TB Khullin 17 Rambam and Ramban disagree what soldiers may eat in a war.

The conquest of the Land of Israel by Joshua took seven years according to the rabbis’ calculation. The life and adventures of Calev ben Yefuneh is the key to this understanding. He was 85 years old when the Land of Israel was conquered. According to this he entered the land when he was 78 years old, 38 years after Moses sent the 12 spies to check out the land when he was a 40-year-old man.

The Gemara discusses the difference between how the animal was slaughtered during the 40 years of wandering and after they enter the land.

Ҥ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status?

“The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things…and you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 6:10–11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei daḥazirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted?

“Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

No matter what, during the seven years a conquest the Israelites were allowed to eat trief food like bacon and shrimp!

Rambam and Ramban disagree whether a general principle can be gleaned from the Gemara. Rambam learns the general principle. In any war when the soldiers conquer an area and there’s no kosher supplies available, they may eat any forbidden food. Let me share Ramban’s commentary on Deuteronomy 6:10 where he cites Rambam and explains his disagreement.

“…And in the opinion of our Rabbis the verse further alludes [to the law] that anything found in the houses full of all ‘good’ things [that were occupied in the conquest of Canaan] may be used, even if they contained things forbidden by the Torah such as kadli of swine, or the produce of a vineyard sown with diverse seeds, or fruits of the first three years of a tree. Even regarding cisterns, it is possible that in their construction forbidden materials were used in their coat of pitch [such as forbidden wine; hence Scripture mentioned and cisterns hewn out, which thou didst not hew to indicate that they, too, were permitted to them]. Or it may be that the cisterns are mentioned figuratively, to denote the abundance of good things, thus giving them mastery over all that was found in the Land both permissible and impermissible. Thus all forbidden articles were permitted to them except [for those that were forbidden as a result of] the prohibition of idols, as he will yet clarify, thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee etc. Therefore, he mentions here in the next section, ye shall break down their altars, to destroy the idols and their appurtenances. But whatever else was found in the Land was permissible. This permission lasted until they consumed the spoil of their enemies. And some Rabbis say that this permission applied [only] to the seven years of [the] conquest [of the Land], and so it appears in the Gemara, in the first chapter of Tractate Chullin. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Laws of the Kings and their Wars: “Armed soldiers, when they enter the border of the nations and loot from them, are permitted to eat n’veiloth and treifoth the flesh of swine and the like if they are hungry and do not find anything to eat except for these forbidden foods [i.e., only in the case of emergency are they permitted to eat these foods]. Similarly they may drink yayin nesech (wine dedicated to an idol). From tradition the Rabbis have learned: ‘And houses full of all good things — the necks of swine and the like.’” But this is not correct. For it is not because of danger to life or of hunger alone in time of war that [forbidden foods] were made permissible; rather, after they captured the large and wealthy cities and settled in them, was the spoil of their enemies permitted to them. And not to all armed soldiers [in any war throughout does this law apply as the Rabbi seems to hold], but only to [those who conquered] the Land which He swore to [give to] our fathers, as is explained in the subject before us. [Rabbi Moshe’s ruling that the dispensation applies to] yayin nesech is also incorrect, for all forbidden articles pertaining to idolatry — the idols themselves, their appurtenances, and their offerings — are all forbidden as it is said, thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it, for it is a doomed thing. And if the Rabbi’s intent was to permit in wartime only wine which was merely under suspicion of having been dedicated to idolatrous worship [which is a Rabbinic prohibition] — why do we need a Scriptural interpretation for this? If Scriptural prohibitions were permitted [to them], could subjects of a Rabbinic decree be forbidden?!” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to Ramban eating forbidden foods during the seven years of conquest has nothing to do with pikuakh nefesh, saving a life of a hungry soldier in the midst of a battle. It was a special gift dispensation in order to enjoy the booty of that time and place. It has nothing to do with Army regulations whatsoever.

When I was living in Springfield, Massachusetts I had the good fortune to know Kalman Chaitovsky z”l. He was the cantor at Keser Israel. I co-officiated many funerals with him. Once he told me his life story. He grew up in Poland and left with his family to come to America. They had to take a train through Nazi Germany. It was the last train that the Nazis allowed Jews to travel through their country before the war broke out. Once America entered World War II he enlisted. Being a committed observant Jew, he refused to eat Army rations because they were trief. He only ate peanut butter sandwiches three times a day during the war. He told me once he returned stateside, he never ate peanut butter again.

 

How can the ritual slaughtering of an animal Shabbat be kosher? TB Khullin 14

Immediately the Mishnah on today’s daf TB Khullin 14 is problematic “In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty, his slaughter is valid.” (Sefaria.com translation) The very first Tosafot on the page ד"ה השוחט בשבת raises the following problem. Who else would purposely desecrate the Sabbath but a  Jewish heretic (מוּמָר). We have previously learned Tb Khullin 5a that we are forbidden to eat ritually slaughter animals by a Jewish heretic who desecrates the Shabbat.

There are different categories of Jewish heretics. The first category is a transgressor with regard to only one matter (מְשׁוּמָד לְדָבָר אֶחָד). This person accepts the Torah however, he doesn’t want to observe a commandment, for example he really loves his BLT sandwiches. The second category is a transgressor who rejects the entire Torah (מְשׁוּמָד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָהּ). The last category is a transgressor who becomes an idolater (מְשׁוּמָד לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה). One who desecrates the Sabbath is considered like a transgressor who rejects the entire Torah. Consequently, how can this Mishnah teach that his slaughter is valid?

The Tosafot provides two possible solutions. The Mishnah is dealing with the case of a person who slaughters the animal on Shabbat in private. One who privately desecrates the Sabbath isn’t considered a Jewish heretic (מוּמָר). If this person would slaughter the animal publicly, we would be forbidden to eat the meat. The second solution is this person’s first time offense. A first-time offender isn’t considered a Jewish heretic; consequently, even though he’s guilty of a death sentence his ritually slaughtering of animal is kosher. Once he becomes a habitual offender he is considered a Jewish heretic and his ritual slaughtering is no longer kosher.

Rambam solves the problem by interpreting the person slaughter the animal unintentionally transgressed (שׁוֹגֵג). Either he didn’t know that slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is forbidden or he didn’t realize that that day was Shabbat. If the person ritually slaughter the animal on Shabbat on purpose, he is considered a Jewish heretic and the slaughter becomes invalid.

Positive enablers #Bamidbar#devartorah#parashathashavua

All Teenagers spend somewhere between 5.5-8 hours a day on their smartphones or screen-based media, with about 50% of teens reporting at least 4 hours of daily screen time. Major activities include social media, video streaming, and gaming, with some studies indicating teens spend 1.5 hours on phones during school hours. Americans spend an average of 5 to 5.4 hours per day on their smartphones. No wonder many of us become anxious when we’re separated from our smartphones. When we have our iPhones or Androids in our hands, we can be fixated on our screens.

Like many things, the Internet and all that it allows us to access become either a distraction or a blessing. It depends on what we do with it. In Proverbs we read, “The heart of the judicious seeks knowledge; but the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.” (15:14)

Applying the wisdom of Proverbs to life, we can ask ourselves: Do you check your social networks compulsively throughout the day? What does that say about the things we hunger for? Do the things we read or view online encourage sensible living? ( vv. 16-21) or are we feeding on foolishness-gossip, slander, materialism, or sexual impropriety?

“Commenting on the Numbers 2:7 “The tribe of Zevulun” the Ba’al Haturim notes and reference to certain of the tribes work together with other tribes the Torah as the letter ‘vuv-ו’ which connotes that they are separate but together. But as regards the tribe of Zevulun there is not a ‘vuv.’ This is because the tribe of Yissochor, which is mentioned right above, devoted themselves to Torah study, while the tribe of Zevulun worked to support both of them. Because they enable the tribe of Yissochor to study Torah they are considered as one tribe and the reward is the same.” (Pliskin, Growth Through Torah, page 308-9)

Parents and grandparents who influence enable their children and grandchildren to study Torah have this merit, as too husbands and wives who enable their spouse to study Torah 

Shavuot, the holiday of the giving of the Torah, is just one more week away. We should be ready and willing to receive it anew and seek knowledge. Rabban Gamliel used to say, “The more Torah, the more life; The more study, the more wisdom; The more counsel, the more understanding; The more charity, the more peace.” (Avot 2:7) That’s a much better use of our time than all the gossip, slander, materialism, and sexual impropriety we might scroll on the Internet on our smartphones.

 

Khullin 9-10 What is presumptive status חָזָקָה in Jewish law?

 Dappim TB Khullin -10 discusses the role of presumptive status, חָזָקָה -khazaka, when determining halakha.  Ultimately the Gemara concludes that Rav Hunah’s position is accepted as the halakha. “Rav Huna, who says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, as it is prohibited to eat a living animal, and it continues to have this status even after its death until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered, i.e., whether it was properly slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa.” (TB Khullin 9a, Sefaria.org translation)

According to the Rishonim the meaning of the word  comes from that language אָחִיזָה, to hold on to as in the case of a person who holds onto a piece of property for many days has the presumption of ownership and another party cannot claim it as his. Unlike today when holding onto a deed is easy, back in Talmudic times a person was only expected to be able to hold onto a deed for three years. After three years the presumptive status of the land is his even without the deed.

There are many different sub categories of khazakot and the Rishonim divide them into two major categories. The first category is a khazaka that has no terminal end time. This presumption takes the place of witnesses and is based on what the majority of people actually do. An example would be the assumption that a man does not pay off his debt before it’s due because the majority of people don’t pay their debts before they are due. The second category is a khazaka that the presumption is temporary. The presumption status of a single woman or a married woman remains the same until there is a change like a wedding or a death.

Among the many subcategories the most common the Hatam Sofer lists are the following three.

1. חֶזְקַת מִנְהָג-The presumption of a habitual practice. The example would be a man doesn’t pay off is debt until it’s due because the majority people don’t pay off their debts before they are due.

2. חָזָקָה -The presumption of an established pattern i.e. something that happens at least three times. An example of this would be a forewarned ox. A shor muad  (Hebrew: שוֹר מוּעָד) is a “forewarned ox” in Jewish law, specifically an animal known to be dangerous, usually after goring three times. Unlike a shor tam (innocent ox), the owner of a shor muad is liable for full damages (or death) because they were warned and failed to properly guard the animal

3. חֶזְקַת הָגוּף-The presumption of inertia of a known entity will continue until otherwise proved. Has the reality really changed? An example of this would be a parent bringing a child claiming to be his son or daughter to a new city would be accepted as the parent until proven otherwise.

 

 

Rashi's secret TB Khullin11-12

Dappim TB Khullin 11-12 discusses the role of presumptive majority status when determining halakha. “From where is this matter that the Sages stated: Follow the majority, derived? The Gemara is surprised at the question: From where do we derive it? Obviously, it is derived from a verse, as it is written explicitly: “After the majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). The Gemara explains: With regard to a majority that is quantifiable before us (רוּבָא דְאִיתָא קַמַן), for example, in the case of a piece of meat that was found on the street before ten shops, nine shops selling kosher meat and one shop selling non-kosher meat, one follows the majority and deems that piece kosher. Or when the Sanhedrin adjudicates a case, one follows a majority of the judges in determining the ruling. In these cases, we do not raise the dilemma.” (Sefaria.com translation)

The Gemara wants to know the source of a statistical majority (רוּבָא דְלֵיתֵיהּ קַמַן) like “the case of a minor boy and a minor girl. If the boy entered into levirate marriage with the girl, it is permitted for them to remain married, and there is no concern that when they grow older it will be discovered that the boy or the girl never develop sexually. Rather, one follows the majority, that minors develop sexually at puberty.” (Sefaria.com translation)

10 different sages provide proof texts from the Torah. Each one is not completely convincing as the source of a statistical majority. Rashi ד"ה פסח provides two possible sources for a statistical majority. His first answer is it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. His second answer is that a statistical majority is just a sub category of a majority that is quantifiable before us. He writes that we rely on these assumptions and don’t have to check the 18 possible ways an animal can become trief. We only have to check the lungs because a defect there is more common. We don’t have to check the other possible scenarios an animal can become trief because we rely upon Rav Hunah who holds that an slaughtered animal by a shokhet is under the presumption of it being permitted. (TB Khullin 10)

And Rashi concludes “Nevertheless, we don’t publicize this.” Now you know Rashi secret. 

 

Khullin 4-6 Who are the Samaritans? An article from Wikipedia

As of 2024, the Samaritan community numbered around 900 people, split between Israel (some 460 in Holon) and the West Bank (some 380 in Kiryat Luza).^[5] The Samaritans in Kiryat Luza speak South Levantine Arabic, while those in Holon primarily speak Modern Hebrew. For liturgical purposes, they also use Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic, both of which are written in the Samaritan script. According to Samaritan tradition, the position of the community's leading Samaritan High Priest has continued without interruption for the last 3600 years, beginning with the Hebrew prophet Aaron. Since 2013, the 133rd Samaritan High Priest has been Aabed-El ben Asher ben Matzliach.

In censuses, Israeli law classifies the Samaritans as a distinct religious community. However, Rabbinic literature rejected the Samaritans' Halakhic Jewishness because they refused to renounce their belief that Mount Gerizim was the historical holy site of the Israelites.^[b] All Samaritans in both Holon and Kiryat Luza have Israeli citizenship, but those in Kiryat Luza also hold Palestinian citizenship; the latter group are not subject to mandatory conscription.

Etymology and terminology

Inscriptions from the Samaritan diaspora in Delos, dating as early as 150–50 BCE, provide the "oldest known self-designation" for Samaritans, indicating that they called themselves Bene Israel (lit. 'children of Israel') in Hebrew (i.e., the literal descendants of the biblical prophet Israel, also known as Jacob, more commonly "Israelites").^[6][7]

In their own language, Samaritan Hebrew, the Samaritans call themselves "Israel", "B'nai Israel", and, alternatively, "Shamerim" (שַמֶרִים, 'Guardians', 'Keepers', or 'Watchers'). They call themselves al-Sāmiriyyūn (السامريون) in Arabic.^{[8][9][10][11]} The term is cognate with the Biblical Hebrew term Šomerim, and both terms reflect a Semitic root שמר, which means "to watch" or "to guard".

Historically, Samaritans were concentrated in Samaria. In Modern Hebrew, the Samaritans are called Shomronim (שומרונים, 'Samaritans'), which means "inhabitants of Samaria". In modern English, Samaritans refer to themselves as "Israelite Samaritans".^[12][13][c]

That the meaning of their name signifies "Guardians" (or 'Keepers' or 'Watchers') "of the Law" (Samaritan Pentateuch), rather than being a toponym referring to the inhabitants of the region of Samaria, was remarked on by a number of Christian Church Fathers, including Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion; Jerome and Eusebius in the Chronicon; and Origen in The Commentary on Saint John's Gospel.^[14][15][16] The historian Josephus uses several terms for the Samaritans, which he appears to use interchangeably.^[d] Among them is a reference to Khuthaioi, a designation employed to denote peoples in Media and Persia putatively sent to Samaria to replace the exiled Israelite population.^[e][f] These Khouthaioi were, in fact, Hellenistic Phoenicians/Sidonians. Samareis (Ancient Greek: Σαμαρεῖς) may refer to inhabitants of the region of Samaria, or of the city of that name, though some texts use it to refer specifically to Samaritans.^[g]

Origins

The origins of the Samaritans have long been disputed between their own tradition and that of the Jews. Ancestrally, Samaritans affirm that they descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient Samaria. Samaritan tradition associates the split between them and the Judean-led southern Israelites to the time of the biblical priest Eli,^[17] described as a "false" high priest who usurped the priestly office from its occupant, Uzzi, and established a rival shrine at Shiloh, thereby preventing southern pilgrims from Judah and the territory of Benjamin from attending the shrine at Gerizim. Eli is also held to have created a duplicate of the Ark of the Covenant, which eventually made its way to the Judahite sanctuary in Jerusalem.^[h]

In contrast, Orthodox Jewish tradition—based on material found in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus's work, the Talmud, and other historiographic sources—dates their presence much later, to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. In Rabbinic Judaism (e.g., in Tosefta Berakhot), Samaritans are called Cuthites or Cutheans (כותים, Kutim), referring to the ancient city of Kutha, geographically located in what is today Iraq.^[18] Josephus, in both the Wars of the Jews and the Antiquities of the Jews, writing of the destruction of the temple on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrcanus, also refers to the Samaritans as the Cuthaeans.^[i] In the biblical account, however, Kuthah was one of several cities from which people were brought to Samaria.^[j]

The similarities between Samaritans and Jews were such that the rabbis of the Mishnah found it impossible to draw a clear distinction between the two groups.^[19] Attempts to date when the schism among Israelites took place—which engendered the division between Samaritans and Judaeans—vary greatly, from the time of Ezra down to the siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE).^[20] The emergence of a distinctive Samaritan identity, the outcome of a mutual estrangement between them and Jews, was something that developed over several centuries. Generally, a decisive rupture is believed to have taken place in the Hasmonean period.^[21]

Samaritan version

The Samaritan traditions of their history are contained in the Kitab al-Ta'rikh compiled by Abu'l-Fath in 1355.^[22] According to this, a text which Magnar Kartveit identifies as a "fictional" apologia drawn from earlier sources (including Josephus but perhaps also from ancient traditions)^[23] a civil war erupted among the Israelites when Eli, son of Yafni, the treasurer of the sons of Israel, sought to usurp the High Priesthood of Israel from the heirs of Phinehas. Gathering disciples and binding them by an oath of loyalty, he sacrificed on the stone altar without using salt, a rite which made High Priest Ozzi rebuke and disown him. Eli and his acolytes revolted and shifted to Shiloh, where he built an alternative temple and an altar, a replica of the original on Mount Gerizim. Eli's sons Hophni and Phinehas had intercourse with women and feasted on the meat of the sacrifice inside the Tabernacle. Thereafter, Israel was split into three factions: the original Mount Gerizim community of loyalists, the breakaway group under Eli, and heretics worshipping idols associated with Hophni and Phinehas. Judaism emerged later with those who followed the example of Eli.^[24][25][k]

Mount Gerizim was the original Holy Place of the Israelites from the time that Joshua conquered Canaan and the tribes of Israel settled the land. The reference to Mount Gerizim derives from the biblical story of Moses ordering Joshua to take the Twelve Tribes of Israel to the mountains by Shechem (Nablus) and place half of the tribes, six in number, on Mount Gerizim—the Mount of the Blessing—and the other half on Mount Ebal—the Mount of the Curse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

Two kinds of frauds we should be careful of #Behar-Bekhukotai#devartorah#parashathashavua

A small-town baker bought his butter from a local farmer. One day he weighed the butter and concluded that the farmer had been reducing the amount in the packages but charging the same. So the baker accused the farmer of fraud.

In court the judge asked the farmer, “Do you have measuring weights?” “No sir,” replied the farmer. “How then do you manage to weigh the butter that you sell?” The farmer answered, “When the baker began buying his butter from me, I thought I’d better get my bread from him. I have been using his 1-pound loaf as the weight for the butter I sell. If the weight of the butter is wrong, he has only himself to blame.”

Everybody agrees monetary fraud is forbidden, but not everyone knows that verbal fraud is considered a sin. Commenting on the phrase found in this week’s Torah portion “you shall not wrong one another” (25:14) the rabbis in the Talmud extended this concept of wronging a person with words. “Just as fraud exists in buying and selling, so wrong can be done by the spoken word. A man may not say: ‘How much is this?’ If he has no intention to buy it. If a man is a repentant sinner, one must not say to him: ‘Remember your previous deeds.’ If a man is descended from proselytes, one must not taunt him: ‘Remember the deeds of your ancestors.’…” (Baba Metzia 4:10)

The Gemara continues to list other forms of wronging a person with words. “The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others...

“Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: That is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe”(58b)

We should demand this the standard of honesty and refraining to wrong a person with words from our politicians, from those on social media platforms, and from ourselves.