Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 26:14

לא אכלתי באני ממנו I HAVE NOT EATEN THEREOF IN MY MOURNING — From here we may derive that it (partaking of sacred gifts) is forbidden to an אונן (a technical term for the near relatives of a deceased, from the period of death to burial) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 303:15; Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2).

I HAVE NOT EATEN THEREOF IN MY MOURNING. Even though the avowal¹⁹The “avowal was recited at the time of the Afternoon Offering on the last day of Passover, in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle. The avowal [recited in any language] could be made only by one who observed all laws affecting tithes and heave-offerings. See further “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 139. included all tithes, as the Rabbis interpreted:²⁰Maaseir Sheini 5:10. “I have also given it unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow²¹Verse 13. etc.,”²²“I have also given it to the Levite, this is the tithe of the Levite [i.e., the First Tithe]. I have ‘also’ given it, this is the terumah (the heave-offering), [given by the Israelite to the priest] and the heave-offering of the tithe [given by the Levite to the priest]. And unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, this refers to the Poorman’s Tithe, gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field” (Maaseir Sheini 5:10). — the statement I have not eaten thereof in my mourning refers only to the hallowed things [mentioned at the beginning of the preceding Verse 13: I have put away ‘the hallowed things’ out of my house] which refers to the Second Tithe and fourth-year’s plantings which may not be eaten in mourning and in a state of impurity.²³The heave-offering on the other hand may be eaten by the priest in mourning, but not when he is impure. The First Tithe [after the heave-offering thereof has been removed], the Poorman’s Tithe, gleanings, etc. may be eaten in mourning as well as in impurity. The Second Tithe, eaten by the owner, his family and guests in Jerusalem, is thus the only tithe that may not be eaten in mourning. Like the heave-offering and the heave-offering of the tithe, the Second Tithe may not be eaten in impurity.

לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, the word און is used here in the same sense as in Job 20,10 ידיו תשבנה אונו, where it refers to the proceeds of a robbery, i.e. “his own hands must give back his wealth.” We also find it used in this sense in Hoseah 12,9 מצאתי און לי, “I have become rich.” (the riches derive from robbery) This is the plain meaning of the line.

לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, “I have not eaten from it while in a state of intense pre-mourning;” Nachmanides comments on this that although the confession applies to all the different kinds of tithes, some of which are secular in terms of religious law, here the words apply only to the kinds of gifts that have a sacred character. Produce that has been labeled מעשר שני or נטע רבעי, the second tithe, or the grapes grown in the fourth year after the vineyard has been planted, do possess such a degree of sanctity, and may not be consumed while in a state of impurity or intense mourning, immediately before the burial of the next of kin.

לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, “I have not eaten of it while in a state of (pre)mourning.” A person engaged in preparing for the funeral of near relatives is forbidden to eat any sacred foods (Sifri).
ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא, “and I have not removed or used up any of it while in a state of ritual impurity.” I did not set it aside while I was contaminated.
ולא נתתי ממנו למת, “neither did I give any of it for a dead person.” I did not use it to buy a coffin or other necessities for the dead person’s burial from the proceeds of the produce designated as tithes (Sifri 303 on this verse). The reason that the Torah makes the farmer recite this is that not only did he not use the proceeds from such produce for something merely permitted, but even if he had “misused” it in order to fulfill a commandment such as a burial from the proceeds this is also forbidden and he has to declare that he had not done so. In other words, one must not appear as if one pays one’s debts by diverting funds destined for another commandment in order to do so. The tithes must be used only for food and drink. One must not even buy clothing from the proceeds.
שמעתי בקול ה' אלוקי, “I have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my G’d.” I did so when I brought the tithes to the Temple.
עשיתי ככל אשר צויתני, “I did in accordance with all that You commanded me.” I rejoiced and made others happy with it (Maaser Sheni 5,11); this is based on the instruction: “you shall rejoice with all the goodness” (verse 11).

From here we derive that it is forbidden during grief. Otherwise, what difference does it make whether or not he ate [during grief]? Even though the declaration includes [all] tithes and terumos as the sages expound from the earlier verse, “I have also presented it to the Levi, etc.,” [and if so, why do the sages apply this prohibition only to the second tithe?] Nevertheless, the word “of it” implies only one [type of] tithe, and this can only be the second tithe which is called “sacred” (Vayikra 27:30), [as the previous verse mentions the word “sacred”] (Kitzur Mizrachi).

V. 14. אוני .לא אכלתי באוני ממנו (siehe Bereschit 35, 18). Wir haben bereits bemerkt, dass dies und das Folgende sich nur auf מעשר שני (implizite auch auf die ihm verwandten נטע רבעי und ביכורים) bezieht. Den gesetzlichen Begriff: אונן, d. i. den Zustand eines von Schmerz um das Hinscheiden eines nahen Verwandten Ergriffenen, haben wir bereits Wajikra 10, 13. 14 u. 19 als Hindernis der עבודה und אכילת קדשים für כהן הדיוט und Hindernis der אכילת קדשים selbst für den כהן גדול gefunden (siehe daselbst). Hier ist nun auch für מעשר שני (implizite auch für ביכורים und נטע רבעי), der איסור niedergelegt, dass dieselben nicht im Zustande des אנינות gegessen werden dürfen. Ob Aussprüche, wie לא אכלתי באוני ממנו und die folgenden, die nicht in verbietender, sondern nur in verneinend aussagender Form gefasst sind, gleichwohl als direkte, מלקות bewirkende, oder nur als indirekte Verbietungen, wie לאו הבא מכלל עשה aufzufassen seien, ist eine Differenz zwischen רמב׳׳ם und רמב׳׳ן (siehe ׳ס׳ המצות שורש ח am Ende). Für das folgende אכילת מעשר בטומאה בין בטומאת (הגוף בין בטומאת עצמו )המעשר werden direkte, מלקות nach sich ziehende Verbote Jebamot 73 b nachgewiesen (siehe Wajikra 22, 6 und Dewarim 12, 17).

לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, “I have not eaten from it when it was stolen property;” the expression און occurs in this sense in Job 20,10: ידיו תשבנה אונו, “his own hands must restore his wealth” (the illegally acquired wealth).

ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא NEITHER HAVE I CONSUMED ANY THEREOF UNCLEAN — i.e. whether I was unclean and it (the sacred gift) was clean, or I was clean and it unclean (Sifrei Devarim 303:16). But where has one been prohibited about this (that he declares that he has not infringed the command)? In the following passage: (Deuteronomy 12:17) “Thou mayest not eat within thy gates [the tithe of thy corn]” — this (the expression “within thy gates”) refers to eating sacred things in a state of uncleanness, just as is stated with reference to פסולי המקדשין (animals intended as sacrifices, but which have become unfit for that purpose) (Deuteronomy 15:22) “Thou mayest eat it within thy gates: the unclean and the clean person [may eat it alike]”. These you may eat, states Scripture, — but this (the tithes of thy corn in a state of uncleanness) you must not eat in the manner which is termed “eating within thy gates” (“the unclean and the clean together”) of which there is mention in another passage (Yevamot 73b).

ולא נתתי ממנו למת, “neither did I give from any of it to the dead.” Rashi explains the letter ל in the word למת, as meaning “for,” i.e. to be used to purchase either a coffin or the garments the dead are buried in. Nachmanides questions this, as produce having a sacred character such as the ones mentioned, may not be traded to purchase coffins or ordinary clothing for use by the living either. The second tithe may not be redeemed to become secular outside the city of Jerusalem, for instance, except for coin of the realm. The proceeds must be used to purchase food and drink and other items but these are to be consumed inside Jerusalem by the owner and his family. Maimonides (Sefer hamitzvot 152) understands the term למת as a simile for something of no benefit to a living human being, the farmer stating that he has spent the proceeds only for items of benefit to the living. Some commentators interpret this “confessional” to mean that the farmer has not used the proceeds even to fulfill a commandment such as burying and providing the wherewithal to a dead person who had no family that would assume the burden of burying him in a dignified manner.

Whether I was defiled and it was clean, etc. That is, the terumah, or I was clean and it was defiled.”

NOR HAVE I GIVEN THEREOF FOR THE DEAD — “to prepare a coffin and shrouds for it.” This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood this, for Scripture explicitly states that we are not to exchange the fruits of the Second Tithe outside Jerusalem except for coined silver.²⁴Above, 14:25. In Jerusalem we are to spend the money on edible things, for any of the herd, or any of the flock, or for wine, or for strong drink²⁵Ibid., Verse 26. and eat them before the Eternal. [It is, therefore, clear that it is forbidden to use the money to purchase a garment even for the living — hence it is pointless to make such an avowal with respect to the dead!]
Now, Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] wrote in his work²⁶Hilchoth Maaseir Sheini 3:10. “The Second Tithe is designated for use as food and drink, for it is said, and thou shalt eat there before the Eternal thy G-d.²⁵Ibid., Verse 26. Anointing is like drinking. It is forbidden to spend it on his remaining necessities, such as buying vessels, clothes and servants, for it is said, nor have I given thereof for the dead, that is to say, I have not spent it on anything which does not sustain the body.” [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] thus interpreted the phrase for the dead here as being an expression for any thing through which a person does not live. But these are words of mere exaggeration.²⁷See my Hebrew commentary p. 468 for a defense of Rambam by Rabbi Yoseph Karo in his “Keseph Mishneh.”
Other scholars²⁸I have not been able to identify them. have explained that the avowal is that he did not spend therefrom for a coffin and shrouds even for the dead — which [spending] is a religious duty — and certainly not for the living for a cloak or shirt. And in the Sifre it is stated:²⁹Sifre, Ki Thavo 303. “Nor have I given thereof for the dead — to prepare a coffin and shrouds for it. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiba said to him: If it is forbidden for the dead, it is likewise forbidden for the living. Why then is it stated nor have I given thereof [‘for the dead’]? It means that I have not exchanged the Second Tithe even for something which is clean.” Thus Rabbi Akiba interprets the expression neither have I given thereof, as meaning that “I have not even used it in exchange for clean, edible things.” This is similar to what we have been taught in a Mishnah:³⁰Maaseir Sheini 1:1. “Second Tithes may not be sold or bartered. Nor may a man say to his fellow in Jerusalem, ‘Here is wine, and give me oil [in exchange].’” In the opinion of Rabbi Akiba, the expression for the dead is thus connected with the above statement, ‘I have not eaten thereof in my mourning — for the dead,’ for the term “mourning” applies only to the dead. [And the expression nor have I given thereof thus stands as a complete independent statement, meaning “I have not sold it or bartered it even for clean food fit to be eaten.”]
Now, I have seen the following text in the Yerushalmi:³¹Yerushalmi ibid., V, 5. “Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Simaie: Nor have I given thereof for the dead. How are we to interpret this? Shall we say that it forbids the bringing of a coffin and shrouds for the corpse — if something like this for the living [e.g., a cloak or shirt] is forbidden, need we be told that something which is prohibited for the living may not be done for the dead? What then is there that is permissible for the living [with the Second Tithe] and is forbidden for the dead? It is anointing.” But I do not understand this text either, for if he anointed a corpse with the oil of the Second Tithe, he has consumed it in impurity, and he has already confessed that, neither have I consumed any thereof unclean! And in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter He’arel,³²Yebamoth 74a. we find: “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Simaie, Whence do we know that, if the oil of Second Tithe was rendered impure, we may use it for anointing?³³Since anointing is like drinking, and drinking impure Second Tithe is forbidden, one would think that anointing oneself with such oil is forbidden. And so, whence do we know that it is permissible? Because it is stated, nor have I given thereof for the dead — ‘I have not given it for the dead,’ but for the living akin to the dead I may give it. What use is there for the living and the dead alike? I must say this is anointing.” [The verse thus teaches us that if the oil of the Second Tithe has been rendered impure, it may still be used to anoint the living.] There [the Sages of the Gemara] have asked, “Perhaps I should say that this verse is an avowal that he did not buy a coffin and shrouds [for the dead],” meaning it would be permissible for a living [person] to buy himself a shirt if the Second Tithe was rendered impure, because then, [since it may not be eaten] we cannot apply the verse, and thou shalt eat there before the Eternal thy G-d!³⁴Above, 14:26. To this the Rabbis replied, “The verse states thereof [nor have I given ‘thereof’ for the dead] — from the very oil itself” [i.e., I have not used the Second Tithe oil itself to anoint the dead, thus signifying that if that oil becomes impure I may still use it to anoint myself]. It now remains that the avowal, nor have I given thereof for the dead is attached to the statement neither have I consumed any thereof unclean, the person avowing that he did not eat from it in impurity, and did not use the impure [oil of the Second Tithe] for a corpse, to anoint it. However, in a Mishnah we have been taught in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer [mentioned above in the Sifre²⁹Sifre, Ki Thavo 303. that nor have I given thereof for the dead means to prepare a coffin and shrouds for a corpse]:³⁵Maaseir Sheini 5:12. “Nor have I given thereof for the dead — I have not bought a coffin and shrouds for the dead with it, nor have I given it to other mourners.” This interpretation which the Rabbis [here in the Mishnah] deduced, that he did not give it for the dead — neither for the corpse itself such as for a coffin and shrouds, nor for his mourners [to eat while in mourning] — includes his own mourning as well as that of others. And because of the mourning of others, he avows already about the coffin and shrouds, although such uses [as buying a cloak or shirt] are forbidden even for the living.

בין שאני טמא והוא טהור בין שאני טהור והוא טמא ,לא בערתי ממנו בטמא (Jebamot daselbst), das Verbot מעשר שני im Zustand der טומאה zu essen, sei es in persönlicher, dass der Essende, sei es in sachlicher, dass das מעשר tame wäre, ist bereits, wie bemerkt, in Wajikra und Dewarim ausgesprochen. Es heißt aber nicht לא אכלתי ממנו בטמא, sondern לא בערתי ממנו בטמא, und ist damit für מעשר שני שנטמא über das אכילה-Verbot hinaus auch ein sonstiger Verbrauch בטומאה untersagt. Während nämlich bei תרומה שנטמאת, die wie andere קדשים טמאים verbrannt werden muss, eine Benutzung während des Verbrennens, הנאה בשעת ביעורה, z. B. zum Leuchten oder Kochen gestattet ist (siehe zu Bamidbar 18, 8), ist solches für מעשר שני שנטמא untersagt, wie dieser Gegensatz zu תרומה (Jebamot daselbst) ausgesprochen ist: ממנו אי אתה מבעיר אבל אתה מבעיר שמן של תרומה שנטמא.

ולא בערתי ממנו, “neither I have destroyed any of it unlawfully;” בטמא, “nor have I eaten any of it while in a state of ritual impurity.”

ולא נתתי ממנו למת NOR HAVE I GIVEN THEREOF FOR THE CORPSE to prepare for it a coffin and shrouds (Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:12).

Where is the admonition concerning this?, etc. You might ask: Why not say that the admonition is from here, as Rashi explained above, “From here we derive that it is forbidden during grief.” The answer is that the prohibition certainly is derived from here. Therefore the explanation of [Rashi's question], “Where is the admonition concerning this?” means, in order that he transgresses a negative commandment and be given lashes. But regarding eating in grief, there is only a prohibition and no lashes. And when it is written, “I did not eat of it when grieving,” it is merely relating a fact but it is not an admonition, because an admonition is only feasible when it comes from the Holy One's mouth [as a commandment]. Therefore Rashi explains, “Where is the admonition, etc.”

Wie zu Kap. 12, 24 bemerkt, kann מעשר שני שנטמא selbst innerhalb der Tempelstadt noch ausgelöst werden, wo dann die קדושה auf das Auslösungsgeld übergeht und dieses dann zum Genuss בטהרה verwendet wird (daselbst V. 26).

ולא נתתי ממנו למת, “nor have I given any of it for the dead;” (a euphemism for given it to idols, i.e. “dead deities.”) I have given all of it to the living G-d, the King of the universe.

שמעתי בקול ה' אלהי I HAVE HEARKENED TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD MY GOD — i.e. I have brought it into the Chosen House (Temple‎) (Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:12).

To make a casket or shrouds. This teaching is a novelty; for even a casket or shrouds that are a mitzvah, and certainly secular purposes [are forbidden]. See Kitzur Mizrachi.

ולא נתתי ממנו למת, selbst in seinem טומאה-Zustand habe ich es nicht für einen Toten, etwa zum Salben einer Leiche verwendet (Jebamot 74 a). Oder nach Maaßer scheni V, 12 לא לקחתי ממנו ארון ותכריכים ולא נתתיו לאוננים אחרים, ich habe dafür nicht Sarg und Leichentücher gekauft und habe es auch nicht anderen אוננים zum Genuss gegeben. Nach 3 ,10 הל׳ מעשר שני) רמב׳׳ם) umfasst נתינה למת jede Verwendung für "Totes", d. h. jede Verwendung, die nicht מקיים את הגוף, die nicht der Erhaltung und Förderung des lebendigen Leibes zugute kommt, und ist eben Gegensatz zu אכילה שתיה וסיכה den Genusszwecken, für welche מ׳׳ש zur Verwendung kommen soll.

עשיתי ככל אשר צויתני, “I have acted in accordance with all that You have commanded me.” (regarding the tithes etc., of all that my fields produced)”

עשיתי ככל אשר צויתני I HAVE DONE ACCORDING TO ALL THOU HAST COMMANDED ME — I have myself rejoiced and made others rejoice by it (Sifrei Devarim 303:18; Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:12).

I have brought it to the Temple. Otherwise, why write, “I have heeded the voice of Adonoy”? The person has already declared that he fulfilled all he was commanded and he did not transgress all that he was admonished against? For this reason too, they expounded from, “I have fulfilled everything that You commanded me,” [to mean,] “I rejoiced, and brought joy with it.”

הביאותיו לבית הבחירה :שמעתי בקול ד׳ אלקי, ich habe es in den Umkreis des von dir erwählten Hauses hinaufgebracht, שמחתי ושימחתי בו :עשיתי בכל אשר צויתני, ich habe, wie du mir geboten, mich dessen erfreut und habe andern damit Freude bereitet (Maaßer scheni 5, 12). Oben Kap. 12, 18 sind diese beiden Gebote ausgesprochen:

I rejoiced, and brought joy with it. That is, [to] others.

ואכלת שם לפני ד׳ ושמחת אתה וביתך ,והלוי אשר בשעריך וגו׳, und ebenso Kap. 15, 26 u. 27.