Halakhah su Levitico 17:78

Shechita (Ritual slaughtering as dictated in Jewish Law) is a "positive" mitzvah. Shecita is not obligatory (as the case with obligations of Shofar, Succah and Lulav) since if one does not want to eat meat, there is no need to shecht (slaughter) . However, if someone does want to eat meat- there is an obligation to eat the animal only after shechting it, as the verse says, "You shall sacrifice your cattle and sheep like you have been commanded"(Deut. 12:21). Similarly, the shechita of a wild animal (that is kosher) is dictated by Torah law as the verse says regarding a firstborn animal that has a blemish, "...the same way he will eat the deer and the buck" (Deut. 12:22). One learns from this that a wild animal is alike to a domesticated animal in terms of Shechita (See the Sifrei HaMitzvos of the Rambam and the Smag). Furthermore, the shechita of birds is dictated by the Torah since the verse says, "that he will hunt a hunted animal or bird and will pour its blood" (Lev. 17:13). It is concluded from this verse that the pouring of the blood of a bird (which is part of the shechita process of that bird) is the same as that of an animal (see Sifri on Parshas Re'eh). It was taught by Bar Kafra- "This is the set of rules for the animal and the bird and anything that lives in the water" (Lev. 11). 'The bird' has been placed in between 'the animal' and 'anything that lives in the water'...

The Torah (Vayikra 23:29) teaches that one who eats on Yom Kippur is punished with kareit (spiritual excision).¹Rashi (Vayikra 17:9 s.v. V’nichrat and 20:20 s.v. Aririm) mentions that kareit can entail dying childless, burying one’s children, or dying prematurely. The Gemara (Mo’eid Katan 28a) defines “prematurely” as before age fifty. This punishment takes effect, according to the Mishnah (Yoma 8:2), only if he eats or drinks the shiur (requisite amount), which, for Yom Kippur, is a volume of food equivalent to the size of a large date (kakotevet hagasah) or a quantity of liquid that could fill one’s cheek (melo lugmav).

That He prohibited us from bowing to an idol. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "You shall not bow to them" (Exodus 20:5). And it is clear that by our saying, idol, we mean anything worshipped besides God. And the intention is not only bowing, and nothing else. Indeed, He mentioned one of the ways of worship - meaning to say, bowing - but we are also prohibited from sacrificing to them, offering libations and burning incense [to them]. And one who has transgressed one of these and bowed, sacrificed, offered libations or burned incense is liable for stoning. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:19) is, "'One who sacrifices to gods shall be proscribed' (Exodus 22:19) - we have [thus] heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not bow to them and you shall not worship them.' Sacrifice was included (in serving), and it was singled out to teach [that] just as sacrificing is distinctive, in that we worship the Heavens in a similar way and one is liable for it, whether he worships it or he does not not worship it - so too, one is liable for all the ways that are similar to how we worship the Heavens, whether he worships it or he does not not worship it." And the content of this statement is that these four types of worship - being bowing, sacrificing, offering libations and burning incense - through which we have been commanded that we worship God, may He be blessed: Anyone who worships an idol through one of them is liable for stoning, even if this is not one of the ways of worshipping this thing that was worshipped. And that is what is called, not in the way of its worship. [Yet] since he worshipped in one of these ways, he is liable for stoning if he was volitional; excision if the court did not know about him or they did not execute the punishment; or to bring a sacrifice if he was inadvertent. And likewise when one accepts something as a god in a way of accepting. And this prohibition has already been repeated - meaning to say, the prohibition of their worship through one of these four ways, and even [when] it is not in its way. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goats" (Leviticus 17:7). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9:8) is, "'Goats,' is nothing other than demons." And in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), it is explained, however, that this negative commandment is with slaughtering to the idol, even if the slaughtering is not the way of its worship. They said, "From where [do we know about] one who slaughters an animal as an offering to Mercury, that he is liable (even though this is not its way of worship)? As it is stated, 'And that they may offer their sacrifices no more.' If its content is not [applied to] in its way [of worship], as [that is already derived from] its being written, 'How do these nations serve' (Deuteronomy 12:30); then apply its content to [worshipping] not in its way." And one who transgresses it volitionally [gets] excision and stoning - as we said - and must bring a sacrifice if it was inadvertent. And the language of Scripture is, "One who sacrifices to gods shall be proscribed." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 3.)

To be sure, although there is no reported case of fatality as a result of bone marrow donation, the removal of bone marrow is not entirely without risk. The risk to the donor is, however, limited to the hazard of general anesthesia.²⁷Until now, medical studies conducted in conjunction with bone marrow procedures have failed to uncover a linkage between donation of bone marrow and an increased incidence of either mortality or morbidity. In the unlikely event that further studies yield data pointing to the existence of such a causal connection the issues herein discussed will require reexamination. Nevertheless, it may be argued that the risks of general anesthesia in an otherwise normal and healthy person do not rise to the threshold of risk of which Halakhah takes cognizance.²⁸Cf., Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, XIII, no. 101, sec. 6, who rules that even donation of blood cannot be regarded as compulsory because of the attendant danger. A similar view is advanced by R. Moshe Dov Welner, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, VII-VIII, 311. An identical ruling, but without accompanying explanation, is reported in the name of the Brisker Rav, R. Yiẓḥak Ze’ev Soloveitchik, by R. Avigdor Nebenzahl in a letter to the editor, Assia, vol. 14, no. 1–2 (Elul 5754), p. 208. Rabbi Waldenberg, Halakhah u-Refu’ah, IV, 143, advances an additional, albeit fanciful, reason for his refusal to regard blood donations as mandatory. Citing the verse “For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11), Rabbi Waldenberg argues that requiring the donation of more than a minimal amount of blood (the quantity of a revi‘it) is tantamount to requiring a person to surrender his life. Apart from the obvious objections that might be raised, that position is difficult to maintain in view of the fact that the Talmud regards bloodletting as therapeutic and beneficial in preserving health. Cf., Iggerot Mosheh, Ḥoshen Mishpat, II, no. 103.

That He prohibited any impure person from entering the Sanctuary (the Tabernacle) - and everything that is similar to it for [all] the generations: All of the courtyard and from the Gate of Nikanor onwards, which is the courtyard of the Israelites. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "so that they shall not render their camp impure" (Numbers 5:3). And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 14b), they said, "One who entered the Temple [while] impure - a punishment is written and a prohibition is written: The punishment - 'he has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised' (Numbers 19:13). The prohibition - 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'" And in the Mekhilta: "'Command the Children of Israel to send away from the camp' - is with a positive commandment. But from where [do we know] it is [also] with a negative commandment? You can say, 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'" And the prohibition about this content has already been repeated with different language; and that His, may He be exalted, saying about a woman who has given birth, "and she shall not come into the sanctuary" (Leviticus 12:4). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1:1), they said, "Because it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the Children of Israel,' I would understand - whether [one enters] from its front or from its back and he is impure, he is liable. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and she shall not come into the sanctuary.'"And there it is explained that the law of a woman who has given birth and the law of other impure people is the same with regards to this. And they [also] said in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12:13-14), about His saying "But if he does not wash and does not bathe his body" (Leviticus 17:16), "How is this? For [failure in] the bathing of his body, the punishment is excision, but for [failure in] the washing of his clothes, it is with forty [lashes]. And from where [do we know] that it is speaking here of his rendering the sanctuary and its consecrated objects impure? It prohibited and punished, etc." Behold it has been made clear that one who transgresses this negative commandment - if he was intentional, he is punished with excision; and if he was inadvertent, he must bring a variable offering, as we explained in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Shevuot and in Horayot. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)

He prohibited us - that we not sacrifice any of the sacrifices outside. [This] means to say, outside of the [Temple] courtyard. And this is called, bringing up outside. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings" (Deuteronomy 12:13). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6) is, "I only [know about] burnt-offerings. From where [do we know about] the other consecrated animals? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there shall you do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). Perhaps [other offerings] are subject only to a positive commandment. [Hence] we learn to say, 'there shall you bring up [your burnt-offerings].' Burnt-offerings were included [in all of the offerings]. Why were they singled out? To serve as [the basis for] a comparison, and to tell you, 'Just as burnt-offerings, which are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment, are subject to a negative commandment; so too, all offerings that are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment are surely subject to a negative commandment.'" And I will explain the content to you. And that is that the language of a prohibition appears with a burnt-offering - and that is His saying, "lest you bring up." And in another verse, the explanation appears with a command to offer the burnt-offering inside - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and there shall you bring up" - and that is the positive commandment that one offer the burnt-offering there, "in the place that the Lord will choose." However the [only] command that comes [for] the other consecrated animals is that they offer them inside - and that is His saying, "and there shall you do" - to teach that you should not do [it] outside. But the principle with us is that a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment. And that is their saying, "I would still say [that] other consecrated animals would only be with a positive commandment." [This] means to say that the one who sacrifices other consecrated animals would only [transgress] a positive commandment - that is that one who sacrifices other consecrated animals outside would only transgress a negative commandment that is derived from a positive commandment. And hence He said, "and there shall you bring up your burnt-offerings" - so as to extend the comparison, and that the [other] sacrifices be like the burnt-offering: So just like one who offers a burnt-offering [outside] is with a negative commandment, so too [with] the other sacrifices. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for excision when volitional; and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent. And the language of excision is [found] in Parashat Acharei Mot about someone who brings up an offering outside - it is written, "who brings up a burnt-offering or a sacrifice: And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [...], he will be excised" (Leviticus 17:8-9). And in the [Sifra]: "'That man will be excised from his people' - we have understood the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Take care lest you bring up your burnt-offerings.'" And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, "The punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised'; the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)

That He prohibited us from slaughtering any of the sacrifices outside. And this is called, slaughtering outside. And at the beginning of Keritot (Mishnah Keritot 1:1), when they listed all those that are liable for excision (karet), they counted one who slaughters outside and one who offers [the sacrifices] outside as two. Indeed, if one slaughters outside, he is liable for excision - even if he does not bring [it] up - from the time he slaughtered it. That is the language of the Torah; and that is His saying, "who slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or slaughters outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, etc." (Leviticus 17:3-4). Nevertheless, the prohibition about this - meaning to say, slaughtering outside - is not explicit, but is rather learned from the precept that He does not punish unless He prohibited, which we situated as a principle in our introduction with which we introduced [all] of these commandments. And the language of the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 106a), is, "[One who brings up and slaughters outside is liable for two.] Granted, for bringing up, the punishment is written, and the prohibition is written: The punishment, 'he will be excised' (Leviticus 17:9); the prohibition, 'Take care lest you bring up' (Deuteronomy 12:13). [This is] in accordance with Rabbi Avin, who says, 'Wherever it is stated in the Torah, Observe; Lest; or Do not, it is nothing except a prohibition.' But [for] slaughtering, why is one liable? Granted the punishment is, 'he shall be excised from among his people.' [But] from where [do we know] its prohibition?" And after [many] words, the [conclusive] statement came out with this language (Zevachim 107a): "He said, 'there you shall bring up your burnt offerings and there you shall do' (Deuteronomy 12:14). It compares doing to bringing up - just like [with] bringing up, He punished and prohibited; so too, [with] doing, He punished and prohibited." With their saying, "there you shall bring up [...] and there you shall do," it is an indication that His saying, "there you shall bring up your burnt offerings" - and that is the offering, meaning its incineration on the fire - [can be compared to] His saying, "there you shall do like everything I command you," which includes this offering, [as well as] the slaughtering. For He also commanded the slaughtering. And know that one who slaughters outside inadvertently is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And it is necessary that you know that one who slaughters consecrated animals at this time outside the location of the courtyard is liable for excision. And in the explanation, they said (Zevachim 107b), "One who brings up [a sacrifice] outside: Rabbi Yochanan says, 'He is liable.'" And that is the law, for it is fitting to offer [even today]. And the true principle with us is [that] we may sacrifice, even though there is no Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the thirteenth [chapter] of Zevachim. (See Parashat Acharei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)

That is that He commanded us to send away [the mother bird from] the nest. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You must surely send away the mother, and the offspring take for yourself," (Leviticus 17:13). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the last chapter of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter.)

I have already written what I think on the level of the simple understanding about forbidden foods, in the prohibitions of the 'torn' [animals] (Sefer HaChinukh 73) and of forbidden fat (Sefer HaChinukh 147). But it is also possible to say about blood that besides the bad constitution [that it brings] - as it is of bad constitution - there would be in its eating a little acquisition of the trait of cruelty. As a man swallows from living beings, like him in the body, that thing in them that life is actually dependent upon and to which their spirit is connected. As it is well-known that beasts have spirits, which the wise men call a living spirit, meaning to say it is not an intelligent spirit. We can also see that their spirits have that aspect to guard from falling into one of the traps, and in a few other things. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 17:11) about the reason of blood, that it is well-known that that which is eaten returns to (dwells within) the body of the eater. And [so] if a man eats blood, there will be density and coarseness in the spirit of the man, just like the beast is dense and coarse. And he further wrote similar to that which I said, myself - that is not fitting for a spirit to eat a spirit.

And [of] the blood that is forbidden by Torah writ, there is some the prohibition of which is with excision and some with a negative commandment. Lifeblood is with excision - as in the place that excision for blood comes in the Torah, there it is stated life (literally, spirit), as it is stated (Leviticus 17:11), "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." But the prohibition of that which is not lifeblood, but rather the blood of the limbs is only with a negative commandment - since about it is it stated (Leviticus 7:26), "And any blood you shall not eat." And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated and said (Keritot 22a) that we are liable for excision with the blood that comes out at the time of slaughter, stabbing or decapitation, so long as it has redness in it; with blood stored in the heart; and blood that is let, so long as it flows and comes out - as it too is lifeblood, and therefore we are liable for it. And specifically flowing - to exclude the dripping at the beginning of the letting and at its end, which is not lifeblood, such that we are not liable excision [for it]. And so [too,] the concentrated blood - meaning to say the blood that oozes a little at a time at the time of slaughter, after the pouring blood came out; and so [too,] the blood of the limbs, such as the blood of the spleen, the blood of the kidneys, the blood in the testicles and the blood that lodges in the heart at the time of slaughter - we are not liable excision for it, but rather lashes. And that is when he eats a kazayit of it.

He prohibited us from eating blood. And that is His saying, "And you shall not eat any blood" (Leviticus 6:26). And the prohibition about it has already been repeated [several] times. And the explanation that it is [punished] with excision which is in Scripture is His saying, "whoever eats it shall be excised" (Leviticus 17:14) - if it was volitional. But if inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 5 of Keritot. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 6.)

Not to slaughter consecrated animals outside of the [Temple] yard: Not to sacrifice consecrated animals outside of the [Temple] yard - and that is called 'those slaughtered outside' - as it is stated (Leviticus 17:3-4), "that slaughters an ox or sheep or goat, etc. And does not bring it to the opening of the Tent of Meeting, etc., he has shed blood and shall be cut off." And the warning (negative commandment) does not come to us from this verse, as this verse only expresses the punishment. And it is established for us, [that] He does not punish unless he warned (Sanhedrin 56b). And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said that we learn the warning for this with an inferential comparison, as it is [found] in the Gemara, Zevachim 106a. As there, they, may their memory be blessed, said, "One who slaughters and brings up outside is liable for the slaughter and liable for the bringing up" - the understanding of bringing up is burning with fire. And they challenged there, "Bringing up is fine, the punishment is written, and the warning is written - the punishment, 'And does not bring it to the opening of the Tent of Meeting [...] and shall be cut off'; the warning, 'guard yourself lest you bring up your burnt-offering' (Deuteronomy 12:13), like Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said, 'Every place that it is stated, "guard," "lest" or "not," it is nothing but a negative commandment'; but slaughter, it is fine that the punishment is written, 'And to the opening of the Tent of Meeting, etc.,' but from where is the warning?" And after great effort, they said there that since Scripture states (Deuteronomy 12:14), "there you shall do, and there you shall bring up," it compares bringing up and doing: Just like bringing up, it punished and warned; so too doing, it punished and warned - and the understanding of doing includes everything, whether slaughter or burning.

The laws of the commandment: For example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 106a) that if he slaughtered outside - even though he brought up inside - he is liable, since with both the slaughter and bringing up, each one is a negative commandment by itself; and the negative commandment of bringing up is in the Order of Reeh Anokhi (Sefer HaChinukh 439); and a person is only liable for the slaughter of consecrated animals that are fitting to bring on the altar, but one who slaughters outside, one of those prohibited on the altar, behold, he is exempted, as it is stated (Leviticus 17:4), "in front of the tabernacle of the Lord" - anything that is not fitting to go to the tabernacle, we are not liable for it; and the rest of its details are elucidated in the thirteenth chapter of Zevachim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrificial Procedure 19).

The commandment of covering the blood: To cover the blood after slaughtering a [wild] animal or fowl, as it is stated (Leviticus 17:13), "who hunts game, an animal or a bird that is to be eaten, and spills its blood, he must cover it with dirt."

From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 83b) that covering of the blood is practiced with every bird and with every animal - whether it was at hand or it was not at hand. "Who hunts" is only stated for what is common, etc. And it is practiced with non-sacred animals, but not with consecrated ones. And it is practiced with the koy, because it is a doubt whether it is a type of animal or beast; but we do not recite a blessing on its covering, due to the doubt. And blood that splattered and that is on the knife is obligated in covering when there is no blood besides it. But if there is any blood besides it, he does not need [to do so], as it is written, "he must cover it with dirt" - its understanding is even some of its blood (Chullin 83b). And the one who covers it must put dirt below and above [it]. And any dirt in the world that is fine enough that a potter does not need to pound it, is fitting to cover [it] (Chullin 28a). And likewise, we [may] cover with all that is called dirt - even though it is not actually dirt, such as shaved gold, which is called dirt (dust), as it is stated (Job 28:6), "and it has gold dirt." And one who saw his fellow slaughter but not cover is obligated to cover; as it is stated about this commandment (Leviticus 17:14), "and I say to the Children of Israel" - and they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated, "this commandment is to all of the Children of Israel (Chullin 86-87a). And the rest of its details are in Chullin in the chapter [entitled] Kisui Hadam (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 28).

But I will still inform you of a general principle regarding this matter: Everything that requires going into water by Torah writ and it is from the impurity that the Torah's nazirite must shave [for its acquisition], is liable for excision for coming into the Temple if he goes in before immersion and the [end of the day]. But one who is impure from the impurity of a dead body, for which a nazirite does not shave - even though he is impure [with] an impurity [requiring] seven [days before being able to be pure] - is exempt [from excision] for coming into the Temple. And so [too,] one who touched vestments that touched a person who touched a dead body, or if he touched a person who touched vestments that touched a dead body - even though he is impure [on the] first [level] regarding impurity and to impart impurity to sanctified meat - behold, such a one is exempt for coming into the Temple. And these things are a law of Moshe from Sinai (halakha le'Moshe me'Sinai). And even though he is exempt, they would give him lashes of rebellion. And all of the impurities for which a nazirite must shave about or not shave about are elucidated in Tractate Nazir. And one who throws impure vestments into the Temple - even if they were impure vestment that touched a dead body - is exempt from excision, but liable for lashes. As it is stated (Leviticus 17:16), "And if he does not wash and his flesh he does not bathe" - and we learned form the tradition (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 13) that for [failure to] bathe his body, he is punished by excision, but for [failure to] wash his clothes, he is lashed forty [times]. [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in the first chapter of Shevuot and in Horayot and in Keritot and in [scattered] places in Zevachim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Admission into the Sanctuary 3:13, 17).

“The custom of “kapprot¹⁸Kapparot, כפרות, which is plural for Kapparah, meaning expiation. This is a custom where the sins of a person are symbolically transferred to a fowl. This practice is mostly done on the day before Yom Kippur and in some congregations it is also performed on the day before Rosh HaShanah or on Hoshana Rabba. During the ceremony Psalms 107;10,14,17-21 and Job 33:23-24 are recited. Following this a cock is taken for a male and a hen for a female, the fowl is swung around one’s head three times while the person says: “This is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement; this cock (or hen) shall meet death, but I shall find a long and pleasent life of peace”. It is thought by some (erroneously) that the fowl assumes the punishment for sins that the person would normally receive. Often the fowl is donated to the poor minus the intestines which are given to the birds. Some people substitute the monetary value of the fowl and donate that to the poor.
The custom is not a talmudic one. It first appears in the writings of the geonim (see footnote 19) in the ninth century. The connection between a man and a cock is that both can be referred to as a gever, so a gever (man) can transfer his sins on to another gever (cock). Another reason for the use of a cock or a hen was due to the fact that after the destruction of the Temple, no animal used in the sacrificial rite could be used for a similar purpose outside the Temple. The cock and the hen had no Temple cultic connection. Caro, along with R. Solomon b. Abraham Adret and Naḥmanides opposed this custom but Isserles included it because of its practice in the Ashkenazi community where it had taken on mystic interpretations from the Kabbalists.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 10, pp. 756-57.
The basic Hebrew sources and comments on Kapparot are the following:
Tur, טור, (see footnote 23) 605 - There are places where it is customary to slaughter a rooster as atonement (for Kapparah). And thus it is (related) in geonic (see footnote 19) responsa: “You asked; we customarily slaughter a rooster on the Eve of Yom Kippur, and we do not know the reason for this custom. If it is an “exchange” (substitute) for a sacrifice (if it symbolizes a sacrifice), then what is the difference between a rooster and cattle or a beast, but certainly there is a problem. However, there are two reasons: (1) a rooster is found more commonly in a household than any cattle, beast, or fowl; (2) There are places of wealthy people who substitute rams; and the main horned animal (for the Yom Kippur ceremony) is analogous to the ram of our father Isaac (which was substituted for him (Isaac) as a sacrifice), therefore the matter (of using a rooster) is not established (determined).”
In addition we have heard from the early scholars that even though the price of a cattle is higher than that of a rooster, nevertheless a rooster is chosen because its designation is gever (man, rooster) as is said in (Yoma 20a): What is the meaning of Kara Gavra, R. Sila says the meaning is that the rooster crows and since its designation is gever and the exchange is of one gever (rooster) for another gever (man), therefore it (using a rooster) is effective and superior (to any other animal). And this is the custom here, the congregational reader holds the rooster and lays his hand on its head (in the manner in which a sacrifice was performed in the Temple) and then he takes it (the rooster) and lays it upon the head of the one seeking atonement and says (the verses in the Prayer Book used in this service (Oẓar ha-Tefillot, volume 2, pp. 1090-91)). “This (gever, rooster) for this (gever, man), this substitutes this, this is in exchange for this,” and he (the reader) returns it upon him once (swings it around his (the one seeking atonement’s) head one time) and says (psalms 107:10,14,17,19-21) “Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron…He brought them out of darkness and and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder…Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities are afflicted… Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble and He saves them out of their distress. He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh, that men would praise the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men.” “Thou shalt give life for life”, (Exodus 21:23). And he (the reader) does this according to this order three times, and after this he lays his hand on the head of the rooster in the way of the Semikhah, putting the hands on it (the animal’s head before slaughtering) and slaughter it immediately after the Semikhah, and they customarily give it (the slaughtered rooster) to the poor so there would be atonement for his own soul (for the one who gives it).
That it was customary to throw the insides of it (the rooster) on the roof in order to give them to the birds, there is some proof (indication, justification) for this from the Talmud tractate Ḥulin (95a) 110a: “Rami b. Tamri… once happened to be in Sura on the Eve of Yom Kippur. When the townspeople took all the udders (Tur: Liver and Kidneys) (of the animals) and threw them away, he immediately went and collected them and ate them”.
In the Prayer Book Oẓar ha-Tefillot, אוצר התפילות Published by Sefer, New York, 1946, page 1089, there is an extensive, detailed note with Rashi’s (description of) the custom of the Kapparot ceremony on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Rashi already described this custom meaning it was a common practice during his time.
The Kapparot ceremony is not mentioned in the Talmud, only in Rashi. It is mentioned in Maḥzor Vitry by R. Shimḥa bar Samuel, a disciple of Rashi who quotes the ceremony from the Pesikta, פסקתא, but our text of the Pesikta does not have it. The first mention of the Kapparot ceremony is by the geonic Sheshna in Sha’are Teshuvot, Responsum 299, and by Natronai Gaon in Bet Nekhot ha-Halakhot 50a. paragraphs 15 and 16.” (atonement ceremony) on the Eve of Yom Kippur” - Containing one paragraph.
The custom regarding the “kapparah” (atonement ceremony) on the Eve of Yom Kippur by slaughtering a rooster for each male and to say biblical verses over it should be stopped.
Hagah: There are some geonim¹⁹Geonim, (singular gaon) is the formal title for the heads of the academies in Sura and Pumbedita in Babylonia from around the end of the sixth century until the middle of the eleventh century. The geonim were the highest Jewish authorities. In the tenth and eleventh centuries heads of academies in Ereẓ Israel were also called geonim. The geonic period proper ended in 1040. The heads of the academies in Baghdad, Damascus, and Egypt were also called geonim and later it became a term applied as an honor to any rabbi who had great toraitic knowledge.
It cannot exactly be determined when the term gaon came into use. Prior to its use generally the term rosh yeshivah shel golah, the head of the academy of the Diaspora, was used. The heads of these academies were appointed by the exilarchs, the political leaders of the Jewish people in exile. People rose to the office of gaon often through an hierarchy of offices, thus not always did the most learned reach the position. Often the office was used for political purposes by the exilarch. An assistant to the gaon was referred to as the av bet din. The position of gaon usually fell upon an elderly man who could only serve for a rather short period of time, and therefore did not always make a great impression.
Babylonia was the center of world Jewry and the Jews looked to the geonim as a source of instruction for Jews and also as the deciders of Jewish law. The geonim formed many new halakhic decisions which evolved in the Diaspora. They formulated takkanot or ordinances which altered Jewish law according to the new situations. The geonim and their academies were supported by taxes levied against the people for this purpose.
The halakhic decision of a gaon generally had the effect of law and it was binding. Due to the new situation which the Diaspora provided many halakhic decisions of the geonim were based on minhagim, or customs, that took on the force of a law (the principle under which Isserles operated). Their responsa to halakhic questions were followed as law. The goal of the gaon in the Diaspora was mainly to interpret the Babylonian Talmud for the Babylonian Jews and to lessen their emotional attachment to Ereẓ Israel. This created much political animosity between the Jews of Babylonia and those left in Ereẓ Israel. Since the major scholars of the time where exiled to Babylonia, the center of Jewish leadership was in the hands of the gaon for a long period of time, more than four centuries.
The goanate, though, did lose its power even though some of the greatest geonim were among the later ones. From the late ninth century onward, most of the geonim did not live in the cities of the academies, Sura and Pumbedita, they lived in Baghdad along with the exilarch. Competition between the two academies and political disagreements over the appointment of geonim lessened their effectiveness as did the rise of new academies and their leaders. Scholars stopped sending them halakhic questions preferring their own ability to arrive at a decision. Jewish communities outside of Babylonia began taking on independence from the original center of the Diaspora. As the caliphate in Baghdad weakened, financial support from other Jewish communities ceased for the Babylonian academies. The gaonate ended as an institution around 1040.
The religious leaders of Baghdad and later Ereẓ Israel took on the title of gaon after the fall of the gaonate in Babylonia. The position of the gaon in Ereẓ Israel was one passed on by heredity. The geonim in Ereẓ Israel had to manage all Jewish affairs in addition to heading the academy. They ordained rabbis, appointed judges, and managed the economic affairs of the Jews. The title of gaon finally spread to Damascus and Egypt where it eventually died out in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Simha Assaf and Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 7, pp. 315-24. who listed this custom (as a proper custom) and likewise many of the aḥronim listed it thusly. And likewise it is the custom in all these lands,^19aThe following is a comment to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, found in the Turei Zahav Magen David, or for short the Taz by David ben Samuel ha-Levi who lived from 1586 until 1667. David ben Samuel was born in the Ukraine. He married the daughter of Joel Sirkes, the author of Bayit Ḥadash (see footnote 20b.) in whose yeshivah he studied. The commentary Turei Zahav is found to all four parts of the Shulḥan Arukh. It is not a running commentary, but includes discussions of various points found in the Tur of Jacob Asher (see footnote 23) and in the Talmud and its commentators. The Turei Zahav is found in the inside margin of the Oraḥ Ḥayyim section of the Shulḥan Arukh opposite the commentary of Abraham Abel Gumbiner called Magen Avraham (see footnote 33), which is a running commentary but which has a closer relationship to the material found in the Tur than it does to the Shulḥan Arukh;
Shmuel Ashkenazi, E. J., v. 5, pp. 1354-55.
605:1 - “And so is the custom in all these lands”: In the Tur, טור, (see footnote 23 and the translation to this section of the Tur found in footnote 18) are written the verses that are recited and the following verse is mentioned there (in addition to the verses found in Psalms 107:10,14,17,-21), “Thou shalt give life for life” (Exodus 21:23).. and it is not to be changed because it is a custom of the pious. It is customary to take a rooster for each male, and for each female (to) take a hen, (בית יוסף בשם תשב״ץ).²⁰Beit Yosef, in the name of Tashbaẓ, בית יוסף בשם תשב״ץ.
The Beit Yosef, בית יוסף, the companion work written by Joseph Caro (1488-1575) to the Shulḥan Arukh. Caro began writing the Beit Yosef in 1522 and completed it in 1542 in Safed. It was first published in 1555. The Beit Yosef followed the format of the four Turim established by Jacob b. Asher in his book by that title. Caro included in the Beit Yosef all the halakhic material in use during his time which included the talmudic sources and also the post-talmudic scholars which he used to reach an halakhic decision. Caro linked himself to the Turim and did not repeat halakhic material already cited in the Turim. Caro employed the method of determining halakhah by following the majority decision of his “three pillars of halakhic decisions”, Alfasi, Maimonides, and Asher b. Jehiel. If there was no majority decision by these three he consulted and decided according to the majority of another five scholars, Naḥmanides, Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Nissim Gerondi, Mordecai b. Hillel, and Moses b. Jacob of Coucy. If none of these men dealt with a particular law he decided according to the opinions of the majority of “famous” scholars. Caro consulted thirty-two works in his research. In this extensive work Caro created a book of Jewish law. He wanted to create then a companion book that would truly be a code. Therefore he wrote the Shulḥan Arukh which basically listed only the decisions that Caro reached in the Beit Yosef and not all the arguments and sources. The Shulḥan Arukh merely stated what the halakhah was and how it was practiced. (For a more extensive explanation of the Beit Yosef and how it fits into the broad scope of code literature, see the introduction to this work.)
Tashbaẓ, תשב״ץ, is an abbreviation for Teshuvot Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ, which is a collection of responsa in three parts by Simeon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran who was also known as the “Rashbaẓ”, an acronym for Rabbi Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ, who lived from 1361 until 1444. The Rashbaẓ was born in Spain and later moved to North Africa and settled in Algiers where he became a dayyan, a rabbinic judge and the Chief Rabbi of Algiers in 1408. The Rashbaẓ was against formulating strict decisions, ḥumrot, which did not have talmudical basis. He argued that one could be stringent with oneself but had to be lenient with others.
In his decisions he would exhaust all existing sources and discuss all opinions. His decisions became the authoritative laws of North African Jewry. His takkanot, his changes in the law, were followed for many centuries. He was often quoted by later halakhic scholars and was well respected. His writings were extensive and they included philosophical and liturgical works as well as halakhic literature.
Hirsch Jacob Zimmels, E. J., v. 6, pp. 302-06. For a pregnant woman to take two roosters^20aThe following is a comment found in the commentary to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim Magen Avraham by Abraham Abele Gumbiner (see footnote 33): 605:2 - “Two roosters”: That is to say a rooster and a hen. Even if the embryo is female, one hen is enough for a mother and for her daughter, because two persons (of the same sex) are allowed to take one Kapparah (see footnote 18), (Levush, לבוש; which is a code whose entire name is Levush Malkhut, The work presents the laws found in the Beit Yosef of Joseph Caro (see footnote 20) in an abbreviated form. The Shulḥan Arukh appeared which was basically a digest of the larger Beit Yosef, but the Levush was completed so as to include the laws observed by the Ashkenazi Jews of Behemia. Mordecai ben Abraham Jaffe (1535-1612) wrote the Levush. He was born in Prague and studied under Solomon Luria and Moses Isserles. While he was writing the Levush he learned that Isserles was attempting the same goal he was to include the Ashkenazi laws in the Shulḥan Arukh so he put aside his work. When Jaffe received the glosses of his teacher Isserles he thought it was too brief and therefore he set about completing his Levush. There are ten levushim in all, five are devoted to the Beit Yosef and the other five to other works; Ephraim Kupfer, E. J., v. 9, pp. 1263-64). And this is the custom even with two persons, and this is the implied meaning at the end of chapter 12 in (the Talmud Tractate) Menaḥot. And Ashkenazi R. Isaac (who was called Adoneinu R. Yitzḥak by the Ḥasidim, referring to Isaac Luria the Kabbalist) prescribed that she take three (chickens), (Shenei Luḥot ha-Berit, של״ה, “Two Tablets of the Covenant”; which is an extensive halakhic work including homily and Kabbalah giving directions as to how to live an ethical life. The vast work contains two parts, the Derekh Ḥayyim contains laws according to the order of the festivals in the calendar, and the Luḥot ha-Berit summarizes the 613 commandments in the order in which they appear in the Bible. The work was written by Isaiah ben Abraham ha-Levi Horowitz who lived from around 1565 until 1630. He was born in Prague but lived and studied mostly in Poland. He later moved to Ereẓ Israel and lead the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. He was greatly influenced by Kabbalistic works and philosophy which is evident in his writings; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson E. J., v. 8, 990-994). for the possibility she might give birth to a male (infant). The (custom is to) chose white roosters^20bA commentary by Magen Avraham (see footnote 33): 605:3 - “White roosters”: Anyhow, one should not try to get only white (chickens), which is similar to the practice of the Amorites (meaning, idol worshippers). If there happens to be a white one available he should buy it, (Bayit Hadash, בית חדש; which is a critical and comprehensive commentary on the Arba’ah Turim of Jacob b. Asher (see footnote 23), where each law is traced to its talmudic source, and the development of the law through successive generations of interpretation is followed. The work was prompted by the over-reliance on codes, especially the Shulḥan Arukh for halakhic decisions, without using the basic sources. The work was written by Joel Sirkes who lived from 1561 until 1640. He was born in Lublin but came to be the head of the bet din, the rabbinical court, in Cracow where he also headed a yeshivah in 1619. He was an adherent of Kabbalah but he rejected kabbalistic practices when they were contrary to the halakhah; Max Jonah Routtenberg, E. J., v. 14, pp. 1619-20.). And if there is no chicken, he should buy another kind of animal, and there are those who say even fish (can be used), (Levush, לבוש, see footnote 20a.). It seems to me that one should not take a thing (an animal that was used) for the sacrificial cult like doves so that it should not appear that one sacrifices holy animals outside the Temple, see in the Tur, טור, (see footnote 23), and we find it in Shabbat 81b, in the Rashi, that it was a custom to take a pot with seeds and to swing it around one’s head on the Eve of Yom Kippur, and one says the words: “This is the exchange for me, the substitute for me, the atonement for me”, which is an abbreviation meaning, חת״ך, which is the name of an angel, (Darkei Moshe, ד״מ, see footnote 6, and Hagahot Minhagim, הגמ״נ, which are commentary notes on the Minhagim, see footnote 13).
The following is a comment found in the Turei Zahav, (see footnote 19a.): 605:2 - “And the (custom is to) chose white ones”; My father-in-law (meaning the Bayit Ḥadash, Joel Sirkes, see above), may his memory be blessed, wrote that this is a bit like the way of the Amorites (idol worshippers), even though this is (found in) the Maharil, מהרי״ל, (see footnote 8), it is possible that one should not ask for it intentionally, rather if (the white chicken) just happens to him thus (if he can buy a white one) he choses it, but to ask for a white chicken and to pay a higher price, this is the way of the Amerites (idol worshippers), and this (tradition) I received from my father (Samuel ha-Levi), may his memory be blessed.
I found written that one should say, “This is your exchange, your substitution, and your atonement” which is an abbreviation for חת״ך, which means God will cut (חתך) (or determine) life for every living thing. (Notice the difference between this comment and the one translated above by Magen Avraham on the same subject.)
The following is a comment by the Wilna Gaon, which supplies the sources for references made in the Shulḥan Arukh. It is found under the text of the Shulḥan Arukh under the title Beure ha-Gra, ביארי הגר״א: 605:1 - “That which they customarily do…”: Because of the way of the Amorites (idol worshippers); see in the Rashba, רשב״א, (Solomon ben Abraham Adret, see footnote 90), chapter 395. since it says “though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow,” (Isaiah 1:18). It was customary to give the atonement chickens to the poor or to redeem them^20cThe following is a comment by Magen Avraham, (see footnote 33): 605:4 - “Or to redeem (replace) them (the chickens) (with charity money…”: This is better so as not to embarrass the poor (Shenai Luḥot ha-Berit, של״ה, see footnote 20a., and Maharil, מהרי״ל, see footnote 8), (with the money they can buy their own food which is less embarrassing than accepting a chicken). (replace them) with charity money which is given to the poor (for sustenance), (מהרי״ל).²¹Maharil, מהרי״ל, Jacob ben Moses Moellin; see footnote 8. There are places where it is customary to visit the graves and to increase (the giving of) charity which is all a beautiful custom. It is necessary to slaughter the atonement chickens immediately after completing the ceremony and laying one’s hands^21aThe following is a comment by Turei Zahav, (see footnote 19a.): 605:3 - “And one lays his hands (on it, the chicken)…”: Even though this thing (this practice) appears in the Tur, טור, (see the translation of this section in footnote 18 and see footnote 23) in the name of the geonim (see footnote 19), it is very perplexing in my eyes since this appears as sacrificing animals and slaughtering them outside of the Temple. And even though the rooster is not proper as a sacrifice, since we found that it is a forbidden practice in chapter 469 (of the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim) concerning the matter of such meat for the Passover for which the Maharil, מהרי״ל, (see footnote 8) forbid even a rooster, and how much the more so here, where one does it explicitly as a sacrificial matter, that this fear is present (this consideration that it might be prohibited is present). This being so it is better to prevent this matter, (following the dictum to sit and not do it is better. (This expression, ושב ואל תעשה, is found in Erubim 100a: if by performing a mitzvah you might transgress a law, you should not do it. In a case of doubt do not do such a thing.) And so it seems to me in my humble opinion. on it like (it was done with) the Sacrifice²²The “laying of the hands” of the priest onto the animal that was sacrificed was part of the rite which transformed the animal from a mere profane animal into a holy sacrifice to God. Sacrifice from the biblical through the temple Period in Jerusalem was the way in which man communicated with God. Extensive rituals and practices developed around the sacrifice which was performed by the special priestly class, the cohanim. The main thrust behind a sacrifice was the fact that man was surrendering to God a living thing of some value to man. This brought out vividly the fact that all things man has on earth are given by God and ultimately God has complete control over man and all He has given to man. Special concern was placed on the blood of an animal sacrifice for dam, דם, blood, was the symbol of life. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life (that is in it)”, (Leviticus 17:11). The people were therefore forbidden to eat the blood of an animal since it belonged to God. The offering to God of a sacrifice had to be an animal which was owned by the person offering it and the animal had to be domesticated and proper for food. In other words, it had to have some worth. Work animals were excluded from this. An animal had to be at least eight days old and totally without blemishes, (Leviticus 22:17-25).
A very large portion of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is concerned with the extensive ritual, ceremony, and material that went into a sacrifice. Also different types of sacrifices were outlined for different purposes. The following are separate types of sacrifices present in the Bible: Propitiatory, both Sin and Guilt Offerings, Dedicatory, Burnt, Meal, Libation, Fellowship, Peace and Thanksgiving, Wave, Votive, Freewill, and Ordination Offerings.
During the period of the First and Second Temple, elaborate sacrificial services took place twice daily, Shaḥrit, Morning and Minḥah, Afternoon, along with special sacrifices for Sabbaths, festivals, and special circumstances.
Yom Kippur, being the holiest day of the year had associated with it a special and unique sacrificial atonement ritual. The Avodah, עבודה, which means literally “service” was the name applied to the ritual, during the Temple period, which was the central part of the Musaf, מוסף, additional, sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. With the Avodah, which is a poetical recounting of the Temple ritual, became the central part of the Musaf liturgy (see footnote 166) for the Day of Atonement. The ritual itself was based on the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus where the special sacrifical ritual for atonement is described. After the detailing of the ritual is completed, the Bible established that the tenth day of the seventh month (the tenth of Tishrei which today is considered the first month) would be set aside as a special Sabbath for the purpose of atonement, (Leviticus 16:29-31). The extensive details associated with the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement are described in the Talmud in tractate Yoma.
It was on Yom Kippur, and only on Yom Kippur, that the high priest would enter the very center of the Temple, the Holy of Holies. He had to make special preparations for this ritual. One week prior to the Day of Atonement, the high priest would begin living in a special apartment in the Temple court where he studied with the scholarly elders all the special laws of Yom Kippur. Another priest would also stand-by and study in case something happened to the high priest. The day prior to Yom Kippur the high priest would enter the Temple and perform all the minute details involved in a sacrifice along with the other priests who were used to sacrificing. The high priest rarely performed the regular daily sacrifices, he only functioned on special occasions. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest himself would perform all the sacred and sacrificial duties.
After proper cleansing for the Musaf, or Avodah Service the high priest would first sacrifice a bull as his own personal sin offering after which he would confess and purify the sins of his own family, those of the priests (the tribe of Aaron), and finally those of the whole congregation of Israel, (Leviticus 16:6). The high priest, in the Holy of Holies, would carefully sprinkle and dispose of the animal’s blood as was prescribed. It was at this time, and only at this time, that he would utter the holy name of God, the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, and when he uttered this the people outside would prostrate themselves and respond, “Blessed be His Name whose glorious kingdom is forever ever and ever.” This was repeated ten times according to the Babylonian Talmud, (Yoma 2:2) and thirteen times according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:7).
The high priest then drew lots, one marked for “Azazel” and the other marked as a “sin offering for the Lord”. Depending upon the drawing of the lots, two he-goats had different parts to play in the remaining ritual. The goat marked “for Azazel” would be lead out of the Temple into the wilderness called Azazel. This he-goat symbolically carried the sins of Israel away and was lost over a cliff in the wilderness along with Israel’s sins. A red ribbon which had been tied to the goat was brought back to the people to display to them that the goat had been lost in Azazel. The he-goat marked as a “sin offering for the Lord” was offered as such. This was followed by a special incense-offering and a prayer for good weather, prosperity, and the sovereignty of Judah, whereupon the high priest would come out from the Holy of Holies marking the end to the Avodah ritual.
The Avodah liturgy expanded in its development from simply a description of the Temple service and the reading of Mishna Yoma, chapters 1-7 to an elaborate service rich with special liturgical poems, piyyutim (see footnote 149), most of them acrostics, their beginning word following the alphabet. Different Jewish communities developed separate rites. Most rites contain a brief synopsis of the history of Israel and the purity of its early generations culminating in a description of the Temple ritual on the Day of Atonement and the Holy of Holies. Some communities and rites even still call for a prostration on the floor of the synagogue during the Avodah Service as was done at the Temple upon the prononciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Piyyutim also close the Avodah Service expressing the misfortune of Israel who, because of her sins, is deprived of the Temple and its sacrificial cult and must suffer persecution and exile. The piyyutim call for the reestablishment of the Temple, which is followed by the seliḥot (see footnote 14) prayers (penitential prayers of forgiveness) of the Musaf Service.
Anson Rainey, E. J., v. 14, pp. 599-602; Hanoch Avenary, E. J., v. 3, pp. 976-80.; and they (it is customary) throw their intestines on the roofs or in a courtyard, a place from where fowls are able to take (the intestines of the slaughtered chickens), (טור).²³Tur, טור, is the singular for the word Turim or the Arba’ah Turim, the four columns, the major halakhic work of Jacob ben Asher who lived from around 1270 until 1340. He was the son of a famous halakhic authority, Asher b. Jehiel, known as the “Rosh”. Jacob ben Asher studied under his father and moved with him from Germany to Toledo in 1303. His work on the Turim was the result of the fact that in his time there was no one halakhic work free from controversy. Different opinions were present and there were no clear and authoritative halakhic decisions. Jacob ben Asher wanted to compose a work which would include all the laws and customs which applied in his day. He divided his work into four sections or turim, “rows”. Part one was called Oraḥ Ḥayyim. It contains 697 chapters on the laws of blessings, prayers, Sabbaths, festivals, and fasts. The second part was called Yoreh De’ah. It contains 403 chapters on the laws of ritual, Issur ve-Hetter (that which was forbidden and that which was permitted), and laws of mourning, idolatry, and usury. Part three, Even ha-Ezer, has 178 chapters on the laws affecting women; marriage, divorce, wedding contracts (Ketubbah), and childless widowhood (ḥaliẓah). The fourth part, Ḥoshen Mishpat, contains 427 chapters on civil law and personal relations.
Jacob ben Asher used the Talmud and its commentaries as well as the opinions of other authorities before him. He usually decided according to the opinion of Maimonides and his father, Asher b. Jehiel. He did though differ with Maimonides on questions of faith and belief.
The Turim was first published in 1475 and it became a widely accepted halakhic code. Joseph Caro used it and its organization as the basis for the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh. (For a treatment of the Arba’ah Turim in relation to other code literature, see the introduction to this thesis.)
Ephraim Kupfer, E. J., v. 9, pp. 1214-16.

“The order of the reading of the Torah and of circumcision on Yom Kippur” - Containing six paragraphs.
We take out (from the ark) two Torah scrolls.¹⁶⁸Two Torah scrolls are taken out on the festivals because portions from two separate sections of the Torah are read. The Torahs can be set before hand so that they can be opened to the correct portion without the necessity of rolling the scroll from one portion to the next. In the first Torah six men read from the portion “אחרי מות”, (Leviticus 16:1-18:30) until “and he did as the Lord commanded (Moses)”, (Leviticus 16:34). But if (Yom Kippur) falls on Shabbat, seven (men read from the first Torah), and the Maftir¹⁶⁹Maftir, מפטיר, means literally "one who concludes". It is the name given to the man who is the last to read in the Torah and he also usually reads the haftarah (see footnote 170), the section of the prophets that corresponds to the Torah reading. Maftir is also the name given to the three or more concluding verses of the regular weekly Torah portion as well as to the final verses read on festivals and public fast days.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 11, p. 685. (the last reader) reads from the second (Torah scroll) from the portion, Pinḥas, (Numbers 25:10-30:1), the section “and you shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month”, (Numbers 29:7-11). The Maftir (the Haftarah section from the Prophets¹⁷⁰The Haftarah, הפטרה, is a portion from the Prophets section of the Bible read after the Torah is read on Sabbaths, festivals, and fast days. On Sabbaths and festivals the haftarah is read during the Morning, Shaḥarit Service (see footnote 17), but on fast days it is read only during the Afternoon, Minḥah Service (see footnote 40). The exception to this is Yom Kippur and Tishah be-Av (see footnote 102) where there is a haftarah after the Torah reading in both the Morning and the Afternoon Service.
The Torah in its regular portions is read straight through during the year but such is not the case on festivals and some special Sabbaths. The haftarot are selected in parts from both the Former and Latter Prophets. Only two prophetic books are read in their entirety as haftarot, the Book of Obadiah which has only twenty-one verses and is read after the Torah portion Va-Yishlaḥ (Genesis 32:4-36-43) according to the Sephardi rite, and the Book of Jonah which is the haftarah for the Minḥah Service on Yom Kippur (see the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 622:2).
Haftarot were usually selected so there would be some similarity in content between the Pentateuchal and the Prophetic portions, but often this did not happen and haftarot were chosen because of historical events or because of some special date. Special haftarot are read on special Sabbaths and the haftarah for each festival is based on the nature of the festival.
When the custom of reading the haftarah got started is not known for sure, but it is thought that it began during the persecutions of the Antiochus Epiphanes which preceded the Hasmonean revolt. The Torah was not permitted to be read by the Jews during the persecution for it was felt that the reading of it kept the Jews together and gave them a special strength. As a substitute for the Torah reading, sections form the Prophets were chosen that would remind the Jews of the corresponding Torah portion. Appearantly when the ban against reading the Torah was lifted, the practice of reading the haftarah continued. The first mention of the practice of the reading of the haftarah is found in the New Testament. Acts 13:15 states, "after the reading of the law and the prophets". Haftarot are also discussed in the Talmud as to which are to be read at specific times and festivals. In Mishnaic times different communities read different haftarot, and a set order was probably not established until talmudic times. Some haftarot today differ from those recorded in the Talmud, and there are differences in the Sephardi and Ashkenazi rites.
The maftir, the one who reads the haftarah also reads the last part of the weekly portion, (i.e., the Torah reader reads it for him). On the Sabbath, after the seventh reader from the Torah, the maftir usually rereads the last three verses of the weekly portion. On festivals and the four special Sabbaths, the maftir reads the special section from the second scroll which is usually a short description of of the festival found in the Torah. Before the haftarah is read (or chanted) the maftir precedes the haftarah with two blessings and after he ends the haftarah he recites three blessings to which a fourth one is added on Sabbaths and festivals. This fourth blessing changes with the nature of the day. The Sabbath haftarah usually has a minimum of twenty-one verses while the festival has at least fifteen verses. Lately it has become the custom for the Bar Mitzvah boy (a man upon reaching the age of thirteen) to chant the haftarah to display his ability with a Hebrew text.
Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, E. J., v. 16, pp. 1342-44.) comes from Isaiah, “and shall say, cast you up, cast you up, prepare the way” until “for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it”, (Isaiah 57:14-58:14).