Halakhah sobre Gênesis 2:34

If someone is about to say birkat ha-mazon, he is required to wash his hands first, and then say the blessing “al rehitzat yada’im;” this washing is an obligation. And so they said, “Mayim rishonim is a mitzvah, mayim ahronim an obligation (hovah), washing during the meal optional.”¹⁶⁶B. Hullin 105a. An obligation – hovah – is a stronger requirement than a mitzvah. And when they said “during the meal,” they meant it is optional between one cooked dish and another. But between a cooked dish and cheese, it is an obligation.¹⁶⁷Ibid., 105b.

One has to be careful when he is about to say birkat ha-mazon not to leave the table without any bread on it, as they said in tractate Sanhedrin:¹⁸¹B. Sanhedrin 92a. “Whoever does not leave bread on his table, about him Scripture says, ‘With no remnant for him to eat, his goodness will not take hold.”¹⁸²Job 20:21. The reason for this practice is so that the blessing about which this was said will take hold; for if nothing is left, in what can the blessing take hold, because no blessing takes hold upon nothing, but only upon something? And the table in the sanctuary, which never was without bread, attests to this. And that bread was eaten by the priests who ministered to the sanctuary, and only a little of it was enough to feed many of them, and so our rabbis said, “Every priest who approached it was made doubly happy,”¹⁸³B. Yoma 39a. R. Bahya seems to allude to double portion of manna in the manna miracle as well as to the two loaves offered to the priests in Lev. 23:17. and through this very bread on the table blessing descended and was dispersed in the food of the world, from the showbread, by way of “something from something” and not something from nothing. For even the prophets who were “capable of serving in the royal palace”¹⁸⁴Dan 1:4. were not capable of producing something from nothing, but rather only something from something. Let me call for myself reliable witnesses:¹⁸⁵An allusion to Is 8:2.Elijah and Elisha, the former through “flour in a jar,”¹⁸⁶I Kg 17:12: “kad ha-kemah,” which R. Bahya used as the title for his famous encyclopedic collection of sermons. the latter “a jug of oil” – all was “something from something,” for no one has the power to make something from nothing but the Holy One Blessed be He, Shaper of creation which He created from nothing, and with all due to respect for Him, we find that even He only did it in the six days of the creation of the world. From then on till now, everything is “something from something.” And thus it is written, “which God created and made.”¹⁸⁷Gen 2:3. The explanation: “which God created” – something from nothing; “and made” – from then on, something from something, not something from nothing. So accordingly, it is necessary that a person about to recite birkat ha-mazon, leave a piece of bread on the table, for even a little of it is enough for the blessing to take hold in, and its power will be distributed through an increase of the small amount, just like the hidden miracles that are done for us every day, without us knowing or being aware of them. Just as our rabbis said: “¹⁸⁸B. Nidah 31a.No miracle-worker is aware of his own miracle.” And you should know that the cause behind the blessing that drops down in the food of the world and in the showbread is explained in the verse: “It [the frankincense] shall be a reminder-offering with the bread.”¹⁸⁹Lev 24:7. R. Bahya seems to allude to the miracle of the manna here in the language he uses about the showbread drawing miracles and blessings down to the earth, and of the priests being “doubly happy” See note 183 above . And later he explicitly associates the covering of bread on the table with cloths above and below with the miracle of the manna. As you already knew that they used to place frankincense on top of the bread, which is what is written just before, “With each row you shall place pure frankincense,”¹⁹⁰Ibid. the showbread and the frankincense used to counteract one another, just like the etrog and the lulav,¹⁹¹B. Menahot 27a. and the blue dye and white cloth (when blue dye could still be found). For the Most High has no share in the showbread, while the ordinary mortal has no share in the frankincense, which they would burn upon the fire. Therefore Scripture said, “It shall be a reminder-offering with the bread,” because by burning the frankincense which is on top of the bread, it becomes a reminder to the power above for blessing to drop down on it and from it into the food for the world. And understand this, that it is for this reason that there were twelve hallot arranged on top of the table. And from there the blessing came, which corresponded to the twelve angels¹⁹²Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 4. surrounding the throne of glory, which are called “four camps of the Shekhinah,” from which the world is blessed to the four winds, and they serve three to each wind, the meaning behind the four banners that were in the desert. Also corresponding to them below were the twelve lions on Solomon’s throne, and they are like these twelve hallot and the twenty-four tenth-measures,¹⁹³Lev 24:5. Each loaf – hallah – was made of two tenth-measures – ‘esronim – of choice flour, i.e., 24 = 2 x 12. and arouse your mind to this!

Another interpretation: He blessed it with light. When the sun set on the evening of Shabbat, the Holy One Blessed be He sought to hide the light and gave honor to Shabbat, as it is written, “and God blessed it, etc.”²⁸⁹Gen 2:3.With what did He bless it? With light. Everything began to praise the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is written, “Everything under the heavens, He made it sing.”²⁹⁰Job 37:3: Literally, “He lets it loose [yishrehu] beneath the entire heavens; His lightning [oro] to the ends of the earth.” The midrash treats yishrehu as if it were from the word “shirah” – “song.” Why? “His light [spread] to the ends of the earth.”²⁹¹Genesis Rabbah 11:2.

Now that I have explained to you the topic of Kiddush, I will explain the topic of Havdalah, so that nothing will be missing from your table whether it is an ordinary day or Shabbat, for indeed Havdalah is a way of honoring Shabbat, to remember the day of Shabbat both when it comes and goes, as our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash, “’Remember the Sabbath day’²⁷⁹Ex 20:8. – remember it both at its entrance and its departure.”²⁸⁰Maimonides, Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, M”A 155, and in Hilkhot Shabbat 29a. And know that Havdalah with its four blessings is hinted at in the first parshah of Genesis: the first blessing – borei pri ha-gafen – “who creates the fruit of the vine” – is hinted at in the first verse in the word ha-aretz – “the land”²⁸¹Gen 1:1. – which is the garden and the vine in the garden, and this is the wine preserved in its grapes from the six days of creation.²⁸²B. Berakhot 34b. The wine that will be served at the messianic banquet at the end of time comes has been preserved in the grapes of the first vine God created in the six days of creation.The second blessing: “atzei besamim”– “spices from a tree”²⁸³Technically, one needs to specify in the blessing the type of spice: atzei besamim – “spices from a tree,” such as cinnamon or nutmeg; esvei besamim, “spices from grasses,” such as mint or tarragon. However, taking into account that not everybody knows how to tell the difference between types of spices, the more inclusive formulation minei besamim– “different kinds of spices” was instituted, to avoid having people say the wrong blessing (Chavel). is hinted in the expression, “a wind [ru’ah] from God sweeping over the water,”²⁸⁴Gen 1:1. because smell – re’ah – is sensed by means of the wind – ru’ah. The third blessing: bore’ me’orei ha-esh – “who creates the lights of fire,” is what is written in “Yehi ‘or” – “Let there be light!”²⁸⁵Gen 1:3: “’Or” and “me’orei” are from the same Hebrew root that means “light.” The fourth blessing – Ha-mavdil – “Who separates” is what is written in “and God separated [va-yavdel] the light.”²⁸⁶Gen 1:4. And just as we found the act of separation – Havdalah – in the Holy One Blessed be He at the beginning of His rule with the creation of the world and its renewal, so we found in Him the sanctification – kiddush²⁸⁷Its root, kadosh, in its adjectival and verbal forms means literally to “be set apart” or “to set apart.” – of the day of Shabbat on which work is forbidden, which is written: “God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy [va-yikadesh ‘oto].”²⁸⁸Gen 2:3. What follows is more or less a quotation from Genesis Rabbah Parshah 11, with some omissions. He “blessed” it providing an extra portion of the manna for it and “declared it holy” by prohibiting the gathering of manna on it.

Another interpretation: He blessed it with light. When the sun set on the evening of Shabbat, the Holy One Blessed be He sought to hide the light and gave honor to Shabbat, as it is written, “and God blessed it, etc.”²⁸⁹Gen 2:3.With what did He bless it? With light. Everything began to praise the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is written, “Everything under the heavens, He made it sing.”²⁹⁰Job 37:3: Literally, “He lets it loose [yishrehu] beneath the entire heavens; His lightning [oro] to the ends of the earth.” The midrash treats yishrehu as if it were from the word “shirah” – “song.” Why? “His light [spread] to the ends of the earth.”²⁹¹Genesis Rabbah 11:2.

Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi asked those who lived in Babylonia, by what did they earn the right to call their living there “life.”²⁹²I.e., a successful life, since a life of sorrow cannot really be called “life.” They replied, “by right of the Torah.” And for those in the land of Israel, by right of the tithes. And those outside of the Land, by what right? Because they honor the Sabbaths and the holidays. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yosi b. Halafta said, “Abraham our father, about whom is not written that he observed the Sabbath, inherited the world within measurable limits, as it is said, ‘Up, walk about the land through its length and breadth.’²⁹³Gen 13:17. But Jacob, about whom it iswritten that he observed Shabbat, as it is said, ‘and he encamped in the city,’ he entered at morning twilight, and fixed boundaries while it was still day,²⁹⁴Gen 33:18. In other words, according to the midrash, Jacob made an eruv that allowed him to carry things in the city on Shabbat. inherited the world without measurable limits, as it is said, ‘You shall spread out to the west and to the east, etc.’²⁹⁵Gen 28:14. Another interpretation: “God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy,”²⁹⁶Gen 2:3.He blessed it by exempting it from being postponed. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said, ‘A festival is postponed; Shabbat is not postponed.²⁹⁷That is, unlike other holidays, which occasionally may be postponed a day, such as the first day of Rosh Hashanah so that it won’t fall on a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday, which would create problems later on in the calendar. Shabbat always falls on the seventh day of the week (Chavel). Another interpretation: He blessed it with a partner.

Also it says there:²⁹⁹In Genesis Rabbah 16:8. “And He placed him [Adam] in the Garden of Eden,”³⁰⁰Gen 2:15. the Holy One Blessed be He gave Adam the commandments of Shabbat, since it is written in this verse va-yanhehu – “placed him” and in another verse “va-yanah – and He rested on the seventh day.³⁰¹Gen 2:15: va-yanhehu – literally, “caused him to rest;” Ex 20:11. In other words, the similar diction suggests, by midrashic logic, that Gen 2:15 is in fact an allusion to the rules for Shabbat in Ex 20:8-11 – part of the 10 Commandments. “To work it”³⁰²Gen 2:15. alludes to “six days shall you work”³⁰³Ex 20:9. and “to tend it” – li-shomrah – alludes to “Observe – shamor [the Sabbath day].”³⁰⁴Dt 5:12, i.e., Deuteronomy’s Shabbat commandment in its version of the 10 commandments. So ends the quotation from Genesis Rabba. And you will find in the chapter “Arvei Pesahim” of the Talmud³⁰⁵B. Pesahim 105b. that it said, “One can interrupt for Kiddush, but one does not interrupt for Havdalah. The explanation: If a person interrupts his meal on the eve of Shabbat and says birkat ha-mazon for a regular day, and afterwards says the Kiddush for Shabbat, this is “making an interruption.” But if he were eating on Shabbat and sundown came, he does not interrupt his meal, but rather, completes it. And even though he says birkat ha-mazon for Shabbat when it has become an ordinary day, it doesn’t matter, and then afterwards he makes Havdalah, which is what is meant by “one does not interrupt for Havdalah.” And the reason why is because it is proper for a person to interrupt his meal to honor the King when He enters in order to welcome Him, but on Shabbat one does not interrupt his meal for Havdalah, but rather keeps eating like a person who wants the King to stay and to delay Him from leaving his home. For were he to interrupt the meal, it would seem like he was trying to get rid of the King. And this is like what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash in Mekhilta: “Remember and Keep!” “Remember” Shabbat at its entrance, so as to welcome it before sunset so that everything is prepared for it. “And Keep!” Keep it as it leaves, like a person watching over the king or his dear friend who is with him, and he doesn’t want him to go; he does what he can the whole time to delay him.³⁰⁶Mekhilta of R. Simon Bar Yohai, Yitro 20:8.

Whosoever prays on Sabbath eve and recites "And the heavens and the earth were completed" (Genesis 2:1) is accounted by Scripture as if he became a partner to the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation.

And thus the utensil, the knife, with which food is cut into pieces is called a ma’akhelet because it annihilates and destroys, as in the expression, “you shall consume (ve-‘akhalta) all the peoples.”³Dt. 7:16: “You shall destroy all the peoples” (NJSB). Ma’akhelet is the term for the knife with which Abraham prepares to slaughter Isaac in Gen 22:10. And the verse which uses va-yokhlu (“they ate”) to refer to what the ministering angels were doing teaches this,⁴Gen 18:8, in the story of the angels visiting Abraham at Mamre. as our sages z”l taught in a midrash about the three calves that Abraham brought to them. “One after another each one went up and disappeared (kalah) off the table, and Abraham when he realized this, brought some more meat almost continually time after time, like a person who kept increasing the number of whole burnt offerings he sacrificed on the altar.”⁵Gen. R. 48:16. And likewise about Adam it is written, “She also gave some to her husband, and he ate (va-yokhal).”⁶Gen 3:6The word va-yokhal (“and he ate”) proclaims his sin both by his deed and by his thought. By his deed: that is that he caused the tree to lose its fruit, and ate it despite his being warned not to: “for as soon as you eat of it, you will die.”⁷Gen 2:17. His thought: that is that he destroyed, cut off, and made like the branch of the tree was a thing in and of itself, and if so, everything suffers destruction and annihilation, in both physical and intellectual things.⁸R. Bahya alludes here to the kabbalistic idea that the sin of Adam also involved “the cutting of the shoots,” the intellectual error of mistaking the part for the whole of creation. This had profound cosmic implications, since by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam not only physically separated the fruit from the tree, he intellectually “separated” it from its heavenly image above, its source of power and energy. This intellectual separation cuts the divine “pipeline” connecting the lower and upper worlds, effectively blocking the empowering flow of divine energy between the two worlds. It is precisely this state of affairs, the consequence of Adam’s sin, that the table blessings R. Bahya discusses in the First Gate is intended to repair. And so when you are found saying the word va-yokhal, it includes the destruction (hashhatah) of both something below and the destruction of something above, as it is written, “your people have gone bad (shihet),”⁹Ex 32:7. This is from the story of the Golden Calf. God is speaking to Moses, and instead of referring to the Israelites as “My people” as He usually does, God calls them “your – i.e., Moses’ – people,” much as parents often pass the buck to one another when their children have misbehaved (as does Moses, too, replying to God in Ex 32:11). I think R. Bahya’s point is that there is both a lower and upper “people “(“your [Moses’] people” vs. “My [God’s] people” that have “gone bad.” and likewise Jeroboam was called a mashhit – “destroyer” – because he destroyed and cut short the shoots.¹⁰See note 8 above. R. Bahya alludes to the midrash in b. Berakhot 35b: “‘He is a companion to vandals (ish mashhit) (Prov. 28:24).’ This refers to Jeroboam the son of Nebat who ruined (she-hishhit) Israel for their Father in Heaven,” by building two golden calves and ordering the Israelites to worship them (I Kings 12:28-32).

In the Amida on Shabbat night we recite Va-yekhulu, the three verses at the end of account of creation (Bereishit 2:1-3) that introduce the idea of Shabbat.

Since the sun inclines north and south, the year is divided into four seasons, namely “winter and spring and summer and autumn” (Genesis 8:22). For “planting” is the half year when the sun is in the southern signs (autumn and winter), and “reaping” is when the sun is in the northern signs (spring and summer).¹⁷ The verse reads: “Forever, all the days of the earth, planting and reaping, and winter and spring and summer and autumn, and day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). Ibn Ezra understands that four of these terms refer to the four seasons, while “planting and reaping” is an alternative division of the year into two halves, when the sun is in the southern signs and when it is in the northern signs. See Ibn Ezra’s commentary to that verse. The verse began with the winter days. This season commences when the sun is at its southern extremity (winter solstice). Then the days begin to lengthen and the nights to shorten. This season has cold and wet days. When the sun reaches the point of intersection (vernal equinox), then day and night are equal throughout the earth. This season (spring) has hot and wet days. From its commencement the days begin to be longer than the nights, for the sun bends towards the north. This season ends when the sun reaches its northern extremity (summer solstice). Then the next season (summer) begins. The sun recedes from the north and the days begin to shorten and the nights to lengthen. These days, which are the days of summer, are hot and dry. When the sun reaches the second point of intersection (autumnal equinox) the day and night are of equal length. From then on the days begin to be shorter than the nights, which grow longer. This season (autumn) has cold and dry days. Since the summer and autumn seasons are dry, Scripture states “this will be in summer and in autumn” (Zachariah 14:8).¹⁸ The verse reads: “It shall be on that day that fresh water will come forth from Jerusalem, half flowing to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, this will be in summer and in autumn.” For at those times the rivers diminish, except for the Nile which originates from springs in the Mountains of the Moon to the south.¹⁹ The Mountains of the Moon are a mountain range in central Africa. They were believed to be the source of the White Nile.

And know that because the body is the “robe” of the soul, for as King Solomon (peace be upon him) spoke about the topic of the resurrection of the dead when he said: “I had taken off my robe; How shall I wear it again?”⁷⁷SS 5:3. he revealed to us explicitly that the soul will be clothed in the same robe. But he said, “How shall I wear it again?” – it is impossible for this to occur in nature, but rather only by a complete, marvelous, profound miracle shall I go back and wear it again after it has been stripped off. And he said this out of astonishment, not out of doubt – God forbid! “I had bathed my feet”⁷⁸Ibid. – that is to say, after I have bathed my feet, how is it possible for me to step back in the same muck!? It is better for me to stay on this level than to go back there.⁷⁹I.e., to stay in the world of souls – as only a soul, rather than return to the body, in the world of the resurrection (Chavel). All this comes from astonishment, but “inasmuch the king’s command is authoritative,”⁸⁰Eccl 8:4. because he promised us this in the Torah that the soul will return to the body at the resurrection of the dead, in order to receive its reward or punishment, according to the judgment coming to it. The explanation of this topic about the matter of the resurrection of the dead I shall complete for you in this Gate. Dig after it, pursue it, and get it!

And the world of souls, this is what is called ‘Garden of Eden’ (gan aden) among the sages, and they called it this by way of an allegory, using the example of how the body takes delight (mitaden) in a garden, and so it is written about the Garden of Eden in the land, ‘He set him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it,’ (Gen 2:5) – this heavenly Garden of Eden is the world of souls comparable but in contrast to it, and it is call ‘Garden of Eden’ too, and it is the reward for doing the mitzvot in which the soul takes delight, using the image of the body taking delight in a garden. And to the extent that the Torah does not specify explicitly anywhere the matter of the Garden of Eden being destined for the soul as a reward for the mitzvot, but does specify the bodily things destined for Israel when they return most certainly to their land, when they will have “all their rains in their season”⁹³Lev 26:4. and with the abundance of blessing and happiness – this matter is because the Torah was given to the masses of all of Israel, and the masses would not be able to understand the destined intellectual things. So even if the Torah would come to tell about this in brief, they would not find in it any way in to understand it, they wouldn’t be up to it, and it would be for them like a dream without an interpretation. And if the story of this went on at length in Scripture, wouldn’t more doubts be raised, the more was written about it? So for this reason, the Torah did not want to go down this road, neither in brief nor at length, because the masses wouldn’t believe in any of it, until they would see a sign or confirmation of it with their own eyes, and therefore the wisdom of the Torah comes in a story about physical rewards destined to come, to go on at length about them since they are preparation for the soul’s recompense, which is her “Garden of Eden,” and since they are a sign and confirmation for what they wouldn’t understand. And for this reason the Torah did not mention it explicitly in the story of the Garden of Eden, and by concealing it lest doubts multiply and confusion in understanding them ensue, but did mention openly what is the sign and confirmation of it. So this reason is correct and sufficient to all who understand and discern that the Torah was given to the masses. However, the “engaged intellectual” [maskil nilvav⁹⁴This expression from R. Bahya ibn Pakuda’s Duties of the Heart -(Hovot ha-Levavot), Sha’ar Yihud Chapter 1, plays on the connection to “heart”, and refers to someone philosophically trained but also “with a heart” – that is, emotionally engaged, not intellectually distant. He says the “maskil nilvav will strive to strip the shells of the words and their materiality from the subject.” In other words, it is out of emotionally longing to connect to God, that he will use philosophy to strip away the linguistic and material obstacles to that connection.] who delves deeply into it, will find everything in the Torah, “as milk under pressure produces butter”⁹⁵Prov 30:33. – whoever is found engaged in the Torah, the milk he suckles from the breast of his mother will produce the “butter” of Torah.⁹⁶Chavel thinks R. Bahya has in mind this midrash on Prov 30:33 in b. Berakhot 63b: “‘As milk under pressure produces butter’ – In whom do find the butter of Torah? In him who spits up the milk he suckled from his mother for it.” And so you who are an engaged intellectual – “Turn it and turn it because everything is in it!”⁹⁷M. Avot 5 (end). I think R. Bahya means by this analogy that the baby “churns” his mother’s milk in his mouth and turns it into butter, and similarly the engaged intellectual “churns” Torah by “turning it and turning it” and so turns it into “the butter of Torah.” Similarly, medieval Christian monastic educators described the active process of reading as “rumination.” You will find in the matter of Enoch that “And Enoch walked with God”⁹⁸Gen 5:24: va-yithalakh Hanokh et ha-elohim. And this “walking with God” is as the Targum translated it into Aramaic, “And Enoch walked in fear of the Lord.”⁹⁹Targum Onkelos Gen 5:24: Ve-halikh hanokh be-dahalta’ d’YHVH. Enoch was a “righteous man who rules in the fear of God,”¹⁰⁰2 Samuel 23:3.as it is said, “for God took him,”¹⁰¹Gen 5:24. – it is known that the “taking” was because of his virtue and goodness, because he was a righteous man. And if so, from here we get the explanation of the matter of “the Garden of Eden” for the soul of the righteous. And you will also find in the Torah in parashat “Im be-hukotai” that it is promise for the future, the world to come, for it is written there, “I will look with favor on you,¹⁰²Lev 26:9.” and this means that “My goodwill [ratzon]will be attached to you,” and the “goodwill” of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed) is the life of the world to come. This is what is referred to in what is written: “hayyim birtzono” – “When He is pleased, there is life,”¹⁰³Ps 30:6. and thus it is also written there, “I shall walk about – hithalakhti – in your midst.”¹⁰⁴Lev 26:12 And what is destined here is not to be understood in the category of things destined for the body, but rather from things destined for the soul in the world to come, which is what is referred to when it is written: “moving about – mithalekh – in the breezy part of the day.”¹⁰⁵Gen 3:8: “They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God moving about [mithalekh] in the garden at the breezy time of the day.” And our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁰⁶Sifra Be-Hukkotai Chapter 3.”‘Va-hithalakhti be-tokhekham -I will walk about in their midst.’ In time to come the Holy One Blessed be He will stroll around with the righteous in the Garden of Eden.” And similarly they said, “In time to come the Holy One Blessed be He will arrange a “greenbelt”¹⁰⁷Mahol- untilled land surrounding a vineyard (Jastrow). However, mahol has the additional connotation of a chorus of singers and dancers, so R. Bahya may also be alluding to the “Mahanayyim dance” he mentioned in the First Gate. In any case, the main point of this image is that it is circular, with God in the center. The “choreography” of the souls of the “Garden of Eden”, is that they will be arranged in a circle with God in the center, as R. Bahya goes on to explain. for the righteous in the Garden of Eden, and His Presence will be among them.”¹⁰⁸B. Ta’anit 3a. The achievement of this joy for the souls is compared to an endless eternal “greenbelt,” because the circle goes around a point, and the point is in the center, which is why the Talmud says “His Presence will be among them –beynahem.” And similarly the Torah specified “in your midst – be-tokhekham,“¹⁰⁹Lev 26:12. because Israel is compared to circle, and He himself to the center point. And after it said, “I will walk about in your midst,” it said, “I will be your God,” ¹¹⁰Ibid. and our sages z”l interpreted this in a midrash,¹¹¹B. Taanit 31a. “And each and every one of them will point to Him with their finger, as it is said, ‘Behold! This is our God!”¹¹²Is 25:9. The word “this” is an allegory for nearing complete intellectual conception, like someone who has knowledge of something that exists and recognizes it clearly, and understands it as distinct from other things. And you should not understand “this” literally, like what you would mean if you were standing in front of a person and pointing them out, but rather, it is like what is meant when the Torah said, “For this man Moses…”¹¹³Ex 32:1: “When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, ‘Come make us a god who shall go before us, for this man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt – we do not know what happened to him”who was not standing among them, but about whom they had specific knowledge. From here¹¹⁴From the expression “I shall walk about in your midst” in Lev 26:12. it should be clear to the enlightened that the world of souls is the “Garden of Eden” for the soul, but Scripture mixes it in the general list of things destined for the body, and depended on the intellect of the enlightened to discern it from them, that it would not be hidden from him as it would be from the masses.

And the world of souls, this is what is called ‘Garden of Eden’ (gan aden) among the sages, and they called it this by way of an allegory, using the example of how the body takes delight (mitaden) in a garden, and so it is written about the Garden of Eden in the land, ‘He set him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it,’ (Gen 2:5) – this heavenly Garden of Eden is the world of souls comparable but in contrast to it, and it is call ‘Garden of Eden’ too, and it is the reward for doing the mitzvot in which the soul takes delight, using the image of the body taking delight in a garden. And to the extent that the Torah does not specify explicitly anywhere the matter of the Garden of Eden being destined for the soul as a reward for the mitzvot, but does specify the bodily things destined for Israel when they return most certainly to their land, when they will have “all their rains in their season”⁹³Lev 26:4. and with the abundance of blessing and happiness – this matter is because the Torah was given to the masses of all of Israel, and the masses would not be able to understand the destined intellectual things. So even if the Torah would come to tell about this in brief, they would not find in it any way in to understand it, they wouldn’t be up to it, and it would be for them like a dream without an interpretation. And if the story of this went on at length in Scripture, wouldn’t more doubts be raised, the more was written about it? So for this reason, the Torah did not want to go down this road, neither in brief nor at length, because the masses wouldn’t believe in any of it, until they would see a sign or confirmation of it with their own eyes, and therefore the wisdom of the Torah comes in a story about physical rewards destined to come, to go on at length about them since they are preparation for the soul’s recompense, which is her “Garden of Eden,” and since they are a sign and confirmation for what they wouldn’t understand. And for this reason the Torah did not mention it explicitly in the story of the Garden of Eden, and by concealing it lest doubts multiply and confusion in understanding them ensue, but did mention openly what is the sign and confirmation of it. So this reason is correct and sufficient to all who understand and discern that the Torah was given to the masses. However, the “engaged intellectual” [maskil nilvav⁹⁴This expression from R. Bahya ibn Pakuda’s Duties of the Heart -(Hovot ha-Levavot), Sha’ar Yihud Chapter 1, plays on the connection to “heart”, and refers to someone philosophically trained but also “with a heart” – that is, emotionally engaged, not intellectually distant. He says the “maskil nilvav will strive to strip the shells of the words and their materiality from the subject.” In other words, it is out of emotionally longing to connect to God, that he will use philosophy to strip away the linguistic and material obstacles to that connection.] who delves deeply into it, will find everything in the Torah, “as milk under pressure produces butter”⁹⁵Prov 30:33. – whoever is found engaged in the Torah, the milk he suckles from the breast of his mother will produce the “butter” of Torah.⁹⁶Chavel thinks R. Bahya has in mind this midrash on Prov 30:33 in b. Berakhot 63b: “‘As milk under pressure produces butter’ – In whom do find the butter of Torah? In him who spits up the milk he suckled from his mother for it.” And so you who are an engaged intellectual – “Turn it and turn it because everything is in it!”⁹⁷M. Avot 5 (end). I think R. Bahya means by this analogy that the baby “churns” his mother’s milk in his mouth and turns it into butter, and similarly the engaged intellectual “churns” Torah by “turning it and turning it” and so turns it into “the butter of Torah.” Similarly, medieval Christian monastic educators described the active process of reading as “rumination.” You will find in the matter of Enoch that “And Enoch walked with God”⁹⁸Gen 5:24: va-yithalakh Hanokh et ha-elohim. And this “walking with God” is as the Targum translated it into Aramaic, “And Enoch walked in fear of the Lord.”⁹⁹Targum Onkelos Gen 5:24: Ve-halikh hanokh be-dahalta’ d’YHVH. Enoch was a “righteous man who rules in the fear of God,”¹⁰⁰2 Samuel 23:3.as it is said, “for God took him,”¹⁰¹Gen 5:24. – it is known that the “taking” was because of his virtue and goodness, because he was a righteous man. And if so, from here we get the explanation of the matter of “the Garden of Eden” for the soul of the righteous. And you will also find in the Torah in parashat “Im be-hukotai” that it is promise for the future, the world to come, for it is written there, “I will look with favor on you,¹⁰²Lev 26:9.” and this means that “My goodwill [ratzon]will be attached to you,” and the “goodwill” of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed) is the life of the world to come. This is what is referred to in what is written: “hayyim birtzono” – “When He is pleased, there is life,”¹⁰³Ps 30:6. and thus it is also written there, “I shall walk about – hithalakhti – in your midst.”¹⁰⁴Lev 26:12 And what is destined here is not to be understood in the category of things destined for the body, but rather from things destined for the soul in the world to come, which is what is referred to when it is written: “moving about – mithalekh – in the breezy part of the day.”¹⁰⁵Gen 3:8: “They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God moving about [mithalekh] in the garden at the breezy time of the day.” And our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁰⁶Sifra Be-Hukkotai Chapter 3.”‘Va-hithalakhti be-tokhekham -I will walk about in their midst.’ In time to come the Holy One Blessed be He will stroll around with the righteous in the Garden of Eden.” And similarly they said, “In time to come the Holy One Blessed be He will arrange a “greenbelt”¹⁰⁷Mahol- untilled land surrounding a vineyard (Jastrow). However, mahol has the additional connotation of a chorus of singers and dancers, so R. Bahya may also be alluding to the “Mahanayyim dance” he mentioned in the First Gate. In any case, the main point of this image is that it is circular, with God in the center. The “choreography” of the souls of the “Garden of Eden”, is that they will be arranged in a circle with God in the center, as R. Bahya goes on to explain. for the righteous in the Garden of Eden, and His Presence will be among them.”¹⁰⁸B. Ta’anit 3a. The achievement of this joy for the souls is compared to an endless eternal “greenbelt,” because the circle goes around a point, and the point is in the center, which is why the Talmud says “His Presence will be among them –beynahem.” And similarly the Torah specified “in your midst – be-tokhekham,“¹⁰⁹Lev 26:12. because Israel is compared to circle, and He himself to the center point. And after it said, “I will walk about in your midst,” it said, “I will be your God,” ¹¹⁰Ibid. and our sages z”l interpreted this in a midrash,¹¹¹B. Taanit 31a. “And each and every one of them will point to Him with their finger, as it is said, ‘Behold! This is our God!”¹¹²Is 25:9. The word “this” is an allegory for nearing complete intellectual conception, like someone who has knowledge of something that exists and recognizes it clearly, and understands it as distinct from other things. And you should not understand “this” literally, like what you would mean if you were standing in front of a person and pointing them out, but rather, it is like what is meant when the Torah said, “For this man Moses…”¹¹³Ex 32:1: “When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, ‘Come make us a god who shall go before us, for this man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt – we do not know what happened to him”who was not standing among them, but about whom they had specific knowledge. From here¹¹⁴From the expression “I shall walk about in your midst” in Lev 26:12. it should be clear to the enlightened that the world of souls is the “Garden of Eden” for the soul, but Scripture mixes it in the general list of things destined for the body, and depended on the intellect of the enlightened to discern it from them, that it would not be hidden from him as it would be from the masses.

And now that I have explained the topic of the world of souls, which is called “Garden of Eden” among our rabbis z”l, and I have revealed to you the reason why the Torah did not mention it explicitly except to the “engaged intellectual” (la–maskil ha-nilvav), I will now expand upon for you my explanation of the matter of the pleasure that will be experienced in the measure it was originally experienced by Adam in the Garden of Eden before the sin, in that you already knew that the nature of the pleasure there was very great and deep, and that the greater part of it was the soul’s pleasure, the lesser the pleasure of the body, which had quiet, ease, and peace of mind unlike any you can imagine, and because he was all intellectual -body and soul in complete agreement to conceive of his Creator, and even the power of the Tree of Life to cause eternal life was at first not kept from him, but after the sin, when he ate from the Tree of Knowledge – it was only after this eating that he was made to follow his desires and strive for the needs of the body more than the needs of the soul, acting “all as we act now here today.”¹³¹Dt 12:8 And therefore he had to have his days limited and for death to hold sway over him. But before the sin, he could take pleasure in the Garden of Eden and delight himself as he wished, and this it what meant by, “And He placed him in the Garden of Eden to till it and tend it,”¹³²Gen 2:15. that He placed him in the Garden of Eden so that he would work the soil of the Garden, and sow in it every kind of produce, and plant all kinds of fruit trees, and his sustenance came from the trees of the Garden, and his drink from the rivers of Eden. And his clothes were “the clouds of glory,” until the ministering angels got jealous of his status, and things changed for the reasons you know.¹³³According to the story in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 13, it was the angel’s jealousy of Adam that led them to tempt Adam and Eve through the serpent. It is to this status and to this measure of joy that the dead who are resurrected will in time to come return, to take delight in together in both body and soul, and the greater part of the pleasure will be the soul’s, the lesser part the body’s, as it was with Adam before the sin. Therefore, it will be necessary for any one among those raised from the dead to live a long or eternal life, for thus the world will return to its perfection as its Creator (may He be exalted) originally intended.

(Aleph)⁶Starting from here, each paragraph begins with a letter from an acrostic that sequentially includes all of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, followed by the author’s name. The Rabbis said (Bereishit Rabbah 8:5), “At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create man, He created a group of angels, etc. And they said (Ps. 8:5), ‘What is man that you should consider him’ [and so, they opposed his creation].” At first glance, [we would wonder] why the angels would care about man’s creation. [To answer this, we must understand the nature of man:] As the essence of man’s creation is [that he be] upon the earth. Even though the [human] soul benefits from the radiance of the glory from [the One from] which it has been hewn, and there is nothing lacking in the house of the King; [nevertheless] the Divine Wisdom, may His name be blessed, decreed that [the human soul] should be brought down [to the world], in order to test it with the performance of His commandments and the keeping of His Torah. And when ‘it is very righteous,’ ‘so will it multiply and so will it expand’ and ‘grow upwards,’ until ‘it returns to God who gave it’ ‘with great strength’ and ‘with abundance of power.’ And it is written in the Zohar 1:60a [to explain the verse in Prov. 5:15], “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well”; [that] when the soul is above, it only has the aspect of a cistern, which does not [produce its own water], but is rather filled from others. In of itself, however, it is empty. But when it comes down to this lowly world and achieves what it is supposed to achieve – like the wisdom of His decree, may His name be blessed – then it has the aspect of a well, which is an overflowing spring and is emanating from itself. And in this way it will not [acquire] the bread of shame.⁷The roots of this this idea – that unearned reward is a source of shame – are from several places in the Zohar. See, for example Zohar 1:4a. The basis for the metaphor, however is found in Talmud Yerushalmi Orlah 1:3, 61b. And the first well-known use of the actual phrase is only found later in R. Yosef Karo’s Maggid Mesharim 2:8, which was written in the 1500’s. As the essence of the matter is that anyone who has nothing from himself is a poor person that is considered as if dead.⁸Zohar 2:119a, Nedarim 64b. This is as is written in Gur Aryeh,⁹Maharal, Gur Aryeh on Exod. 4:19:2. that the water of a well is called living waters because it [produces water] from itself (meaning, its underground spring) – which is not the case with the water of a cistern. And so this is why a poor person is considered as if dead. [Hence (as in Prov. 15:27)], “and the one who hates gifts, lives.” See there. And if so, the whole time that the soul is in its source, it has the aspect of a cistern that has no life; as it is empty from itself, besides from what is given to it. [This is] until it descends here and emanates from itself with the aspect of a well and has life. And this is why it states (Gen. 2:7), “He blew into his nostrils a living soul.” That is because the main aspect of the creation of man on the earth was so that the soul could have the aspect of “a living soul.” And this is [the meaning of], these are the commandments, “that a man should do and live through them” (Lev. 18:8).

(Gimmel) On the day that He created him, the Holy One, blessed be He, also gave over to man all of the forces of all of the creatures that He created previously. The ones below, the ones above and the ones above the above were all given over into his hand. [Henceforth man] could move [these forces] to wherever he desired. If he was righteous and went to the right, then all of the creatures, big and small, would also merit to rise in their levels. But if he went to the left and made his actions evil – God forbid – then they would also descend down the slope that he prepared for them. And so we find with the generation of the flood that the sin and calumny of man brought down all the forces of the creatures. And those that dwelled above and those that dwelled below – “all flesh had corrupted its ways on the earth” (Gen. 6:12), even the beasts and the animals. It is like the statement of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, [that] some of the angels fell to earth and their glory descended to the dirt because of their sins.¹⁴See Zohar 1:37a:11 and in other places. See also Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 572:5; Yoma 67b and Rashi ad loc. With this, the beginning of our statement in Paragraph Aleph is elucidated: “At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, told the angels, ‘let us make man,’ etc.,” He said to them ‘that He mixed up all’ the powers of the creatures [in man], and ‘from there they would be scattered’ to all of the worlds and the creations. And according to how man’s spirit sought his way, [the angels would follow]. They would rise according to [man’s] will and they would descend according to his will. [God] also told them how He added a portion of His essence to them, as per their statement,¹⁵It is not clear to which statement the author is referring. See Louis Jacobs, “Rabbi Aryeh Laib Heller's Theological Introduction to His ‘Shev Shema'tata,’" Modern Judaism 1:2 (September 1981), Note 12. may their memory be blessed, on the verse (Gen. 2:7), “And He blew”; “Anyone who blows, blows from his self.” And it is elucidated in the writings of Ari¹⁶R. Yitschak Luria (Israel, Egypt, 16th century), the pioneer of Lurianic mysticism. that when a man compromises the commandments of God with his sins, the divine portion that he has returns to its original source, and He does not give of [this part of] His glory to another, and ‘His [protective] shade is removed from him.’ And so when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angels, “Let us make man” – meaning, that they should all give their portion [to man] to be raised when he is raised – they said to Him, “What are his ways?” He [then] said to them, such and such – meaning, his ascent and decline will be the cause [of what happens] to all the forces, and the ‘angels will climb and descend because of him.’ [So] they answered him (Ps. 8:5), “‘What is man that you should consider him and the mortal that you should remember him,’ – which is to say, his sins. As then ‘You will remove him a little from God,’ which is to say, the divine portion that He blew into his nostrils will return to You. It is only us that remain trapped in his net because of his evil. You have given him power over the works of Your hands, to move us according to his evil will and to do to us that which is in accordance with his will and his desire – like a person acts with that which is his.” Therefore they did not agree to his creation, as they said, “Let him not do good or evil to us.” [But] His wisdom, may He be blessed, decreed the creation of man, ‘to make many people live as today’; [both] ‘the many above,’ ‘and those dwelling below’, so as to move [the angels] to an independent life. [This is] because every action of man will be considered like their action, since all of the creatures mentioned above are combined into man. And so they too are in [the category of] the giving of a well. And this is the essence of creation.

However negation of the positive is a different matter. And that is that you negate the predicate from the subject. As when you say, "X did not eat yesterday; y did not drink today; Reuven is not Shimon's father" - and that which is similar to this - it has nothing to do with the notion of a commandment at all. Behold this is all negation of the positive, and there is no trace of a command in it. And the word with which to negate in Arabic is generally mah, but they also negate with the word, lah. But the Hebrews generally negate with the word, lo, which is exactly the same word they use to prohibit. However they also negate with ayin and that which is connected to it, such as eino, einam, einchem and the other ones. Indeed negation in Hebrew is with the word lo, as when it states, "Lo arose another prophet like Moshe" (Deuteronomy 34:10); "Lo a man is God that He should be untrue" (Numbers 23:19); and many like these. And negation with ayin is like its saying, "and man was ayin" (Genesis 2:8); "but the dead einam know anything" (Ecclesiastes 9:5); and many others. Hence behold that the difference between a prohibition and a negation is already clear to you - and that is that a prohibition is a type of command and will only come with the exact verb of a command. That means to say, just like the verb of a command will always be in the future, so too will [the verb of] a prohibition. It is not possible for a command to be in the past, and so too with a prohibition. And there is no room to group a command as a [type of] narrative sentence: For a narrative sentence requires a predicate and a subject; whereas a command is a complete sentence (without an explicit subject) - as is explained in the books written about this. And a prohibition is also not to be included with a narrative sentence. But a negation is not like this, for a negation can be a narrative sentence. And negation can be in the past, the future or the present. And this is all self-evident with some observation. And since this is so, it is inappropriate to include negative statements that are negations as negative commandments in any way. And this is a demonstrable matter - there is no need for affirmation of it, besides that which we mentioned about the understanding of the nature of words, so as to differentiate between a prohibition and a negation.

The individual shakes off mundane routine frequently— every week. “Shabbat comes and so does rest!”¹²Rashi on Gen. 2:2. Rashi’s full comment reads: “What was lacking [in Cre-ation]? Rest. Enter Sabbath, enter rest; and then the work of Creation was finished.” Creation was not complete until rest was made to complement and balance creative activity. The soul begins to shed her harsh chains. “The Lord has given you rest from your sorrow and trouble and from the hard service that you were made to serve.”¹³Isa. 14:3. The soul then seeks higher pathways of spiritual desire that are consonant with the nature of her source. “It is good to praise the Lord, to sing hymns to Your name, O Most High, to proclaim Your steadfast love at daybreak, Your faithfulness each night with a ten-stringed harp with voice and lyre together.”¹⁴Ps. 92:1–4. This is the “Psalm for the Sabbath Day.” “It shall be a sign for all time between me and the people of Israel.”¹⁵Exod. 31:17. This is a holy day when the innate inclination of the people for a godly life emerges from its hiddenness and is a sign for the people that its soul treasure contains within it the need and the ability to rejoice in God, in the delight of the divine. This is concentrated in the point of the extra soul¹⁶Rav Kook refers to the “extra soul” that, according to tradition, Jews possess on the Sabbath. The talmudic source is Beitza 16a, which in-terprets the words shavat vayinafash (Exod. 31:17) as Vay nefesh! (“Alas for the soul that is lost!”— at the end of Sabbath). Interpretations of this idea have ranged from the more rational, e.g., Ibn Ezra and Radak, who argue that the soul that “is given rest on this day from the affairs of the world can occupy itself with wisdom and the words of God” (commentary to Gen. 2:3), to the more mystical, e.g., Naḥmanides, who takes issue with Ibn Ezra and writes that “although his view of this is right to those who believe in it, for this is not something that can be tested by experience, … nonetheless you must understand that on the Sabbath, there is in truth an additional soul.” (See also Zohar II 204a–b.) Rav Kook draws on elements of both schools here in understanding the “extra soul” as something that is always within us that we are able to access on Sabbath when the rush of weekday activity is stilled. that dwells within each one of the people’s children.

I mention this interpretation to counter the heretics who do not believe the words of our Rabbis that the Sabbath extends from dusk to dusk. The true interpretation is what the Rabbis recorded, namely, that the Sabbath was given at Marah.⁷ “Israel was instructed in ten laws at Marah. Seven of these were accepted by the descendents of Noah. Three additional laws were courts, Sabbath, and respect for parents” (Sanhedrin 56b). The incident at Marah (Exodus 15:22–26) took place before the appearance of the manna (ibid., chapter 16). Scripture mentions “tomorrow” and not “this night,” for Scripture usually speaks of what is common, namely, that people work during the day. The meaning of “holy Sabbath” is that they should rest, and that is what they did, “The nation rested on the seventh day” (ibid. 16:30). In Jeremiah it is written: “to sanctify the Sabbath day by not working on it” (17:24). Moses mentioned “tomorrow,” which is daytime, because he addressed what is common. Similarly, “Man goes out to his activity and to his work until evening” (Psalms 104:23). Likewise, “You should not eat meat that was torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30), although the same prohibition applies to what was torn in a house. Similarly, “an occurrence at night” (Deuteronomy 23:11);⁸ This does not exclude an occurrence of the day. “an ox or a donkey fell there” (Exodus 21:33);⁹ Ox or donkey are not exclusive. and many more in the Torah like these.

Therefore scholars think⁵⁸ See Hipparchus, Commentary on the Phenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus ii, 1, 4–6 (cited by Evans, p. 98 and note 35). that since six zodiacal signs rise in all places every day,⁵⁹ “In the course of any night, six signs of the zodiac rise. The proof of this assertion is elementary. At the beginning of night (sunset), the point of the ecliptic that is diametrically opposite the sun will be in the eastern horizon. At the end of the night (sunrise), the point opposite the sun will have advanced to the western horizon. The half of the ecliptic following this point is then seen above the horizon and is the very part of the ecliptic that rose in the course of the night” (Evans, p. 95). that each sign rises in two hours.⁶⁰ That is, in two seasonal hours. The fact that six signs rise each night was often used as a method of telling the approximate time at night. “The risings of six zodiacal signs every night divide the night into six roughly equal parts, of two seasonal hours each. A glance toward the eastern horizon, to see which zodiacal constellation is rising, will suffice to determine the time of night, provided that one knows which constellation the sun is in” (Evans’ p. 95). But this is false and empty. For no zodiacal sign ever rises in any place in two hours,⁶¹ Hipparchus (ibid.) voiced a similar critique of the scholars of his day (cited by Evans, p. 98). even on the equator where the day and night are always equal.⁶² See Almagest ii, 8, pp. 100–103, for a Table of Ascensions. All the more so for any place that is a great distance from the equator. Note that in this island the sign Aries rises in 4⁄5 of an equinoctial hour, while the sign Leo rises in a little less than three hours.⁶³ See Almagest, ibid., p. 103, where we find that in Southernmost Brittania, Aries rises in 12÷48ʹ “time-degrees,” or (12÷ 48ʹ) ׳ 1⁄15 = 0.85 equinoctial hour. Leo rises in 42÷ 53’, or (42÷ 53’) ׳ 1⁄15 = 2.86 equinoctial hours. Anyone familiar with the constellations of the zodiacal sphere can see this. Even the moon during new moon when it is in the sign Libra.⁶⁴ Normally the moon is not visible for about 24 hours after conjunction with the sun. However, there are situations, for example at the beginning of autumn (Libra), when the moon is visible within 6 hours of conjunction. Every person can see the image in the circle of the astrolabe, whether it is spherical or not spherical.⁶⁵ A spherical astrolabe, usually called an “armillary sphere,” is described by Ptolemy in Almagest, v, 1. In his book Kli Nehoshet, Ibn Ezra describes the construction and use of a plane astrolabe. (See Evans, pp. 141–161.) Thus any fool who knows the cycle of Shmuel and the names of the signs and the seven planets, thinks that he is an astronomer. But he never heard the sound of wisdom, certainly not smelled its smell nor tasted its taste.

In his first responsum Iggerot Mosheh dismisses the statement of the father, not because he was a heretic, but because he was a Sabbathdesecrator. The principle formulated by the Gemara, Eruvin 69b, is that public desecration of the Sabbath is tantamount to heresy. That principle is predicated upon the premise that open and notorious desecration of the Sabbath is evidence that the transgressor denies that God created the universe over a period of six days and rested on the seventh. That talmudic presumption went unchallenged until the mid-nineteenth century. R. Jacob Ettlinger, Teshuvot Binyan Ẓion ha-Hadashot, no. 23, reports a socioreligious phenomenon, novel in nineteenth-century Germany but all too familiar in twentieth-century America, viz., the existence of countless numbers of Jews who offered Sabbath prayers and recited kiddush each Sabbath eve but then proceeded to desecrate the Sabbath by engaging in all manner of forbidden activity. Is it logical, queries Binyan Ẓion, for a person who denies creation to devoutly recite "And the heaven and earth and all their hosts were complete. And on the seventh day God completed the world which He made and He rested on the seventh day…." (Genesis 2:1-2). The notion of a believing Sabbath-desecrator might have been an oxymoron in a bygone age but in the modern world, argues Binyan Ẓion, it is a new reality. In the modern age, whether because of financial duress or other factors, that phenomenon is all too real. Others, who are raised in irreligious homes, know no better and have the status of "a child who was held in captivity among pagans." Accordingly, in light of the changed realia, rules Binyan Ẓion, the talmudic presumption of heresy does not attach itself to such persons.

It seems to this writer that Mor u-Kezi'ah regarded the establishment of halakhic time, and hence of the Sabbath, in the places under discussion to be a matter of unresolvable doubt. To be sure, as clearly enunciated by R. David ibn Zimra, Teshuvot ha-Radvaz, I, no. 76,⁸See also Parashat Derakhim, Drush 23, s.v. od nakdim; R. Israel Lipschutz, Tiferet Yisra’el, Berakhot, note appended to Bo‘az, end of chapter 1; R. Chaim Joseph David Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 242:1; R. Joseph Saul Nathanson, Teshuvot Sho’el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Revi’a’ah, no. 154; and R. Benjamin Aryeh Weiss, Teshuvot Even Yekarah (Lemberg, 5654), no. 11. determination of the onset and conclusion of Shabbat is determined locally. Leviticus 23:3 mandates that the Sabbath be observed "in all your habitations." That phrase is understood by Radvaz⁹A similar interpretation of that verse was earlier advanced by Seforno in his commentary ad locum. See also the interpretation of Exodus 31:16 advanced by the Zohar, Genesis 56a. The verse “And the children of Israel observed the Sabbath to make the Sabbath for their generations (le-dorotam)” is rendered by the Zohar as “to make the Sabbath for their dwellings (le-dirotam).” as signifying that the onset and conclusion of Shabbat is to be determined in accordance with sunset at each particular "habitation."¹⁰R. Abraham ibn Ezra, in his commentary to Genesis 33:10, understands the verse “And the sun rose upon him” (Genesis 32:32) as reflecting this underlying solar phenomenon, i.e., the sun rose for Jacob in the locale in which he found himself but did not rise simultaneously in other areas.
R. Isaac di Trani, renowned as the author of Teshuvot Maharit, declares in his Ẓofnat Pa‘aneaḥ (Venice, 5413), Drush le-Parashat Bereshit, that the work of creation did not cease throughout the globe at a single instant. Rather, the process of creation came to a halt at each point when night fell at that spot. In effect, in observing Shabbat as determined by local sunset, man emulates the Creator who ceased from the process of creation at different times in different places. Ḥatam Sofer, cited by R. Israel David Jaffe, Ḥazon le-Mo‘ed, no. 8, sec. 7, also stated that this was the case during each of the six days of creation: the work of each day did not take place simultaneously throughout the world; rather, the entities created on each day of the week were created in every geographic area while it was day in that locale. This, Ḥatam Sofer asserts, applied even to the “ten things” which the Mishnah, Avot 5:6, declared to have been created on the sixth day between sunset and nightfall, i.e., those objects were created in different places at different times. Ḥatam Sofer interprets the verse “And God finished on the seventh day… and He rested on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2) as referring, not to a single act of cessation of labor, but to a divine comportment at two different places, viz., God completed the work of creation at one locale while at the same time resting at another locale. See also R. Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, Bein ha-Shemashot (Jerusalem, 5729), p. 53; idem, Yomam (Jerusalem, 5703), p. 73; and R. Ben-Ẓion Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, II, no. 29. Cf., R. Menachem Kasher, “Shabbat Bereshit u-Shabbat Sinai,” Talpiyot, vol. I, no. 1 (Tishri 5704), pp. 415-420.
Cf., however, Teshuvot Sho’el u-Meshiv, Mahadura Revi’a’ah, who candidly acknowledges that, in observing Shabbat according to local time “in all their habitations,” Jews do not observe Shabbat during the same time period in which the Creator ceased from the work of creation. Moreover, he regards that concept to be reflected in the otherwise problematic words of the musaf prayer: “a people who sanctify the seventh day (am mekaddeshei shevi‘i).” Jews sanctify the month and hence the festivals which are calendar dependent. Shabbat, however, is predetermined and does not require sanctification of the new moon by the Bet Din. Nevertheless, explains Sho’el u-Meshiv, since Jews must observe Shabbat “in all their habitations” at different times they are indeed a “people who sanctify the seventh day.” Shabbat is designed as a "sign between Me and between you" (Exodus 31:13) and accordingly, is to be observed during the period representing the culmination of six days of labor in each person's locale. The Sabbath day, which includes a period of darkness and a period of daylight, is roughly twenty-four hours in length in all places other than in the extreme northern and southern regions. As a result, the Sabbath is observed on the same day of the week in all parts of the globe. Accordingly, Mor u-Kezi'ah assumes that in locales in which that cannot be the case there is no discernible method for determining the days of the week. Hence, determination of the advent of Shabbat remains either a matter of irresolvable doubt or, alternatively, there is no concept of halakhic time in such places. Therefore, Mor u-Kezi'ah rules that a person finding himself in such a place faces a problem that is no different from that confronting a person lost in the desert or confused with regard to a sequence of days and must conduct himself in an identical manner. That is precisely the import of Mor u-Kezi'ah's concluding phrase "in the manner indicated earlier with regard to one who travels in the desert," i.e., he may perform no forbidden act on any day of the week and must recite kiddush and havdalah on the seventh day of every seven-day cycle subsequent to his arrival.

Because of these reasons things have come to such a pass that one says whatever enters his mouth to say, without first considering that it might enter the category of rechiluth and lashon hara. (In our many sins), we have become so habituated to this sin that in the eyes of many men it is not considered a sin at all — even if he would say something which is apparent to everyone as absolute lashon hara and rechiluth, as when he would speak of his friend and demean him to the very ends of degradation. And if one asked him: "Why did you speak lashon hara and rechiluth?" he would think in his heart that he [his chastiser] thought to make him a ["fanatic"] tzaddik or chasid, and he would not accept his words at all, regarding this [(lashon hara and rechiluth)], in our many sins, as completely insignificant.

As it is required for the house of Israel to read from the scrolls, and to teach in the Torah, and to conclude with the prophets, on each day according to its subject matter — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot, as it is written "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44), and it is commanded to read every matter at its time and extrapolate on the subject of the day, as taught, "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:¹In our manuscripts, it says "The Rabbis taught" here. Moses ordained for Israel that they would investigate and extrapolate on the matter of the day — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot" (Megillah 32a:17). On Ḥanukkah we read the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim we read "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). "And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for the new moon, and one from Ki Tissa. And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for Rosh Ḥodesh, and one for Ḥanukkah" (Megillah 29b:22). On Ḥanukkah and on Purim three people read, on Rosh Ḥodesh and on Ḥol ha-Moed four people read — since there is Musaf, we add [mosifin] a person. When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). When it falls on another day of the week, we advance the reading of the portion of the sheqalim, and interrupt the special readings. On the second² Shabbat of the month we read 'Remember' (Deuteronomy 25:17—17). On the third, the red heifer (Numbers 19:1—22). On the fourth, 'This month' (Exodus 12:1—20). If it falls on the sixth, then 'This month' is on the fifth. After that they return to the regular order. And everyone interrupts the order for Rosh Hodesh, Ḥanukah, Purim, fast days, festival days, and Yom Kippur (Mishnah Megillah 3:5). On Pesaḥ they read the portion of the festivals. And a mnemonic is: "during the bull, sanctify with money, cut in the desert, send the firstborn." On Shavuot, "On the third day" (Exodus 19:1–20:23), and on the second day, "Every firstborn" (Deuteronomy 15:19—16:37). On Rosh Hashanah, "And haShem remembered Sarah" (Genesis 21:1–34) and on the second day, "And God tested Abraham" (Genesis 22:1—24). On Yom Kippur, "after the death" (Leviticus 16:1—34). On Sukkot, the offerings for Sukkot (Numbers 29:12—34). On Ḥanukkah, the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim, "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). On Rosh Hodesh, "And on your new months" (Numbers 28:1–15). On the watches, the matter of creation (Genesis 1:1—2:3). On fast days, "And Moses petitioned" (Exodus 32:11—14, Exodus 34:1–10). On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat in the afternoon they read according to the order, but they are not counted in the order. As it is said, "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44) — it's commanded that they read each and every one at its time.

There is some prima facie evidence indicating that lack of respiration and the state of death are, by definition, synonymous. The Sages inform us that the soul departs through the nostrils, thereby causing respiration to cease and death to occur. The Yalkut Shim'oni, Lekh Lekha, no. 77, observes that after sneezing one should give thanks for having been privileged to remain alive.¹⁶Cf. R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, Torah Temimah, Gen. 7:22. The Yalkut, noting that the first mention of sickness in Scripture occurs in Genesis 48:1, remarks that prior to the time of Jacob sickness was unknown. It is the view of the Sages that illness became part of man's destiny in answer to Jacob's plea for prior indication of impending death in order that he might make a testament before dying. Before the days of Jacob, according to the Yalkut, an individual simply sneezed and expired without any indication whatsoever that death was about to overtake him. The Yalkut can readily be understood on the basis of the verse "… and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life" (Gen. 2:6). In the narrative concerning the creation of Adam, the soul is described as having entered through the nostrils. According to the Yalkut, the soul departs through the same aperture through which it entered; hence terminal sneezing is associated with the soul's departure from the body. Apparently, then, respiration and life both cease with the departure of the soul.

(Hay-Nun) ‘Behold man is the one’ in which there is one shrine, as we have elucidated in most of the sections of this introduction of ours. And [it is] as it is [found] in the Zohar, Parashat Korach 94 (3:176a-b), “The One only dwells among the one.” See there. And the unity that [comes] as a result of the commandments permitted the Divine Presence to dwell among Israel through the twenty-two letters of the Torah. As included in it are the six hundred and thirteen commandments – the three hundred sixty-five positive commandments and the two hundred and forty-eight negative commandments – corresponding to the sinews and limbs of a man.⁹⁷Targum Yonatan on Genesis 1:27; Zohar 1:170b. And so was it explained in Paragraph Tzaddi in explanation of the verse (Isaiah 59:2) “But your iniquities have been a barrier between you,” that [the Jews] are united through the commandments and divided one from another through sins.⁹⁸This specific verse is not explained in our text. However the topic is broached in Paragraph Tsadi, and it is possible that this is the reference here, and not Paragraph Bet, as appears in the printed editions. However, it is even more likely that the reference is to Binah Le’Etim (Drash 48) of Rabbi Azariah Figo, as per the correction found in the New York Shivelei David edition, as both the verse and the idea are found there. (Hence the notation Si. Bet, which was understood as a reference to Siman Bet, should have been S. Bet, which could mean Sefer Binah Le’Etim.) And this was the intention of Hillel who said to the convert, “[‘And you shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Lev. 19:18)] – that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its explanation. Go study.”⁹⁹Shabbat 31a. [Its] explanation is that the other commandments are explanations of the unity through which Israel joins together and becomes one. And this is also elucidated in the midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 13:3) that says, “What does the Holy One, blessed be He care if he slaughters, etc.? Behold, [the commandments] were only given to refine (letsaref, which can also mean, unite) the creatures, as it is stated (Prov. 30:5), ‘the word of God is refined.’” [Its] explanation is that through the commandments, the Children of Israel will be unified. And also there in Midrash Rabbah on Parashat Vayechi,¹⁰⁰The reference seems to be to Bereishit Rabbah 98:3. Differing versions of the midrash are brought in several other places such as Midrash Tanchuma, Vayehi 8:2. “Yaakov said to his sons, ‘Maybe because you come from four mothers, you have a tinge of idolatry?’ They said to him, ‘It is written (Num. 1:20), “according to the house of their fathers” – just like there is only One in your heart.’” And the author of the Yafeh Toar¹⁰¹A commentary on Bereishit Rabbah by Rabbi Shmuel Yafeh Ashkenazi (Turkey, 16th century). did not know its explanation. But it appears to me that [it can be explained] according to what [Maharal] writes in Netsach Yisrael¹⁰²See Netsach Yisrael, Chapter 32 (p. 153 in London edition). – [that the] reason that Rachel gave the signs to Leah¹⁰³In Bava Batra 123a, the rabbis write that Yaakov had given Rachel a type of code (signs) in case an impostor be sent to his tent in her place on their wedding night. When Rachel found out the plot to have Leah be that impostor, she gave Leah the signs to prevent her from being embarrassed. was because she knew that it was not fitting for Yaakov to father all twelve of the tribes from one woman. And had it been so, they would have all been one, whereas that is not fitting for this lowly [world] – as its nature inclines away from the way of oneness. And this causes sin in Israel until the future to come (messianic times) speedily in our days. See there. And this is [the meaning of that which Yaakov said to his sons, “Maybe because you come from four mothers, it is impossible that you will be unified; and sin caused it, as the One can only dwell among one.” But they answered him, “It is written, ‘according to the house of their fathers’ – and there is one Father to all of us and there is One in our hearts. And God, may He be blessed, will be unified through us.” And it is as our teacher Rabbi Yitschak Abarbanel writes in explanation of the verse (Gen. 2:24), “and they shall become one flesh,” like Rashi explained – through the embryo that is created from both of them. And the portion of each one is in the many limbs. Even though the embryo loves itself; yet through this the father and the mother [also] love each other, as a branch produces love in [its] roots. And this is the intention of the statement of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, “‘And you shall love [the Lord your God], etc.’ (Deut. 6:5) – [that the name of the Heavens be loved through you¹⁰⁴This is the text found in the Talmud, and it is possibly what was written by the author. However, most versions of the Shev Shmat’ta have, “both of them will be beloved through the Torah scholar,” possibly relating to the mother and father.]” (Yoma 86a). And that means that the higher forces become unified, as all of them gave their portion to man and he is a branch from them – and love will sprout from the roots. And hence one should have intention for this unification before every [Torah] study [session] and good deed, as a fulfillment of the commandment of “and you shall love your neighbor, etc.” And [then] all of Israel will be one, and also all of the ones that gave birth to them will love each other and be unified.¹⁰⁵The author returns here to the theme with which he began this essay in the introductory paragraph and Paragraph Gimmel. And with what I have elucidated, their statement at the end of Tractate Eduyot is understood, “[Eliyahu] will not come to make distant or to bring close, but to make peace [among them], as it is stated (Mal. 3:23-24), ‘Behold, I will send, etc. [He shall bring back the hearts of the children to their fathers’” (Mishnah Eduyot 8:7). [This is] meaning that [the children] will be called by the name of their fathers, but there is [only] one Father to us all. And the world will then be fit for it. And then we shall see the joy of Zion and the building of Jerusalem, speedily in our days. Amen, Selah.

It would appear that a divergent view is espoused by Hatam Sofer, who indicates that death is synonymous with cessation of respiration. Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, no. 338, states that the commandment "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death … his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him the same day …" (Deut. 21:23) implies a clearly defined definition of death. Halakhah deems cessation of respiratory activity to constitute such a definition. This tradition, according to Hatam Sofer, was either (1) received from the scientists of antiquity, even though it has been "forgotten" by contemporary physicians, or (2) received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, or (3) derived from the verse "all which has the breath of the spirit of life in his nostrils" (Gen. 2:6). "This necessarily is the shi'ur [the term shi'ur should in this context be understood as meaning "clinical symptom of death"] received by us with regard to all corpses from the time that the congregation of the Lord became a holy nation." Hatam Sofer, while not spelling out the issue at stake, quite obviously views cessation of respiration as itself constituting death rather than as being merely symptomatic of death. However, in developing this thesis, Hatam Sofer appears to broaden his definition of death by requiring the presence of yet another necessary condition. Hatam Sofer cites the previously mentioned phenomenon described by the Andalusians and accounts for the situation described by them by stating that although in the incident described respiration had ceased, nevertheless the pulse was still detectable either at the temples or at the neck. Without making an explicit statement to this effect, Hatam Sofer here seems nevertheless to amend his definition of death and now appears to state that death occurs only if both pulse beat and respiration have ceased.²⁰Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Ba‘ayot ha-Zeman be-Hashkafat ha-Torah, I, 10, asserts that according to Ḥatam Sofer, absence of respiration is sufficient to establish death unless the peron is in a swoon. However, in a state of swoon it is possible for the person to be alive and yet not to breathe. Hence the possibility of a swoon must be ruled out before lack of respiration may be accepted as conclusive evidence that death has occurred. Rabbi Sternbuch evidently interprets Ḥatam Sofer as believing that lack of respiration is merely symptomatic of death rather than constituting death in and of itself. This definition of death is thus compatible with the previously cited view supported by Yoma 85a that death is to be identified with absence of respiration coupled with prior cessation of cardiac activity. Although death occurs only upon the conjunction of both physiological occurrences, cessation of respiration is accepted as the sole operational definition because, in the vast majority of cases, it is indicative of prior cardiac arrest. Hatam Sofer summarizes his position in the statement, "But in any case, once he lies like an inanimate stone, there being no pulse whatsoever, and if subsequently breathing ceases, we have only the words of our holy Torah that he is dead." Accordingly, concludes Hatam Sofer, the corpse must be buried without delay and a kohen dare not defile himself by touching the corpse after these signs of death are in evidence. Cases such as those described in Semaḥot 8 are extremely unusual, to say the least, and are dismissed by Hatam Sofer as being comparable to the celebrated story of Choni the Circle-Drawer (Ta'anit 23a), who slept for seventy years. Oddities such as these occur with such great rarity that Halakhah need not take cognizance of such contingencies.²¹Rabbi I. J. Unterman, “Ba‘ayot Hashtalat ha-Lev le-Or ha-Halakhah,” Torah She-be-‘al Peh (5729), p. 13 and No‘am, XIII (5730), p. 3, points out that Ḥatam Sofer is speaking specifically of a patient suffering from a lingering illness and whose condition has steadily deteriorated. These symptoms, declares R. Unterman, cannot be regarded as definitive signs of death with regard to one who has experienced a sudden seizure. In such cases, all resources of medical science must be employed to save human life. Although he does not elaborate, R. Unterman presumably means that we may not accept our inability to detect these signs of life as conclusive evidence of their absence. R. Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ. Eli‘ezer, X, no. 25, chap. 4, no. 5, quite obviously disagrees with this view. Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer cites the symptoms advanced by Ḥatam Sofer as reliable criteria of death in all instances. R. Waldenberg explains the numerous cases in which the patient has been restored to life following cessation of respiration as instances wherein respiration was indeed present but not perceived. The physician may, nevertheless, rely upon his determination that respiration has ceased in pronouncing death. Nevertheless, “if it is possible for him to conduct further tests in the anticipation that he may perhaps find life, certainly it is incumbent upon him to do so; however, as to the primary determining factor, with regard to this we have only the words of our Torah and the tradition of our fathers …” In the same vein, R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, Teshuvot Hayyim Sha'al, II, no. 25, declares that when the statutory signs of death are present, it is incumbent upon us to execute burial without delay, "and if in one of many tens of thousands of cases it happens that he is alive, there does not [devolve] upon us the slightest transgression, for so has it been decreed upon us … and if we err in these signs [of death], such was His decree, may He be blessed."

And it is possible for us to stay - according to the paucity of our intelligence - that since the speaking soul in man is the elevated part, and as it is written (Genesis 2:7), "He blew into his nostrils the breath of life," and it is translated (by Onkelos) as "a speaking spirit"; He gave it great power to impact even on that which is external to it. And hence we have known and it is always seen that to the extent of the importance of a man's soul and its clinging to the elevated things - like [is the case with] the souls of the righteous and the pious - will their words be quick to impact upon all that they speak about. And this is something well-known and famous among those that know knowledge and understand science. And it possible to say also that the matter is to stifle a quarrel between people and that there be peace between them; since the birds of the sky make the voice travel, and maybe the words of the one that cursed will come to the ears of the one that he cursed. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, said (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 317) as the reason of the commandment [that is is] in order that the soul of the one that curses not be moved to vengeance and that he not become used to anger. And he wrote at further length about this in his book. And it appears to me from his words that, in his opinion, he does not see any injury to the one cursed from the curse, but rather that the Torah is distancing the matter from the perspective of the one that curses - that he not accustom himself to vengeance and anger and to lowly traits. And we shall accept all the words of our rabbis, though our hearts hold more of what we have written.

It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] since a person only belongs to the higher [realm] through speech, and this is the entire esteemed part in him. And it is what called the "living soul" (Genesis 2:7) of a man - as Onkelos' translates [this phrase as] "and there was a speaking spirit in man" - since the rest of the parts of the body die. And if a man lose this good part, the body remains dead and like an undesirable vessel. Therefore he is obligated to [at least] fulfill his speech in whatever he uses it for matters of the Heavens, such as consecrations and with all matters of charity. And regarding all other matters of the world - even though there is no particular positive or negative commandment specified for them - the Sages commanded and warned with several warnings that a person should never change his words. And they also ordained to curse one who changes his words so long as an act is done with the matter. And that is the matter of [the curse of] "He who repaid" that is mentioned about them in many places, about which they said (Bava Metzia 44a), "Words and money [do not] acquire, but they said, etc." as it appears in the chapter [entitled] HaZahav. And I have already written at much length about the roots of oaths and vows in the Order of Vayishma Yitro in the commandment of "You shall not bear" (Sefer HaChinukh 30).

From the root of the commandment, I have already written an introduction at the beginning of the book that there being something in the world of the Holy One, blessed be He, that combines physicality and intellect - and that is Man - was something fitting and necessary for His praise, blessed be He, to come up properly from His creatures; that with this creature, there would not be lacking any possibilities, which we have in our minds to grasp, from His world, etc., as I wrote there. And there is no doubt that without this reason that obligates our intellect to dwell within the physical, [which is involved with] desire and sin, it would have been fitting for our intellect to stand and serve in front of our Creator and to recognize His honor like one of the 'sons of God' that are stationed with Him. However, because of this obligation, it is subjugated to live in physical houses. And since it is subjugated to this, it must occasionally veer from the service of its Creator to tend to the needs of its home where it lives. For a home's structure and its lumber and its stones cannot stand without a person minding it. If so, as the intention of man's creation was according to what we have said, whenever the intellect can minimize physical work and focus on the service of its Master, that is good for it; so long as it does not completely ignore the work of the house and destroy it. As this would also be considered a sin for him, as the King wished to have a creature like this. It is like the saying of Rabbi Yose, (Taanit 22b) that a person may not afflict himself on a fast day, which Rav Yehudah explained in the name of Rav as stemming from the verse "and man was a living thing" (Genesis 2:7), [which implies that the soul should be allowed to live]. On the [same basis] the wise king stated (Ecclesiastes 7:15), "Do not be overly righteous; do not be overly wise. Why should you be desolate?" And this is the holiness of the nazirite and his loftiness, as he departs from the physical. [About this] Shimon the Righteous said (Nazir 4b), "In all my days [as a priest], I never ate the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite, apart from one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him, 'My son, what did you see to destroy this [beautiful] hair?' He said to me, 'I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination, "Wicked one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, about one who in the future will be maggots and worms. [I swear by] the Temple service that I will shave you for the [sake of] Heaven.' Immediately, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him, 'My son, may there be more nazirites like you in Israel. With regard to you the verse states (Numbers 6:2), "When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord."'" Therefore, in order to suppress the [evil] inclination, he is commanded to shave his head at the end of the days of his [term]. And he is not permitted to fix it up and to take a little of them, so that his [evil] impulse does not come back against him as [it did] at first. Rather, he has become obligated to shave it all, for there is no doubt that both very long hair and completely shaven heads destroy the appearance of a person.

Our Rabbis also taught us that in our time, we do the redemption of the first-born in an order like this: They bring a cup of wine and a myrtle branch to the home of the father of the son or to [some] other place, and the priest to whom the father chooses to give the redemption of his son blesses first over the wine and over the myrtle and then recites this blessing - "Blessed are You, our Lord, King of the Universe, Who sanctified the fetus in his mother's innards, and at forty days individuated his limbs into two hundred and forty-eight limbs, and then breathed in the spirit of life, as it is written (Genesis 2:7), 'and He breathed in his nostrils ...'; He clothed him with skin and flesh, and covered him with bones and ligaments, as it is written (Job 10:11), 'He clothed me with flesh and skin and covered me with bones and ligaments.' He appointed food and drink for him, honey and milk to bring him joy, and appointed two ministering angels to guard him in his mother's womb, as it is written (Job 10:12), 'with life and kindness, etc.'" His mother says, "This is my firstborn son, with which God opened the doors of my belly." His father says, "This is my first-born and I am warned about redeeming him, as it is stated (Exodus 13:13), 'and all the first-born of man, your sons shall you redeem.' May it be the will in front of You, Lord, my God, that as You have allowed his father to merit to redeem him, so too should you allow him to merit Torah, marriage and good deeds. Blessed are You, Lord, who sanctified the first born of Israel to be redeemed." The father of the son then recites two blessings: 'on the redemption of the first born'; and 'Who has allowed us to live.' He gives the well-known redemption to the priest, which is five sela, as specified in the Torah. This is equal to sixty argents of refined silver in our land. And after the redemption, the priest recites these three blessings that we wrote.

If (Yom Kippur) falls on the Sabbath we say “ויכולו¹⁵²The prayer which begins Va'yekhulu comes from Genesis 2:1-3. It is recited on the Sabbath because it tells the account of God's creation of the seventh day as a day of rest. It is normally recited just before the Sabbath Kiddush, (Kiddush ha-Yom, sanctification of the day; i.e., the Sabbath). There of course is no Kiddush on a fast day such as Yom Kippur, because it is always connected with drinking wine or eating bread.
Bokser, op. cit., p. 275.” after the Silent Prayer,¹⁵³For an explanation of the Silent Prayer, the Amidah see footnote 43. and the prayer “תפילת מעין שבע¹⁵⁴Tefilat Me'ein Sheva, תפילת מעין שבע, is a prayer recited on the Sabbath which is one prayer which summarizes the Sabbath Amidah, containing seven (Sheva, שבע) blessings. The substance (Me'ein, מעין) of the longer prayer is abbreviated in this short prayer. The ideas of the normal seven benedictions of the Sabbath evening Amidah are included in the prayer.” and conclude (the prayer with the words), “מקדש השבת¹⁵⁵The prayer concludes with the words Mekadesh ha-Shabbat, מקדש השבת.”, (“who makes the Sabbath holy”), but do not mention Yom Kippur.¹⁵⁶There is no special mention in the prayer which states the fact that it is the Day of Atonement, only the fact that it is the Sabbath.
There is mention of the fact that it is a high holyday in the Birkhat ha-Mazon if one must eat on Yom Kippur and thus one must say the Grace if he is able. See footnote 138. (We do not say “אבינו מלכנו¹⁵⁷Avinu Malkhenu, אבינו מלכנו, "Our Father, our King"; see footnote 15.” on the Sabbath, but the rest of the prayers for forgiveness¹⁵⁸Seliḥot, סליחות, prayers for forgiveness; see footnote 14. and the supplication prayers¹⁵⁹Taḥanun, תחנון; supplication prayers; see footnote 10. one says like on a weekday, (ריב״ש סימן תקיב ומנהגים),¹⁶⁰Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet, chapter 512, and Minhagim, ריב״ש סימן תקי״ב דמנהגים.
Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet was also known by his acronym Ribash, ריב״ש. He lived in Spain from 1326 until 1408. This halakhic authority was born in Barcelona and he studied under Perez ha-Kohen, Ḥasdai b. Judah Crescas and Nissim b. Reuben Gerondi. He moved to Saragossa after he was imprisoned in Barcelona, but his life in his new home was also full of controversy and family tragedy.
In Saragossa he tried to abolish certain local customs he did not agree with and he won the anger of many local scholars. He as a result finally moved to Valencia in 1385 where he served as the rabbi. In 1391 there were anti-Jewish riots which forced him to move to North Africa, and he settled in Algiers where he became the communal rabbi and was well respected even though at first his appointment was challenged by Simeon b. Ẓemaḥ Duran (Tashbaẓ, תשב״ץ; see footnote 20).
Perfet's most important work was his responsa which was published in Constantinople in 1546. His responsa influenced the halakhah after him and Caro used Perfet's decisions extensively in the Shulḥan Arukh. In addition to the vast amount of halakhic material, the responsa also reveal much about the life and customs of the Jews of Spain and North Africa in the fourteenth century. Perfet was the first to discuss the status of the Marranos (Spanish Jews who converted to Christianity so as not to be expelled in 1492) from an halakhic point of view. This became a quite crucial and painful problem for the Jews of Spain and North Africa. Perfet also wrote commentaries on many talmudic tractates and the Pentateuch. He refused to be associated with Kabbalah and even though he knew philosophy, he opposed its study including the works of Maimonides.
Hirsch Jacob Zimmels, E. J., v. 9, pp. 32-33.
For Minhagim, מנהגים; see footnote 13.).