Halakhah su Deuteronomio 27:78

How great is the issur of lashon hara, which the Torah has forbidden even if true and in all modes. For not alone if he is careful to speak it only in private and to insist that it not be revealed to him [who is spoken about] is it forbidden, [for through this he also brings a curse upon himself, viz. (Devarim 27:24): "Cursed be he who smites his neighbor in secret"], but even if he knows that he would speak it even to his face, or actually speaks lashon hara to his face, even so it is forbidden and called "lashon hara." And in one respect, the issur is greater "to his face" than not to his face." For in his presence, aside from the issur of lashon hara, he [the speaker] clothes himself with the trait of brazenness and audacity, and arouses more strife thereby. And very often this leads also to the "whitening of (the other's) face (in shame)," as we have enlarged upon in the introduction concerning the negative commandment of (Vayikra 19:17): "Do not bear sin because of him."

And now we shall explain, with the help of the L–rd, what we projected in the beginning, to detail how many arurin he who does not guard himself against this evil trait beings upon himself. (1) Aside from all the aforementioned negative and positive commandments, he transgresses (Devarim 27:24): "Cursed be he who smites his neighbor in secret," which refers to lashon hara, as we find in Sifrei and in Rashi's commentary on Chumash.

(2) He also transgresses (Devarim 27:18): "Cursed is he who misleads the blind man on the way," it being known that the intent of Scripture is to curse one who places a stumbling-block before another so that an issur be committed by him, as in the negative commandment (Vayikra 19:14): "And before the blind man do not place a stumbling-block," which we have already explained (Negative Commandments 4) as also falling into this category.

(3) And if (G–d forbid) this matter becomes hefker [inconsequential] to him, so that he does not take it upon himself to guard himself from it, he transgresses further a third arur (Devarim 27:26): "Cursed is he who does not fulfill the words of this Torah to do them," which is understood as his not accepting it upon himself to fulfill the entire Torah. And he is called a "mumar [heretic] in respect to one thing" because of this — gratuitously transgressing this grave issur, regarding this article of the Torah of the L–rd as hefker — being like any other "mumar in respect to the entire Torah." Therefore, his sin is too great to forgive. We have thus enumerated three arurin which are often attendant upon this evil trait.

(And if, G–d forbid, the lashon hara were against his father and mother, he also transgresses a fourth arur (Ibid 16): "Cursed is he who demeans his father and his mother," which we have already explained above (Positive Commandment 14) in the Mekor Hachaim and in the Be'er Mayim Chayim.)

And we find it explicitly stated that it was this sin which caused the Jews to be worked [by the Egyptians] with back-breaking labor (viz. Shemoth 2:14 and Rashi there). And (Devarim Rabbah 6:14): "The Holy One Blessed be He said: 'In this world, because there was lashon hara among you, I removed My Shechinah from you, but in the next world, etc.'" And (Devarim 33:5): "And He became a King in Yeshurun when the heads of the people were gathered together as one, the tribes of Israel," which Rashi interprets (as per Sifrei): "When is He a King in Israel? Specifically, when the tribes of Israel are united and not divided into factions" — which (factions) are well known to be the result of lashon hara.

And, aside from this, how can the hoped-for blessings of the Holy One Blessed be He repose upon us when, in our many sins, we have become habituated to this sin? Is there not an explicit curse on this in the Torah, viz. (Devarim 27:24): "Cursed is he who strikes his neighbor in secret," which refers to lashon hara, as Rashi explains there (aside from the other curses which are superadded to this, as will be shown at the end of this preface)?

(10) And if he [the one spoken against] were his older brother, or his mother's husband or his father's wife, he also transgresses the positive commandment of "honoring," their having been included [in this mitzvah by the addition of "ve'eth", [(Shemoth 20:12): "Honor your father and [ve'eth] your mother," as explained in Kethuvoth 103a)]. How much more so — if, G–d forbid, [he speaks lashon hara] against his father or mother themselves, where he certainly transgresses the positive commandment of honoring father and mother — [is such lashon hara especially egregious]! Aside from all this, he also transgresses (Devarim 27:16): "Cursed is he who demeans his father and his mother" — may Heaven protect us!

That is that we were commanded to build a choice house for Divine service, in which there will be sacrifices and an eternal burning of fire; and to which there will be journeying and pilgrimage on the festivals, and gatherings every year. And that is His saying, "And let them make Me a sanctuary" (Exodus 25:8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 67:1) is, "Three commandments were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: To appoint a king over themselves; to build themselves a choice house; and to cut off the seed of Amalek." Behold it has been made clear to you that the building of the choice house is a separate commandment. And we have already explained (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 12) that this aggregate includes many parts, such as the menorah, the table, the altar and the rest of them - all of them are parts of the Temple. And all of it is called, Temple, even as each and every part has an individual command. However, His saying about the altar, "Make for Me an altar of earth" (Exodus 20:21), could have been thought of as a separate commandment, besides the commandment of the Temple. And the content of this is as I will tell you: True, the simple understanding of the verse is indeed clearly speaking about the time of the permissibility of altars - as at that time, it was permitted for us to build an earthen altar and sacrifice upon it. But [the Sages] have already said that the [actual] content in this is that He commanded us to to build an altar that is connected to the ground, and that it not be detached and moved, as it was in the desert [journey from Egypt]. And that is their saying in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon bar Yochai 20:21) in explanation of this verse, "When you come to the land, make Me an altar that is attached to the ground." And since the matter is so, behold that this command is practiced for [all] generations; and it would be one of the parts of the Temple - meaning that specifically an altar of stones be built. And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) in explanation of, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me" (Exodus 20:22), "Rabbi Yishmael says, 'Each and every, if, in the Torah [connotes] optionality, except for three.'" And one of the them is, "And if an altar of stones." They said, "'And if an altar of stones you make for Me.' This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Of whole stones shall you build [the altar of the Lord]' (Devarim 27:6)." And the regulations of this commandment as a whole - meaning to say, the building of the Temple and its description and the building of the altar - have been explained in the tractate associated with it, and that is Tractate Middot. And likewise is the form of the menorah, the table and the golden altar; and the location of their placement in the chamber explained in the Gemara, Menachot and Yoma. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 1.)

The question has its roots in the issue of whether or not there exists a requirement for eating meat in conjunction with the Yom Tov meal.¹⁶That question is more fully discussed in this writer’s Contemporary Halakhic Problems, III (New York, 1989), 246–256. Cf. also R. Moshe Sternbuch, Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, VIII, no. 111. As recorded by the Gemara, Pesaḥim 109a, during the period in which sacrifices were offered, the commandment to "rejoice before the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 27:7) was fulfilled by males in partaking of the meat of peace-offerings to which reference is made in that verse. Tosafot, Yoma 3a, and Rabbenu Nissim, Sukkah 42b, maintain that, even during the days of the Temple, eating meat on Yom Tov was not an absolute requirement; rather, as characterized by Rabbenu Nissim, eating meat was merely the optimal mode of fulfilling the obligation. Citing a further statement of the Gemara, Pesaḥim 109a, Ritva, Kiddushin 3b, and Teshuvot Rashbash, no. 176, rule that, following the destruction of the Temple, "there is no rejoicing other than with wine."¹⁷Rif, Pesaḥim 109a, and Rosh, Pesaḥim 10:22, fail to mention a need for partaking of meat and record only the statement found in Pesaḥim 109a with regard to wine. Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 249:6, cites the opinion of Levush to the effect that, subsequent to the destruction of the Temple, meat is not required. Similarly, in a comment included in the glosses of Ḥatam Sofer to Shulḥan Arukh, Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 249:6, R. Abraham Samuel Benjamin Sofer rules that meat is not a necessary condition of “rejoicing” subsequent to the destruction of the Temple. This also appears to be the view of Sha’agat Aryeh, no. 65. On the other hand, Rambam, Sefer ha-Mizvot, mizvot aseh, no. 54 and Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yom Tov 6:18, followed by Tur Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Hayyim 529, regards the eating of meat on Yom Tov as mandatory even in our day.¹⁸Rambam, Hilkhot Megillah 2:15, similarly rules that the obligation with regard to the Purim repast can be fulfilled only with meat. Among latter-day authorities, Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 696:15, states that, subsequent to the destruction of the Temple, there is no obligation to eat meat on festivals.¹⁹See also Bet Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 529. Mishnah Berurah 529:2, Bi’ur Halakhah, s.v., keiẓad, states that the eating of meat on Yom Tov in our day is not mandatory but that it nevertheless constitutes fulfillment of a miẓvah. That statement is, however, contradicted by two other comments of the same authority, Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 249:6 and Oraḥ Hayyim 529:3, in which he affirms the existence of such an obligation even in our day.²⁰For an attempt to resolve that contradiction see Darkei Teshuvah, Yoreh De‘ah 89:19 and R. Chaim Eleazar Shapiro, Nimukei Oraḥ Ḥayyim 529:2. See also R. Jacob Ettlinger, Arukh la-Ner, Sukkah 42b; Darkei Teshuvah 89:19; and R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yeḥaveh Da‘at, VI, no. 33.

R. Judah ben Beteira declared, "During the time that the Temple existed there was no 'rejoicing' other than with meat as it is said, 'and you shall slaughter peace-offerings and you shall eat there; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God' (Deuteronomy 27:7)."

It is customary to remove all the knives from the table before Birkas Hamazon or to cover them, because the table is like the Altar [of the Bais Hamikdash] and concerning the Altar it is said: "Do not lift up any iron upon them." ⁴Deuteronomy 27: 5. Since metal shortens human life [in the form of weapons] and the Altar prolongs human life, it is improper that something that shortens life be lifted above that which lengthens life. Similarly the table prolongs the days of man, and atones for his sins when needy guests are invited to the table, for the power of hospitality is so great that it causes the Divine Spirit to dwell in our midst. It is customary in many places not to cover the knives on Shabbos and Yom Tov; for on weekdays we cover them because they represent the power of Esau, but on Shabbos and Yom Tov the forces of evil do not prevail, and a custom of Israel has the validity of Torah.

The doctrine of matrilineal succession and the exclusion of the principle of patrilineal identity as a sufficient criterion of Jewish identity is Sinaitic in origin. Whether or not, historically, a different principle pertained prior to the Sinaitic covenant is entirely irrelevant. Insofar as the community of Israel is concerned, innumerable provisions of the Noachide Code which were binding upon all people prior to Sinai were supplanted by the Sinaitic covenant. With regard to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, Scripture declares, "This day thou art become a people unto the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 27:9). Prior to Sinai there existed no community of Israel. Even as the concept of the peoplehood of Israel and the sanctity of Israel date from Sinai, so also are the criteria of membership in the community of Israel prescribed by the covenant entered into at Sinai.

Rabbi Ben-Zion Uziel, in his Mishpetei Uziel, Hoshen Mishpat, III, no. 46, advances an original line of reasoning in substantiation of R. Jacob Emden's decision regarding the abortion of a bastard fetus. The Gemara (Sotah 37b) declares: "The whole section refers to none other than an adulterer and an adulteress—'Cursed is the man who makes a graven or molten image (Deut. 27:15). Is it sufficient merely to pronounce such a person cursed? [His transgression is punishable not merely by a curse but by death.] Rather it refers to one who has engaged in immoral intercourse and begets a son who goes to live among the heathen and worships idols. Cursed be the father and mother of this person, for this is what they caused him to do." Rashi explains that since such a person is debarred from the assembly and cannot marry a Jewish woman of legitimate birth, his embarrassment causes him to mingle with heathens and his heathen associations lead him to idolatry. From this discussion one may deduce that while the act of adultery carries with it a statutory punishment irrespective of future developments, there is yet another "curse" incurred if the union leads to the birth of bastard progeny. Therefore, rules Rabbi Uziel, it is permissible to destroy the embryo in order not to incur this curse. It is of course self-understood that reference is only to cases of bastards falling under the "curse" and not to the progeny of an unmarried woman, for the Torah regards as a bastard only the issue of an adulterous or incestuous union. Rabbi Uziel further declares that only the parents themselves may abort the fetus. His reasoning is that only, they incur the curse, hence only they may obviate the curse by destroying the fetus. An outsider who incurs no penalty does not experience the "grave need" deemed essential by R. Jacob Emden and has, therefore, no right to interfere with the development of the unborn child.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 23:1, 3) that the one who gives and the one who takes it [both] transgress a negative commandment - the one who gives it because of (Leviticus 19:14), "before the blind," and the one who takes it is included in the curse (Deuteronomy 27:25). And [that] he is obligated to return it; and that it is forbidden for a judge to raise his stature on purpose in order to provide more pay for his scribes. And that it is even forbidden to take an oral bribe - but rather if maybe the litigants honor him with words, he should show himself as if he does not pay attention at all to the words. The general principle of the thing is that it is forbidden for the judge to accept any benefit from the litigants at all for his judgments. But if the judge is a craftsman, the Sages allowed him to take a wage while he is involved in their case, for his idleness from his craft - and that is when the matter is recognizable that it is only a wage for idleness, but not more; and he takes equally from both of them. And the rest of its details - are in Sanhedrin (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 23).

Its laws are, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:4; Avodah Zarah 51b), "What is [the difference] between [an idol] of an Israelite and [the idol] of a gentile? The [idol] of a gentile is immediately forbidden to benefit from, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), 'The statues of their gods shall you burn with fire, etc.' - from when they became statues, it becomes a god for him. But for the Israelite, it does not become forbidden to benefit from until it is worshiped, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:15), 'and places [it] secretly' - until he does things to it secretly, which are its worship. But the auxiliaries of idolatry - whether of a gentile or whether of an Israelite are not forbidden until they use them for idolatry. And the wage of the one who makes [the idol] is permissible, even though he is lashed - and even if he makes it for a gentile, such that it is forbidden when it is finished even before it is worshiped. Nonetheless, it is not forbidden until it is finished, and the last hammer-blow is not worth the value of a small coin (such that all the tangible value was invested before it was forbidden)." [These] and the rest of its many details are in Tractate Avodah Zarah (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 141).

From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they said (Sanhedrin 85a), that the liability for the cursing of father and mother is whether they are alive, or even after their death; which is not the case with hitting - as the liability in it is only in their lifetimes; but after death, he is exempt for hitting them. And that which they said (Shevuot 35a) that there is no liability for death on the son until he curses them with one of the explicit names [of God]; but one who curses them with an appellation is exempt from stoning, and is [only] lashed - as is the way that one is lashed for the curse of a proper man. And that which they said (Makkot 12a) that the law of one who curses the father of his father or the father of his mother is like one who curses [any]one from the rest of the congregation. And [in the case of] a father that is obligated an oath, the son should not administer the oath, with an oath that has a curse; but rather he administers an oath that does not have a curse. And they also said that it is forbidden to disgrace him at all, as it is not about the curse that the Torah was concerned, but rather about the disgrace. And one who disgraces him is cursed, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:16), "Cursed is the one who belittles his father and mother." And the court should strike one who does this and punish him according to that which is fitting. And the rest of its details are in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 241).

And it is in the category of this prohibition whether it is the idolatry itself or whether it is its auxiliaries or whether it is its offering, and whether it is the idolatry of an Israelite or of a gentile. And what is [the difference] between this and that? That of a gentile is forbidden immediately from when it is made, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), "The sculptures of their gods" - from the time that they are sculpted. And that of an Israelite is not forbidden until it is worshiped, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:15), "and places it in hiding" - until he does to it things that are in hiding (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:4).

The commandment to rejoice on the festivals: To rejoice on the festivals, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), "And you shall rejoice on your holiday." And the first matter that is hinted in joy is that we offer peace-offerings regardless at the Choice House. And [this] is like the matter that is written (Deuteronomy 27:7), "And you shall offer peace-offerings" and it continues, "and you shall rejoice on your holiday." And [concerning] the offering of peace-offerings, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chagigah 6b), "Women are obligated in joy" - meaning that even they are obligated to bring peace-offerings of joy. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Chagigah 8a), "Rejoice in all types of rejoicing." And included in this is the eating of meat and the drinking of wine, to wear new clothes, the distribution of fruit and types of sweets to the youths and the women and to play musical instruments in the Temple alone - and that is the joy of the drawing house (simchat beit hashoeva) that is mentioned in the Gemara (Sukkah 50a). All that we mentioned is included in "And you shall rejoice on your holiday." And they, may their memory be blessed, said in Tractate Pesachim 109a, "A man is obligated to gladden his children and the members of his household on a festival." And it is said there, "It was taught, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says, 'At the time when the Temple is standing, joy is only with meat, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:7), "And you shall offer peace-offerings, etc." Now [...] joy is only with wine, as it is stated (Psalms 104:15), "And wine gladdens the heart of man."'" And they said further, "With what should one make them rejoice? Men with what is fit for them, with wine. And women with what is fit for them, with nice clothes." And the Torah also warned us to include the poor and the strangers (converts) and the weak in the joy, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:14), "you, the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow."

To not erect a matsevah: To not erect a matsevah in any place. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 16:22), "And you shall not erect for yourself a matsevah that the Lord, your God, hates." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6:6) that the content of the matsevah that the Torah forbade is a tall structure of stones or of dirt; as it was the custom of the worshippers of idolatry to build [it] and to gather around it for their evil service. And therefore Scripture distanced us that we should not do like it - and even to worship God, Blessed be He, upon it - in order to distance and bring to forget all of the matter of idolatry from between our eyes and from our thoughts. [It is] like the reason that we wrote adjacently about the planting of a tree in the Temple, according to Rambam, may his memory be blessed. And the building of the [central] altar is not included in this prohibition; as it is stated explicitly about it (Deuteronomy 27:6), "Whole stones shall you build the altar, etc." Rather, [it is] that we not do so in other places.