שיפייס אדם חבירו בערב יום כפור ובו ד"ס:
עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יום הכפורים מכפר עד שיפייסנו ואפילו לא הקניטו אלא בדברים צריך לפייסו ואם אינו מתפייס בראשונה יחזור וילך פעם שניה ושלישית ובכל פעם יקח עמו שלשה אנשים ואם אינו מתפייס בשלשה פעמים אינו זקוק לו (מיהו יאמר אח"כ לפני עשרה שביקש ממנו מחילה) . (מרדכי דיומא ומהרי"ל) ואם הוא רבו צריך לילך לו כמה פעמים עד שיתפייס: הגה והמוחל לא יהיה אכזרי מלמחול (מהרי"ל) אם לא שמכוין לטובת המבקש מחילה (גמרא דיומא) ואם הוציא עליו שם רע א"צ למחול לו (מרדכי וסמ"ק והגה"מ פ"ב מהלכות תשובה ומהרי"ו): “A man should appease his friend (i.e., a person whom he wronged) on the Eve of Yom Kippur” - Containing four paragraphs.
Yom Kippur does not atone for sins between a man and his comrad (fellow-man) until he conciliates him. Even if he angered him only in words, he is required to appease him (his fellow-man). And if at first he is not pacified, he (must) return and go to him a second and third time. Each time he should take three men with him, and if on the third time he does not become reconciled he (no longer) is obligated to him, (nevertheless afterwards he should say before ten (people) that he did request forgiveness from him), (מרדכי דיומא ומהרי״ל).24Mordekhai in Yoma and Maharil, מרדכי דיומא ומהרי״ל.
Mordecai ben Hillel ha-Kohen, the author of Mordekhai, מרדכי, lived from approximately 1240 until 1298. Not much is known personally about this German author and rabbinic authority. He was a descendant of Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi, a relative of Asher b. Jehiel, a brother-in-law to Meir ha-Kohen who wrote Hagahot Maimuniyyot (see footnote 27) and he was a pupil of Meir b. Baurch of Rothenburg, Isaac b. Moses of Vienna (author of Or Zaru’a, see footnote 118), and Perez b. Elijah of Corbeil. He died as a martyr along with his wife and five children in the Rindfleisch massacres. He is mostly known for his great work, Sefer Mordekhai, which is referred to as the “Mordekhai”. It is a huge collection which expanded upon talmudic problems in the style of the tosafot but which followed the arrangement of the laws established by Isaac Alfasi. Even though Mordecai does not include all of Alfasi’s laws, he included over three hundred books and authors and employed much material from the Or Zaru’a and responsa of Meir of Rothenburg. The Mordekahi was probably completed before 1286 when Meir was imprisoned because his writings are included in the book. The book was compiled by students of Mordecai who refer to him as “my master, Rabbi Mordecai”.
The book was widely distributed in two versions. The first version, the “Rhenish” contained customs of French, English, and eastern German communities. The “Austrian” version reflected the customs of south-eastern Europe, including Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Saxony, and Moravia. Commentaries grew up around the Mordekhai including the Hagahot Mordekhai by Samuel Schlettstadt in 1376 (see footnote 198).
The Mordekhai became widely accepted even in the Sephardi Jewish communities. In fact, Mordekhai was one of the few Ashkenazi works that Joseph Caro cited in the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh. The Mordekhai was the final halakhic ruling for most Jews until Moses Isserles came along.
The section of Mordekhai that is cited in this section of the Shulḥan Arukh is part of the commentary found in the Mordekhai on the Talmud tractate Yoma.
Israel Moses Ta-Shma, E. J., v. 12, pp. 311-14.
Yoma, יומא, is the fifth tractate in the order of Mo’ed found in our Mishna and Tosefta. It concerns the laws of Yom Kippur. The word Yoma means “The Day” in Aramaic, referring to the Day of Atonement. The first seven chapters of the Mishna Yoma describe the elaborate Temple service performed by the high priest (see footnote 22), and the eighth and final chapter concerns primarily the laws of fasting.
Moshe David Herr, E. J., v. 16, pp. 844-45.
For Maharil, מהרי״ל; see footnote 8. If he (i.e., the person who was wronged) was his teacher, he must go to him many times until he becomes appeased.
Hagah: The person to forgive should not be cruel by refusing forgiveness (to the one seeking forgiveness), (מהרי״ל)25Maharil, מהרי״ל; see footnote 8., unless his intent is for the good of the one requesting forgiveness, (גמרא דיומא).26Gemara Yoma, גמרא דיומא, is a reference to the Babylonian tractate of Yoma concerning the laws of Yom Kippur; see footnote 24. But if one caused him (the wronged person) a bad name, there is no necessity in forgiving him, (מרדכי וסמ״ק והגה״מ פ״ב מהלכות תשובה ומהרי״ו).27Mordekhai and Sefer Mitzvot Katan and Hagahot Maimuniyyot chapter two from “The Laws of Repentance” and Mahariv, מרדכי וסמ״ק והגה״מ פ״ב מהלכדת תשובה ומהרי״ו.
For Mordekhai, מרדכי; see footnote 24.
The acronym “SeMaK”, Sefer Mitzvot Katan, סמ״ק, was written by Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil who died in 1280. He was one of the greatest French codifiers of the thirteenth century. His “Small Book of Commandments” reflected his famous piety. This is the book for which he is known. His SeMaK is a collection of all the halakhot of his time period, along with ethical homilies, parables and legends, aggadot. He divided his work into seven “Pillars” corresponding to the seven days of the week where laws normally associated with a particular day were included under that day’s section. Isaac b. Joseph or Corbeil used as a guide for his work, though not his particular divisions, the previous work, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (SeMaG, סמ״ג, the “Big Book of Commandments”) by Moses of Coucy. The SeMaK, though, did not include the extensive halakhic arguments of the SeMaG.
The SeMaK became such a popular work in France and Germany that parts of it were inserted in the daily prayer-books to be read instead of the prayers of supplication and the psalms. It became an accepted source used by later codifiers. Commentaries on the SeMaK arose and were attached to it. The book was first published in 1510 in Constantinople. Isaac also wrote decisions to responsa and tosafot to several talmudic tractates. (For the place of the SeMaK in code literature, see the introduction to this thesis).
Israel Moses Ta-Shma, E. J., v. 9, pp. 21-2.
Hagahot Maimuniyyot, הגהות מיימוני, was written by Meir ha-Kohen of Rothenburg who lived at the at the end of the thirteenth century and was a pupil of Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg. Hagahot Maimuniyyot was written as a supplement and as notes of explanation to the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (see the introduction to this paper for a description of the Mishneh Torah. See also footnote 59). The purpose of the glosses to this work was to add to the rulings of Maimonides the opinions and decisions of Germany and France in addition to the views and responsa the author brought from his teacher Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg. With the addition of these hagahot, the Mishneh Torah became a halakhic work which could be an authoritative code in many of the different centers of Judaism of both Ashkenazi as well as Sephardi communities.
The hagahot were first published together with the Mishneh Torah in the edition that was printed in Constantinople in 1509 and they have been included ever since. There are fourteen books in the Mishneh Torah but hagahot are not included with the following: Hafla’ah Zera’im (except for a small part at the end), Avodah, Korbanot and Tohorah.
Hagahot Maimuniyyot was divided into two parts. One was a glosses and notes attached to the Mishneh Torah itself, and the second part was called Teshuvot Maimuniyyot (first published in Venice in 1524). It was added on to the end of each book of the Mishneh Torah and it contained the responsa of German and French scholars relevant to the topics dealt with in the book. Some brief responsa, though, were included directly in the glosses if they had to do with the specific halakhah. Also non-responsa material was included in the Teshuvot section.
There were many differences between the 1509 Constantinople version and that published in Venice in 1524. It is obvious that this work underwent significant editing and additions.
The note cited by Isserles where he gave credit to Hagahot Maimuniyyot was taken from the notes of Meir ha-Kohen on the section of the Mishneh Torah entitled Hilkhot Teshuvah, “the Laws of Repentance”, chapter two.
Shlomoh Zalman Havlin, E. J., v. 7, pp. 1104-12.
Mahariv, מהרי״ו, is an acronym for Morenu ha-Rav Rabenu Jacob (Ya’akov) Weil, who is also known as Jacob ben Judah Weil who died in 1456. He was a German rabbi and an halakhic authority in the first half of the fifteenth century. He lived in the town of Weil. Weil was a pupil of the Maharil, Jacob Moellin (see footnote 8). Maharil ordained him and made him the rabbi of Nuremberg after which he went to Augsburg, Bamberg, and finally Erfurt. Scholars addressed many halakhic questions to him and he published responsa to them. His decisions particularly on laws of slaughtering and examination of animals, hilkhot sheḥitah u-vedikah, were accepted Ashkenazi practice. His responsa were socially and historically valuable in that through the types of questions and answers, one can get a good picture of what German Jewish life was like at this time and how it functioned. He wrote a great deal on the office of the rabbi in Germany and included his suggestions to improve the responsibility and purify the practices of many rabbis.
Moses Isserles, especially, and others placed a great deal of importance on Weil’s decisions and relied on them as binding. His works, especially Hilkhot Sheḥitah u-Vedikah inspired many commentaries and additions by later authorities which became the basic work for shoḥatim. ritual slaughterers of animals for food.
Yehoshua Horowitz, E. J., v. 16, pp. 395-96.
אם מת אשר חטא לו מביא עשרה בני אדם ומעמידם על קברו ואומר חטאתי לאלהי ישראל ולפלוני זה שחטאתי לו (ונהגו לבקש מחילה בערב יו"כ) (מרדכי דיומא): If a man against whom he sinned died, (the man who sinned) brings ten people and let them stand on his (the dead man’s) grave and he (the sinner) says, “I have sinned against the God of Israel, and against this “person” who I sinned against him,” (and it was customary to seek forgiveness on the Eve of Yom Kippur), (מרדכי דיומא).28Mordekhai in Yoma, מרדכי דיומא; see footnote 24.
תקנת קדמונינו וחרם שלא להוציא שם רע על המתים: Early rabbinic authorities decreed, coupled with “חרם29Ḥerem, חרם, is the status of that which is separated from common use or contact, either because it is proscribed as an abomination to God or because it is consecrated to Him.
There are different categories of ḥerem. The Torah considers the following to be ḥerem: Israelites who worship other gods and idols. People who commit this idolatry were to be put to the sword and the objects burned. These people and objects contaminated those they came in contact with; The seven nations inhabiting the land promised to Israel - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; cf. 20:17). These people were to be totally destroyed; Whatever one privately devoted to the Lord as ḥerem is the most sacred, Kodesh Kodashim, and these objects were never to be sold nor was their status revokable (Leviticus 27:28). Cases of ḥerem in the rest of the Bible follow from these Torah laws. The term later came to mean total destruction.
The term ḥerem began to take on different meanings from the Biblical ones as time passed. Even the term ḥerem in the Bible changed its meaning. In Deuteronomy declaring an enemy as ḥerem was done to gain God’s favor by totally devoting to Him, one’s own nation and the total nation of the enemy.
After Saul the rise of the enemy ḥerem seems to have disappeared. Ḥerem came to mean, when referred to a nation that the other nation’s religion practiced evil ways that would badly influence the Israelites and therefore these people were to be separated from Israel to preserve their true belief in God (Exodus 34:11ff; Numbers 33:51ff; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16ff).
In later Jewish law the concept of ḥerem changed radically. The ḥerem of Ezra is the first indication that meant banishment and persecution. The term niddui was used in tannaitic literature to mean the punishment of an offender by his isolation from and his being held in contempt by the community at large. The term niddui was used in the Bible (Numbers 12:14) as an isolation punishment. The Pharisees employed niddui if a person did not follow their prescribed standards. A scholar was isolated for his non-compliance with the majority and no one was permitted to contact him lest they too became defiled. Niddui was a Punishment employed by the courts on the heads of the academies.
Later in the talmudic laws the term ḥerem was used again as an aggravated form of niddui. A niddui could last for two 30 day periods. After 60 days passed and the person did not satisfy the courts or the academies by changing his ways, a ḥerem was declared which was a total banishment and isolation. Another type of punishment was also established. That was a nezifah, a “reprimand”, which lasted for seven days. It was intended for shame and remorse and automatically expired while a niddui and a ḥerem had to be lifted by the courts.
A niddui differed from a ḥerem in that one who was declared niddui could have social intercourse for purposes of study or business, but one placed in ḥerem had to study alone and earn money from the small shop he was permitted to maintain. One punished by niddui or ḥerem was considered in a state of mourning and was therefore not permitted to cut his hair, do laundry, or wear shoes, except for out-of-town walks. He was forbidden to wash himself except for his face, hands, and feet but he did not have to rend his clothes. He had to live in confinement with his family only, no outsider was permitted to come near him, eat or drink with him, greet him, or give him any enjoyment (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:2). He could not be counted as part of the three for grace after the meals nor as one of the ten for a prayer minyan. After his death, his coffin would be stoned, (one stone could be symbolically placed on the coffin). The niddui was actually considered a rather light penalty for minor offenses since it could be so easily lifted. Niddui was during talmudic times put on people by laymen and individual scholars for various reasons, not only by the courts, for reasons such as debt. Only a court designated niddui would necessitate the whole community from disassociating with the isolated person. A non-judicial niddui did not require this. A person had to be warned about a possible niddui for a non-religious offense, but for a religious one no warning was necessary. The niddui had to be publically announced but no evidence was required. The court was considered fair. A niddui by a court could be lifted by any court. A personal niddui had to be lifted by the person who imposed it and, if he was unavailable, by the nasi or leader of the community. The courts tended not to pronounce a niddui against a judge or a scholar. Flogging (see footnote 31) was considered a more appropriate punishment.
In post-talmudic times the threat of a niddui or a ḥerem was considered a way of future law enforcement. As time went on the conditions put on one who was excommunicated in the Talmud became the minimum. They became more and more severe. One who was banned could not have his sons circumcised or their children married, their children and wives were expelled from the synagogue, and they were not to be buried with any honor. He was considered as a non-Jew; his ẓiẓit fringes, were cut off, his mezuzah removed from his door, his food proclaimed unfit for Jews, and his books considered trash. The ḥerem became actually, a civil death. The man was dead to the community.
Ḥerem became more and more frequent as the punishment of excommunication by the Church increased. Jewish courts were influenced by civil courts of the land to impose ḥerem on Jews for monetary reasons, but the Jewish courts remained independent in religious matters. Rabbis became more and more reluctant to impose a ḥerem on an individual especially without the consent of the entire congregation due to the extreme hardship it imposed on the family of the isolated man. This caused the development of partial ḥerem which was less severe and only isolated the person in synagogue worship but not in daily life, for example. Niddui was then imposed for major offenses such as a man refusing to divorce his wife when it was felt that he should, a bridegroom refusing to marry his bride, or offenses such as theft or fraud.
Minor forms of ḥerem, niddui or nezifah were pronounced by the head of the rabbinical court, but a severe ḥerem was pronounced in the synagogue either before the open ark or while holding the Torah scroll. The proclaimation was made with the sounding of the shofar, the ram’s horn (see footnote 221). The people held candles and put them out symbolically when the excommunication was declared. Several Biblical verses were recited against the one excommunicated and people were warned against associating with the person put in ḥerem. The ceremony concluded with a prayer for the faithful of the congregation.
In later times the niddui and ḥerem became so frequent and common that it lost almost all of its significance and force. It became the standard rabbinic reaction to all forms of deviation from the norm of Orthodoxy. Although still pronounced they are no longer binding on the person involved or the community, nor do they carry the terror they once did.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 8, pp. 344-55.”, ban, that the living should not slander the dead.
יכול לטבול וללקות מתי שירצה רק שיהיה קודם הלילה ואינו מברך על הטבילה: הגה ואין צריך לטבול רק פעם אחת בלא וידוי משום קרי והוא הדין דהטלת ט' קבין מים נמי מהני (מהרי"ו וכל בו ותשב"ץ) . מי שמת לו מת בין ר"ה ליוה"כ מותר לרחוץ ולטבול בעיו"כ דיום כפור מבטל שבעה (מהרי"ל הלכות שמחות) אע"פ שנהגו שלא לרחוץ כל שלשים טבילת מצוה מותר (דעת עצמו): One may immerse (inaritual bath30Mikveh, מקוה, is a pool or a bath of clear water. When a person immerses in it, it renders ritual cleanliness to one who has become ritually unclean through contact with the dead (Numbers 19) or any other defiling object, or through an unclean flux from the body (Leviticus 15), especially for a menstruant. The mikveh is also used to purify vessels (Numbers 31:22-23). Today the mikveh is used for the menstruant since the laws of ritual purity no longer apply due to the destruction of the Temple. A woman must immerse in the mikveh and purify herself following her menstruation in order to again participate in marital relations. It is also obligatory for proselytes to immerse as part of the ceremony for conversion. Many people still use the mikveh for spiritual purification and thus immerse in it on the eve of the Sabbath, festivals, and especially on the eve of the Day of Atonement. The mikveh serves to purify the spirit, not the body, as described by Maimonides. One has to have a mental intention to purify oneself by immersing in the mikveh.
According to Biblical law any collection of water whether drawn or collected naturally is suitable for a mikveh as long as one person can immerse himself, but the rabbis later stated that only water which has not been drawn, that is not collected in a vessel or recepticle, could be used. The rabbis also established a minimum for the amount of water to be used, that is the amount of water needed to fill a square cubit to the height of three cubits. This is between 250-1,000 liters depending on various calculations. If it contains at least this much undrawn water, any amount of drawn water can be added to it. A whole talmudic tractate Mikva’ot. is devoted to mikvehs and how they are to be constructed.
A mikveh cannot be prefabricated and just installed on a site since this makes it a vessel and constitutes water that has been drawn or collected. It may be built anywhere and out of any material that is water-tight. No water may leak from it, and it must contain the minimun of forty se’ah (250-1,000 liters) of valid, undrawn, water. Originally its height had to be one-hundred and twenty centimeters so one could stand and be totally immersed (even if bending was required). Later it was established that any height was valid if a person could be immersed laying down provided the minimum quantity of water was there.
All natural spring water provided it was not discolored by any admixtures is valid. Rain water or melted snow or ice is ideal for the mikveh provided that it flows unstopped into the mikveh. Pipes may be used to carry this water provided they touch the ground and are thus not considered vessels. A mikveh must be emptied by any means, even a pump, from above. No drain in the bottom is permitted as it makes the mikveh a vessel and subject to leakage. As long as the mikveh has contained at least forty se’ah of valid water, all water added to it, even drawn water is valid.
David Kotlar and Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 11, pp. 1534-44.
A prayer is normally recited after the immersion called al ha-tevilah, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us by His commandments, and commanded us concerning the immersion”.) and accept lashes31Lashes and Malkkut Ar’ba’im, מלקות ארבעים, forty lashes is also known as flogging which is a Biblical form of punishment. When no other form of punishment was specifically prescribed, flogging became the standard form of punishment (Deuteronomy 25:2). Flogging was the only punishment in the Bible used as a general rule and not in relation to any particular offence except for the slandering of a virgin where the lashes as well as a fine were prescribed (Deuteronomy 22:18).
The maximum number of stripes to be administered in any one case are forty (Deuteronomy 25:3) for any further flogging the Bible stated, would degrade your brother in your eyes (Deuteronomy 25:3). The intent of the Bible seems to be that forty is the maximum number of stripes allowed, but that each offense and its seriousness could determine the number of stripes from one to forty provided the maximum number was not exceeded.
Talmudical law detailed how the Biblical punishment of flogging was to be administered. All the laws are found in the Talmudic tractate Makkot, מכות. The rabbis altered the Biblical law of flogging reducing the number of the maximum number of stripes to ever be received from forty to thirty-nine (Mak. 22a) so as to avoid the danger that the flogger accidentally might exceed the number of forty lashes. If he were permitted to administer forty lashes, the flogger might have given an extra one before he could have been stopped thus administering forty-one lashes which exceeds the maximum number of lashes allowed by the Bible and disgracing the man in the eyes of his brothers and thus also would the flogger be made subject to flogging for his transgression. Therefore the rabbis ruled that the maximum number of stripes they would allow was thirty-nine, for even if the flogger made a mistake he could be stopped before he exceeded the maximum number of forty stripes even if he gave an extra one as he was being stopped. (This is the reason for the comment by Isserles to this law given by Caro, see footnote 55).
The rabbis carefully defined all the offenses for which flogging would serve as a punishment. The number thirty-nine became the maximum number of stripes for offenses for which flogging was administered. The rabbis though, were careful not to cause death by flogging which would have exceeded the Biblical law. Therefore all people to be flogged were first examined to see if they could physically withstand the punishment. The examiner would then determine the safe number of stripes to be inflicted (Mak. 3:11). Flogging would be stopped if it appeared during the stripes that the man could not take anymore (Mak. 17:5). Flogging could also be postponed a day until a person would be fit to under-go the punishment (Mak. 17:3).
Floggings were administered with a whip made of calfskin to the bare upper body of the offender. One-third of the lashes were given on the breast and the other two-thirds on the back. The one being flogged would stand in a bowed position and the flogger would stand on a stone above him. As the stripes were being given admonitory and consolatory verses from the Bible would be recited (Mak. 3:12-14). If death did result and the flogging had been conducted according to the law, the flogger was not liable. If though, he had not faithfully followed the law, he had to flee to a city of refuge which was the case in any accidental homocide.
Flogging for disciplinary reasons as well as for punishment for other than transgressing actively a prohibition of the Torah was also prescribed by the rabbis and this was usually done in a public place so as to be a deterrent to others to violate laws. Usually disciplinary stripes were given in lesser numbers (that is less than thirty-nine) and were not administered to the bare upper body nor were they given with a leather whip. As time passed, people were more often allowed to pay fines rather than be whipped and whipping all but replaced capital punishment in Israel.
On Yom Kippur a custom arose that after the Minḥah Afternoon Service, forty stripes (according to Caro, but only thirty-nine in Ashkenazi communities as pointed out by Isserles) were administered while the victim repeated the confession, viddui (see footnote 39). The one who administered the flogging was to say “And He (God) pities and will atone sins”, (Psalms 78:38). The purpose of this custom was to increase one’s awareness of his need for confession to atone for his sins. This was a visual and physical admission of sins and it was believed to help one receive complete atonement.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 6, pp. 1348-51; Moshe David Herr, E. J., v. 5, p. 1381. (to effect atonement) whenever desired provided that it is before nightfall, but one does not bless over the immersion.
Hagah: One needs to immerse one time without a confession because of pollution (urinary emmission). The same holds true if one pours nine kavs32A kav, was a unit of measurement for a liquid. According to present day standards a kav is approximately equivalent to 1.2 liters. of water (upon himself), (if the immersion pains him, (מגן אברהם),33Magen Avraham, מגן אברהם, is a seventeenth century commentary on the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim which was first printed in Dyhernfurth in 1692. It was highly accepted in Poland and Germany where it became the model for halakhic decisions by the scholars of that country who often differed from other codifiers. The Magen Avraham was written by Abraham Abele ben Ḥayyim ha-Levi Gombiner who lived from 1637 until 1683. He was of Polish birth but he moved to Lithuania after the death of his parents in Chmielnicki Massacres in 1648. After studying there with his relative Jacob Isaac Gombiner he moved to Kalisz where he was appointed head of the yeshivah and dayyan, judge, of the bet din rabbinical court.
Abraham’s commentary is evidence of his vast knowledge of halakhic material. The goal of his work, Magen Avraham was to provide a compromise between the decisions of Joseph Caro and the glosses of Moses Isserles. When no compromise could be arrived at Abraham usually sided with his fellow Ashkenazi, Isserles. Abraham felt that all Jewish customs were valid and sacred and he attempted to justify them even when there was a disagreement among the codifiers. Abraham highly regarded the Zohar and Kabbalists and he occasionally accepted their opinions over that of the codifiers.
Gombiner was also the author of a commentary on the Yalkut Shimoni called Zayit Ra’anan and a collection of homilies on Genesis called Shemen Sason in addition to a short commentary of the Tosefta of Nezikim.
Shmuel Ashkenazi, E. J., v. 7, pp. 766-67.), this is also effective, (מהרי״ו וכל בו ותשב״צ).34Mahariv and Kol Bo and Tashbaẓ, מהרי״ו וכל בו ותשב״ץ.
Mahariv, מהרי״ו, see footnote 27.
Kol Bo, כל בו, which when translated means “everything within” is an anonymous work which contained both halakhic decisions and explanations of halakhot arranged according to subject matter. The book, Kol Bo, was written either at the end of the thirteenth century or at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The work is very similar to a commentary on Oraḥ Ḥayyim called Orḥot Ḥayyim written by Aaron b. Jacob ha-Kohen of Lunel and published in Florence in 1750-51. The fact that they were so similar and covered the same material except that the Orḥot Ḥayyim contained more material than did the Kol Bo caused some scholars to believe that the Kol Bo was a later abridgment to the Orḥot Ḥayyim. But this may not be true due to the differences in their arrangement, the Orḥot Ḥayyim being more systematic. There is another view that the Kol Bo was, the first edition to the Orḥot Ḥayyim and probably by the same author, Aaron b. Jacob ha-Kohen; the material in the Kol Bo certainly preceded that of the Orḥot Ḥayyim.
There are one-hundred and forty-eight sections to the Kol Bo which cover many subjects of Jewish ceremonial, ritual, civil, personal, and community life. The anthology includes collections of laws from numerous and varied halakhic works. The Kol Bo was basically patterned after the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides together with the additions of the scholars of Germany, France, and Provence. There were in addition a few rulings by Spanish scholars included. Many of the laws included in the Kol Bo are from books no longer in existence today. It is possible that the Kol Bo never had much original material, but was mainly an anthology of rules from various sources. The Kol Bo was first printed in Naples in 1490-91.
Shlomoh Zalman Havlin, E. J., v. 10, pp. 1159-60.
Tashbaẓ, תשב״ץ, see footnote 20. One who incurs a death between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, it is permissible to wash and to immerse on the Eve of Yom Kippur because Yom Kippur cancels the “shiva35Shiva is a seven day mourning period which begins immediately after the funeral. The mourners traditionally gather in the house of the deceased where they sit on low stools or over-turned couches with their heads enrobed. This is obligatory for close relatives of the deceased, be it husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter, or brother or sister. The mourners must perform keri’ah, a rending of their garments as a symbol of mourning and they are required to recite the blessing dayyan ha-emet proclaiming God as the true judge. During the shiva period, mourners are not permitted to work physically, conduct financial transactions, bathe, annoint the body, cut the hair, cohabit, wear leather shoes, wash clothes, greet acquaintances, and study the Torah. Study, though of sorrowful portions of the Bible and Talmud, such as Job, Lamentations, parts of Jeremiah and the laws of mourning is permitted.
The first meal of the mourners after the funeral is called se’udat havra’ah, the meal of consolation. This meal is provided by friends and neighbors for the mourners in accordance with the talmudic law that a mourner is forbidden to eat of his own bread on the first day of mourning (Mk. 27b). A mourner is also not permitted to put on teffilin, prayer phylacteries, on the first day of the Shiva period.
The first three days of this period are considered the most intense and are known as the three days for weeping the entire seven day period is known as a time of lamenting. The shiva period is suspended on the Sabbath and ends on a holiday even if the total period of seven days has not elapsed. (see also footnote 37).
Aaron Rothkoff, E. J., v. 12, pp. 488-89.”, (the seven day mourning period), (מהרי״ל, הלכות שמחות).36Maharil, מהרי״ל, “The Laws of Mourning”, הלכות שמחות, (“שמחות”, “Pleasures” is a euphemism). The Laws of Mourning as discussed by Moellin; see footnote 8. Even though it is customary not to wash (bath) during the entire “sheloshim37Sheloshim, means thirty and it refers to the thirty days of mourning after the death of a close relative; mother, father, wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, or sister, and it begins from the time of the burial. The mourner during the sheloshim is not to wear new or even festive clothes; not to shave or have a hair cut; not to participate in festivities including wedding, circumcision, or pidyon ha-ben (redemption of the first born male child) banquets unless it is one’s own child; not to marry; and to abstain from going to entertainment. It is also customary to change one’s usual seat in the synagogue during these thirty days. If the last day of sheloshim falls on the Sabbath then the mourning period ends prior to the Sabbath.
The three pilgrimage feativals and Rosh HaShanah may shorten the shiva or sheloshim period. If the mourner observes at least one hour of the shiva (see footnote 35) before Passover or Shavuot, the shiva is waived and the sheloshim is reduced to fifteen days after the holiday, but in the case of Succot the mourner has to observe only eight days of sheloshim after the festival. If a mourner observes at least one hour of shiva before Rosh HaShanah, the shiva is waived and the Day of Atonement ends the sheloshim. If a mourner observes at least one hour of shiva before Yom Kippur shiva is waived and Succot ends sheloshim. Minor festivals such as Ḥanukkah and Purim do not shorten the shiva or sheloshim. If a person only learns of a death within thirty days of the passing (shemu’ah kerovah) he must observe the complete rites of shiva and sheloshim. If the news reaches him more than thirty days after the death has occurred (shemua’ah reḥokah) then he must only observe the mourning rites of shiva and sheloshim for one hour. When one is mourning the death of one’s parents the prohibitions of the sheloshim period are observed for an entire twelve months along with the recitation of the mourner’s Kaddish (see footnote 177) for eleven months, (see Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, 399).”, (thirty day mourning period), a commanded immersion is permitted, (דעת עצמו).38Da’at Aẓmo, דעת עצמו; this is the way indicated in Isserles’ glosses that the comment he was making was Isserles’ own opinion and was not taken from another source.