אברי בשר נחירה | צפנת פענח: פרשת ואתחנן [🔊]

(10) When the LORD your God brings you into the land that He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to you—great and flourishing cities that you did not build, (11) houses full of all good things that you did not fill, hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant—and you eat your fill,

And, if so, all the more so now, in exile, when they are even more distant from the Temple, the meat of desire should be permitted. Consequently, it is unnecessary for the mishna to teach this halakha. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The tanna who teaches this halakha is Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “If the place that the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to prohibit for them consumption of meat of an animal killed by means of stabbing rather than valid slaughter, as, initially, the meat of stabbing was permitted for them. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of stabbing was forbidden to them, and it was permitted to eat the meat of an animal only after valid slaughter. Rav Yosef added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that stabbed animals are restored to their initial permitted state? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One must always slaughter the animal to eat its meat. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva holds: The meat of desire was not forbidden at all, and Rabbi Yishmael holds: The meat of stabbing was not permitted at all. The Gemara asks a series of questions: Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the burnt offerings sacrificed in the Tabernacle: “And he shall slaughter the young bull” (Leviticus 1:5). But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: “And he shall slaughter”? Why would he slaughter it if stabbing is permitted? The Gemara answers: Sacrificial animals are different, as slaughter is required in that case. By contrast, there was no obligation to slaughter non-sacrificial animals to eat their meat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written: “Will flocks and herds be slaughtered for them” (Numbers 11:22), indicating that they slaughtered the animals in the wilderness. But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: “Will flocks and herds be slaughtered for them”? Ostensibly, the words: Be stabbed for them, should have been written. The Gemara answers: In the wilderness, their stabbing is their slaughter. Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, that is the meaning of that which we learned in a mishna (85a) with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and the slaughter is not valid and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand, and one who stabs an animal, and one who rips the simanim from their place before cutting them, invalidating the slaughter, is exempt from covering the blood. One must cover the blood of only an animal whose slaughter was valid. But according to Rabbi Akiva, why is one exempt from covering the blood of an animal that was stabbed, since in his opinion when they were commanded to cover blood, animals that were stabbed were permitted? The Gemara answers: Since the meat of stabbing was forbidden, it was forbidden, and the halakhic status of stabbing is no longer that of slaughtering. Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of desire was not forbidden at all, that is the meaning of that which is written before they entered Eretz Yisrael: “However, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it, the pure and the impure may eat of it alike” (Deuteronomy 12:22). This means that just as it is permitted to eat the meat of a gazelle and a deer in the wilderness in a state of ritual impurity, so may you eat them when you enter Eretz Yisrael, although at that point it will be prohibited to stab them and eat their meat, as their meat will be permitted only through slaughter. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of desire was forbidden in the wilderness, were the gazelle and the deer themselves permitted in the wilderness? They are not brought as offerings. The Gemara answers: When the Merciful One rendered the meat of desire forbidden, that was specifically the meat of a domesticated animal that is fit for sacrifice. But the Merciful One did not render forbidden undomesticated animals that are not fit for sacrifice. § Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status? The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things…and you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 6:10–11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei daḥazirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted? Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved. § Rabba says: You explained the phrases in the mishna: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter. In what way do you explain the phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts? And if you would say that it means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed, but isn’t this phrase taught in a manner similar to those other phrases in the mishna? If these phrases: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter, are referring to those that slaughter, this phrase too is referring to those that slaughter; and if those phrases are referring to those that are slaughtered, this phrase too is referring to those that are slaughtered. The first two phrases in the mishna were explained as referring to the animals that are slaughtered. The first phrase was interpreted to include birds, and the second phrase was interpreted as referring to the halakha that meat may be eaten only through slaughter of the animal. Rather, Rava said that the entire mishna is referring to those that slaughter. The initial phrase means everyone [hakkol] slaughters. Although an identical phrase was used in the first mishna (2a), both are necessary: One is to include a Samaritan and one is to include a Jewish transgressor. The second phrase: One may always slaughter, means both during the day and at night, both on a rooftop and atop a ship, and there is no concern that it will appear that he is slaughtering in an idolatrous manner to the hosts of heaven or to the god of the sea. The phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed. The mishna states: Except for the serrated side of the harvest sickle, and the saw. Shmuel’s father would notch a knife and send it to Eretz Yisrael to ask if it is fit for slaughter, and would notch a knife in a different manner and send it to Eretz Yisrael in order to determine the type of notch that invalidates slaughter. They sent to him from Eretz Yisrael that the principle is: We learned that the notch that invalidates slaughter is like a saw, whose teeth point upward, as it rips the simanim with every draw of the knife back and forth. The Sages taught in a baraita:

the responsibility of Judah, as David did not kill Shimei, although he was liable to the death penalty. The grave consequences of this failure included that Mordecai was born from him, and it was he against whom Haman was jealous, leading Haman to issue a decree against all of the Jewish people. And how a Benjamite has repaid me is referring to the fact that Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, did not kill the Amalekite king Agag immediately, from whom Haman was later born, and he caused suffering to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yoḥanan said a different explanation of the verse: Actually, Mordecai came from the tribe of Benjamin. Why, then, was he referred to as Yehudi? On account of the fact that he repudiated idol worship, for anyone who repudiates idolatry is called Yehudi. It is understood here in the sense of yiḥudi, one who declares the oneness of God, as it is written: “There are certain Jews [Yehuda’in] whom thou hast appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylonia, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not regarded you: They serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:12). These three individuals were in fact Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were not all from the tribe of Judah but are referred to as Yehuda’in because they repudiated idol worship. § Incidental to the exposition of the word Yehudi as one who repudiates idolatry, the Gemara relates that when Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi introduced his exposition of the book of Chronicles, he addressed the book of Chronicles and said as follows: All of your words are one, and we know how to expound them. This introduction made reference to the fact that the book of Chronicles cannot always be interpreted literally but requires exposition, as the same individual might be called by various different names, as in the following verse: “And his wife HaYehudiyya bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (I Chronicles 4:18). Why is she, who we are told at the end of the verse was Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, referred to as Yehudiyya? Because she repudiated idol worship, as it is written: “And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself in the river” (Exodus 2:5), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She went down to wash and purify herself from the idols of her father’s house. The Gemara understands that all the names referred to in the verse as children of Pharaoh’s daughter refer to Moses, as it will soon explain. The Gemara asks: Pharaoh’s daughter bore Moses? But didn’t she merely raise him? Rather, it is telling you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him. The Gemara explains how all the names in fact are referring to Moses: “Jered”; this is Moses, and why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for the Jewish people in his days. He was also called “Gedor” because he fenced in [gadar] the breaches of the Jewish people. He was called “Heber” because he connected [ḥibber] the Jewish people to their Father in Heaven. He was called “Soco” because he was for the Jewish people like a shelter [sukka] and shield. He was called “Jekuthiel” because the Jewish people trusted in God [kivu laEl] in his days. Lastly, he was called “Zanoah” because he caused the iniquities of the Jewish people to be disregarded [hizniaḥ]. The Gemara notes that the words “father of” appear three times in that same verse: “And his wife Hajehudijah bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.” This teaches that Moses was a father to all of the Jewish people in three respects: A father in Torah, a father in wisdom, and a father in prophecy. The aforementioned verse stated: “And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took.” The Gemara asks: Was Bithiah’s husband’s name Mered? Wasn’t his name Caleb? Rather, the verse alludes to the reason that Caleb married Bithiah. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Caleb, who rebelled [marad] against the advice of the spies, come and marry the daughter of Pharaoh, who rebelled against the idols of her father’s home. § The Gemara resumes its explanation of the book of Esther. The verse states with regard to Mordecai: “Who had been exiled from Jerusalem” (Esther 2:6). Rava said: This language indicates that he went into exile on his own, not because he was forced to leave Jerusalem. He knew that he would be needed by those in exile, and therefore he consciously left Jerusalem to attend to the needs of his people. The verse states: “And he had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). She is referred to as “Hadassah” and she is referred to as “Esther.” What was her real name? It is taught in a baraita that the Sages differed in their opinion as to which was in fact her name and which one was a description: Rabbi Meir says: Esther was her real name. Why then was she called Hadassah? On account of the righteous, who are called myrtles [hadassim], and so it states: “And he stood among the myrtles [hahadassim]” (Zechariah 1:8). Rabbi Yehuda differs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? Because she concealed [masteret] the truth about herself, as it is stated: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20). Rabbi Neḥemya concurs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? This was her non-Hebrew name, for owing to her beauty the nations of the world called her after Istahar, Venus. Ben Azzai says: Esther was neither tall nor short, but of average size like a myrtle tree, and therefore she was called Hadassah, the Hebrew name resembling that myrtle tree. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Esther was called Hadassah because she was greenish, having a pale complexion like a myrtle, but a cord of Divine grace was strung around her, endowing her with a beautiful appearance. The verse initially states with regard to Esther: “For she had neither father nor mother” (Esther 2:7). Why do I need to be told in the continuation of the verse: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter”? Rav Aḥa said: This repetition indicates that when her mother became pregnant with her, her father died, and when she gave birth to her, her mother died, so that she did not have a mother or a father for even a single day. The verse states: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A tanna taught a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read the verse literally as for a daughter [bat], but rather read it as for a home [bayit]. This indicates that Mordecai took Esther to be his wife. And so it states: “But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared: And it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his bread, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter [kevat] to him” (II Samuel 12:3). The Gemara questions: Because it lay in his bosom, it “was like a daughter to him”? Rather, the parable in II Samuel referenced the illicit taking of another’s wife, and the phrase should be read: Like a home [bayit] to him, i.e., a wife. So too, here, Mordecai took her for a home, i.e., a wife. The verse states: “And the seven maids chosen to be given her out of the king’s house” (Esther 2:9). Rava said: She would have a separate maid attend her each day, and she would count the days of the week by them, so she was always aware when Shabbat was. The verse continues: “And he advanced her and her maids to the best place in the house of the women.” Rav said: The advancement in the verse signals that he fed her food of Jews, i.e., kosher food. And Shmuel said an alternative understanding: The advancement was a well-intentioned act in that he fed her pig hinds, thinking she would view it as a delicacy, although in fact they were not kosher. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said a third understanding: He gave her vegetables, which did not pose a problem with regard to the kosher laws. And so it states with regard to the kindness done for Daniel and his associates: “So the steward took away their food and the wine that they should drink; and gave them vegetables” (Daniel 1:16). The verse states: “Six months with oil of myrrh” (Esther 2:12). The Gemara asks: What is “oil of myrrh”? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: It is the aromatic oil called setakt. Rav Huna said: It is a cosmetic oil derived from olives that have not yet reached one-third of their growth. It is similarly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Anpakinon is the oil of olives that have not reached one-third of their growth. And why is it smeared on the body? Because it removes the hair and softens the skin. The verse states: “In the evening she went, and in the morning she returned” (Esther 2:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the implicit criticism of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, who cohabited with many women, we have incidentally learned his praise as well, that he would not engage in sexual relations during the day, but in a more modest fashion at night. The verse states: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” (Esther 2:15). Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that she appeared to each and every one as if she were a member of his own nation, and therefore she obtained favor in the eyes of all. The next verse states: “So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tevet” (Esther 2:16). It was by act of divine providence that Esther was taken to Ahasuerus in a cold winter month, in which the body takes pleasure in the warmth of another body, and therefore she found favor in his eyes. The verse states: “And the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins” (Esther 2:17). Rav said: This double language indicates that if he wanted to taste in her the taste of a virgin during intercourse, he tasted it, and if he wanted to experience the taste of a non-virgin, he tasted it, and therefore he loved her more than all the other women. The verse states: “Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast” (Esther 2:18). The Gemara explains that this was part of an attempt to have Esther reveal her true identity. He made a great feast in her honor, but she did not reveal her identity to him. He lowered the taxes [karga] in her name, but still she did not reveal it to him. He sent gifts [pardishenei] to the ministers in her name, but even so she did not reveal it to him. The verse states: “And when the virgins were gathered together the second time and Mordecai sat in the king’s gate” (Esther 2:19). The Gemara explains: The reason Ahasuerus gathered the women together was that he went and took advice from Mordecai as to what he should do to get Esther to reveal her identity. Mordecai said to him: As a rule, a woman is jealous only of the thigh of another woman. Therefore, you should take for yourself additional women. But even so she did not reveal her origins to him, as it is written: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20). § Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written:

Those courageous soldiers (or front-line troops) who cross the borders into non-Jewish lands, capture them and take prisoners are permitted to eat non-Kosher meats⁶⁹Lit. Neveilos and Treifos., swine and so on, if they are hungry and could not find anything to eat except for these forbidden foods. They may also drink wine offered in the service of idolatry. By Tradition we have learned that “houses filled with all good” (Deut. 6:11) means beheaded boar, and the like.

take heed that you do not forget the LORD who freed you from the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.

. השמר לך פן תשכח את ה’ אשר הוציאך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים, “Beware for yourself lest you forget the Lord Who took you out of the land of Egypt, from the House of slavery!” The Torah warns that as a result of the affluence and carefree existence the people should not forget that this had not always been their lot, that they used to be poor, oppressed, in a land where they had neither owned cities, houses, etc., as they did now. They should not forget who it was who saved them from such a miserable existence and whom they have to thank for their present fortunate circumstances. They must always remember the great acts of loving kindness performed for them by Hashem and serve the Lord as a servant serves his master. This is why Solomon wrote in Kohelet 7,14: “so in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune reflect, the one no less than the other was G’d’s doing.” The meaning of the verse is that in time of good fortune we should remember days of misfortune which we experienced already, whereas in times of misfortune we should remember times of good fortune we have experienced. When we do this we will be grateful to the Lord for our present fortunate circumstances.

I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. 11:7), and fat (ibid. 7:23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages declares: "The mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung itself" (B. T. Ber. 25a).

What we wrote in the warning of the 'torn' animal in the Order of Mishpatim (Sefer HaChinukh 73) is from the roots of the commandment - as God knows that all of the foods that he distanced from His people that He chose, have [properties] in them [that] injure bodies, [and] that stop the souls from activating them and elevating them with good deeds. Therefore, He distanced us from them, in order that the souls will make their impact; and that a bad constitution and a blockage of the heart not seal the door in front of them, as I wrote there.

The Gemara raised an objection to Rava. If another person said to him: Lend me your cow, and the owner answered and said to him: Every cow that I purchased other than this one, which I need, is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to you if I have a cow other than this one, and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: Lend me your spade, and the owner of the spade said to him: Every spade that I have that I purchased is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has another spade and the konam takes effect, then during the life of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is forbidden to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed died or if the cow or the spade was given to the subject of the vow as a gift, it is permitted. Apparently, the konam is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: It is referring to a case where it was given to the subject of the vow by another person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it. The Gemara states that Rav Ashi said: The language is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him. This indicates that this halakha applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed. § Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: Is there liability for misuse of consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property? Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse. The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tanna’im. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the case of both vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: There are two entities that are not in a person’s legal possession and nevertheless the verse rendered them as though they were in his possession with regard to certain halakhic responsibilities. And these are: A pit that he dug in the public domain and leavened bread remaining in his possession on the eve of Passover from six hours, i.e., noon, onward. Although deriving any benefit from the bread is prohibited, and it is therefore no longer in its owner’s legal possession, nevertheless he is commanded to destroy it. The Gemara concludes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable.