Bach
- Orach Chayim.1.1.1
Traducción al Español
- Orach Chayim.1.1.2
"Judá ben Teimá dice: 'Sé fuerte como un leopardo...' Leopardo es lo que llaman en arameo 'riš' y no como algunos erróneamente piensan que es una leona. Excepto cuatro cosas...' Parece que, a primera vista, estas cuatro cosas no fueron mencionadas sino para despertar al hombre en general a que sea cuidadoso y diligente en hacer la voluntad de su Padre celestial, por lo tanto, advirtieron con un lenguaje doble, triple y cuádruple: 'Sé fuerte como un leopardo...' Pero estas palabras no instruyen sobre el cuerpo de la obra y sus detalles. Y entonces es difícil, porque sería redundante comparar 'fuerte como un leopardo' con 'valiente como un león', ya que son un mismo asunto. Por lo tanto, se interpreta que estas cosas son para indicar cuatro detalles en el cuerpo de la obra, y de acuerdo con esto, no es difícil, como se explicará con la ayuda del Cielo. Y también, en general, se dice que en los asuntos mundanos hay dos: 'ligero como un águila', es decir, correr como una gacela, y 'fuerte como un leopardo', es decir, valiente como un león. Sin embargo, en el servicio al Creador, bendito sea, hay cuatro asuntos, como se explicará, si Dios quiere. Y según esto, se deduce la dificultad de por qué comenzó con 'fuerte como un leopardo'. Estaría bien si interpretáramos que todas las palabras indican la diligencia, en general, para llevar a cabo el servicio del Todopoderoso, no habría dificultad en comenzar con 'fuerte como un leopardo', ya que esto se deduce de allí. Pero dado que viene a detallar los detalles del servicio, y su significado 'fuerte como un leopardo' es decir que sea fuerte cuando realiza su servicio, sin interrumpirlo de ninguna manera, para esto es difícil, ya que dado que 'ligero como un águila' y 'rápido como una gacela' significan que sea ligero y rápido en su servicio, bendito sea, entonces debería haberlos precedido, porque primero es ligero y rápido y luego se dedica al servicio. Y dijo: 'Y no te abstengas de hacer el mandamiento', es decir, no se refiere a hablarles con arrogancia, sino a que no se abstenga de hacer el mandamiento." Traducido por Yoel Alter
- Orach Chayim.1.2.1
"Y lo que está escrito, 'y así dijo Rabí Iojanán ben Zakai, etc.' en el capítulo 'Ta'anit' (página 28), significa que no hay que asombrarse de por qué es necesario advertir sobre esto, ya que no hay persona que se abstenga de cumplir el mandamiento por causa de los burladores. Esto es lo que dijo Rabí Iojanán ben Zakai con respecto al temor, y lo mismo se aplica a la vergüenza."...
- Orach Chayim.1.2.2
Traducción al Español de Yoel Alter
- Orach Chayim.46.11.1
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 mitzvot (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.
- Orach Chayim.271.3.1
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.
- Orach Chayim.694.1.1
Every person is obligated, etc.: That is to say, every person, even a poor person who receives charity, is obligated to give from what [others] give to him, to other poor people on Purim. As the law of giving gifts to the poor on Purim is not like the law of charity in general. For the proper way of the commandments of Purim is to give gifts to the poor, so it is like the law of four cups [of wine] on Passover. And the poor are even obligated concerning the sending of portions, even though they will not have enough in their meal for themselves to eat and also to send to others. And this is as is implied from [the story in the Talmud of] Rav Chanina bar Avin and Abbaye bar Avin, according to the explanation of our rabbi [the author of Tur], later in Section 695. If so, the same is the law for the giving of gifts to the poor on Purim. However, with other charity during the whole of the year, a poor person is only obligated to give a small amount to charity once a year in order to fulfill the commandment of charity, as it is written in Yoreh Deah 248 and 249.
- Orach Chayim.695.5.1
And each one must send portions to his fellow, etc. [That is] in the first chapter of Megillah (7a:20), "Rabbi Yosef taught." And the Ran, may his memory be blessed, wrote, Two portions to one person means types of food and drink to the wealthy; but with the indigent, it is enough for each one with one gift, since it is considered like a big thing in their eyes. To here are his [words]. But in my humble opinion regarding the reason for these portions and gifts, it is so that the joy will include the joy of service to the Creator of everything, and that is gifts to the indigent; and also include the joy of a person with his loved ones and his friends, and these are the portions. And it is since the salvation on Purim included two salvations. The first was that all our opponents were paid back and we were avenged. And the second is that He saved us to the point that not one man was lost. And these are truly two great gifts; and they are hinted well in the two gifts that Ahasuerus gave. The first was the house of Haman; as through this, he paid back our opponents. And the second was the giving of the ring, such that no opponent or enemy would hurt us. And so is it written (Esther 8:2), "That very day the king [...] gave the house of Haman, etc." And it is written (Esther 8:3), "The king slipped off his ring [...] and gave it to Mordekhai, etc." In memory of these two gifts, our Sages, may their memory be blessed, established that one give two gifts from his hand and from his wealth in memory of these two salvations, for both the joy of service to the Creator and the joy of a person with his loved ones and his friends. They will not depart from in front of us on account of the gifts that Ahasuerus gave. And behold since the 'indigent will never be lacking from the earth' and 'the forsaken are many,' the commandment is to distribute and give one gift to every indigent person. For so did the earlier ones write, and so too does the intellect require. For one who has 100 gold pieces to give to the poor - his reward is greater when he distributes it to 100 poor people than when he gives all of the 100 gold pieces to one, two or three poor people. For the one who gave to 100 [people] maintained 100 souls. However with the joy of a person with his loved ones and his friends, he may not find many people he loves, as our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 16b:5), "Either a friend like the friends of Job"; and likewise (Avot 1:6), "Acquire a friend for yourself." That is why the commandment is to send two portions to his good friend, to be joyful and happy with him about these two salvations, as mentioned. 'Let the sage listen and increase knowledge.'
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.1
Canaanites who have fallen into a pit or a place of danger — the observer is not obligated to raise them up, etc. In Chapter “Eilu Metziot” (26a), Rav Yosef thought to say that the teaching that states, “Canaanites and shepherds of small livestock, we do not raise them nor lower them,” allows for raising them in exchange for payment, due to the concern for hostility. Abaye said to him: He could say, "My son is on the roof," (Rashi explains: if I do not lower him, he will die, and I prefer to forgo my wages to save him). Or, "I have an appointment with the governor," (Rashi explains: the official set a time for me, and if I do not go, my profit will turn into a loss). The halacha follows Abaye. Similarly, Rav Yosef thought to say that delivering a gentile baby on Shabbat for pay is allowed to prevent hostility. Abaye countered: He could say, "We have Shabbat laws to observe," etc.
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.2
Rav Yosef also thought to say that assisting for payment is permitted to avoid hostility. Abaye objected, saying he could explain, "If she is single," etc. In all these cases, the halacha follows Abaye, as seen above in Siman 154, and as implied by the Talmud’s language: "Rav Yosef thought to say," meaning this was an initial assumption until Abaye challenged him and he retracted his original understanding.
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.3
Regarding the phrase "or a place of danger," it seems that our teacher (the author) holds that the rule of not raising them applies to someone who falls into a pit with water — a life-threatening situation where immediate rescue is necessary to prevent drowning. That is why he added "or a place of danger," implying that even the mention of falling into a pit refers to a dangerous situation.
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.4
Rambam explained this more explicitly in Laws of Murder, Chapter 4:
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.5
"A gentile with whom we are not at war, and Jewish shepherds of small livestock, or similar individuals — we do not cause their death, but it is forbidden to save them if they are dying. For example, if one saw such a person fall into the sea, they should not pull him out," etc.
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.6
Thus, Rambam clarified that the rule of "not raising them" applies when the person is near death, such as falling into the sea. This is also the view of the Tosafot in Avodah Zarah (20a) who questioned the position permitting giving gifts to gentiles, based on a verse. They resolved that the verse refers to a gift that does not sustain their life, since even without the gift, they would not die — unlike pulling someone from a pit, which saves them from near-certain death, raising concerns of sustaining gentile progeny.
- Yoreh De'ah.158.1.7
Rambam’s wording, "a gentile with whom we are not at war," instead of simply "a gentile," seems intended to reconcile the Tosafot’s difficulty with the teaching, "we do not lower them," since in Massechet Sofrim it states, "The most righteous of the gentiles should be killed." The Jerusalem Talmud explains that this applies during wartime. It seems that Rambam wrote this phrase to align with that interpretation.
- Even HaEzer.4.10.1
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.1.1.1
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.
Sefaria Community Translation. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.sefaria.org Licence: CC0. Source.