ישאר בהן ספק:",
+                "וישיבוני סעיפי הלא ימים ידברו ורוב שנים יודיעו חכמה. ואתה בער וצעיר לימים אתה ואין בך דעת ומזימה. ואין אתך יודע עד מה. לכן חדל לך ממחשבותיך. פן מה תעשה באחריתך. ואל יכלימוך רעיך. ואשיבם דבר לאמר אקומה נא ויהי מה כי היא מלאכת שמים. ואשאלה עזר מאתו ויהי לי לעינים. ולשמוע בלמודים יעיר לי אזנים. ולדבר מישרים יפתח לי שפתים. ויוציא לפועל מחשבותי. ותעלוזנה כליותי. וראיתי לחבר עוד הלכות שבת ומועדים מגילה וחנוכה ור\"ח ותעניות כי הם דברים ההוים ובאים לעתים ידועים. ואין רצוני להאריך בראיות אלא להביא דברים פסוקים ובמקום שיש דעות שונות אכתבם ואכתוב אחרי כן מסקנת אדוני אבי הרא\"ש ז\"ל. וקראתי ספר זה אורח חיים כי הוא יסיר ממוקשי מות להולכים באורחותיו. וחלקתיו לג' חלקים:",
+                "החלק הראשון סדרתי בו סדר היום איך יתנהג האדם מעת קומו עד שכבו בענין ק\"ש שחרית וערבית ובענין התפלות כל אחת בזמנה והלכותיה. ושאר התפלות כגון תפלת הדרך והדומין לה. ואיך יתנהג במאכליו ובמשקיו במשאו ובמתנו כל אחד בעתו. ואפרש הלכות ציצית בעת התעטפו בבקר. ואחריו הלכות תפילין בעת הנחתן. וכל ברכה וברכה משמנה עשרה ברכות סדרתי בה ענינה כגון הזכרה בגבורות ושאלה בברכת השנים ונשיאות כפים בברכת השלום וכן כולם. ואחר שמונה עשרה סדרתי קריאת התורה וברכותיה. ואחר כן קדושת בית הכנסת ומכירתה. ובעת הסעודה סדרתי דין נטילת ידים מים ראשונים בתחלת הסעודה מים אמצעיים באמצעיתה ואחרונים בסופה. ודין הבציעה ועל מה ראוי לבצוע. וכל הלכות הסעודה. ודין כוס של ברכה. וברכת המזון. וכל מה שמוסיפין בכל ברכה וברכה ואם שכח ולא הזכירו וכל דיניו. והזימון מי יצטרף ומתי נחלקים וכל דיניו. וברכת הנהנין תחלה וסוף ושיעורן ואיזה קודם לחבירו ופוטר חבירו וכל משפטן. וברכת הריח והנס וההודאה ושאר כל הברכות. ושינת הצהרים וכונת האדם בהנאותיו מן העוה\"ז:",
+                "החלק השני סדר יום השבת איך יתנהג בכבודו ומיום הראשון ואילך והלכות כל ענין וענין בזמנו כגון קבולת ושכירות מרחץ שלפני שבת ושותפות עם הגוי והפלגת ספינה ושילוח אגרות ג' ימים לפני השבת. ודברים הנוהגים בע\"ש כגון איסור מלאכה ושהייה והטמנה והדלקה כל אחד בזמנו ואיזו מלאכה מתחילין ע\"ש עם חשכה. ומי שהחשיך לו בדרך. ואח\"כ סדר היום בעצמו והלכותיו המותרין והאסורים אבל חיוב חטאת לא רציתי להאריך בו:",
+                "החלק השלישי סדר מועדות והלכותיהם ומגילה וחנוכה ור\"ח והתעניות והתחלתי בהלכות ר\"ח ופירשתי בו ברכת הלבנה ומעט מהעיבור לידע המולד והתקופות וקביעות השנה ואח\"כ הלכות הפסח כי לרגלים מונין מניסן וספירת העומר והלכות יום טוב וחול המועד ותשעה באב ושאר תעניות והאשמורות לפני ראש השנה. וראש השנה ועשרת ימי תשובה ויום הכפורים. וסוכה ולולב וחנוכה וסדר הפרשיות ומגילה:",
+                "וראיתי עוד לעשות סימנים לכלול כל ענין וענין במלות קצרות ולכתבם בתחלת הספר במספר במנין למען היות נקל לבקש כל ענין וענין. ואל אלהים יודע וישראל הוא ידע כי לא בעבור מעלה עשיתי זאת כי לא עשיתי דבר שיהא בו כדי עילוי שאיני אלא כתלמיד הלומד מפי המלמד וכותב דבריו להתלמד וכלוקט המלקט מאחרי הקוצרים וכמאסף בין העמרים אחת הנה ואחת הנה ביני חטי לקוטי בתר לקוטי והיודע כל תעלומות יעזרנו להוציא לאור כל נעלמות. ויקרבנו לעבודתו. ויאיר עינינו במאור תורתו ויצילנו משגיאות. ויראנו בתורתו נפלאות. ויזכנו בביאת הגואל לראות. ויורנו מדרכיו ונלכה באורחותיו. כדכתיב לכו ונעלה אל הר ה' אל בית אלהי יעקב ויורנו מדרכיו ונלכה בארחותיו כי מציון תצא תורה ודבר ה' מירושלים בית יעקב לכו ונלכה באור ה' אמן:"
+            ],
+            "": []
+        },
+        "Yoreh Deah": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": []
+        },
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": []
+        }
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "טור",
+        "enTitle": "Tur",
+        "key": "Tur",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Halakhah/Tur/Tur/Hebrew/Tur temp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Tur",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001935970",
+    "versionTitle": "Tur temp",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "טור",
+    "categories": [
+        "Halakhah",
+        "Tur"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Orach Chaim": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": []
+        },
+        "Yoreh Deah": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": []
+        },
+        "Even HaEzer": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": []
+        },
+        "Choshen Mishpat": {
+            "Introduction": [],
+            "": [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"1.1\"></i>  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"1.1\"></i>  תבעו הפקדון וכפר בו מיד נעשה עליו גזלן וחייב באונסין ופסול לעדות ולשבועה  <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"2.1\"></i> בד\"א שיש עדים שבשעה שכפר בו היה ברשותו אבל אם אין עדים לא שמא נאבד ממנו ואמר אכפור בו ואדחנו עד שאמצאנו ואחזירנו לו:  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"2.1\"></i>  ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"3.1\"></i>  לא כפר בו אלא טען נגנב או נאבד אם אמר שאירע הדבר במקום שעדים מצויין יביא עדים לדבריו ויפטר ואם לאו צריך לשלם  <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"4.1\"></i> וכתב הרמ\"ה דוקא מילתא דשלטא ביה עינא  <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"5.1\"></i> כההוא עובדא דההוא גברא דהוה מעביר הביתא בשוקא ואתבר ואמר רבא כיון דשכיחי אינשי בשוקא בעי לאייתי ראיה אבל מילתא כל דהו דעביד דמתרמי דלא שלטא ביה עינא כגון מאן דנקיט חפצא בידיה ואפשר דאתרע ביה אונסא דלא ידעי אינשי אע\"ג דרבים מצויין שם משתבע ומפטר: ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"6.1\"></i>  וכתב עוד מי שטען טענת אונס בפקדון ומביא עדים שנאנס בידו החפץ ששאל המפקיד כגון ששואל גלימא וטוען שנאנס ומביא עדים שראו שנאנס לו גלימא אע\"ג דלא ידעי אי גלימת המפקיד הוא פטור כיון שאילו היתה גלימא בידו ומפקיד אמר לא זו היא ונפקד אומר זו היא נאמן בשבועת היסת ואם המפקיד אומר שמא ונפקד אומר ברי אפילו היסת ליכא והכא כיון דמפקיד לא ידע האי גלימא דאתניס אי דידיה היא אי לא שומר מהימן ע\"כ:  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"3.1\"></i>  ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"7.1\"></i>  ואם אין עדים מצויין ישבע שהוא כדבריו ויכלול בשבועתו שלא פשע בשמירתו אלא ששמרו כראוי ואירעו זה שטוען ושלא שלח בו יד שאם שלח בו יד חייב כדפרישית:  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"4.1\"></i>  ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"8.1\"></i>  ופירש ר\"י דוקא שאין עדים שנגנבה או נאנסה לפיכך כיון שצריך לישבע שנגנבה או נאנסה מגלגלין עליו שאר השבועות אבל אם יש עדים שנגנבה או נאנסה אינו נשבע כלל  <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"9.1\"></i>  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"5.1\"></i> אבל בירושלמי יש שאפילו אם יש עדים שנגנבה או נאנסה דהשתא אינו צריך לישבע שאינו ברשותו אפ\"ה צריך לישבע שלא פשע בה ואגב זה צריך לישבע שלא שלח בה יד אבל אם יש עדים שנגנבה ושלא פשע בה א\"צ לישבע שלא שלח בה יד דאחזוקי אינשי ברשיעי לא מחזיקינן וכ\"כ א\"א הרא\"ש ז\"ל: ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"10.1\"></i>  התנה הנפקד שיהא פטור מן השבועה כל תנאי שבממון קיים:  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"6.1\"></i>  ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"11.1\"></i>  ואם אחר שנשבע בב\"ד נמצא שקרן אלא הוא בידו יש לו כל דין גנב שמשלם כפל ואם טבח או מכר משלם ד' וה' אע\"פ שלא שלח בו יד תחלה: ",
+                    " וכן אם שלח בו יד תחלה ואחר כך טען שנגנב ונשבע בב\"ד ונמצא שקרן יש לו כל דין גנב: ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"12.1\"></i>  אבל כל זמן שלא נשבע אע\"פ שכפר בב\"ד אין לו דין גנב:  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"7.1\"></i>  ",
+                    " <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"13.1\"></i>  היה אמת שנגנב ונמצא הגנב אחר כך משלם כפל וד' וה' לבעלים  <i data-commentator=\"Beit_Yosef\" data-order=\"14.1\"></i> נגנב באונס כגון בלסטים מזויין ונמצא אחד שומר חנם ואחד שומר שכר צריך לשלם לבעלים ויעמוד הוא עם הגנב לדין ליפרע ממנו כיון שאינו מפסיד <i data-commentator=\"Darchei Moshe\" data-order=\"2.1\"></i> כלום אלא שטורח להוציא מידו:  <i data-commentator=\"Bach\" data-order=\"8.1\"></i>  ",
+                    " ואם נשבע קודם שהוכר הגנב אם ש\"ח הוא רצה עומד בשבועה ואם ירצה יטרח להעמיד הגנב לדין ויפרע הוא לבעלים ואם שומר שכר הוא צריך לפרוע לבעלים ויעמיד הוא הגנב לדין: "
+                ]
+            ]
+        }
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "טור",
+        "enTitle": "Tur",
+        "key": "Tur",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אורח חיים",
+                "enTitle": "Orach Chaim",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "יורה דעה",
+                "enTitle": "Yoreh Deah",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "אבן העזר",
+                "enTitle": "Even HaEzer",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "חושן משפט",
+                "enTitle": "Choshen Mishpat",
+                "nodes": [
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                        "enTitle": "Introduction"
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "heTitle": "",
+                        "enTitle": ""
+                    }
+                ]
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}