text:
Learning & Values Texts & Writings Classic Texts Mishneh Torah (Rambam) Sefer Kedushah Shechitah
Shechitah - Chapter 13
By Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon ("Maimonides"); translated by Eliyahu Touger
Show content in:
English Both Hebrew
When a person takes a mother together with its young and slaughters it, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1 He is, however, liable for lashes for slaughtering the mother,2 as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: "Do not take the mother together with its offspring." Similarly, if it died before he sent it away, he is liable for lashes.3 If he sent it away after he took it, he is not liable.4
הַלוֹקֵחַ אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וּשִׁחָטָהּ. הַבָּשָׂר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְלוֹקֶה עַל שְׁחִיטַת הָאֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) "לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים". וְכֵן אִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּשַׁלְּחֶנָּה לוֹקֶה. וְאִם שִׁלְּחָהּ אַחַר שֶׁלְּקָחָהּ פָּטוּר:
Similarly, [with regard to] all negative commandments that can be corrected by a positive commandment,5 one is obligated to fulfill the positive commandment. If he does not fulfill it, he is liable for lashes.6
וְכֵן כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּתְּקָה לַעֲשֵׂה חַיָּב לְקַיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ. וְאִם לֹא קִיְּמוֹ לוֹקֶה:
If another person comes and seizes the mother bird from his hands and sends it away or it took flight from his possession without his knowledge, he is liable for lashes. [This is implied by ibid.:7]: "You shall certainly send away [the mother]," i.e., he must send away [the mother bird] himself. [If not,] he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.7
בָּא אֶחָד וְחָטַף הָאֵם מִיָּדוֹ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ אוֹ שֶׁבָּרְחָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) "שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח" עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּחַ מֵעַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ:
If he took a mother bird together with its young, cut off its wings so that it cannot fly and sent it away,8 he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.9 [He must] keep [the mother bird] in his possession until her wings grow back and then send her away. If [the mother] died before this or fled and was lost, he is liable for lashes, for he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.
נָטַל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וְקִצֵּץ אֲגַפֶּיהָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּעוּף וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וּמַשְׁהֶה אוֹתָהּ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ וּמְשַׁלְּחָהּ. וְאִם מֵתָה קֹדֶם לָזֶה אוֹ בָּרְחָה וְאָבְדָה לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קִיֵּם עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ:
How must one send away the mother? He holds her by her wings and has her fly away. If he sent her away and she returned, he sent her away and she returned10 - even if this happens - four or five times, he is obligated to send her away, as [implied by the repetition of the verb in the] phrase: "You shall certainly send away."11
וְכֵיצַד מְשַׁלֵּחַ הָאֵם. אוֹחֵז בִּכְנָפֶיהָ וּמַפְרִיחָהּ. שִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה וְשִׁלְּחָהּ וְחָזְרָה אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) "שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח":
Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
Although a person says "I will take the mother bird and send away the young,"12 he is obligated to send away the mother bird, as the verse states: "You shall certainly send away the mother."
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵינִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֵם וּמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הַבָּנִים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) "שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם":
If he [sent away the mother,]13 took the offspring and [then] returned them to the nest and the mother came back to them, he is not obligated to send [her] away.14
It is permitted to send away the mother and then snare her again. The Torah forbade snaring only when she cannot fly away because of her offspring over which she is hovering so that they not be taken,15 as [ibid.:6] states: "And the mother is resting on the chicks." If, however, he removed her from his grasp and then snared her again, it is permitted.
לָקַח אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהֶחֱזִירָן לַקֵּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה הָאֵם עֲלֵיהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. שִׁלֵּחַ אֶת הָאֵם וְחָזַר וְצָד אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לָצוּד אוֹתָהּ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִפְרֹחַ בִּשְׁבִיל הַבָּנִים שֶׁהִיא מְרַחֶפֶת עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא יִלָּקְחוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) "וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים". אֲבָל אִם הוֹצִיאָהּ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וְחָזַר וְצָד אוֹתָהּ מֻתָּר:
[The mitzvah to] send away the mother bird applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl16 that are not at hand, e.g., doves that rested in a dovecote or on a loft,17 wild fowl that nested in an orchard. [This is derived from the phrase (ibid.)]: "When you will chance upon." When, however, [fowl is] at hand, e.g., ducks, chicken, and doves that nested in a building, one is not liable to send away the mother.
שִׁלּוּחַ הָאֵם אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְזֻמָּן כְּגוֹן יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וַעֲלִיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) "כִּי יִקָּרֵא". אֲבָל הַמְזֻמָּן כְּגוֹן אֲוָזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין וְיוֹנִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּבַּיִת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ:
If the chicks could fly and thus they no longer needed their mother or [the mother was sitting on] unfertilized eggs,18 he is not obligated to send away [the mother]. If the chicks were trefot, it is comparable to unfertilized eggs and he is not liable to send away [the mother].19
הָיוּ הָאֶפְרוֹחִין מַפְרִיחִין שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן אוֹ בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. הָיוּ אֶפְרוֹחִין טְרֵפוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּבֵיצִים מוּזָרוֹת וּפָטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ:
When a male fowl is resting on a nest, one is not obligated to send him away [before taking the young].20 When a non-kosher bird is resting on the nest of the eggs of a kosher fowl or a kosher fowl is resting on the eggs of a non-kosher fowl, one is not obligated to send away [the fowl that is resting].21
זָכָר שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ רוֹבֵץ עַל הַקֵּן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר אוֹ עוֹף טָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ:
When a [kosher fowl] was resting on kosher eggs of a different species, one should send [the bird] away. If, however, one fails to do so, one is not liable.22 If the mother is trefe, he is obligated to send her away.23
הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל בֵּיצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מִינָהּ וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. הָיְתָה הָאֵם טְרֵפָה חַיָּב לְשַׁלְּחָהּ:
When one slits a portion of the gullet24 [of the mother]25 before he took her, he is liable to send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.26
שָׁחַט מִקְצָת סִימָנִין בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּקָּחֶנָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
[The following laws apply if the mother bird] was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings were touching the nest, one is obligated to send her away.27 If not, he is not obligated. If there was a cloth or feathers intervening between her wings and the nest, he must send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.28
הָיְתָה מְעוֹפֶפֶת. אִם כְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. הָיְתָה מַטְלִית אוֹ כְּנָפַיִם חוֹצְצוֹת בֵּין כְּנָפֶיהָ וּבֵין הַקֵּן הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
If there were two rows of eggs and [the mother bird's] wings were touching [only] the top row, [the mother bird] was sitting on unfertilized eggs, but there were good eggs below them, one female was sitting on another female, a male was sitting on the nest and the female was sitting on the male - [in all these situations,] one should not take [the mother bird with the offspring]. If he takes [her], he should send her away. But if he does not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.29
הָיוּ שְׁנֵי סִדְרֵי בֵּיצִים וּכְנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּסֵּדֶר הָעֶלְיוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל בֵּיצִים מוּזָרוֹת וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן בֵּיצִים יָפוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵם עַל גַּבֵּי אֵם. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַזָּכָר עַל הַקֵּן וְהָאֵם עַל הַזָּכָר. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקַּח. וְאִם לָקַח יְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
If [the mother bird] was sitting among the young or the eggs and was not touching them,30 one is not liable to send her away.31 Similarly, if she was at the side of the nest and her wings were touching the nest from the side, he is not obligated to send her away.
הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּין הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵּין הַבֵּיצִים וְאֵינָהּ נוֹגַעַת בָּהֶן פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה בְּצַד הַקֵּן וּכְנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן מִצִּדּוֹ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ:
When [the mother bird was perched] on two branches of a tree and the nest was positioned between them, we make an evaluation. In all instances where the mother would fall on the nest if the branches were removed, one is obligated to send her away.32
הָיְתָה עַל שְׁנֵי בַּדֵּי אִילָן וְהַקֵּן בֵּינֵיהֶן רוֹאִין כָּל שֶׁאִלּוּ יִנָּטְלוּ הַבַּדִּין תִּפּל עַל הַקֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ:
When the mother is resting on one chick or on one egg, one is obligated to send her away.33 When a person finds a nest floating on the water or positioned on the back of an animal, he is obligated to send the mother away. [The verse] mentions "chicks or eggs"34 and "on any tree or on the ground" [not as exclusions], but because the Torah speaks about the commonplace situations.35
הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ עַל בֵּיצָה אַחַת חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. הַמּוֹצֵא קֵן עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) "אֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ בֵּיצִים" וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר (דברים כב ו) "בְּכָל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ" אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בְּהוֹוֶה:
It is forbidden to acquire the eggs as long as the mother is resting upon them. Therefore even if a mother bird was resting on eggs or chicks in one's loft or dovecote, they are not considered as "at hand" and his courtyard does not acquire them for him.36 Just as he cannot acquire them on behalf of others [until he sends away the mother], so, too, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf.37 Therefore, he must send [her] away.38
אָסוּר לִזְכּוֹת בַּבֵּיצִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה רוֹבֶצֶת עַל הַבֵּיצִים אוֹ עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ וּשׁוֹבָכוֹ אֵינָן מְזֻמָּנִין. וְלֹא קָנָה לוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִזְכּוֹת בָּהֶן לַאֲחֵרִים כָּךְ לֹא תִּזְכֶּה לוֹ חֲצֵרוֹ בָּהֶן. וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ:
It is forbidden to take a mother bird together with her offspring, even to purify a person with tzara'at.39 If he took [the mother], he is obligated to send her away. If he did not, he is liable for lashes.40 [The rationale is that] a positive commandment41 does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment [that is reinforced] by a positive commandment.42 And a positive commandment does not supersede another positive commandment.43
יט
אָסוּר לִטּל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים וַאֲפִלּוּ לְטַהֵר בָּהֶן אֶת הַמְצֹרָע שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה. וְאִם לָקַח חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם לֹא שִׁלֵּחַ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. (וַעֲשֵׂה) וְלֹא עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה עֲשֵׂה:
[The following rule applies when] a person consecrates a wild fowl to the Temple treasury, it flies away from his hand, but he recognizes it and finds it resting on chicks or on eggs. He should take the entire [nest]44 and bring it to the Temple treasurer. [The rationale is that the mitzvah of] sending away the mother bird does not apply with regard to consecrated [fowl], as [implied by Deuteronomy 22:7]: "And you may take the offspring for yourself." These may not [be taken] for yourself.45
הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עוֹף לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּפָרַח מִיָּדוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא מַכִּירוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ רוֹבֵץ עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים לוֹקֵחַ הַכּל וּמְבִיאָן לִידֵי גִּזְבָּר. שֶׁאֵין שִׁלּוּחַ הָאֵם נוֹהֵג בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב ז) "וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ" וְאֵלּוּ אֵינָן שֶׁלְּךָ:
When a fowl killed a human being, one is not obligated to send it away. [The rationale is that] one is commanded to bring it to court so that it will be judged.46
כא
עוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְבֵית דִּין לָדוּן אוֹתוֹ:
The fact that he violated a transgression in taking the mother does not cause the meat to be prohibited.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 306) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 544) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The person transgresses the prohibition when he takes the mother and the offspring. Nevertheless, as long as the mother is alive and he can correct his deed by sending her away, he is not liable for lashes. This follows the principle of lav hanitak li'asai, a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah.
For he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment.
For he corrected his actions through the positive commandment. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden for him to take the mother. He must send it away first, as is the simple meaning of the Torah's commandment. See Siftei Cohen 292:11.
The positive commandment to send away the mother bird is also considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 148); Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 545)].
See the Kessef Mishneh (to Halachah 19) which explains that Chullin 141a mentions a difference of opinion concerning this mitzvah between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages. Rabbi Yehudah maintains - and this is the simple meaning of the verse - that the positive commandment requires one to send away the mother bird only before taking it. Thus according to his view, sending away the mother after it was taken does not fulfill a mitzvah and hence, does not correct the transgression. The Sages differ and maintain that the halachic definition of the mitzvah also includes sending away the bird after it was taken. Therefore, if one took the mother together with its young, he can correct his transgression by sending away the mother. The Rambam's decision reflects the Sages' position.
See Makkot 16b which mentions a difference of opinion concerning the matter. One view maintains that as long as the person does not prevent himself from correcting the transgression through his own conduct, e.g., with regard to the matter at hand, he did not kill the mother bird, he is not lible for lashes. The other view, which as above is accepted as halachah by the Rambam, is that the person becomes liable for lashes when he violates the transgression. It is just that the punishment is suspended as long as he has the opportunity to correct the matter. Once, however, that opportunity no longer exists, even if it is not his fault - e.g., in the matter at hand, the bird dies - that punishment is meted out.
And is therefore held liable for the violation of the negative commandment.
I.e., he is trying to perform the mitzvah by sending the mother bird away on its feet so that he will not be held liable and yet will be able to take it again shortly afterwards. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:4).
I.e., he is punished for his defiance of the spirit of the Torah's commandments even though it is possible that he will not actually be held liable for lashes.
I.e., as long as the mother returns before he takes the young so that the mitzvah is still relevant (Siftei Cohen 292:8).
See Bava Metzia 31a which gives several examples of how the repetition of a verb in the Torah implies that a commandment must be fulfilled even 100 times.
And thus seemingly, he will be fulfilling the intent of the Torah's commandment, for he will not be taking the mother and the young together.
This addition is made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:5).
Once he has taken the offspring, they are considered as "at hand," and this mitzvah no longer applies as stated in the following halachah and notes (Siftei Cohen 292:10).
For, as emphasized in Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, which explains that this is the motivating rationale for this mitzvah: to prevent the cruel act of taking the young in front of the mother. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 and the resolution of the apparent contradiction in the previous chapter.
Chullin 139b derives this concept from the exegesis of the prooftext from Deuteronomy.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2 and commentaries) emphasizes that if the nest is within the person's property and the mother bird lifts itself up, the person automatically acquires the offspring. From that time on, they are considered as "at hand" and the mitzvah does not apply. See Halachah 18 and notes.
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Chullin 64b.
Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the verse mentions both eggs and chicks and derives both of these concepts from an equation it establishes between the two: Just as the chicks are entities that will continue to exist, so too, the eggs must be entities that will continue to exist [in contrast to unfertilized eggs that will spoil after a certain time]. Just as the eggs require their mother, so too, the chicks must require their mother.
Chullin 140a emphasizes that the verse mentions a mother, implying "and not a father."
For Chullin 138b states that the verse forbids taking the bird and its offspring "for yourself." Implied is that there is no prohibition when taking it for your dogs, i.e., taking a non-kosher species which is fit only to be fed to the dogs.
There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Chullin 140b. Hence, it is forbidden to take the birds, but one is not liable for lashes because of the doubt.
Even though it is forbidden to eat the mother, there is a difference between it and a fowl from a non-kosher species. A mother from a non-kosher species is excluded because the prooftext uses the term tzipor which indicates a kosher species. A bird which is trefe, though forbidden, is still a tzipor (Siftei Cohen 292:1).
The literal meaning of the Rambam's words is "If he cut a portion of the signs." We have translated the Rambam's words as above because as obvious from the conclusion of his ruling, there is a doubt whether he is obligated to send away the mother bird. And with regard to the windpipe there is no doubt that he is obligated to send away the mother.
To explain: Chullin 140b questions: "Do we say that since after slitting a portion of the signs the animal will be trefe, is there a need to send it away?" Now, if a person slits less than half the windpipe, the fowl is not trefe and if he slits more than half of it, its slaughter is completed. Hence, we are forced to say that he is speaking about cutting a portion - but less than half - of the gullet. If he does not complete the slaughter, making such a slit will render the fowl trefe.
The fact the Rambam uses the term sheyikachenah, "before he takes her," implies that he is speaking about the mother bird. This understanding is also acknowledged by the Tur and Rabbenu Nissim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions that interpretation, noting that even if the mother bird was made trefe by slitting its gullet, it would have to be sent away as stated in the previous halachah. Therefore, he suggests amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to imply that the signs of the chicks were slit and the question is, since he is involved in the slaughter of the chicks and stopping to send away the mother would render them trefe, must he stop and send her away or not. He follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:10).
Since the Talmud does not resolve the question it raises, one cannot be held liable for lashes because of the doubt.
The Torah uses the expression "resting on the nest." Chullin 40b infers that if the mother is hovering over the nest, the mitzvah does not imply. Since the verse does not use the term "sitting," however, we learn that the obligation exists even when the mother is not sitting in the nest but lingering close by in a manner that its wings are touching.
This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence, the Rambam rules that one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.
All of these situations are questions left unresolved by Chullin 140b. Hence, as above, one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a question raised by Rabbenu Nissim: Since touching the nest from the side is not sufficient as indicated by the concluding clause in the halachah, what does it matter if the mother bird touches its young from the side when it sits among them? Based on that objection, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:12), he incorporates Rabbenu Nissim's understanding when quoting this law.
For the Torah speaks about the mother "resting on the eggs or the chicks" and not sitting at their side.
Rashi, Chullin 140b, states that this applies even if the mother's wings are not touching the nest. As long as she is resting directly above the nest, it is considered as if she was resting on it. The Siftei Cohen 292:17 quotes this point as halachah.
As evident from Chullin 12:3, the Biblical command speaks about "a nest." As long as a nest contains one egg or chick, it is still considered a nest.
Using a plural form.
This is a general principle applying with regard to many Biblical commandments. See Yevamot 15:2, Shabbat 65a, Nedarim 48a.
The Rambam is referring to a principle in Jewish business law which maintains that a person can acquire property by virtue of its presence in his domain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 17:8-11:
A person's courtyard can acquire property for him without him being aware of it. Thus, if a lost object falls into a person's courtyard, he acquires it.
When does the above apply? When the courtyard is protected. [When, by contrast, a lost article enters a person's] field or garden [different rules apply]. If he is standing at the side of his field and says, "May my field acquire it for me," he acquires it. If, however, he is not standing there, or he is standing there but does not make such a statement [he does not acquire it.]...
The [potential for] a man [to acquire property by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard is derived, by contrast, from [the fact that] he is able to acquire an article via an agent. Just as an agent can acquire [an article] for him, so too, can he acquire [an article by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard....
[The following rules apply when a person] sees... young doves that cannot fly [in his property]: [When the following conditions are met:] he was standing at the side of his field, [the animals] were on his property, and he could catch them if he ran, he can acquire them [by virtue of their presence in] his field if he states: "May my field acquire them for me."
Thus in the case at hand, since the person cannot acquire the eggs himself until he sends away the mother, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf (Chullin 141b).
For as stated in the quoted portion, the potential for a person's property to acquire an article on his behalf is derived from the laws of agency.
As mentioned above, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2) states that if the mother bird lifted itself up, the person can acquire the chicks by virtue of their presence in his property even if he does not remove them from their nest. From that time on, they are considered as "at hand" and this mitzvah does not apply. Indeed, he can tap the nest so that the mother will rise up and then acquire the young (Kessef Mishneh).
A skin condition, resembling leprosy, that is visited upon a person as retribution for speaking gossip and slander. The purification process for such a person is described in Leviticus, ch. 14, and Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1.
As stated in Halachah 2. Even if he used the mother bird for a mitzvah, he still receives lashes for violating the transgression.
The purification of the person with tzara'at.
The prohibition of taking the mother which is reinforced by the mitzvah to send her away. Note the Kessef Mishneh who questions whether the two mitzvot should be placed in this category, for according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted as halachah), the two mitzvot do not apply at the same time.
I.e., once he has taken the mother bird, he is obligated to send her away and the observance of another positive commandment, e.g., the purification rite mentioned above, does not supplant it.
For not only the mother, but also the offspring, belong to the Temple treasury. For the mother gave birth to them after she had been consecrated.
For as above the offspring are also the property of the Temple treasury.
Significantly, although the Rambam's ruling is based on Chullin 138b, he does not quote the wording of the Talmud, but instead, explains the derivation of the ruling in a different manner. The Lechem Mishneh explains that this reflects a pattern found frequently in the Mishneh Torah: The Rambam will explain the derivation of a law differently than the Talmud if it appears to him that his derivation is simpler and more direct.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:2 which states that an animal that kills a human must be judged by a court of 23 judges.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
More from Maimonides | RSS
Mishneh Torah »
Sefer Hamada
Sefer Ahavah
Sefer Zemanim
Sefer Nashim
Moznaim
Moznaim is the publisher of the Nehardaa Shas, a new, state-of-the-art edition of the Talmud and all major commentaries in 20 volumes. Click here to purchase or email the publisher at [email protected]
Shechitah - Chapter 1
13th Perek: Laws of Shechitah
Rambam: Shechitah, Chapter 13
Watch (27:27)
Rambam: Shechitah Chapter 12, 13, 14
Listen (1:17:08)
Rambam with the Rebbe: Shechitah Chapter 12, 13...


text:
Ruins and Secrets
Probing the Grand Canyon's mysterious prehistory
Carey Winfrey
You may notice some reorganization and some new design elements in this issue. It's not a redesign; we like our classic look. But Brian Noyes, our art director, has freshened up the magazine typographically to make it easier to read and, we like to think, more inviting.
One new editorial offering is "Interview," a question-and-answer session with an expert who has recently discovered, achieved or created something of note in our areas of interest, especially the sciences, the arts and (in the broadest possible terms) history. In this issue, Senior Editor Laura Helmuth talks to Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago, who recently discovered a transition fossil that links fish and land-dwelling animals. We have a few other new editorial ideas in the works as well.
You'll also find a new magazine-within-a-magazine, "Around the Mall," now home to "The Object at Hand" and the Secretary's letter as well as an added page of Institution happenings. We think you'll find it interesting even if you're not headed for Washington, D.C. in the near future.
And those of you who received your magazine in the mail may have noticed that it was not wrapped in the usual white paper. We're going to try to do without the wrapper and thus save nearly 50 million pieces of paper a year—over time, a lot of trees.
David Roberts, who wrote our article about the earliest denizens of the Grand Canyon ("Below the Rim," p. 54), first visited that extraordinary chasm when he was about 8 years old. He didn't really get it. "I think the scale of it is too huge," he says. So photographer Bill Hatcher had to talk him into joining an exploration, for Smithsonian, of its prehistoric trails—a part of the Grand Canyon that few ever see. This time he got it. "One of the things that's really surprising to me," says Roberts, "is that this is a place with over four million tourists a year, but the archaeology is still just barely getting sorted out. It's sort of amazing that one of the iconic national places to visit has such a mysterious prehistory."
One of the duo's first stops was a Havasupai Indian village on the canyon floor. "We immediately went to the tribal chairman, Rex Tilousi, and explained who we were. And you know what finally got to him? It was the name Smithsonian—he knew that Smithsonian was an important magazine. At one point he said that if it had been another magazine, he would have told us to get lost. So he slowly warmed to us, and we got to have the experience of going to the ruins and the secret places, which was just wonderful. But even then, he said there was plenty of stuff he wasn't going to tell us. There was plenty of ancient lore that none of us white boys had any right to know about."
Carey Winfrey | READ MORE
Carey Winfrey was Smithsonian magazine's editor in chief for ten years, from 2001 to 2011.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Ellis's British Tariff for ...
tions of the Act 6
Cape of Good Hope, continued.
Barrels or casks imported into the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, to be there sold or employed as wine barrels or as wine casks; and hoops, staves, or headings, imported into the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, to be there sold or employed for or in the making of any such wine barrels or wine casks, shall be importable for the purposes aforesaid into the said colony free of all duty whatsoever.
Free. Under the provisions of the Act 6 Geo. IV. c. 114, § 4 (see p. 261), Foreign Ships be.
and by and with the advice of His Privy Council, longing to countries His Majesty doth deem it expedient to grant to the in amity with His ships of all foreign countries in amity with his MaMajesty, may trace jesty, the privileges granted by the last recited Act, with the Cape of Good Hope.
so far as respects the said colony of the Cape of
Good Hope; His Majesty doth therefore, by the ad. vice aforesaid, declare and grant, that it shall and may be lawful for all foreign ships belonging to countries in amity with his Majesty, to import into the colony of the Cape of Good Hope from the countries to which they respectively belong, goods, the produce of those respective countries, and to export goods from the said colony of the Cape of Good Hope, to be carried to any foreign country whatever.
And whereas it is expedient that certain parts of the Act 6 Geo. IV. The following sec.
c. 114 (viz. $ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18 to 27
both inclusive, 33 to 44 both inclusive, 49 to 72 both Geo. IV. c. 114, ex- inclusive, 74 and 75, and 79 to 85 both inclusive), tended to the Cape should be extended and applied to the said colony of of Good Hope, viz., $ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12,
the Cape of Good Hope; His Majesty doth therefore, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21. with the advice of His Privy Council, and in exercise 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, of the powers vested in him by the 73d section of 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
the last-recited Act, order, that all and every the en39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
actments, provisions, and declarations, so far as the 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, same are hereinbefore recited, shall be, and they are 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, hereby extended to and declared to be in force within 67, 68.69, 70, 71, 72, the said colony of the Cape of Good Hope, as fully 74, 75, 79, 80,81, 82, 83, 84, and 85. and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as the
same are by force and virtue of the said Act extended to and declared to be in force within the British possessions in America.
List of Free Porls ;-Cape Town, Simon's Town, and Port Elizabeth. List of Free Warehousing Ports ;-Cape Town and Simon's Town.
And it is further ordered, that within the meaning, and for the pure poses of the said Act, the several ports above mentioned, -viz., the several ports of Cape Town, Simon's Town, and Port Elizabeth, shall be deemed to be free ports; and the said ports of Cape Town and Simon's Town
shall be, and be deemed to be, free warehousing Provisions, penalties, &c. of 6 Geo. ports; and all the provisions, penalties, and forfeitIV.c. 114, to extend
ures in the said Act contained, respecting the free to Cape Town, si: ports, and free warehousing poris therein mentioned, mon's Town, and shall extend to the said ports of Cape Town, Simon's
Town, and Port Elizabeth, as free ports, and to the
Port Elizabeth.
CAPE of Good Hope, continued. said ports of Cape Town, and Simon's Town, as free warehousing ports, as fully and effectually as if the same were respectively inserted and enumerated in the 'Table of Free Ports and of Free Warehousing Ports in the said Act contained.
And it is further ordered, that it shall be lawful for any persons who shall have duly made entry
either of the said ports
On a Warehousing of Cape Town and Simon's Town, of any goods to be Entry being passed, there lodged in the warehouse, and who shall in all the transhipment other respects have complied with the law respecting
of the goods will be
allowed on certain the warehousing of such goods, to tranship the same,
conditions. within the limits of such port, into any vessel, without the actual landing thereof on shore, if such person shall in all respects comply with and observe such regulations as may be made for effecting any such transhipment by the Lords Commissioners for the time being of his Majesty's Treasury; which regulations shall by the said Lords Commissioners he signified to the Chief Officer of his Majesty's Customs at each of the said respective ports, through the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs.
And whereas by the Act 6 Geo. IV. c. 114, § 59 (see page 254), certain abatement and remission of duties in certain cases
Abatement and re. is provided for; it is hereby further ordered, thạt
mission of duties in a similar abatement or remission, as the case may be, shall be made, in respect of the duties imposed by this present Order, in respect of all goods imported into the said colony.
Order in Council, 22 February, 1832.
certain cases.
RECIPROCITY. And whereas by the law of Navigation (see page 4) foreign Ships are permitted to import into any of the British Possessions abroad, from the countries to which they belong,
Privileges granted Goods the produce of those countries, and to export limited to the Ships
to foreign Ships Goods from such possessions to be carried to any of those countries, foreign country whatever; and it being expedient that which, having Co.
lonial Possessions, such permission should be subject to certain con
shall grant the like ditions, it is therefore enacted, that the privileges privileges to Brithereby granted to foreign Ships shall be limited to tish Ships, &c. the Ships of those countries, which, having Colonial Possessions, shall grant the like privileges of trading with those possessions to British Ships, or which, not having Colonial Possessions, shall place the commerce and navigation of this country and of its possessions abroad upon the footing of the most favoured nation ; unless His Majesty by his order in council shall in any case deem it expedient to grant the whole or any of such privileges to the Ships of any foreign country, although the conditions aforesaid shall not in all respects be fulfilled by such foreign country.—6 Geo. IV. c. 114. $ 4.
PRIVILEGES OF TRADE GRANTED TO
CERTAIN POWERS.
CONVENTION OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION
WITH FRANCE.
Signed at London, 26 January, 1826. ADDITIONAL ARTICLES.—(The previous articles, which relate to the intercourse with the United Kingdom and the British possessions in Europe, will be found in page 32.)
Art. 1.- From and after the 1st of October, 1826, French vessels shall be allowed to sail from any port whatever of the countries under the dominion of His Most Christian Majesty, to all the colonies of the United Kingdom (except those possessed by the East India Company), and to import into the said colonies all kinds of merchandize (being productions the growth or manufacture of France, or of any country under her dominion), with the exception of such as are prohibited to be imported into the said colonies*, or are permitted to be imported only from countries under the British dominion* ; and the said French vessels, as well as the merchandize imported in the same, shall not be subject, in the colonies of the United Kingdom, to other or higher duties than those to which British vessels may be subject, on importing the same merchandize from any foreign country, or which are imposed upon the merchandize itself. The same facilities shall be granted, reciprocally, in the colonies of France, with regard to the importation, in British vessels, of all kind of merchandize, (being productions the growth and manufacture of the United Kingdom, or of any country under the British dominion,) with the exception of such as are prohibited to be imported into the said colonies, or are permitted to be imported only from countries under the dominion of France. And whereas all goods, the produce of
any foreign country, may now be imported into the colonies of the United Kingdom, in the ships of that country, with the exception of a limited list of specified articles, which can only be imported into the said colonies in British ships, His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom reserves to himself the power of adding to the said list of excepted articles any other, the produce of the French dominions, the addition whereof may appear to his Majesty to be necessary for placing the commerce and navigation to be permitted to the subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties with the colonies of the other, upon a footing of fair reciprocity.
Art. 2.- From and after the same period, French vessels shall be allowed to export from all the colonies of the United Kingdom (except those possessed by the East India Company), all kinds of merchandize, which are not prohibited to be exported from such colonies in vessels other than those of Great Britain ; and the said vessels, as well as the merchandize exported in the same, shall not be subject to other or higher duties than those to which British vessels may be subject, on exporting
• See page 248.
RECIPROCITY, continued. the said merchandize, or which are imposed on the merchandize itself; and they shall be entitled to the same bounties, drawbacks, and allowances of the same nature, to which British vessels would be entitled, on such exportation. The same facilities and privileges shall be granted, reciprocally, in all the colonies of France, for the exportation, in British vessels, of all kinds of merchandize, which are not prohibited to be exported from such colonies in vessels other than those of France.
The conditions referred to in the 4th Section of the Act 6 Geo. IV. c. 114, as before stated*, have not in all respects been fulfilled by the Government of France; but, nevertheless, His Majesty by the advice of his Privy Council doth deem it expedient to grant certain of the privileges aforesaid to the ships of France; His Majesty doth, therefore, in pursuance of the powers vested in him, declare and grant that it shall be lawful for French ships to import into any of the British Possessions in the West Indies and America, from the dominions of His Most Christian Majesty, such goods, being the produce of those dominions, as are enumerated in the Table subjoined, and to export Goods from such British Possessions, to be carried to any foreign country whatever.
TABLE REFERRED TO.
Wood Hoops.
Flour.
Judian Corn.
Live Stock.
Biscuit.
Hay and Straw.
Shingles.
Coin and Bullion.
Meal.
Red Oak Staves, or Diamonds,
Salt.
White Oak Staves, Fruit and Vegetables,
or Headings. fresh.
Calavances.
Cotton Wool.
Lumber. And all Articles subject on Importation to a duty ad valorem, and on which Articles the amount of such duty shall not at the time of importation exceed 71. 10s. per cent. of the value of the same.-Order in Council, 1 June, 1826.
His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, has deemed it expedient that the above Order (dated 1 June, 1826) should be extended to the Island of Mauritius ; His Majesty by the advice aforesaid, and in pursuance of the powers vested in him by the Act mentioned in the said Order, doth hereby declare and grant that it shall be lawful for French ships to import into the said island of Mauritius from the dominions of His Most Christian Majesty, such goods, being the produce of those dominions, as are mentioned and enumerated in the Table subjoined to the said Order. And for the prevention of any doubts respecting the true meaning and effect of the said Order, and of this present Order, His Majesty is further pleased to order and declare that neither shall extend, or be construed to extend to
Reciprocity, continued. authorise the importation in French ships into any of the British Possessions in the West Indies and America, or into the Island of Mauritius, from the dominions of His Most Christian Majesty, of any Wine, being the produce of those dominions.-Order in Council, 16 Dec. 1826.
It shall be lawful for French ships to import into the British possessions on the Western Coast of Africa, and into the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, and into the Island of Ceylon, and into His Majesty's
settlements in the Island of New Holland, and into the
Island of Van Diemen's Land, and into the several Islands and Territories dependent upon and belonging to the several Settlements or Colonies aforesaid, from the dominions of His Most Christian Majesty, such goods, being the produce of those dominions, as are mentioned and enumerated, or referred to in the Table subjoined to the Order of the 1st June, 1826.—(See page 263.) And in further pursuance of the powers vested in His Majesty by Acts passed in the 7th & 8th years of His reign, His Majesty, with the advice of His Privy Council, is further pleased to declare that the conditions mentioned and described in an Act passed in the 6th year of His Majesty's reign, (see page 261,) have in all respects been fulfilled by the Government of His
Majesty as King of Hanover, and by the Government Hanorer, Sweden, of His Majesty the King of Sweden* and Norway,* and Norway.
and by the Government of His Serene Highness the Duke of Oldenburg, and by the free Hanseatic Republics of Lubeck,
Bremen,
and Hamburg, and by the State of Colombia, The Government and by the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, and beck, Bremen, Ham. by the United States of Mexico : And His Majesty bro, Colombia, and is further pleased to declare that the ships of and the United Provinces belonging to the Kingdoms, Republics, Provinces, of Rio de la Plata and Mexico.
and States aforesaid, are entitled to the privileges so
granted by the Laws of Navigation, (see page 4&6,) and may respectively import from such the dominions to which they respectively belong, into the British Possessions abroadt, Goods the produce of such dominions respectively, and may export Goods from the British possessions abroadt, to be carried into any foreign country what
And His Majesty, with the advice of His Privy Council, doth deem it expedient to grant the privileges aforesaid to the ships of the
dominions of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, Russiat.
His Majesty doth, therefore, in pursuance of the powers See the 6th Article of the Convention with Sweden and Norway, in page 62. + In the Convention with Sweden and Norway (which see in page 62), an exception is made in parenthesis, viz. (other than those in the possession of the East India Company), and with respect to the commerce to be carried on in vessels of Sweden and Norway with the British dominions in the East Indies, or now beld by the East India Company in virtue of their charter, the same pri. vileges in all respects are granted to the subjects of His Swedish Majesty, as are or may be enjoyed, under any treaty or Act of Parliament, by the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation ; subject to the laws, regulations, and restrictions applicable to the ships and subjects of such foreign country trading
See Convention with Russia, relating to points connected with the commerce,
with the said dominions.


One of the historic little lanes of Lanark, which served as a thoroughfare for people to collect water from St Patrick's Well. In use for hundreds of years, closes like this in Lanark often changed names, frequently to reflect the nickname a notable person who lived nearby. In this case the name Jookers Johnnie seems to have stuck, and dates back at least a century or two.
The lane provides a link between the Clyde Walkway and the centre of Lanark. From the town centre the lane starts by turning off the West Port opposite the petrol station (which is downhill from the High Street) where there is a sign. Head between the houses and into the lane. From here continue along the lane, ignoring the turnoffs for Silverdale Crescent.
Despite the narrorw feeling of the lane, it should be around four feet wide. St Patrick's Well, which was once located off St Patrick's Road, was an important water source for Lanark until the 1880s, which required people to transport water from the well up to the town. The council deemed that Jookers Johnnie should be at least four feet wide to allow people to carry water in buckets on a wooden yoke over their shoulders.
After a short time the lane will meet St Patrick's Road. Please be aware that this final section is quite steep as it slopes towards the road! From here you can continue left to Castlebank Park and the Clyde Walkway, which leads to New Lanark in a few minutes. Or, if you turn right and walk along St Patrick's Road and onto the Clyde Walkway, you can eventually reach Glasgow, which will take a bit longer!
Follow the link on the right to read the story behind the lane's name.
How did Jookers Johnnie get its name?


Before some old redneck boys nearly drowned Tish in the pollywog creek, Tish fell in love. Fell in love like little girls fall in love with other little girls.
Tish followed Caitlin around the neighborhood, sticking close on her heels. Tish called Caitlin on the phone after dinner every night. Giggling and whispering, delicious secrets out of earshot of the adults.
Tish admired Caitlin's bossy streak. Feeling a strong kinship with Caitlin because they both had a face full of freckles. They both were born in the same city in the same year. They both felt closer to their daddies than their mothers.
Tish fell in love with Caitlin's round belly, her almond eyes, her long brown hair, and mostly, her disregard for anything her mother ever told Caitlin to do.
Fell in love because Caitlin liked swimming as much as she herself did. She wasn't as strong a swimmer as Tish, but she floated on her back, her long hair trailing behind her like webbing. Tish wished she were more like Caitlin, who never backed down to anyone–not even the boys or the older girls in the neighborhood.
Caitlin wasn't afraid of the gigantic Rottweiler that lived four houses down the street in a big white house. The house with the broken fence that the Rottie was always pressing its giant body against. Its massive head lunging through the splitting wooden slats, its wide jaws gaping. The dog growling and lunging at the slightest provocation. Beastly. It was worse than that movie Tish and her Daddy watched a few years back: Cujo. Much worse than Cujo. Tish was convinced that it was only a matter of time until the dog escaped and sunk its teeth into her naked flesh.
Caitlin taunted that old dog every chance she got, and Tish never once admitted she was terrified of the dog and was sure it would be she was going to die. Ravaged and mutilated. Caitlin just laughed and said, "If that ugly dog gets out I'll lay him out with a baseball bat; he ain't that big." But it was, the dog was that big, and it wasn't like they carried around baseball bats anyway.
Early summer with Caitlin was magic. Magic. Fierce magic. Protective magic, keeping her safe.
Margo Williams holds an MFA from Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts. Work by Williams appears in Glimmer Train, Southeast Review, Prick of the Spindle, Beacon Street Review, Frostwriting, and Moonshine Review. Her fiction is anthologized in The Big Picture and she is a produced playwright (Snake Oil: 2008). Williams teaches creative writing at Cape Fear Community College and Cameron Art Museum. She is a Hambidge Fellow and her poems have been made into performance pieces and film presented at Ars Poetica in Wilmington, North Carolina, and Blue Sage Center in Paonia, Colorado.
Image: "Tish and Caitlin, 1986" by Carolyn DeMeritt. DeMeritt is native of Charlotte, North Carolina. Self-taught, she has been a professional photographer and videographer for over 30 years. DeMeritt has work included in many museums and in corporate and private collections, including the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington DC; the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh,North Carolina; the Mint Museum of Art in Charlotte,North Carolina; and the Bank of America collection. DeMeritt's videography has been nominated for an Emmy Award.


text:
My Recollections by Adeline Horsey Countess Cardigan 1824 1915 Chapter IX: Deene and its History
1485 Battle of Bosworth
1668 Buckingham Shrewsbury Duel
1854 Charge of the Light Brigade
My Recollections by Adeline Horsey Countess Cardigan 1824 1915 Chapter IX: Deene and its History is in My Recollections by Adeline Horsey Countess Cardigan 1824 1915.
One of my friends has often said that to visit Deene is to step back into the past, for the place bears upon it no impression of modernity, and even the additions made to the house are thoroughly in character with the older parts.
Deene is first mentioned in the Domesday-Book, when the surveyors noted the wood of a mile long belonging to it which joined Rocking- ham Forest. It was the property of the Abbey of Westminster, and was used as a hunting-box by the Abbots. It was called the Grange, and "the monks' well" is still to be seen in the park. A most interesting feature of the house is the Great Hall, 50 feet long and 50 feet high, which is a duplicate in miniature of Westminster Hall, and the carved chestnut roof, the wood of which is impervious to the ravages of insects, has never had an accident since it was first erected in 1086.
The Brudenells have been landowners in Northamptonshire since the time of Henry III, and in 1518 Sir Robert Brudenell, a Justice of the King's Bench, bought Deene from William Litton. Robert Brundenell made a large fortune, and his wife, Margaret Entwyssel, became heiress to her brother's estates of Staunton Wyvile, which naturally added to the wealth of the family. In 1520 Sir Robert settled Deene on his eldest son, Thomas, and eleven years later he died and was buried in the transept of Deene Church.
Sir Thomas, who was a hospitable and generous man, died in 1549, and Deene passed to his son Edmund, who married Agnes Bussey, a member of the great Lincohishire family. Sir Edmund Brudenell carried out extensive building operations at Deene, and the numerous initials of E. and A. and the many shields with the Brudenell and Bussey arms show that he considered his alliance with their family an important one. Camden mentions that Sir Edmund had literary and antiquarian tastes, which were also possessed by his nephew Thomas, who succeeded to the estates in 1606. He also built largely, but the great Tower was not finished until about 1628. Sir Thomas was a staunch cavalier, who raised soldiers for the King's garrisons, and he was made a Baron by Charles I. After the Royal cause was lost he suffered the penalty of his loyalty and was imprisoned in the Tower for twenty years. The brave old cavalier kept a most interesting diary during his imprisonment, which is still preserved in the library at Deene; it consists of about 30 or 40 volumes of MS., which give interesting details of his confinement and the principal events of the time.
In 1661, Charles II rewarded his father's faithful adherent by creating him Earl of Cardigan on April 22, but the old man did not live long to enjoy his new honours, for he died at Deene in 1663, aged eighty.
Buckingham Shrewsbury Duel
The second Earl became a Roman Catholic, and spent most of his long life of 102 years at Deene. His daughter, Lady Anne Brudenell, was one of the most lovely of the beauties associated with the Court of Charles II She married the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the story is well known of how she, dressed as a page, held the Duke of Buckingham's horse whilst he fought with and slew her husband.
Allan Fea, in his interesting book, " Nooks and Corners of Old England", describes how, " some time before the poor little plain Duchess (of Buckingham) suspected that she had a formidable rival in the beautiful Countess, she was returning from a visit to Deene to her house at Stamford, where her reckless husband found it convenient to hide himself, as a warrant for high treason was out against him, when she noticed a suspicious little cavalcade travelling in the same direction. Ordering the horses to be whipped up, she arrived in time to give the alarm. The Duke had just then set out for Burleigh House with some ladies in his company, and the serjeant actually saw the Duke alight and lead a lady into the house, but he and his soldiers were not in time to force an entrance, and so the Duke escaped ! ".
The wicked Countess and her lover lived at Clieveden — "the bower of wanton Shrewsbury and of love " — and her spirit is supposed to haunt the beautiful riverside retreat, but I am thankful to say she has never appeared in the old home of her innocent girlhood. Her portrait by Sir Peter Lely hangs in the White Hall at Deene, and is a fine example of the artist's well-known very décolleté style of " robes loosely flowing, hair as free", with the usual mise en scène of a beauty of Charles II's time. The third Earl of Cardigan was Master of the Buckhounds to Queen Anne; he married a daughter of the Earl of Ailesbury, and their fourth son inherited the Ailesbury title and estates. Lord Cardigan's eldest son married the heiress of the Duke of Montagu in 1766 [Note. Married on 07 Jul 1730. He was created Duke in 1766]. He was a friend of Horace Walpole, the influence of whose pseudo-Gothic tastes may still be seen in the south front of Deene, built at this time, and which now incorporates the great ball-room built for me by my dear husband.
The fourth Earl was succeeded by his brother John, whose nephew, the sixth Earl, was the father of my husband, James Thomas Brudenell, seventh Earl of Cardigan.
Battle of Bosworth
There are many features of interest in the old house. In the Great Hall there is a blocked-up entrance to an underground passage through which despatches were carried in the Civil War; and there is a hiding-place large enough to hold twenty people. Henry VII slept at Deene, when as Earl of Richmond he rode to Bosworth Field; the room is known as " the King's Room", and the Royal arms are sculptured over the fireplace. The Tapestry Room has a fine ceiling, and is the room always reserved for Royal guests, the last visitors who occupied it being the sons of the Infanta Eulalia, Don Alphonso and his brother, who stayed at Deene in 1907. They both thoroughly enjoyed the shooting, and used to telegraph the bags to King Alfonso, who wired that he was not having anything like such good sport !
Charge of the Light Brigade
I believe my husband replaced a great deal of the original furniture at Deene with more modern examples, but many valuable old pieces still remain. The pictures are very beautiful, including a priceless Vandyke representing Queen Henrietta Maria, in the happy days of her early married life, as a regal, gracious figure arrayed in shimmering satin. There is a lovely portrait of Louise de Keroualle and her son, the Duke of Richmond, who married a Brudenell, and there are many examples of Lely, Sir Joshua Reynolds and other eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists. One painting by Sant represents the Prince Consort and the Royal children listening to the account of the Charge of the Light Brigade by Lord Cardigan, and there are also some interesting pictures of hunting-field incidents, depicting Cardigan and his friends on their favourite mounts.
The house has been very judiciously added to, each architect retaining the motif of the old house, so it has not a patched appearance. My husband's father built the dining-room, and in 1861 Lord Cardigan added the ball-room, especially to please me. It is 70 feet long and 40 feet high; and I designed the heraldic stained-glass windows which represent the family's forbears of Royal descent. The windows were executed by Lavers and Burrow, but my aid as an artist reduced their account by £200 ! There is a magnificient marble fireplace in the ball-room, which has an oak floor and a musician's gallery.
The White Hall is full of Balaclava relics, including my husband's uniforms, and the head of " Ronald", the horse he rode when he led the Charge of the Light Brigade. I gave one of "Ronald's" hoofs, mounted as an inkstand, to the King, who expressed a great wish to have it as a souvenir. The illuminated addresses received by Lord Cardigan are in the Great Hall, and some of them are really works of art.
After my husband's death I decided to have the parish church of St. Peter restored, and an altar tomb erected to his memory. The church adjoins the park, and was originally a quaint Early English structure of which little now remains.
The restoration cost me £7000, and I built the Brudenell Chapel, which contains my husband's beautiful tomb by Boehm. His recumbent figure is full of dignity and I had my own marble effigy placed by his side. At each end of the tomb are bas-reliefs representing the Charge and the address to the troops, and at the sides are many armorial bearings. The late Mr. G. Bodley, R.A., was responsible for the restoration and redecoration of the church, which was finished in 1869. On the occasion of the inauguration of the church, the Bishop of Peterborough preached, and I afterwards entertained 300 people at a banquet in the ball-room. During the afternoon " Ronald " (who lived for some years after) was led about the grounds, and many of those who saw him sighed as they thought of his gallant master, now sleeping "far from the stress of war's alarms"..
Lord Cardigan hated the idea of being put underground, so his coffin was placed immediately under his effigy inside the tomb and not in a vault. He had always intended to have a monument erected during his lifetime in the Rectory grounds, and actually had some stone brought from his Stanion quarries for this purpose. One day Lord Westmorland called, and noticing the quantity of stone, asked what it was to be used for. Cardigan told him. "Nonsense", said Lord Westmorland, "give the stone to me instead. I want to make an entrance-hall at Apethorpe, and it will be the very thing!" My husband very good-naturedly gave him the Stanion stone, and the low entrance-hall at Apethorpe was built of it.
The late Queen Victoria greatly admired the design for the monument, and I was told on good authority that she even had her own figure modelled in her lifetime for her memorial tomb but that when search was made after her death the figure had disappeared and nobody knew what had become of it.
Deene lies like some rare jewel in a setting of peaceful lake and well-timbered parkland; its own peculiar charm would be gone for ever if it relied on blazinsr flower-beds and obtrusive gardening triumphs to make it attractive.
Behind the bowling-green are the kitchen gardens, where the fruit ripens on the mellowed walls, and in spring and summer, masses of old- fashioned flowers make vivid splashes of fragrant colour everywhere. The stables and the riding-school, which I built, are close to the house, and I have a most interesting collection of ancient carriages, many of them over a hundred years old and unique specimens of the coach-builder's art.
Naturally Deene has a ghost. The story goes that when it was a Religious House, monks and nuns lived there together, an arrangement that was naturally rather dangerous to the morals of the community. A young nun is said to have loved and been loved in return by one of the monks; they both met with a tragic end, and her spirit appears at times in the Great Hall as a young and lovely woman dressed in the white robes of her Order. A curious discovery was made when the house was drained that perhaps is a silent record of dark doings in monkish days. Quantities of young children's bones were found under the floorings, and I often wonder whether the horrible practices of Gilles de Retz ever took place at Deene long ago, or if the tiny bones were those of unwanted and unwelcome babies at the Religious House !
My friend, Walter Seymour, wrote the following verses, which I set to music, about the phantom nun : ...
For fifty years I have been chatelaine at Deene. There is no place I love so much. I saw it first as a mere child and even then it seemed to welcome me. It was the home of my married life; and I am never lonely there. Memory opens wide her gates, and from them issue the beloved dead who loved Deene. Husband, relatives, and friends surround me again, and the dream is so real that I am always happy with my dear ones who people it. The peace of the old house envelops and soothes me, and I always hope that when the time comes for me to lie by my husband's side, my spirit will be sometimes allowed to revisit the place that has always been " sweet home " to me.


(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Marine Debris Act to revise the Marine Debris Program by requiring the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to work with: (1) other agencies to address both land- and sea-based sources of marine debris, and (2) the Department of State and other agencies to promote international action to reduce the incidence of marine debris.
(Sec. 4) The bill urges the President to: (1) work with foreign countries that produce the largest amounts of unmanaged municipal solid waste that reaches the ocean in order to find solution to the marine debris; and (2) study issues related to marine debris, including the economic impacts of marine debris.
(Sec. 5) The Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee must expand to include a senior official from the Department of State.
(Sec. 6) This bill reauthorizes through FY2021: (1) the Marine Debris Program, (2) an information clearinghouse on marine debris, and (3) enforcement of laws about discarded marine debris from ships.


text:
Q: Change the value of ng-href in mobile using media queries and angular I have a button that I am trying to redirect to a different link on mobile than on desktop using angular. Right now the link looks like this:

      Search area

I'm not sure how to use media queries to change the value of scheduler_link on a smaller screen. How can I do this?

A: As Far as I know you can't use media queries to change the actual value tied to that href. But what you could do is have two links and have one link visible at each media query.

  Search area

   Search area

@media customMedia{
    .linkOne{
        visible: none; <---------cross-reference on me on this, my css is weak
    }
    .linkTwo{
        visible: yes;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Explanation: Near a summer's midnight a mist haunts the river bank in this dreamlike skyscape taken on July 3rd from northern Denmark. Reddened light from the Sun a little below the horizon gives an eerie tint to low hanging clouds. Formed near the edge of space, the silvery apparitions above them are noctilucent or night shining clouds. The icy condensations on meteoric dust or volcanic ash are still in full sunlight at the extreme altitudes of the mesophere. Usually seen at high latitudes in summer months, wide spread displays of the noctilucent clouds are now being reported.


Drupal is used by thousands of high profile web sites and is subject to rigorous security testing both by the Drupal community and by security experts around the world. Drupal's core code has been proven to prevent common security vulnerabilities such as those defined by the Open Web Application Security Project.
A professional CMS development company Red Symbol provides end-to-end Drupal CMS customization services to create and enhance functionality of your website according to the present market requirements. Our expert Drupal developers carefully craft the project from initial stage of designing, development and deployment of final product enabling you to get the perfect results.


text:
How A Bill Becomes A Law Infographic8 min read
A bill is a proposed law that is introduced in a legislature. The process of turning a bill into a law is known as enactment. The following infographic, created by The Bill of Rights Institute, provides a detailed overview of the process of enacting a bill into law.
The first step in the process is for a bill to be introduced in a legislature. A bill can be introduced by a member of Congress, a state legislator, or a local official. The bill is then assigned to a committee for review.
The committee will hold a hearing on the bill and may amend it or recommend that it be passed, defeated, or sent to another committee. If the committee recommends that the bill be passed, it is sent to the floor of the legislature for a vote. If the bill is passed, it is sent to the executive branch for review.
The executive branch may sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without signing it. If the bill is vetoed, the legislature may override the veto with a majority vote. If the bill is allowed to become law without being signed, it is called an implied veto.
If the bill is signed into law, it is sent to the courts for review. The courts may find that the bill is unconstitutional and strike it down. If the bill is found to be constitutional, it is put into effect.
1 How does a bill becomes a law step by step?
2 What are the 7 steps of a bill becoming a law?
3 How does a bill become a law poster?
4 What are the 6 steps to make a bill a law?
5 Which is the proper order of a bill becoming a law?
6 How does a bill become a law 7 Steps quizlet?
7 How do you write a bill?
How does a bill becomes a law step by step?
The process of how a bill becomes a law is a long and complicated one. It can take months, or even years, for a bill to make its way through Congress and be signed into law by the President.
Here is a step-by-step look at the process of how a bill becomes a law:
1. A bill is introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.
2. The bill is assigned to a committee.
3. The committee holds a hearing on the bill.
4. The committee votes on the bill.
Read also How Does A Bill Become A Law Steps
5. The bill is sent to the full House or Senate for a vote.
6. The House or Senate votes on the bill.
7. The bill is sent to the President for approval.
8. The President signs the bill into law.
What are the 7 steps of a bill becoming a law?
There are a number of steps that a bill must go through before it becomes a law. This process can be complicated and often takes a long time. Here are the seven steps of a bill becoming a law:
The first step in the process is for a bill to be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. A bill can be introduced by any member of Congress, regardless of whether they are a sponsor or not.
2. Committee Action
After a bill is introduced, it is sent to a committee. The committee will then hold a hearing on the bill and may make changes to it. The committee may also vote to approve the bill, reject it, or table it.
3. Floor Action
If the committee approves the bill, it will then be sent to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote. The bill can be passed, rejected, or amended on the floor.
4. Conference Committee
If the bill is passed by one chamber but not the other, a conference committee will be formed to resolve the differences between the two versions of the bill.
5. Passage
If the conference committee agrees on a version of the bill, it will be sent back to the House and Senate for a vote. It must be passed by both chambers in order to move on to the next step.
6. President's Signature
Once the bill is passed by both the House and Senate, it goes to the president for his signature. The president has the ability to veto the bill, but if Congress overrides the veto, the bill becomes a law.
After a bill is signed into law, the government will begin to implement it. This can be a long and complicated process, and often there are delays in implementation.
How does a bill become a law poster?
A bill becomes a law when it is passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. The process of turning a bill into a law is called enactment.
The first step in the process is to introduce a bill. A bill is introduced when a legislator, usually a representative or senator, sponsors a bill and introduces it in the legislature. The bill is then assigned to a committee.
Read also How A Bill Becomes A Law Cartoon
The committee will hold a hearing on the bill. The committee will then debate the bill and vote on it. If the bill passes the committee vote, it will be sent to the full legislature for a vote.
The full legislature will debate the bill and vote on it. If the bill passes the legislature vote, it will be sent to the governor for his or her signature. The governor has the power to veto the bill, but if the veto is overruled by the legislature, the bill becomes a law.
What are the 6 steps to make a bill a law?
There are six steps in the process of making a bill a law. The first step is introducing the bill. The bill is introduced to the legislative body in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The second step is the bill is read and referred to a committee. The third step is the committee considers the bill. The fourth step is the committee reports the bill back to the full legislature. The fifth step is the full legislature debates and votes on the bill. The sixth and final step is the bill is signed into law by the president or governor.
Which is the proper order of a bill becoming a law?
A bill becomes a law in the United States in a specific order. The order is as follows:
1) The bill is introduced in the House of Representatives.
2) The bill is introduced in the Senate.
3) The bill is passed by the House of Representatives.
4) The bill is passed by the Senate.
5) The bill is signed into law by the President.
How does a bill become a law 7 Steps quizlet?
A bill is a proposed law. A bill becomes a law when it is passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.
There are seven steps a bill must go through to become a law:
3. House of Representatives
4. Senate
6. Governor
A bill is introduced when a legislator proposes a new law. The legislator introduces the bill by giving it a number and a title. The bill is then sent to the appropriate committee.
Read also Is The Us Common Or Civil Law
The committee reviews the bill and decides whether to pass it or not. If the committee decides to pass the bill, it will recommend the bill to the full House of Representatives.
If the committee recommends the bill, the full House of Representatives will vote on it. If the majority of representatives vote in favor of the bill, it will be sent to the Senate.
The Senate will also vote on the bill. If the majority of senators vote in favor of the bill, it will be sent to a conference committee.
The conference committee is made up of members from the House of Representatives and the Senate. The committee will work to resolve any differences between the two versions of the bill.
The conference committee will send the bill to the governor. The governor has the option to sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or allow it to become law without his or her signature.
If the governor signs the bill, it becomes a law. If the governor vetoes the bill, the legislature can vote to override the veto.
How do you write a bill?
In the United States, all bills start in the House of Representatives. To write a bill, you'll need to know a few things about the process.
The first step is to come up with an idea for a bill. This can be something you think should be changed or a new law you'd like to see passed. You can also propose a bill to repeal an existing law.
Next, you'll need to find a sponsor for your bill. This is someone in the House of Representatives who will agree to introduce your bill.
Once you have a sponsor, you'll need to write a bill draft. This is a document that will outline the specifics of your bill. It's important to be clear and concise in your writing.
Your bill draft will then be introduced in the House of Representatives. It will go through a few rounds of debate and amendments before it's voted on. If it passes, it will move on to the Senate.
The Senate will also debate and amend your bill before voting on it. If it passes, it will go to the President to be signed into law.
Tagged bill becomes step step, bill full House Representatives, bill introduced either House, bill introduced either House Representatives, either House Representatives Senate
Prev How To Do Law Of Attraction
Next Is Extortion Against The Law


The parishes of Burriscarra and Ballintober, or Ballintubber, were dealt with jointly in the survey. These parishes contain no towns or villages so there are no public amenities listed in the survey. No forms were completed for amenities or for accomodation and catering. The main area of interest are antiquities and historical sites, of which there are many. The most notable of these include Ballintober Abbey, Moore Hall, Castlecarra and Burriscarra Abbey. In some cases the detailed architectural descriptions are accompanied by hand-drawn sketches.
The surveyor was Donal Faughnan and he completed this section of the survey in 1945.
The headings for the Burriscarra and Ballintober survey are listed below. Clicking on a heading will open the relevant page.


Letter Of Intent Job Application Template letter of intent job application template 31 letter of intent for a job templates pdf doc free premium printable. letter of intent job application template sample letter of intent for a job letter of intent for job position template. letter of intent job application template 10 letter of intent for a job template download for free sample free. Letter Of Intent Job Application Template letter of intent job application template 31 letter of intent for a job templates pdf doc free premium templates. letter of intent job application template letter of intent for a job 11 free word pdf documents download templates. letter of intent job application template 31 letter of intent for a job templates pdf doc free premium templates. Letter Of Intent Job Application Template letter of intent job application template 31 letter of intent for a job templates pdf doc free premium download.
Letter Of Intent Job Application Template letter of intent job application template sample letter of intent for a job letter of intent for job position template. letter of intent job application template 10 letter of intent for a job template download for free sample free. letter of intent job application template 31 letter of intent for a job templates pdf doc free premium templates. letter of intent job application template letter of intent for a job 11 free word pdf documents download templates. letter of intent job application template 31 letter of intent for a job templates pdf doc free premium templates.