Today in Judaism: TODAY IS: MONDAY, ADAR II 8, 5774 • MARCH 10, 2014
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
Maryland Law Revoked (1825)
In 1715, the Crown Colony of Maryland enacted a law requiring any citizen who wished to hold public office to take an oath of abjuration, which contained the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian." In 1776, the new constitution of the State of Maryland reaffirmed this law, requiring any oath of office to contain a declaration of belief in the Christian religion.
In the decades that followed, the struggle to repeal this law attracted national attention.
On February 26, 1825 an act "for the relief of the Jews in Maryland," was passed by Maryland's House of Delegates. The bill allowed every Jewish citizen to take an oath which professes his belief in a "future State of Rewards and Punishments, in the stead of the declaration now required by the Constitution and form of Government of this State."
DAILY QUOTE:
As the six-day workweek culminates in Shabbat, so, too, will the six millennia of our work and toil to make the world a home for G-d culminate in the Messianic Era -- "the day that is wholly Shabbat and tranquility, for life everlasting"--Nachmanides (commentary on Genesis 1)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Parshat Tzav, 2nd Portion (Leviticus 6:12-7:10) with Rashi
• Chapter 6
12. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, יב. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
13. This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord, on the day when [one of them] is anointed: One tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a perpetual meal offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. יג. זֶה קָרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַיהֹוָה בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵפָה סֹלֶת מִנְחָה תָּמִיד מַחֲצִיתָהּ בַּבֹּקֶר וּמַחֲצִיתָהּ בָּעָרֶב:
This is the offering of Aaron and his sons: Ordinary kohanim must also offer [a meal-offering, consisting of] a tenth of an ephah [of flour], on the day they are inaugurated into service. The Kohen Gadol, however, must bring [this meal-offering] every day, as it is said, “a perpetual meal-offering…” (verse 15), “And the kohen who is anointed instead of him from among his sons …an eternal statute.” - [Torath Kohanim 6:39, 44]
זה קרבן אהרן ובניו: אף ההדיוטות מקריבין עשירית האיפה ביום שהן מתחנכין לעבודה, אבל כהן גדול בכל יום, שנאמר מנחה תמיד וגו' והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו וגו' חק עולם וגו':
14. It shall be made with oil on a shallow pan, after bringing it scalded and repeatedly baked; you shall offer a meal offering of broken pieces, [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יד. עַל מַחֲבַת בַּשֶּׁמֶן תֵּעָשֶׂה מֻרְבֶּכֶת תְּבִיאֶנָּה תֻּפִינֵי מִנְחַת פִּתִּים תַּקְרִיב רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:
scalded: Boiling water is poured over it [i.e., over the dough], until it is thoroughly scalded. — [Torath Kohanim 6:46]
מרבכת: חלוטה ברותחין כל צרכה:
repeatedly baked: Heb. תֻּפִינֵי, baked many times over, namely, after the scalding (חֲלִיטָה), he bakes it in an oven and afterwards fries it in a shallow pan. — [Men. 50b]
תפיני: אפויה אפיות הרבה, שאחר חליטתה אופה בתנור וחוזר ומטגנה במחבת:
a meal-offering of broken pieces: [This] teaches [us] that it requires breaking up. [Old Rashi edition continues: But not really breaking of the offering into separate pieces and crumbs, since it is not scooped, but he folds it in two, and folds it again in four, [first] vertically and [then] horizontally. However, he does not separate it [into pieces]. In this form, he burns it as a fire-offering. This is explained in Torath Kohanim. — [see Torath Kohanim 6:48, Men. 75b]
מנחת פתים: מלמד שטעונה פתיתה:
15. And the kohen who is anointed instead of him from among his sons, shall prepare it; [this is] an eternal statute; it shall be completely burnt to the Lord. טו. וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ חָק עוֹלָם לַיהֹוָה כָּלִיל תָּקְטָר:
who is anointed instead of him from among his sons: [This is to be understood as if transposed: The kohen] who is anointed from among his sons instead of him.
המשיח תחתיו מבניו: המשיח מבניו תחתיו:
It shall be completely burnt: [When there is a קְמִיצָה procedure, what is scooped out is burned on the altar, and the remainder is eaten by the kohanim. However, in this offering,] there is no קְמִיצָה procedure to enable any remainder to be eaten; but, it is burnt in its entirety. Similarly, any voluntary meal-offering brought by a kohen, must be completely burned.
כליל תקטר: אין נקמצת להיות שיריה נאכלין אלא כולה כליל, וכן כל מנחת כהן של נדבה כליל תהיה:
16. Every meal offering of a kohen shall be completely burnt; it shall not be eaten. טז. וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל:
completely: Heb. כָּלִיל All of it must be equally offered to God on High.
כליל: כולה שוה לגבוה:
17. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, יז. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
18. Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: The sin offering shall be slaughtered before the Lord in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. It is a holy of holies. יח. דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשָּׁחֵט הָעֹלָה תִּשָּׁחֵט הַחַטָּאת לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא:
19. The kohen who offers it up as a sin offering shall eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. יט. הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ יֹאכְלֶנָּה בְּמָקוֹם קָדשׁ תֵּאָכֵל בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
who offers it as a sin offering: Heb. הַמְחַטֵּא אתהּ, who performs the components of its service, i.e., the one through whom it becomes a sin-offering. [Thus, the word הַמְחַטֵּא means, “the one who makes it into a sin-offering (חַטָּאת).”]
המחטא אתה: העובד עבודותיה שהיא נעשית חטאת על ידו:
The kohen who offers it as a sin offering shall eat it: [Any kohen] fit for the service; this comes to exclude a kohen who is unclean at the time of the dashing of the blood, who does not take a share in the flesh. - [Torath Kohanim 6:58] But, it is impossible to say that [this verse] prohibits other kohanim from eating it, except the kohen who dashes its blood, for it says further (verse 22),“Any male among the kohanim may eat it.”
המחטא אתה יאכלנה: הראוי לעבודה, יצא טמא בשעת זריקת דמים שאינו חולק בבשר, ואי אפשר לומר שאוסר שאר כהנים באכילתה חוץ מן הזורק דמה, שהרי נאמר למטה (פסוק כב) כל זכר בכהנים יאכל אתה:
20. Anything that touches its flesh shall become holy, and if any of its blood is sprinkled on a garment, [the area of the garment] upon which it has been sprinkled, you shall wash in a holy place. כ. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ וַאֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל הַבֶּגֶד אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדשׁ:
Anything that touches its flesh: Any item of food that touches it and absorbs from it. — [Torath Kohanim 6:60]
כל אשר יגע בבשרה: כל דבר אוכל אשר יגע ויבלע ממנה:
shall become holy: to be like it, insofar as: If [that sin-offering] is invalid, it [whatever touched the sin-offering], becomes invalid, and if [that sin-offering] is valid, it [whatever touched the sin-offering] must be eaten under the same stringency as the sin-offering [namely, only during the day of offering and the following night. — [Torath Kohanim 6:60]
יקדש: להיות כמוה, אם פסולה תפסל, ואם היא כשרה תאכל כחומר שבה:
and if some of its blood is sprinkled on a garment: Heb. וַאִשֶׁר יִזֶּה, [usually, and what will be sprinkled …, which would mean that the blood must be sprinkled on the garment. Therefore, Rashi remarks that אִשֶׁר in this case is like אִם, and the verse is to be rendered:] And if some of its blood is sprinkled on a garment, [the area of the garment] which it has been sprinkled, shall be washed within the courtyard [of the Holy Temple]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:63]
ואשר יזה מדמה על הבגד: ואם הוזה מדמה על הבגד, אותו מקום דם הבגד אשר יזה עליה, תכבס בתוך העזרה:
upon which it has been sprinkled: [The verb יִזֶּה is in the passive form, having the meaning: To be sprinkled and thus here, the phrase, אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיהָ means, “upon which it has been sprinkled”]. This is similar to the verse, “neither will the gratification of their desire be extended (יִטֶּה) to the earth” (Job 15:29), [where the verb יִטֶּה is also in the passive form, with the meaning:] “to be extended.”
אשר יזה: יהא נזה, כמו (איוב טו כט) ולא יטה לארץ מנלס, יהא נטוי:
21. An earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken, but if it is cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be purged and rinsed with water. כא. וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם:
[An earthenware vessel in which it is cooked,] shall be broken: Because the absorption that had been absorbed in the vessel becomes נוֹתָר [literally, “left over.” I.e., the food remains within the vessel’s wall (see next Rashi), and subsequently, when the time limit for eating the sacrifice has expired, the absorption in the vessel wall is “left over.” Since נוֹתָר, “left over,” must be destroyed by burning, the food in the wall of this earthenware vessel must be destroyed by breaking the vessel]. The same law [of breaking the earthenware vessel in which meat of a sacrifice has been cooked,] applies also to all holy sacrifices [i.e., not just the sin-offering].
ישבר: לפי שהבליעה שנבלעת בו נעשה נותר, והוא הדין לכל הקדשים:
it is to be purged: Heb. וּמֹרַק, an expression stemming from the same root as “and with the ointments of the women (וּבְתַמְרוּקֵי הַנָשִׁים)” (Esther 2:12), [substances used for cleansing and perfuming women.] Escuremant in Old French [like the English, “scouring”].
ומרק: לשון תמרוקי הנשים (אסתר ב יב) אישקורימינ"ט בלע"ז [נקוי]:
purged and rinsed: to expel its absorption. [This is in the case of a metal vessel.] But an earthenware vessel, Scripture teaches you here [by requiring that it be broken,] that it never rids itself of its defect. - [Pes. 30b]
ומרק ושטף: לפלוט את בליעתו, אבל כלי חרס למדך הכתוב כאן שאינו יוצא מידי דפיו לעולם:
22. Every male among the kohanim may eat it. It is a holy of holies. כב. כָּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכַל אֹתָהּ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא:
Every male among the kohanim may eat it: From here, we learn that, “[The kohen] who offers it up as a sin-offering [shall eat it],” stated above (verse 19) does not come to exclude all other kohanim, but to exclude one who is unfit to offer it up as a sin-offering.
כל זכר בכהנים יאכל אתה: הא למדת שהמחטא אותה האמור למעלה לא להוציא שאר הכהנים, אלא להוציא את שאינו ראוי לחטוי:
23. But any sin offering some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire. כג. וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ לֹא תֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף:
But any sin-offering [some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting … shall not be eaten]: [This verse teaches us] that if one brings any of the blood of a sin-offering to be sacrificed on the outside altar, inside [the Holy], it [the sacrifice] becomes invalid. — [Zev. 81b]
וכל חטאת וגו': שאם הכניס מדם חטאת החיצונה לפנים פסולה. וכל לרבות שאר קדשים:
any: [This seemingly superfluous word comes] to include all other holy sacrifices [in this law].
:
Chapter 7
1. And this is the law of the guilt offering. It is a holy of holies. א. וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא:
It is a holy of holies: It shall be sacrificed, but an animal substituted for it may not be sacrificed, [rather it remains in pasture until it becomes defective and then is redeemed]. — [Torath Kohanim 7:79]
קדש קדשים הוא: הוא קרב ואין תמורתו קרבה:
2. They shall slaughter the guilt offering in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering; and its blood shall be dashed upon the altar, around. ב. בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת הָעֹלָה יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת הָאָשָׁם וְאֶת דָּמוֹ יִזְרֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב:
They shall slaughter: Heb. יִשְׁחֲטוּ. [By using the plural verb, יִשְׁחֲטוּ, Scripture here has seemingly] come to describe many slaughterers [i.e., it has included the case of a communal guilt-offering, which has “many slaughterers,” i.e., is slaughtered for many]. However, since we do not find a case of a communal guilt-offering [mentioned in Scriptures, the verse is understood somewhat differently: it uses the plural pronoun,] as it links the guilt-offering with the burnt-offering [where we do have a case of a communal sacrifice], in order to include also the communal burnt-offering in the requirement that it too be slaughtered in the northern sector [of the Holy Temple courtyard, just as is required of an individual’s burnt-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 7:82] [Rashi , as amended by Maharshal in Yerioth Shelomo , quoted by Leket Bahir. For alternative interpretations, see Chavel, Yosef Hallel. Many scholars consider this comment an addendum to Rashi because it does not appear in any early editions or manuscripts.]
ישחטו: ריבה לנו שחיטות הרבה, לפי שמצינו אשם בצבור, נאמר ישחטו רבים. ותלאו בעולה להביא עולת צבור לצפון:
3. And all of its fat he shall offer from it: the tail and the fat covering the innards, ג. וְאֵת כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֵת הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת הַקֶּרֶב:
All of its fat…: Until here, the sacrificial parts of a guilt-offering had not yet been delineated. This is why Scripture needs to delineate them here (verses 34). However, [the sacrificial parts of] the sin-offering have already been delineated in the parashah of וַיִּקְרָא (see Lev. 4:89), [and that is why its sacrificial parts were not delineated in the section describing the law of the sin-offering (see verses 6:18-23 above)].
ואת כל חלבו וגו': עד כאן לא נתפרשו אמורין באשם, לכך הוצרך לפרשם כאן, אבל חטאת כבר נתפרשו בה בפרשת ויקרא (פרק ב):
the tail: [In the case of the peace-offering, the Torah treated sheep and goat offerings as two separate entities, by specifying the sacrificial procedures for each one separately (see Lev. 3:7-15). Why, then, is no distinction made between sheep and goats in the case of guilt-offerings?] Since [for] a guilt-offering only a ram (אַיִל) or a lamb (כֶּבֶשׂ) may be brought, and rams and lambs are included in [the category of those animals whose] tail [is one of the sacrificial parts, [no distinction is made between sheep and goats].
את האליה: לפי שאשם אינו בא אלא איל או כבש, ואיל וכבש נתרבו באליה:
4. and the two kidneys [along] with the fat that is upon them, which is on the flanks, and the diaphragm with the liver; along with the kidneys he shall remove it. ד. וְאֵת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל הַכְּסָלִים וְאֶת הַיֹּתֶרֶת עַל הַכָּבֵד עַל הַכְּלָיֹת יְסִירֶנָּה:
5. And the kohen shall cause them to [go up in] smoke on the altar as a fire offering to the Lord. It is a guilt offering. ה. וְהִקְטִיר אֹתָם הַכֹּהֵן הַמִּזְבֵּחָה אִשֶּׁה לַיהֹוָה אָשָׁם הוּא:
It is a guilt-offering: Heb. אָשָׁם הוּא, [meaning that it is a guilt-offering] until its name is removed from it [by sending it out to pasture]. This teaches us concerning a guilt-offering whose owner has died, or whose owner has [lost the original animal, and subsequently] received atonement [through another animal], although it [the original guilt-offering animal] stands ready that its value [in money used to buy another animal which] is to be offered up as an עוֹלַת קַיִץ מִזְבֵּחַ (i.e., “a burnt-offering which was provision for the altar”; see Rashi, Lev. 1:2), nevertheless, if the [original guilt-offerings] were slaughtered, [if this had been done] before they are sent out to pasture. [Actually, the law is that the animals in these cases, the animal is sent out to pasture so that it become blemished and consequently unfit for sacrifice. Then it is sold, and its proceeds used for burnt-offerings for “provision for the altar.” Here, however, Rashi tells us that the status of “guilt-offering” is removed from the animal as soon as it is sent out to pasture, even before it becomes blemished. This expression, הוּא אָשָׁם, “It is a guilt-offering,”] does not come to teach us that a guilt-offering becomes invalid if it was sacrificed for another purpose [other than for a guilt-offering], as they expounded on [the word] הִיא in the case of the sin-offering (see Rashi Lev. 4:24, 5:9). [That is] because in the case of a guilt-offering, Scripture states “It is a guilt-offering” only after the sacrificial parts have been burnt. [And if we say that the verse is teaching us that the guilt-offering must be sacrificed for that specific purpose, not for any other, then this law must include also the procedure of burning the sacrificial parts, that they too must be burned for the purpose of a guilt-offering]. However, [we learned in Tractate Zev. (5b) that in the case of a guilt-offering,] if its sacrificial parts were not offered up [at all], it is valid.
אשם הוא: עד שינתק שמו ממנו. לימד על אשם שמתו בעליו או שנתכפרו בעליו, אף על פי שעומד להיות דמיו עולה לקיץ המזבח, אם שחטו סתם, אינו כשר לעולה קודם שנתק לרעיה. ואינו בא ללמד על האשם שיהא פסול שלא לשמו, כמו שדרשו הוא, הכתוב בחטאת, לפי שאשם לא נאמר בו אשם הוא, אלא לאחר הקטרת אמורין, והוא עצמו שלא הוקטרו אמוריו כשר:
6. Any male among the kohanim may eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place. It is a holy of holies. ו. כָּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכְלֶנּוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָכֵל קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא:
It is a holy of holies: [But has this not already been stated in verse 1?] This is expounded on in Torath Kohanim (7:84).
קדש קדשים הוא: בתורת כהנים הוא נדרש:
7. Like the sin offering, so is the guilt offering, they have one law; the kohen who effects atonement through it to him it shall belong. ז. כַּחַטָּאת כָּאָשָׁם תּוֹרָה אַחַת לָהֶם הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ לוֹ יִהְיֶה:
They have one law: in regard to this matter:
תורה אחת להם: בדבר זה:
the kohen who effects atonement through it: i.e., [any kohen] who is fit to effect atonement, takes a share in it. This excludes one who immersed himself on that day [for his uncleanness, who may not perform the sacrificial service or eat holy things until sunset], one lacking atonement [if he did not yet bring his sacrifice on the day after his immersion, such as a זָב or a מְצֹרָע], and one whose close relative died on that day, [who is also disqualified from performing the sacrificial service]. - [Torath Kohanim 7:86]
הכהן אשר יכפר בו: הראוי לכפרה חולק בו, פרט לטבול יום ומחוסר כפורים ואונן:
8. And the kohen who offers up a person's burnt offering, the skin of the burnt offering which he has offered up, belongs to the kohen; it shall be his. ח. וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת עֹלַת אִישׁ עוֹר הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה:
the skin of the burnt-offering which he has offered, belongs to the kohen; it shall be his: This excludes one who immersed himself on that day, one lacking atonement, and one whose close relative died on that day. — [Torath Kohanim 7:89]
עור העלה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה: פרט לטבול יום ומחוסר כפורים ואונן שאינן חולקים בעורות:
9. And any meal offering baked in an oven, and any one made in a deep pan or in a shallow pan, belongs to the kohen who offers it up; it shall be his. ט. וְכָל מִנְחָה אֲשֶׁר תֵּאָפֶה בַּתַּנּוּר וְכָל נַעֲשָׂה בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת וְעַל מַחֲבַת לַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתָהּ לוֹ תִהְיֶה:
belongs to the kohen who offers it up: One might think that it belongs to him alone. Scripture, therefore, states (in the next verse), “[And any meal-offering…] shall belong to all the sons of Aaron.” One might think, then, that it [indeed] belongs to all of them. Scripture, therefore, states (in the preceding verse), “belongs to the kohen who offers it up.” So how [can this be reconciled]? [It belongs] to the family of the day when they offer it up. [The kohanim were divided into twenty-four divisions called “watches,” each watch being on duty for the temple service for one week. Each day of the week, a different family of kohanim from that week’s watch was on duty. When a kohen offered up an Israelite’s meal-offering, it was shared equally among all of his family, who were on duty that day]. — [Torath Kohanim 7:92]
לכהן המקריב אתה וגו': יכול לו לבדו, תלמוד לומר לכל בני אהרן תהיה. יכול לכולן, תלמוד לומר לכהן המקריב, הא כיצד לבית אב של אותו יום שמקריבין אותה:
10. And any meal offering mixed with oil or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, one like the other. י. וְכָל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה לְכָל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה אִישׁ כְּאָחִיו:
mixed with oil: This is a voluntarily donated meal-offering. - [see Lev. 2:1]
בלולה בשמן: זו מנחת נדבה:
or dry: This is a sinner’s meal-offering (Lev. 5:11) and the meal-offering of jealousies [sacrificed during the investigation ritual of the סוֹטָה, woman suspected of adultery] (Num. 5:15), which do not contain oil [and thus the term “dry”].
וחרבה: זו מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שאין בהן שמן:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 44-48
• Chapter 44
The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1
2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.
3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.
4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.
5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.
6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.
7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.
8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.
9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.
10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;
11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;
12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;
13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;
14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;
15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;
16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me
17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-
18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.
19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.
20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-
21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?
22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.
23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!
25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?
26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.
27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.
Chapter 45
The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"
1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.
2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”
3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.
5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.
6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.
7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.
8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.
9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.
10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.
11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.
12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.
13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.
14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.
15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.
16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.
17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.
18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.
Chapter 46
This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.
2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.
3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;
4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.
5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.
6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.
7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.
8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.
10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.
11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.
12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
Chapter 47
Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.
3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.
4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.
5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.
6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.
7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.
8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.
9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.
10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.
Chapter 48
The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.
3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.
4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.
5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].
6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.
7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;
8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.
9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.
10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.
11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.
13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.
14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.
15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 36
• Lessons in Tanya
• MONDAY, ADAR II 8, 5774 • MARCH 10, 2014
• Today in Tanya
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 36
והנה תכלית השתלשלות העולמות וירידתם ממדרגה למדרגה אינו בשביל עולמות העליונים
The purpose of the Hishtalshelut of the worlds, and of their descent from level to level, is not for the sake of the higher worlds,
הואיל ולהם ירידה מאור פניו יתברך
since for them this constitutes a descent from the light of His Countenance.
The very word “world” (עולם) in Hebrew denotes concealment. Thus, even the highest worlds constitute, by their very existence, a descent from the pervading level of G‑dliness that preceded their creation. It is illogical, then, to say that the revelation which these higher worlds represent is the purpose of the Hishtalshelut, since their revelation is actually concealment — and the ultimate purpose of creation lies in revelation, not concealment.
אלא התכלית הוא עולם הזה התחתון
Rather, the purpose of Hishtalshelut is this lowest world.
All the higher worlds are merely steps in the descent of the divine creative power; in each of them the light is veiled yet further, until it is finally reduced to the minute degree of revelation that this physical world is capable of receiving.
שכך עלה ברצונו יתברך, להיות נחת רוח לפניו יתברך כד אתכפיא סטרא אחרא ואתהפך חשוכא לנהורא
Thus, the purpose of the Hishtalshelut is this world, for such was His will — that He find it pleasurable when the sitra achra is subjugated to holiness, and the darkness of kelipah is transformed into holy light,
שיאיר אור ה׳ אין סוף ברוך הוא במקום החשך והסטרא אחרא של כל עולם הזה כולו
so that in the place of the darkness and sitra achra prevailing throughout this world, the Ein Sof-light of G‑d will shine forth
ביתר שאת ויתר עז, ויתרון אור מן החשך, מהארתו בעולמות עליונים
with greater strength and intensity, and with the superior quality of light that emerges from the darkness i.e., when darkness is transformed into light, the resulting light is superior to ordinary light; it will thus shine with greater intensity than its radiance in the higher worlds.1
שמאיר שם על ידי לבושים והסתר פנים, המסתירים ומעלימים אור אין סוף ברוך הוא
There, in the higher worlds, it shines through garments and [through] concealment of the Countenance (a concealment of the pnimiyut — i.e., the internal aspect — of the light) which conceal and screen the Ein Sof-light,
שלא יבטלו במציאות
so that [the worlds] do not dissolve out of existence.
For were the Ein Sof-light not screened by garments, the worlds could not bear it, and would dissolve. Thus, the revelation wrought by subjugation of the kelipot in this world, is greater than that of the higher worlds; there the Ein Sof-light is hidden, whereas here in this world it is revealed in all its strength.
A question arises, however. How is it possible (even upon subjugating the kelipot and transforming them into holiness) that we in this world should experience a revelation of the Ein Sof-light without veil or concealment, when even the higher worlds cannot receive such revelation without dissolving into nothingness?
In answer, the Alter Rebbe writes:
FOOTNOTES
1.The Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe adds the words, “than its radiance in the higher worlds,” and is not satisfied with simply stating that the ultimate purpose of creation is this world, “for such was His will — that He find it pleasurable....”
In doing so the Alter Rebbe answers a well-known question. How can we possibly say that the higher worlds, which are illuminated with such a revelation of G‑dliness, exist for the purpose of this world, where G‑dliness is so concealed? One does not create a significant thing to serve something insignificant. The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that through the transformation of darkness into light — a form of divine service which can be achieved only in this world — the world becomes so holy that it is illuminated with a degree of G‑dliness far superior to that which is manifest in the higher worlds.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 171 (Digest)
Giving a Half Shekel
"Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul to G‑d"—Exodus 30:12.
Every Jewish man is obligated to contribute annually a half a shekel [to the Temple coffers].
This biblical mitzvah only applies during the Temple Era.
The 171st mitzvah is that we are commanded to give a half shekel1 every year.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Each man shall give an atonement offering for his life," and, "[Everyone included in the census] shall give [a half shekel.]"
It is clear that women are not obligated in this mitzvah, since the verse says, "Everyone included in the census" [and only men were in the census].
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the tractate devoted to this subject, i.e. tractate Shekalim.
There it is explained that this mitzvah applies only when the Holy Temple is standing.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Or one half of whatever coin is in use at a particular time (Hilchos Shekalim 1:5). This money was used to purchase the communal sacrifices, as well as other necessities (ibid. 4:1).
2.Ex. 30:12-13.
Positive Commandment 153 (Digest)
Calculating Months and Years
"This month shall be to you the beginning of months"—Exodus 12:2.
We are commanded to establish a calendar and calculate its months and years. The months are lunar months, with a new month established when the new moon appears; the years follow the solar seasonal cycle, necessitating the periodic addition of an extra (thirteenth) month to a year – which then becomes a "leap year" – because twelve lunar months are several days short of a solar year. This mitzvah is known as Sanctifying the New Moon.
This mitzvah is entrusted to the Jewish Supreme Court that presides in Israel. Unlike the counting of six days and then observing the Shabbat, a mitzvah that is incumbent upon every individual, no individual can unilaterally decide that a new month has arrived simply because he espied the new moon, and no individual can decide to add a month to the calendar based on his personal (even Torah-based) calculations.
Only the Supreme Court can make these calculations, and only in the Land of Israel. We follow the rulings issued by the Supreme Court in Israel even if they inadvertently established the "wrong" day as the New Moon, even if they did so under duress.
In the event that there are no qualified rabbis remaining in Israel, these calculations can be made, and months and leap years established, by a court that was ordained in Israel—even if it finds itself in the Diaspora.
Today we no longer sanctify the months based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon, because there is no longer a sitting rabbinical Supreme Court in Israel—much as we no longer offer sacrifices, because we lack a Holy Temple.
But under no circumstances can an individual or court outside of Israel establish a new month or a leap year. Our calculations today in the Diaspora are only to determine which days the Court in Israel established as the New Moon, and which years they established as leap years.
[Editor's Note: Nachmanides asks, if so, how do we have holidays and a calendar today, when there is no rabbinical Supreme Court in Israel? He answers that there is a tradition that Hillel the Prince, who resided in Israel, established a calendar until the arrival of Moshiach, and sanctified all the new months and leap years until that time. Therefore, we can use our calculations to determine exactly what he previously established.]
Some laws associated with this mitzvah:
The extra month added to a leap year is the one contiguous to the month of Passover—i.e. Adar.
The establishment of new months and leap years must be done during daylight hours.
A year must be comprised of complete months; a month must be comprised of complete days.
The 153rd mitzvah is that G‑d (exalted be He) commanded us to calculate the months and years.1 This is the mitzvah of Kiddush HaChodesh (Sanctifying the Moon).
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "[And G‑d said to Moshe and Aharon in the land of Egypt,] 'this month [Nissan] shall be the head month to you.' "
In their explanation of this mitzvah, the Sages said,3 "This testimony is given lochem ["you", plural]."4 The meaning of this statement: This mitzvah is not incumbent on every individual as is Shabbos, for example, where every single individual counts six days and rests on the seventh. In our case, it would mean that every individual who sees the appearance of the new moon would consider that day Rosh Chodesh [the first of the month]; Or that an individual could use the Torah-approved calculations to himself determine Rosh Chodesh; Or that he could himself estimate that the produce would not yet ripen [by Pesach]5, or consider any of the other factors6 which are used in determining [the calendar] — and then [himself declare a leap year and] add a month!
However, this mitzvah can only be performed by the Bais Din Hagadol, and only in Eretz Yisroel7. Therefore, since today there is no Bais Din HaGadol, we no longer determine the months on the basis of testimony, just as we no longer bring sacrifices because there is no Holy Temple.
The group of heretics known here in the East8 as Karaites have erred in this principle.9 Not even all of the Rabbis have grasped it, and as a result, grope around with them together in deep darkness.10
One must understand that the calculations which we use today to know11 when Rosh Chodesh and the holidays occur, may only be done in Eretz Yisroel. Only in cases of dire need, when there are no Sages in Eretz Yisroel, and when the Bais Din outside Eretz Yisroel was previously ordained in Eretz Yisroel, is it permissible to declare a leap year or determine Rosh Chodesh outside Eretz Yisroel — as Rabbi Akiva did, as explained in the Gemara.12 This is a very extreme measure, and it is well known that in the majority of cases, it was done only in Eretz Yisroel. They [i.e. the Sages in Eretz Yisroel] are the ones to establish the months and declare a leap year, when they gather together and use the accepted methods.
There is a very important principle upon which the Torah's perspective13 on this subject is based, which is only understood and fully realized by those who delve deeply into the Torah, as follows. This that we outside Eretz Yisroel use our system to make calculations and we declare that "this day is the first of the month," and "this day is a holiday," does not in any way mean that we are making this day based on our calculations. Rather, it is because the Bais Din in Eretz Yisroel has already established that the day is a holiday or Rosh Chodesh. The day becomes a holiday or Rosh Chodesh upon their declaration, "Today is Rosh Chodesh, or "Today is a holiday"; regardless of whether they based their actions on calculations or testimony.14
This [that the Bais Din HaGadol in Eretz Yisroel has absolute authority] is known to us through the verse15, "[Speak to the Israelites and tell them, 'These are the holidays] that you shall designate.' " Our Sages explain16, "These are the only holidays." The meaning of this statement, as passed down in the Oral Tradition: whatever they [i.e. the Bais Din] designate as holidays are considered holidays, even if they made an error, were forced [into making a declaration], or misled.
The calculations which we make today are only to know which day they established in Eretz Yisroel, since they use the exact same system to make calculations and to determine the day – not testimony. Therefore, we are really basing ourselves on their determination, rather than our own calculations, which are only used to reveal [what they already determined previously]. One must clearly understand this.
I will give some additional explanation: let us assume, for example, that there would be no Jewish inhabitants in Eretz Yisroel (G‑d forbid such a thing, since He has already promised that he will never completely wipe out or uproot the Jewish nation17); that there would be no Bais Din there, nor a Bais Din outside Eretz Yisroel which had been ordained in Eretz Yisroel. In such a case, our calculations would be totally futile,18 since we, who dwell outside Eretz Yisroel, may not make the calculations, nor declare leap years nor establish the months without the conditions mentioned above,19 since, "For from Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the L‑rd from Jerusalem."20 A person who fully understands the words of the Talmud in this subject will, upon meditation, undoubtedly agree with the abovementioned.
The Torah contains brief references to the basic principles which are relied upon to know when Rosh Chodesh and the leap years occur. Among them: "This law must therefore be kept at its designated time (l'moadah)."21 Our Sages said,22 "This teaches you that one may add on to the leap year only close to the holiday" [moed, i.e. Pesach23].
They also said,24 "From which verse do we derive that only during the daytime may we officially add on to the month or officially declare Rosh Chodesh? From the verse,25 'miyamim yamimah.' "26
[So too,] G‑d's statement27 (exalted be He), "[This month shall be the head month to you; the first month] of the months of the year." On this our Sages said,28 "The year must be composed of months, not of [odd] days", meaning that when adding on to the year, a complete month must be added.29
There is also a verse,30 "a month of days." Our Sages commented,31 "the month must be composed of days, not of [odd] hours". [So too] the verse,32 "safeguard the month of Aviv,"33 which implies that in calculating the year we must take into account the seasons. Therefore, they shall be years [based not only on the moon but also] based on the sun.
All the details of this mitzvah have been completely explained in the first chapter of Sanhedrin,34 in tractate Rosh Hashanah,35 and in Berachos.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.The lunar month has approximately 29 1/2 days. Since, as mentioned later in this mitzvah, a month may only consist of complete days, one must determine whether a particular month has 29 or 30 days. This could be done either by witnesses, who testified that they saw the moon appear on the 30th day, or by making the astronomical calculations.
In addition, the holidays must fall out in the proper season: Pesach in the spring, etc. Since the lunar year is only 354 days and the solar year 365 days, each lunar year is 11 days short. Therefore, an additional lunar month must be periodically added in order to maintain the proper timing of the holidays.
2.Ex. 12:2.
3.Rosh Hashanah 22a.
4.I.e. to Moshe and Aharon. In later generations, it applies to the most important heads of the generation. See Rashi, ibid.
5.This would be a sign that Pesach is too early and therefore a month must be added.
6.Such as the spring solstice falling out later than the 16th of Nissan.
7.Unless there is no Sage in Eretz Yisroel of sufficient stature. See below.
8.I.e. Egypt. See Heller edition, note 10.
9.And therefore, even in the Rambam's times, they attempted to do this mitzvah by determining the calendar on the basis of testimony, each location individually. See Yad Halevi, note 8.
10.Trying to disprove the Karaites with faulty reasoning — saying, for example, that the primary mitzvah is to base everything on calculations, rather than testimony, even when the Bais Din HaGadol was in existence (unlike the Rambam's reasoning). See Kapach, 5731, note 40. The Rambam therefore proceeds to explain the function of the calculations.
11.See below for the preciseness of this wording — that today we use the calculations only to "know" what was previously established, not to ourselves establish Rosh Chodesh.
12.Berachos 63a.
13.This phrase can also be translated, "full understanding." See Kapach, 5731, note 44.
14.See note below regarding today's situation, where there is no Bais Din Hagadol in Eretz Yisroel.
15.Lev. 23:2.
16.Rosh Hashanah 25a.
17.For the source of this statement, see Tzafnas Paneach; Yermiyahu 31:35-36 and Guide to the Perplexed Part II, ch.28 (quoted in Kapach, 5731, note 51.)
18.The Ramban asks, if so, how can we have holidays and a calendar today?
However, there is a tradition (see Rashba, responsa, Vol.4, No.254) that Hillel HaNassi, in Eretz Yisroel, established a calendar until the arrival of Moshiach. Therefore, we can use our calculations to determine exactly what was previously established. According to many commentaries (see, for example, Megillas Esther; Chinuch) this is also the opinion of the Rambam. However, see Avnei Nezer, Orach Chaim, 310, 311; Maharam Shick, Mitzvah 4; Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah, 234.
19.I.e. in cases of dire need, when there are no Sages in Eretz Yisroel, and when the Bais Din outside Eretz Yisroel was previously ordained in Eretz Yisroel.
20.Yeshayahu 2:3.
21.Ex. 13:10.
22.Mechilta D'Rashbi.
23.The extra month of the leap must be an additional Adar, right before Nissan, the month of Pesach.
24.Mechilta D'Rashbi.
25.Ex. 13:10.
26.Literally, "from day to day." The standard translation of this verse, however, is "from year to year," or "every year."
27.Ex. 12:2.
28.Megilah 5a.
29.Unlike the solar leap year, where one day is added.
30.Num. 11:21.
31.Megillah 5a.
32.Deut. 16:1.
33.I.e. the spring solstice.
34.11a.
35.20a.
-------
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Fourteen
Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Fourteen
1. When a person kindles a fire in a field belonging to someone else1 and the fire spreads and causes damage, [the person who kindled it] is liable to pay the full extent of the damages,2 as [Exodus 22:5] states: "When a fire spreads through thorns and consumes bound or standing grain..., [the one who started the fire] must pay."
Kindling a fire is considered one of the major categories of sources of damage.3
2. When a person kindles [a fire] on his own property, he must retreat a sufficient distance from his boundary to ensure that the fire will not spread to a field belonging to a colleague.4
How far must he move? Everything depends on the height of the fire.5 If he did not retreat an adequate distance and the fire spread and caused damage, he is liable to pay the full extent of the damages. If he retreated an appropriate distance, and [the fire] nevertheless spread and caused damage, he is not liable. This is considered an act of heaven.
Similarly, if [the fire] crossed a stream6 or a pond of rainwater that was [at least] eight cubits wide, [the person who kindled the fire] is not liable.7
3. If the fire passed a wall, we measure the height of the wall and the height of the fire and the amount of foliage8 and bramble found there.9 If the fire was not of sufficient size to pass the wall ordinarily, he is not liable. If it is large enough, he is liable.
When does the above apply? To a piercing flame].10 If, however, the flame ascends upward and warps downward because of the height of the flame, and there were trees11 there, we do not make an estimation. Even if the fire spread for 1000 cubits, [the person who kindled it] is liable.12
4. [The following rules apply when] a fire breaks out in a person's domain,13 and his wall falls from causes other than the fire.14 If he had had the opportunity to rebuild the wall that fell, and he neglected to do so, he is liable. To what can the matter be compared?15 To a person's ox that broke loose16 and caused damage. For [the owner] was responsible for guarding him, and he failed to do so.
5. A person who sends a fire in the hands of a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent person or a child is not held liable by an earthly court;17 he does, however, have a moral and a spiritual obligation [to make restitution for the damages].18
When does the above apply? When he gave them a coal and they fanned it into a flame, for it is normal for a coal to burn out before it causes a flame. If, however, [the person] gave them a flame, he is liable, for his deeds caused the damage.19
6. When a person sends a fire with a mentally competent individual, the agent who spread the flame is liable, and the principal is free of liability.20
Similarly, if he charged a watchman with guarding a fire, [and the fire nevertheless caused damage,] the watchman is liable.21
7. When one person brings a flame, and [then] another person brings the wood, [and a fire is started, which causes damage], the person who brought the wood is liable.22
When one person brings the wood, and [then] another person brings a flame, [and a fire is started, which causes damage,] the person who brought the flame is liable.23 If another person comes and fans the fire, he is liable.24
If the fire is fanned by an uncommon wind,25 none of them is held liable.26 If a person fanned a fire, but it was also fanned by the wind, the person is liable, for his [actions] caused damage.27 And whenever a person's [actions] cause damage, he is liable to pay for the full amount of the damages from the choicest property he owns, as if the damage was inflicted directly.
8. When a fire spread and consumed wood, stone or earth,28 [the person who kindled the fire] is obligated to make restitution, as it is written: "[When a fire] spreads through thorns [and consumes...] a field."
[The following rules apply when] a fire consumes a grain heap or the like and there were utensils hidden in the grain heap. If [the utensils include] a thresher, a yoke for cattle or other articles that it is likely for farmers to hide in their grain heaps, [the person who kindled the fire] is liable.29 If [the utensils include] clothes, glassware and the like, he is not liable for the damage to the utensils.30
9. When does the above apply? When a person kindles a fire in a field belonging to a colleague.31 If, however, he kindles the fire in his own [domain] and it spreads to a colleague's field, he is not liable for utensils hidden in a grain heap.32 He must, however, compensate [the owner] as if the space taken by the utensils had been filled with wheat or with barley.33
10. A person who kindles a fire in a field belonging to a colleague is also liable [in the following instance]. The fire spread and consumed a kid that was tied to the grain heap or a servant near the grain heap.34 For this is also the ordinary practice near a grain heap. If, however, the servant was tied [to the grain heap], or the goat was near the grain heap, [the person who kindled the fire is not liable].35
11. When a person lends a colleague space to make a grain heap, the colleague makes that grain heap and hides utensils in it, and then the person who lent him the space burns the grain heap, [the person who kindled the fire] is liable to pay [his colleague] only for the grain heap.36
If he lent him space to make a heap of wheat and he made a heap of barley,37 or he lent him space to make a heap of barley and he made a heap of wheat,38 or he made a heap of wheat and covered it with barley,39 or he made a heap of barley and covered it with wheat,40 [the person who kindled the fire] is not liable to pay any more than the value of a heap of barley.
12. When a person sets fire to a home belonging to a colleague, he must compensate for everything it contains,41 for it is the ordinary practice for people to keep all their utensils and possessions in their homes.
The person whose house [was burned] is entitled to collect everything he claims,42 provided he takes an oath while holding a [sacred] article.43 This oath is a Rabbinic institution, as will be explained.44 [The above applies] provided he claims articles that we can assume he owns45 or that it is customary for others to entrust to him.
13. [The following rules apply when] a camel that is loaded with flax passes through the public domain, the flax that enters the shop46 is ignited by the lamp belonging to the shopkeeper and then sets fire to the entire building. The owner of the camel is liable, because he overloaded [his beast].47 [This applies regardless of] whether or not the animal stood.48
If the shopkeeper had placed his lamp outside, the shopkeeper is liable and must reimburse the camel driver even for the flax that burned, because he placed his lamp outside.49 [This applies] even with regard to a Chanukah lamp,50 for he should have sat [there] to guard it [from causing damage].
14. [The following rule applies when] a person bends standing grain belonging to a colleague toward a fire until it ignites. If the fire would not reach the grain unless it was spread by an uncommon wind, [the person who bent the grain] is not held liable by a mortal court.51 He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make reimbursement.52
When a person buries standing grain belonging to a colleague in earth or straw,53 and then a fire passes and consumes it, the person who buried [the grain] is not held liable by a mortal court.54 He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make reimbursement, because the person who kindled the fire is not liable for [the destruction of property that was] hidden.55
15. When a fire spreads and harms a human being and injures him, the person who kindled the fire is liable for the damages, unemployment benefits, medical costs, pain and embarrassment suffered by the injured party,56 as if he had personally injured him. Although fire is one of a person's possessions, it is as if he caused him damage with his arrows.57 If, by contrast, injury to a man is caused by a person's animal or cistern, he is liable for the damages alone, as we have explained.58
16. [The laws pertaining to] all the derivatives of fire59are the same as [those pertaining to] fire itself.
What is implied? If a person placed a stone, a knife or a burden on his roof, and it fell because of an ordinary wind and caused damage, he must pay the full extent of the damages. All these are derivatives of fire.60 If it was an uncommon wind that caused them to fall and create damage, he is not liable.61
Blessed be God who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1. Without permission.
2. This is considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah by Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 241) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 56).As the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 418:2) pointout, this applies even when the person took the precautions mentionedin the following halachot. Since he kindled a fire on his colleague'sproperty without permission, he must bear the consequences.
3. As the Rambam states in Halachah 16, a major category hasderivatives. The derivatives of fire are any asset that one owns thatis transported further by the wind and causes damage.
4. This communicates a fundamental principle. Although he is actingwithin his own domain, a person must take the necessary precautions toensure that he will not cause damage to another person's property.
5. I.e., the higher the fire, the further he must retreat.
6. The Hebrew wording used by the Rambam leads to the inference that astream or irrigation ditch that is dried out is not considered to be asufficient fire barrier.
7. For it is not usual for a fire to spread across a body of waterthat size.
8. Or wood. The Hebrew term used by the Rambam could be translatedeither way. The intent is combustible fuel.
9. Here too, the assessment is simple. The higher the flame, thehigher the fence must must be.
10. We find this term in Deuteronomy 32:22: There is a piercingfire in My nostrils. From the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el(Bava Kama 61a), it appears that the intent is a very hot firethat burns powerfully, but does not produce a high flame.
11. Or wood. The Hebrew term used by the Rambam could be translatedeither way. The intent is combustible fuel.
12. When a flame is this high, there are no limits to the extent thefire may spread.
13. I.e., he kindled a fire, and the flame flew out of control.
14. Had the wall not fallen, it would ordinarily have been consideredsufficient to impede the spread of the fire. If the fire was so greatthat it toppled the wall, the person would be liable for the damagesthe fire caused. In the instance at hand, however, the question is: Ishe held responsible for the damages the fire caused, because he couldhave rebuilt the wall and thus prevented the fire from spreading.
15. The comparison is taken from (Bava Kama 23a).
16. I.e., the ox was placed in a corral that was not securely locked. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.)
17. These three individuals are not liable, because their incompetencecauses them to be freed of responsibility for their conduct. Theperson who gave them the fire is not held liable, for he did not setthe fire himself.
18. For he is an indirect cause of the damage.
19. In this instance, he is considered a direct cause of thedamage.
20. This follows the principle When a student's (the principal whocharged the agent with causing damage) words conflict with a master's(God's, who forbade causing damage), whose words should be heeded?Since the agent is mentally competent, he must accept responsibilityfor his conduct.
21. When he accepted the responsibility to guard the fire, he alsoaccepted the liability if he failed to do so adequately. See Chapter4, Halachah 4 and notes.
22. For were it not for the wood, the fire would not have spread.
23. Since the wood was already there, it is the person who kindled thefire who must accept responsibility.
24. Because it is the fanning that causes it to spread.
25. If, however, such winds are common, the persons who brought thewood and started the fire must accept responsibility. They should havetaken this factor into consideration.Note Maggid Mishneh and the gloss of Sefer Me'iratEinayim 418:9, who explain that the term an uncommon winddoes not refer to a storm wind that rarely comes, but rather to a windthat is an infrequent and out-of-the-ordinary matter, but still asomewhat recurrent meteorological occurrence.
26. For without the wind's influence, the fire would not havespread.If, however, the wind is blowing at the time a person is involvedwith the fire, and he ignores the possible danger, he is held liable(Maggid Mishneh; Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 418:9).The Ramah (based on the Tur) also maintains that if it is acommon wind that caused the fire to spread, the last person who hadanything to do with the fire is liable.
27. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statements, maintaining thatthe liability of the person who fanned the fire is dependent on theviability of his deeds. Were his fanning sufficient to have caused thefire to spread even if it had not been fanned by the wind, he isliable. If not, he is not held liable.The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, citingseveral interpretations by the Sages in Bava Kama 60a. Henevertheless questions the Rambam's decision here, based on theRambam's own words in Hilchot Sh'chenim 11:1-2.The Kessef Mishneh resolves this difficulty, explaining thatin Hilchot Sh'chenim, the Rambam mentions a situation in which aperson winnows grain in his own domain, but the wind carries the chaffoutside his domain. There, even though an ordinary wind is involved,the person is not held liable. This appears to contradict the rulinghere. Nevertheless, as the Rambam himself states in HilchotSh'chenim, had it not been for the wind, the chaff would never havecaused damaged. In this instance, the person's fanning of the firewould have caused it to spread sufficiently to cause damage.
28. Wood is consumed entirely by fire. Stone and earth are notconsumed entirely. Nevertheless, a fire might cause them todeteriorate until they are no longer useful (or as useful as they hadbeen). The liability for both these types of substances is alluded toin the verse the Rambam cites: Thorns are consumed entirely byflames (as are standing and bound grain, which the verse alsomentions). Why does the verse also mention a field (for the liabilityfor standing grain is mentioned explicitly)? To teach that even whenthe field is lying fallow, but its value deteriorates because it ischarred, the person is held liable. See Bava Kama 60a.
29. Since it is the ordinary practice for such articles to be hiddenin a grain heap, the person who kindled the fire should haveconsidered this possibility. Therefore, he is liable for theirdestruction.
30. Since it is abnormal for such articles to be hidden in a grainheap, the person who kindled the fire is not held liable. As stated inthe notes on the following halachah, the place taken by the utensilsis considered as if filled with grain, and restitution for that mustbe made.
31. As in Halachah 1, since he kindled a fire in another person'sdomain without permission, stricter rules apply.
32. Bava Kama 60a derives this law from the above verse, whichmentions standing grain. It comments: Just as standing grain isopenly revealed, so too, a person is liable only for entitiesthat are openly revealed.Note the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat418:13), which state that this applies in an instance where the firewould have been stopped by a wall, the wall fell for reasons notdependent on the fire, and the person had the opportunity to repairthe wall. Although he is liable for the grain heap, he is not liablefor the articles hidden in it.The rationale is: If the fire were large enough to spread byitself, the person would be liable. If its spread was caused byfactors not dependent on the person who kindled the fire - e.g., anabnormal wind - he is also not liable for the grain heap.
33. I.e., if the utensils took up a cubic foot of space,the person who kindled the fire must pay for a cubic foot of grain. This also applies with regard to a person who burnsclothes or glassware hidden in a grain heap, as mentioned in theprevious halachah.
34. The Rambam's words are based on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 6:7).The Maggid Mishneh states that the intent is that the person isliable only for the kid. Since the kid is tied, it cannot flee. He isnot liable for the servant, because the servant is mentally competentand should have fled.
35. He is not held liable financially for the death of the servant,because he is considered to have murdered him, and is liable forcapital punishment for his death. Therefore, we follow the principlethat a person who is liable for capital punishment (even when thatsentence cannot be administered) is free of liability for monetaryloss.There is a question if he is liable for the loss of the kid in thisinstance even when a servant is not killed.. Some explain that he is not liable, because the kid should have fled. Others explain that a kid is not of sufficient mental competence to know whether or not to flee (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, these laws are not mentioned by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.
36. For he gave him permission to store grain in his domain, notutensils.
37. Wheat is more valuable than barley. Nevertheless, since inactuality it was barley that was burned, the person who kindled thefire is liable only for the barley.
38. In this instance, he is liable to pay him only for barley, becausethat is what he gave him permission to store.
39. This applies even if he was granted permission to make a heap ofwheat. Since the person who kindled the fire saw only barley, he isliable only for that (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 418:20).
40. If he gave him permission to make a heap of barley, he is liableto pay him only for the barley. If he gave him permission to make aheap of wheat, he is liable to pay the value of the wheat that wasactually burned, and the value of remainder of the barley (SeferMe'irat Einayim 418:21).
41. I.e., all the personal goods the person claims.
42. Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which states that whenit is supported by an oath, the claim of the house owner is accepted,not only when the person who kindled the fire is uncertain about thevalue of the articles in the home he destroyed, but even when heclaims to be certain that they were not worth the money the houseowner demands.
43. A Torah scroll (Hilchot Sh'vuot 11:8). In certaincircumstances, tefillin are substituted for a Torah scroll(Ibid.:12).
44. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:17; Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an1:2. (See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 11:6.)
45. I.e., that according to his standard of living, one might assumethat he owns.
46. In that era, retail outlets were usually stalls in the publicdomain, rather than enclosed edifices. The flax protruded into thestall, where it caught fire from the shopkeeper's oil lamp.
47. And caused the flax to protrude beyond the borders of the publicdomain and enter the confines of the shopkeeper's stall.
48. If the animal stands still, there is more reason to hold the cameldriver liable, for once the fire was kindled, he should move his beastto prevent it from spreading the blaze. Nevertheless, even when hedoes keep his animal moving, since he caused the fire to start, he isliable for all the damages.
49. This is considered an act of negligence on the part of theshopkeeper. For the camel drivers and wagon drivers in the publicdomain do not suspect that there are lamps hanging there.
50. Which we are commanded to place at the outside of our homes.
51. In and of themselves, the actions of the person who bent the grainwere not sufficient to cause the fire to reach the grain; theinfluence of the wind was also necessary. Since the fire was spread byan uncommon wind, it is considered a factor beyond the person'scontrol, and he is not liable.
52. For had he not bent the grain, the fire would not have reached it,even though an uncommon wind was blowing. As mentioned in the notes onHalachah 7, if the uncommon wind was blowing at the time the personbent the grain toward the fire, he is liable.
53. The two examples are carefully chosen. Earth reduces thelikelihood that the grain will be consumed by fire, while strawincreases it. Nevertheless, in either case the same laws apply.
54. For he himself did not set the fire.
55. See Halachot 8 and 9.
56. See Hilchot Chovel UMazik, ch. 1, for a detailed explanationof these five categories of compensation.
57. This is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages(Bava Kama 22a). Rabbi Yochanan maintains, as the Rambam rules,that kindling a fire is regarded like shooting an arrow. Resh Lakishdiffers and maintains that a fire is regarded no differently from aperson's cistern or his animals.To explain Rabbi Yochanan's opinion: When a person shoots an arrow,he is considered to have caused damage with his person although thedamage took place far from him. So too, when he kindles a fire,despite the fact that the damage occurs in a distant place, it is asif he caused the damage with his person.Note the Maggid Mishneh, who points to an apparentcontradiction in the Rambam's rulings. For Rabbi Yochanan does notfree a person of liability for articles that are buried. It is,however, possible to explain that the Rambam does not accept RabbiYochanan's perspective blindly. He accepts it in this instance, butfollows the other interpretations with regard to buried property.
58. Chapter 11, Halachah 6, and Chapter 13, Halachah 2.
59. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 418:1) defines thederivatives of fire as referring to any property that one owns that istransported further by the wind and causes damage.
60. For just as a person is liable when an ordinary wind spreads afire, so too, he is liable for any other damage his property causesthat comes as a result of an ordinary wind.
61. Just as he is not liable when an uncommon wind causes a fire tospread (Halachah 7).
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shekalim Shekalim - Chapter Four, Kiddush HaChodesh Kiddush HaChodesh - Chapter One, Kiddush HaChodesh Kiddush HaChodesh - Chapter Two
Shekalim - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
What [are the funds in] terumat halishcah1 used for? From [these funds] they would purchase the daily offerings sacrificed every day, the additional offerings [sacrificed on Sabbaths, Rashei Chodashim and festivals], all other communal sacrifices, and the wine libations [that accompany them].
Similarly, [these funds were used to purchase] the salt that was placed on all the sacrifices,2 and similarly, the wood for the altar, if no wood was provided3 and it was necessary that it be purchased.
[They were used to pay for spices contained in] the incense offering and the wages of those who prepared it,4 the showbread and the wages of those who prepared it, the omer [of barley], the two loaves, a red heifer, the goat sent to Azazel and the scarlet thread tied between its horns.5
Halacha 2
In contrast, [the funds to purchase] a bull brought as a sin offering [for a transgression performed by the community due to] lack of awareness, and the goats [offered by the community for transgressing the prohibition against] the worship of false divinities should be collected [from communal donations], and should not be purchased [with the funds of] terumat halishcah.
The curtains before the Sanctuary replaced a [permanent] structure.6Therefore, they should not be purchased [with the funds of] terumat halishcah, but rather [with funds that were] consecrated for bedek habayit ["the upkeep of the Temple"]. The curtains covering the gates, by contrast, should be purchased [with the funds of] terumat halishcah.
It is ordained that [the funds necessary to fashion] the menorah and the other sacred articles should come from [the funds stemming from] the remainder of the libations. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash V'Ha'ovdim Bo (the "Laws Governing the Temple Vessels and Those Who Serve Within"),7 the term "the [funds stemming from] the remainder of the libations" will be explained.8 If, however, no such funds are available, [the funds necessary for] these [sacred articles] should come from terumat halishcah.
[The funds necessary to fashion] the priestly garments, those of the High Priest and those of all the other priests who serve in the Temple should come from terumat halishcah.
Halacha 3
All the animals that are found in Jerusalem or its outskirts should be sacrificed as burnt offerings, as stated in [Hilchot] Pesulei HaMukdashim [the "Laws Governing Consecrated Animals That are Unfit"].9 The wine libations for these offerings should come from terumat halishcah.10
Similarly, if a gentile sent a burnt offering11 from another land, and did not send with it the funds for a wine libation, the wine libation should come from terumat halishcah.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] a convert12 dies and leaves [animals designated as] offerings. If he also designated wine [or funds for] their wine libations, they should come from [what he designated]. If not, they should come from terumat halishcah.
When a High Priest dies, and a successor is not appointed [immediately], we should [pay] for the chavitin offering13 from terumat halishcah.14
The [Rabbis who] inspect blemishes [on first-born animals]15in Jerusalem, the Sages who teach16 the laws of ritual slaughter and the laws of taking a handful from the meal offering, and the women who raise their sons to take part in the offering of the red heifer17 all receive their wages from terumat halishcah.
What would their wages be? An amount decided by the court.
Halacha 5
In a Sabbatical year, when [the produce of the fields] is ownerless, the court hires watchmen to protect some of the produce that grows on its own,18 so that it will be possible to offer the omer [of barley]19 and the two loaves of bread,20for these offerings may come only from the new harvest. These watchmen receive their wages from terumat halishcah.
Halacha 6
Should a person volunteer to watch the produce without charge, his offer is not accepted, lest men of force come and take it. [To prevent this,] the Sages ordained that the watchmen be paid from the funds of the Temple treasury. [This] will prompt everyone to avoid that place where the guards are posted.21
Halacha 7
Scribes who check Torah scrolls in Jerusalem and judges in Jerusalem who preside over cases of robbery receive their wages22 from terumat halishcah.
How much are they paid? Ninety23 maneh24 a year. If this is not sufficient for their [needs], they are given - even against their will25 - an additional amount sufficient to meet their needs, those of their wives, their children, and the other members of their household.26
Halacha 8
Both the ramp that was built from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, on which the red heifer was led [to the Mount of Olives],27 and the ramp on which the goat sent to Azazel was led [outside the city28 were paid for] from sheyarei halishcah.29
Similarly, [any improvements necessary for] the altar for the burnt offerings, the Temple building, or the Temple courtyards [were paid for] from the sheyarei halishcah.30 The water conduit, the walls of Jerusalem, its towers, and all the needs of the city [were paid for] from the sheyarei halishcah.
Should a gentile, even a resident alien,31 offer to donate money for these purposes, or to labor in these projects without charge, [his offer] should be rejected, for [Ezra 4:3] states: "It is not for you, together with us, to build [the House of our Lord," and [Nechemiah 2:20] states "And you have no portion, right, or memorial in Jerusalem."
Halacha 9
[The funds remaining from] terumat halishcah and sheyarei halishcah should be used to purchase male animals to be sacrificed as burnt offerings. For it is a condition made by the court that all the remaining funds be used for burnt offerings.32
They are not, however, used to purchase doves for burnt offerings, for doves are never used for communal sacrifices. These burnt offerings that come from the funds remaining from the collection of the shekalim are referred to as "the dessert of the altar."33
Halacha 10
Should the [collection from the half-]shekalim not be sufficient [to purchase everything necessary] for all the communal sacrifices, the [funds for] whatever is necessary should be taken from [the articles] consecrated for Bedek HaBayit, the resources consecrated for the purpose of maintaining the Temple structure.34
[The converse, however, does not apply. When improvements are necessary, but the resources of] Bedek HaBayit are lacking, [the improvements] should not [be paid for] from funds consecrated for [sacrifices for] the altar.
Halacha 11
From Rosh Chodesh Nisan onward, the communal offerings should be brought from the new collection [of shekalim].35 If, however, [the funds from] the new collection have not reached [the Temple treasury], [funds from] the collection of the previous year may be used.36
Therefore, [the following rule should be applied] if there are animals designated for the daily offerings37 that were purchased from the collection of the previous year when Rosh Chodesh Nisan arrives: They should be redeemed38 and used for mundane purposes,39 despite the fact that they are unblemished. The proceeds should be placed in the collection of funds from the previous year that are used to provide "dessert"40 for the altar. [This is possible because the] court made a stipulation that should there be no need for any of the animals purchased for the daily offerings, it would be possible to [redeem the animals and] use them for mundane purposes.
Halacha 12
After Rosh Chodesh Nisan arrived, the following [procedure] would be adhered to concerning the remainder of the incense offering:41 They would transfer the consecrated quality [of the incense] to [the funds designated] to be given to the artisans [who prepared it] as their wages. These funds were then used for "the dessert of the altar," and the artisans would take the remainder of the incense offering as their wages.42 Afterwards, they would buy back the incense from [the artisans] with money from the new collection [of shekalim]. If the funds from the new collection had not arrived, they would offer the incense [purchased with funds] from the collection of the previous year.
FOOTNOTES
1.As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, this term refers to the funds collected from the half-shekalim and placed in the three large baskets. In addition, other funds remained from the half-shekalim in this chamber, and the Temple treasury had other funds from other sources.
2.This applies even to the private offerings that people would bring. A person was not required to bring the salt (or wood) to be used for his sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 5:13).
3.As mentioned in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 6:9, certain families were given the privilege of providing the wood for the altar in the Temple. If, however, the wood they brought did not suffice, additional wood would be purchased from the funds in the Temple treasury.
4.See also Halachah 12.
5.Note the Mishneh LaMelech, which states that the text contains a printing error, and that the scarlet thread is a reference to the scarlet thread used in the ceremony of the burning of the red heifer. There are, however, later commentaries that justify the standard text.
6.Based on Rashi, Ketubot 106a, it appears that this refers to the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. In the First Temple, a wall served this function. The Second Temple was much taller than the First Temple (100 cubits, as opposed to 30), and a wall only a cubit thick and 100 cubits high would not be structurally sound. Therefore, the Sages replaced the wall with two curtains. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2. Since these curtains replaced a structure of stone, they were governed by different rules from those governing the other curtains in the Temple. Among the differences was that they were not paid for from these funds.
7.One of the 83 sections of the Mishneh Torah; the second section of Sefer HaAvodah, "the Book of Divine Service."
8.In Chapter 7, Halachah 13 of those laws, the Rambam writes that the prices for the wine for the libations and the flour for the meal offerings are fixed with the suppliers every thirty days. If the price for these commodities increases on the general market, the suppliers are still obligated to provide the Temple with the commodities at the price agreed upon previously. If, however, the price for them decreases on the general market, the suppliers must sell them to the Temple at their present market value. The profit realized by the Temple treasury in this manner is referred to as "the [funds stemming from] the remainder of the libations."
Significantly, however, in those laws the Rambam mentions that these funds are used to purchase burnt offerings, and does not mention that they were used to fashion the sacred articles. The commentaries resolve this discrepancy by stating that only rarely was it necessary to purchase sacred articles. Hence, these funds were primarily used for the purchase of burnt offerings.
9.Chapter 6, Halachah 18.
10.Shekalim 7:5 relates that the Temple officers would originally require the person who discovered the animal to bring the wine libation that accompanied it. When this led to a negative outcome, they decided to have the wine libations brought from communal funds.
11.For the burnt offering sent by a gentile may be sacrificed in the Temple (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2). Were the gentile to send wine for the libations, it would not be acceptable (ibid.:5).
12.I.e., a convert without Jewish heirs. If he has heirs, and similarly for a native-born Jew who dies after having designated animals as offerings, the heirs are required to supply the wine libations.
13.A meal offering resembling a pancake, brought daily by the High Priest.
14.The Kessef Mishneh notes a contradiction between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:22, where he states that the High Priest's meal offering should be brought by his heirs after he dies. (It must be noted that a similar contradiction can be found in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah. In his commentary on Shekalim 7:5, he renders a decision similar to the ruling in this halachah, while in his commentary on Menachot 4:5, his decision is analogous to that rendered in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim.)
Rav Kapach offers the following resolution: If a High Priest dies without bringing a meal offering on a particular day, his heirs are required to bring it. On subsequent days, however, the offering should be brought from communal funds.
15.A first-born animal that has a permanent blemish must be given to a priest as a gift. It is not, however, sacrificed on the altar. One of the points of Rabbinic expertise mentioned by the Talmud is the ability to distinguish between a temporary blemish and a permanent one.
Although Tosafot, Ketubot 106a, offers this explanation, they also note that Bechorot 29b forbids accepting a wage for inspecting the blemishes of a first-born. Tosafot, however, differentiate between a wage paid by a private individual and one paid by the community. Alternatively, Tosafot explain that this refers to scholars who inspected animals before they were sacrificed. This was necessary because an animal with a blemish was unfit.
16.This statement is very significant within a totally different context. In Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to accept a wage for teaching the Oral Law. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 10 of those laws, where the Rambam writes:
Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without performing work, and derive his livelihood from charity, desecrates [God's] name, dishonors the Torah, and extinguishes the light of faith.... [See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3; Avot 4:7).]
The above ruling appears to contradict these statements. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is allowing the teachers to receive recompense because instructing the students is their occupation. Were they not charged with this responsibility, they would occupy themselves in another profession. Alternatively, they were allowed to receive payment for teaching the practical side of these activities, and not their theoretical dimensions.
17.See Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:7, which explains that it was customary that a person who never contracted ritual impurity at all be the one who takes part in the purification rite of the High Priest before he offers the red heifer. For this purpose, women would raise their children in a specific area of Jerusalem, making certain that they never came in contact with a source of impurity.
18.Although we are forbidden to plant any crops in the Sabbatical year, the Torah allows us to benefit from the small amount of produce that grows on its own accord from left-over seeds and the like. Our Sages forbade deriving personal benefit from such produce (Hilchot Shemitah 4:1-2); it may, however, be used for a mitzvah. Nevertheless, because the prohibition was only Rabbinic in origin, it was not observed carefully by the entire population. Hence, to ensure that there was a sufficient quantity of grain available for these offerings, it was necessary to hire watchmen.
19.Offered on the sixteenth of Nisan (Leviticus 23:11).
20.Offered on the holiday of Shavuot (Ibid.:17).
21.Rashi, Bava Metzia 118a, states that hiring people to watch it makes it public knowledge that it was designated for use as an offering. Hence, even men of force will refrain from harvesting these crops.
22.Hilchot Sanhedrin 23:5 states that a judge is forbidden to receive a wage for presiding over a case. Nevertheless, these judges were paid a wage, for their involvement in these cases prevented them from pursuing any other means of deriving a livelihood.
23.Ketubot 105a states ninety-nine maneh.
24.A maneh was 100 dinarim. As can be derived from Chapter 1, Halachah 3, a dinar was equivalent to the weight of 96 barleycorns of silver.
25.I.e., even if the judges do not feel it correct to impose on the community, the needs of their households are to be met.
26.Note the Chatam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 5), who states that the judges' needs should be generously provided for.
27.See Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:1-2.
28.Yoma 66a states that this ramp was built because the Jews from Egypt would pull the hair of the priest leading the goat to hurry him on his way.
29.As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the sheyarei halishcah, "the remainder within the chamber," refers to the funds that remain from the collection of shekalim after the coins were placed in the three large baskets.
30.The Kessef Mishneh notes that Ketubot 106a states that the funds for these improvements should come from Bedek HaBayit, the resources consecrated for the purpose of maintaining the Temple structure, and not from sheyarei halishcah. Rav Kapach, however, notes that the Shitah Mekubetzet quotes a different version of that Talmudic passage, which appears to be the source for the Rambam's ruling.
31.I.e., a gentile who commits himself to observing the seven universal laws commanded to Noach and his descendants. (See Hilchot Melachim 8:10, 9:1-2.) This concept is derived from the fact that the Samaritans who volunteered to assist Zerubavel in the construction of the Second Temple were not idol worshipers (Kessef Mishneh).
32.Since the funds were given with a specific intent, they could not be used for this purpose unless such a condition was made.
33.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), which explains that the word kayitz refers to the conclusion of the summer, the days of the fig and grape harvest. In addition to the mainstay of their meals, people often eat these fruits. Similarly, these offerings are brought on the altar in addition to the sacrifices that are usually offered.
34.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point, noting that although the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:4) makes a statement resembling the Rambam's ruling, it proceeds to explain that statement as referring only to a specific type of donation: a collection of used utensils. According to the Ra'avad, other resources donated to Bedek HaBayit may be used only for improvements to the Temple. The Kessef Mishneh and others justify the Rambam's ruling.
35.The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:1) cites a historical precedent: Just as the first communal sacrifices were brought on the altar in the desert on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, similarly, in subsequent years we renew the practice of bringing communal offerings by using funds from the new collection. In this vein, Rosh HaShanah 7a refers to Rosh Chodesh Nisan as "the Rosh HaShanah for the setting aside of the shekalim."
36.It is, however, as if one "forfeited a mitzvah" (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.).
37.It was customary that there be a minimum of six lambs prepared to be offered kept in the Chamber of the Lambs (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:9). This custom was also observed on the twenty-ninth of Adar. Thus, there were always four lambs left over on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (Rashi, Sh'vuot 10b).
38.For the consecrated status of an animal or an article can never be changed without its being redeemed.
39.Avodat HaMelech asks why, concerning these animals, we do not follow the same procedure mentioned in the following halachah concerning the remainder of the incense offering - i.e., that they be redeemed and then purchased again with the funds of the new collection of shekalim.
As a possible resolution, he explains that it is forbidden to use for mundane purposes a collection of spices identical to those of the incense offering (Exodus 30:38; Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 2:9). Thus, there would be no use at all for the remainder of the incense offering. For this reason, the Sages ordained that it be repurchased. Concerning the lambs, by contrast, once they are redeemed there is no difficulty in using them for mundane purposes.
40.See Halachah 9 and notes.
41.Every year, 368 measures of incense were prepared, 365 corresponding to the days of a solar year, and three extra measures for the incense offering of the High Priest on Yom Kippur (Keritot 6a). Since an ordinary lunar year has either 353, 354, or 355 days, in every ordinary year there were always several portions of incense remaining.
42.From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:5), it would appear that the artisans were given the extra portions of the incense at the beginning of the year, they kept the incense in their possession and it was not repurchased from them until the following year. According to either interpretation, the artisans would have to wait an entire year to receive this portion of their wages.
Kiddush HaChodesh - Chapter One
Halacha 1
The months of the year are lunar months, as [implied by Numbers 28:14]: "... the burnt offering of the month when it is renewed,"1 and [Exodus 12:2]: "This month shall be for you the first of months."2 [Concerning this verse,] our Sages commented:3 The Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses in the vision of prophecy an image of the moon and told him, "When you see the moon like this, sanctify it."
The years we follow are solar years, as [implied by Deuteronomy 16:1]: "Keep the month of spring."4
Halacha 2
How much longer is a solar year than a lunar year? Approximately eleven days.5 Therefore, [to correct the discrepancy between the lunar and the solar calendars,] when these additional days reach a sum of 30 - or slightly more, or slightly less - an additional month is added, causing the year to include thirteen months. This is called a full year.
[This is necessary,] because it is impossible to have a year with twelve months and an odd number of days, as [implied by Numbers 28:14]: "... of the months of the year." [On this verse, our Sages6 commented:] "You count the months of a year, but not the days of a year."
Halacha 3
The moon becomes hidden and cannot be seen for approximately two days - or [slightly] less or slightly more - every month: approximately one day before its conjunction with the sun at the end of the month, and one day after its conjunction with the sun, [before] it is sighted in the west in the evening.7
The first night when the moon is sighted in the west after being hidden is the beginning of the month. Afterwards, 29 days are counted from that day. If the moon is sighted on the night of the thirtieth [day], the thirtieth day will be Rosh Chodesh [of the following month].
If it is not sighted, Rosh Chodesh will be on the thirty-first day, and the thirtieth day will be included in the previous month. There is no need [to sight] the moon on the thirty-first night; whether or not [the moon] is sighted [the new month begins that night]. For there are no lunar months longer than thirty days.
Halacha 4
When there are twenty-nine days in a month, [because] the moon was sighted on the thirtieth night, the month is called chaseir, ["lacking"]. If the moon is not sighted and the previous month has thirty days, the month is called me'ubar ["pregnant"] or malei ["full"].
When the moon is sighted on the thirtieth night, the moon is said to have been sighted at the appropriate time. When the moon is sighted on the thirty-first night, but not on the thirtieth night, the moon is described as having been seen on the night of its fullness.
Halacha 5
The [establishment of Rosh Chodesh] based on the sighting of the moon is not the province of every individual,8 as is the Sabbath [of the weekly cycle]. [In the latter instance,] everyone counts six days and rests on the seventh day.
[The sanctification of the new month,] by contrast, has been entrusted to the court.9 [The new month does not begin] until it has been sanctified by the court, and it is the day that they establish as Rosh Chodesh that is Rosh Chodesh. [This is implied by the verse,] "This month will be for you...," - i.e., the testimony [concerning the new month] will be entrusted to you.10
Halacha 6
The [High] Court would make calculations in a manner resembling11the calculations of the astronomers, who know the location of the stars and their paths [in their orbits]. They would perform careful research to determine whether or not they would be able to sight the moon at the appropriate time - i.e., the thirtieth night.
If [the judges] determined that it was possible to sight [the moon], they would sit waiting for witnesses [to come and testify] throughout the entire thirtieth day. If witnesses came, and [the court] examined their testimony according to law, and verified the truth [of their statements], the court would sanctify [the new month]. If [the moon] was not sighted, and witnesses did not come,12 they would complete the thirtieth day, thus making the month full.
If, according to their calculations, [the judges] knew that it was impossible for the moon to be sighted, they would not sit [in session] on the thirtieth day, nor would they await [the arrival] of witnesses. If witnesses came, they would know that they are false witnesses, or that clouds appeared to them in a form resembling the moon, but it was not the real moon.
Halacha 7
It is a positive commandment of the Torah13 for the court to calculate and determine whether or not the moon will be sighted, to examine witnesses until the moon can be sanctified, and to send forth [messengers] to inform the remainder of the people on which day Rosh Chodesh was observed,14 so that they will know the day [on which to celebrate] the festivals [as implied by Leviticus 23:2]: "that you will pronounce as days of holy convocation,"15 and [as implied by Exodus 13:10]: "And you shall observe this statute in its appointed season."16
Halacha 8
The calculations and the establishment of the months and the leap years is carried out only in Eretz Yisrael [as implied by Isaiah 2:3]: "For out of Zion will emerge the law, and the word of God [will emerge] from Jerusalem."17
If a great sage who received semichah18 in Eretz Yisrael left for the diaspora without leaving a colleague of equal stature in Eretz Yisrael, he may make calculations, establish the monthly calendar, and institute leap years in the diaspora.19If, however, it becomes known to him that a sage of his stature has arisen in Eretz Yisrael - and surely, if a sage of greater stature has arisen in Eretz Yisrael - it is forbidden for him to establish [the monthly calendar] and [institute] leap years in the diaspora.20 If he transgresses, and [attempts to structure the calendar in this manner], his actions are of no consequence.21
FOOTNOTES
1.The concept of a renewal each month is relevant regarding lunar months, but not with regard to solar months. For the moon is not seen for a day or two each month, while the sun shines continually every day throughout the year.
2.Although the implication to a lunar month in this verse is not as obvious as in the former verse, there is an explicit teaching from our Sages indicating a connection, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
3.Mechilta D'Rashbi on the above verse; see also Midrash Tanchumah, Shemini, sec. 8; Menachot 29a.
4.Sanhedrin 13b (cited by the Rambam, Chapter 4, Halachah 1) explains that this verse is a charge to arrange the calendar so that the vernal (spring) equinox always falls in the month of Nisan.
5.The Rambam speaks in more precise figures in Chapter 6. At present, he is speaking in general terms to give an outline of the how the Jewish calendar is structured.
6.Megillah 5a.
7.As explained in the notes to Chapter 11, when the sun, the moon, and the earth are aligned in a straight line in that order, the moon reflects the sun's rays directly back to it, and no light can be seen from the earth. This is called the conjunction of the sun and the moon. Afterwards, the moon proceeds in its orbit away from the sun, and within approximately one day's time it will have moved a sufficient distance for it to reflect a small crescent of light to the earth. This crescent will always be sighted first in the western portion of the sky, close to the horizon.
The commentaries note that Rosh HaShanah 20b states that the moon cannot be seen for twenty-four hours every month. Aruch HaShulchan (Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, sec. 88) explains that there is no contradiction to the Rambam's statements here. There are twenty-four hours every month in which it is impossible to see the moon. There is in addition, however, approximately one day every month when the probability of seeing the moon is very low.
8.I.e., in contrast to the Sabbath, a person who thinks that he has sighted the moon may not begin counting the days of the new month on his own initiative. Rather, he must go to the Sanhedrin and present his testimony to them, and it is they who decide whether or not to begin the new month. (Note the Rambam's comments in Sefer HaMitzvot , Positive Commandment 153, where he elaborates on this theme.)
9.I.e., the Sanhedrin, the High Court that held sessions in Jerusalem until the Temple's destruction, and afterwards was located in various cities throughout Eretz Yisrael.
10.As explained in Rosh HaShanah 22a, this command was addressed to Moses and Aaron. The words "to you" are seemingly unnecessary. Thus, they are interpreted to mean that just as this command is being given to you, so too, the fulfillment of it in subsequent times will be the responsibility of men like you - i.e., the judges of Israel's High Court. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 8, which mentions an application of this principle. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.)
11.Rav Kapach explains that the Rambam chose his wording exactly. The calculations of the High Court merely "resembled the calculations of the astronomers." In truth, however, they operated under a different system. As the Rambam explains in Chapter 17, Halachah 24, the prophets and the descendants of the tribe of Issachar had a method of calculating the movement of the sun, the moon, and the stars, which had been transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai. Although this method resembled the method of calculations employed by gentile scholars, it was unique and different. (See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 2:8.)
This method of calculation was lost to our people shortly after the composition of the Mishnah. Subsequent texts, including the Rambam's own system of calculation, as explained from Chapter 11 onward, were based on Greek sources.
12.Because the moon was covered with clouds or for other similar reasons. (See Chapter 18, Halachah 1.)
13.See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 153) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 4), which consider this to be one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
14.The Rambam mentions three activities imperative on the court in fulfillment of this mitzvah: the calculation of the time for the sighting of the moon, the examination of the witnesses, and the notification of the Jewish people.
It is interesting to note that the structure of Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh represents somewhat of a departure from the Rambam's usual style of presentation in the Mishneh Torah. He generally begins by citing a mitzvah and the proof-text from which it is derived, and afterwards he describes it. In this instance, the Rambam begins by describing the basic ground rules for the sighting of the moon, and afterwards he explains the mitzvah that is associated with this sighting.
Rav Kapach suggests that this approach could have been taken in reaction to the position of Rav Sa'adiah Gaon, who maintains that the fundamental aspect of determining the calendar was not the sighting of the moon, but rather the calculations of the Sages. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 2:6).
15.As stated in the conclusion of Chapter 2, this verse is an indication that the determination of the days on which the festivals are to be celebrated - and thus the establishment of the monthly calendar on which the former depends - was entrusted to the Jewish High Court.
16.This verse refers to the Paschal sacrifice and teaches us that there is an obligation to "observe this statute," bring the Paschal sacrifice, "at its appointed time" - i.e., in the spring. This alludes to the second dimension of this mitzvah, the establishment of leap years so that the holiday of Pesach will always fall in the spring.
Note the Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 1), who cites opinions that consider these two dimensions - the establishment of Rosh Chodesh and the decision whether to observe leap years - as two separate mitzvot.
The Rambam's citation of this proof-text has attracted the attention of commentaries because of another difficulty. In Menachot 36b, the meaning of this verse is the subject of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosse HaG'lili. While the simple meaning of the phrase "this statute" is the Paschal sacrifice - and this is the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva - Rabbi Yosse HaG'lili interprets the phrase as referring to the mitzvah of wearing tefillin.
What is significant is that in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam cites both the interpretations of Rabbi Akiva (in this halachah) and that of Rabbi Yosse HaG'lili (Hilchot Tefillin 4:10) as Torah law. The commentaries (see Radbaz, Vol. V, Responsum 1693) explain that this is indicative of a general pattern within the Mishneh Torah. The Rambam's intent in composing the Mishneh Torah was to provide us with a text of Torah practice, not a source book explaining the derivation of Torah law. He refers to verses only when they are necessary as supports. Therefore, in each instance he cites the proof-text that has the most obvious connection to the law or principle he is referring to, although it is possible that there is another verse from which this law was actually derived.
17.See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., where the Rambam explains the connection of this mitzvah - and the Jewish people as a whole - to Eretz Yisrael in stirring terms.
18.The ordination conveyed upon the Sages from Sage to Sage, in a chain that began with Moses himself. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 4.)
19.Yevamot 122a relates that Rabbi Akiva journeyed to Neharde'a for this purpose, and from the narrative in Berachot 63a, it would appear that Chanina, Rabbi Yehoshua's nephew, lived in Babylon and ordained the order of the calendar from there for several years.
20. Berachot, ibid., states that the Sages of Eretz Yisrael ordered Chanina to stop ordaining the calendar, because "the kids that you left behind have grown and become billy-goats with horns" - i.e., the Sages who were once on a lower level of understanding had matured and achieved a par with him.
21. The Rambam is speaking about the era when the beginning of the new month was determined through the testimony of witnesses. The use of the fixed calendar we follow at present is discussed in Chapter 5.
Kiddush HaChodesh - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
The only testimony that is acceptable with regard to [the sighting of] the new [moon] is that of two1 adult males2 who are fit to testify regarding all matters.3 Women and slaves,4 by contrast, are like other unacceptable witnesses and may not testify.
When a father and a son both see the new moon, they should both go the court to testify. Not because testimony regarding the [the sighting of] the new [moon] is acceptable [from witnesses who are] related, but because one of them may be disqualified because he is a thief or for other reasons, and the other will be able to join with another person and give testimony.
A person who is disqualified from serving as a witness by Rabbinical decree,5 although he is acceptable according to the law of the Torah itself, may not serve as a witness with regard to [the sighting of] the new [moon].
Halacha 2
According to the law of the Torah, there is no need to be precise regarding testimony about [the sighting of] the new [moon]. For even if the new moon was sanctified on the basis of the testimony of witnesses, and later it was discovered that those witnesses had perjured themselves,6 [the new moon] remains sanctified.7
Accordingly, in the early generations, testimony regarding [the sighting of] the new [moon] was accepted from any Jew [without further enquiry], for any Jew can be presumed to be an acceptable witness unless one knows with certainty that he is unacceptable. When the followers of Baithos8 began conducting themselves in a debased manner and would hire people9 to testify that they had seen the moon when in fact they had not, the court decreed that it would accept testimony regarding [the sighting of] the new [moon] only from witnesses whom the court knew to be acceptable. Moreover, they would examine and question their testimony.
Halacha 3
Therefore, if the [High] Court did not know [the character of] the witnesses who sighted the moon, the inhabitants of the city where the moon was sighted would send other witnesses10 together with the witnesses who saw the moon to substantiate their character to the court, and inform [the judges] that they are acceptable [witnesses]. [Only] afterwards would the court accept their [testimony].
Halacha 4
The court would make calculations in a manner resembling the calculations of the astronomers, and would know whether the position of the moon - when it would be sighted - would be to the north of the sun, or to its south,11 if its [crescent] would be wide or narrow,12 and the direction in which its corners would be pointed.13
When the witnesses came to testify, they would ask them: "Where did you see [the moon]: to the north or to the south [of the sun]?", "In which direction were its corners pointed?", "How high and how wide did it appear to you?" If their replies were suitable, their testimony was accepted. If their replies were not suitable, their testimony was not accepted.
Halacha 5
If the witnesses say, "We saw [the reflection of the moon] in water," or "...[its form] behind the clouds," or "...[its reflection] in a mirror," [what they] saw is of no [consequence], and this sighting cannot be used as the basis for sanctifying [the new moon].14 [The same law applies if the witnesses say,] "We saw a portion [of the moon] in the heavens, and a portion of [its form] behind the clouds," "...a portion [reflected] in water," or "...a portion [reflected] in a mirror."
If one [potential witness says,] "I saw it and it appeared to me approximately two storeys high," and another [potential witness] says, "It was three storeys high," their testimonies may be combined15 [and the moon sanctified on this basis]. If, however, one says "It was approximately three storeys high," and the other says, "It was approximately five storeys high," their testimonies may not be joined together.16 Either one of them, however, may join together with another witness who gives identical testimony, or [who gives testimony] involving a discrepancy of merely one storey.
Halacha 6
If witnesses say, "We saw [the moon] without concentrating our attention, and, afterwards, when we concentrated our attention with the intent of sighting it so that we could testify, we did not see it," this is not considered [valid] testimony, and it cannot serve as the basis for sanctifying [the new moon]. Perhaps clouds came together, and appeared like the moon, and afterwards became dispersed.17
If witnesses say, "We saw [the moon] on the twenty-ninth [day] in the morning in the east before sunrise, and [afterwards,] in the evening, we saw it in the west on the thirtieth night," their testimony is believed, and the moon can be sanctified on this basis. [The rationale is] that they saw [the moon] at its appropriate time. [Their testimony] about [what they thought] they saw in the morning is disregarded. We need not pay any attention to what they saw in the morning, for it is obvious that it was the conjunction of clouds that appeared to them as the moon.18
Similarly, if [witnesses claim] to have seen the moon at its appropriate time, but it was not seen on the thirty-first night, their [testimony] is believed. For what is significant for us is only the sighting [of the moon] on the thirtieth night.19
Halacha 7
What is the process through which the testimony regarding the sighting of the moon is accepted? Anyone who saw the moon and is fit to testify20 should come to the court. The [judges] should bring them all to a single place,21 and should make a large feast for them, so that people will come regularly. The pair [of witnesses] who arrive first are examined first according to the questions mentioned previously.22 The one of greater stature is invited [into a private chamber] first and asked these questions. If his testimony is accurate according to [the data that the court arrives at through] calculations, they invite his colleague in. If their statements are comparable,23 their testimony is substantiated.
[Afterwards,] the remaining pairs are asked questions of a broader nature. [In truth,] their testimony is not required at all, [and they are being asked] only so they will not depart disheartened, so that they will come frequently [in the future].24
Halacha 8
Afterwards - i.e., after [the witnesses'] testimony is substantiated - the head of the court declares, "It has been sanctified." And all the people respond, "It has been sanctified. It has been sanctified."
A minimum of three judges is required to sanctify the new moon.25 Similarly, the calculations [regarding the moon's position] must be made by three judges. The new moon is sanctified only when it is sighted at its appropriate time.26 Moreover, the moon is sanctified only during the day.27 If it was sanctified at night, the sanctification is of no consequence.
Furthermore, even if the court and the entire Jewish people saw the moon, but the court did not declare that "It has been sanctified"28 before the nightfall beginning the thirty-first day, or if the witnesses were cross-examined, but afterwards the court was not able to declare that "It has been sanctified" before the nightfall beginning the thirty-first day,29 it should not be sanctified,30 and the month should be full. Despite the fact that the moon was sighted on the thirtieth night, it is the thirty- first day that will be Rosh Chodesh. For [the sanctification of the new month] is not established by the sighting of the moon, but by the court that declares, "It has been sanctified."31
Halacha 9
If the court themselves see [the new moon] at the conclusion of the twenty-ninth day, before a star has emerged on the thirtieth night, the court may declare, "It has been sanctified; it has been sanctified,"32 for it is still day.33
If [the judges] sight the moon on the night of the thirtieth day after two stars have appeared,34 [they should adhere to the following procedure]. On the morrow, two other judges join one of the three [to form a court]. The other two [judges] then testify before [this court] of three, who then [sanctify the new month].
Halacha 10
Once the court sanctifies the new month, it remains sanctified regardless of whether they erred unwittingly, they were led astray [by false witnesses], or they were forced [to sanctify it].35 We are required to calculate [the dates of] the festivals based on the day that they sanctified [as the beginning of the new month].
Even if [a person] knows that [the court] erred, he is obligated to rely on them,36 for the matter is entrusted to them alone. The One who commanded us to observe the festivals is the One who commanded [us] to rely on them, as [implied by Leviticus 23:2]: "Which you will pronounce as days of holy convocation."37
FOOTNOTES
1.For all evidence must be substantiated by the testimony of two witnesses, as implied by Deuteronomy 19:15 which states, "The testimony of a single witness will not stand." See Hilchot Edut, ch. 5.
2.Both these concepts are implied by the Hebrew word anashim.
3.See Hilchot Edut, Chapters 9-10, 12-14.
4.Who are not acceptable for testimony in court (Hilchot Edut 9:2,4). The slaves referred to here are "Canaanite slaves," gentiles purchased as slaves. A Jewish servant, eved ivri, may give testimony in court on this and other matters.
5.E.g., gamblers, usurers, and other individuals described in Hilchot Edut, Chapter 11.
6.More particularly, the term used by the Rambam, zomemim refers to witnesses who claimed that they saw the moon while they were located in a specific place at a specific time, and later it was proven that they had been in another place at that time. (See Hilchot Edut, Chapter 18.)
7.See Halachah 10.
8.Avot D'Rabbi Natan 5:2 relates that Antigonus of Socho had two talented students, Tzadok and Baithos. When Antigonus taught: "Do not be like students serving a master in order to receive a reward," they turned away in disgust, commenting, "Is it proper for a worker to toil the entire day without receiving any recompense?"
They began splinter groups that rejected the core of Jewish practice and coveted material wealth. They found that they could not convince the majority of the people to reject the Torah entirely, so they adopted a different tactic. They claimed that they were true to Torah, but the only Torah that was Godly was the written law. The oral law, they maintained, was merely a human invention.
This thesis was only a ruse to sway the people from the performance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, the Sages would refer to all those who deny the Torah and its tradition as Sadducees (from Tzadok) or Baithosees (from Baithos) [the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avot 1:3]. Not only did these individuals scorn Torah observance themselves, but they tried, as indicated by this halachah, to undermine the observance of the Jewish nation as a whole.
Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. Many original printings and manuscripts state minnim, "non-believers," rather than "the followers of Baithos." Similarly, the Rambam's source, Rosh HaShanah 2:1, uses this term. Some consider this as a reference to the early Christians.
9.Rosh HaShanah 22b relates that the Sadducees paid witnesses 400 zuzim to testify falsely with regard to the sighting of the moon.
10.The Rambam uses a plural term, implying that two character witnesses are required. This prerequisite is apparent from Rosh HaShanah 22b. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 2:1), by contrast, requires only one character witness.
11.As the Rambam states in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 2:7, this refers to the latitude of the moon. This subject is explained in Chapter 16.
12.As the Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the size of the moon's crescent grows as it moves further away from the sun.
13.See Chapter 19 for an explanation of how the court can determine these matters.
14.To sanctify the moon, it is necessary to see the moon itself - and not its reflection - and to see it clearly, not as it is hidden by clouds.
15.Although there is a discrepancy between them, the two testimonies are not considered to contradict each other, since it is possible for a person to err slightly in making such an estimation.
16.For this discrepancy is too great for the two to be considered a single statement.
17.Rosh HaShanah 24a and 25a mentions instances where the conjunction of the clouds appeared to resemble the moon.
18.The Rambam's statements are based on his interpretation of the difference of opinion between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri mentioned in Rosh HaShanah 2:9. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah for a detailed analysis of this matter.)
Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri maintains that the witnesses' testimony should be disregarded, because it cannot possibly be true. Everyone knows that, at the beginning of the month, the moon always appears on the western horizon for a brief period after the setting of the sun. At this time of the month, seeing it in the morning, before sunrise, is impossible. (See Chapters 15 and 17 for an explanation of this phenomenon.) Since the testimony of these witnesses contains an obvious error, the testimony should be disregarded entirely.
Rabban Gamliel, as his opinion is explained by the Rambam, was aware of this astronomical concept as well. Nevertheless, in the instance mentioned in the Mishnah, he knew that according to the calculations, it would have been possible for the moon to have been sighted on the night mentioned by the witnesses. Why then, he argued, should their testimony be discounted entirely because of the error they made regarding the morning. The fact that then, they mistook the condensation of clouds for the moon should not cause their testimony to be disregarded entirely.
19.This represents a parallel difference of opinion mentioned in Rosh HaShanah (op. cit.). Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos maintains that it is impossible for the moon to be sighted on one night, and then for it not to be sighted on the following night.
Rabban Gamliel (as his position is explained by the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah) accepted the witnesses' testimony in this instance, because he knew that, according to the calculations, it was possible for the moon to be sighted on the thirtieth night. The fact that it was not sighted again on the thirty-first night was merely a matter of circumstance: no one was trying to see it, their view was obstructed by clouds, or the like.
20.I.e., there is no benefit to be derived from a witness whose testimony will not be accepted by the court because of his conduct - e.g., a transgressor, a gambler, or a usurer.
21.Rosh HaShanah 23b states that there was a large courtyard in Jerusalem called "the house of Ya'azak" where the witnesses would gather.
22.In Halachah 4.
23.See Halachah 5.
24.The Rambam (based on Rosh HaShanah 2:7) is communicating an important lesson in human dynamics. Since the court might need these witnesses in the future, it is important that they feel that consideration is shown to them, and that their coming was not futile.
25.Rosh HaShanah 25b derives this concept as follows: The commandment "This month shall be for you..." was addressed to both Moses and Aaron, implying that at least two judges are necessary. A court must be composed of an odd number of judges, and hence a third judge is required.
26.I.e., as the Rambam continues to explain, for the new month to be sanctified, the moon must be sighted on the thirtieth night, the witnesses must testify on the thirtieth day, and the court must declare the month to be sanctified - all before sunset of that day.
27.Based on Psalms 81:4-5, Rosh HaShanah 25b draws an equation between the sighting of the new moon and the delivery of a judgment. Just as a judgment may be delivered only during the day, so too, the mitzvah of the sanctifying the new moon applies only by day.
28.In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 3:1, the Rambam explains that one might think that since the court and the entire Jewish people saw the moon, there was no need to sanctify the new month. Therefore, as he concludes in this halachah, it is necessary to emphasize that it is the sanctification of the court that establishes the new month, and not the sighting of the moon alone.
29.Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) explains that although a decision regarding a monetary case may be rendered at night if the testimony was received by the court during the day, this concept does not apply regarding the sanctification of the new month. The court must actually sanctify the new month during the day.
30.Based on Chapter 3, Halachot 15-18, it would appear that the Rambam's intent is that, since the new month was not sanctified at its appropriate time, the court endeavors to have the witnesses' testimony disqualified. If, however, the witnesses' testimony is substantiated despite the court's efforts, the month can be sanctified retroactively.
31.As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, the mitzvah of sanctifying the new month has been entrusted to the court.
32.Rosh HaShanah 25b explains that this teaches us that hearing the testimony of the witnesses is not more effective than the actual sighting of the moon itself.
33.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 3:1), the Rambam writes that although the sun has set, the night does not begin until the appearance of the stars, and it is still possible to sanctify the new moon.
(The Rambam's wording in this halachah and in the related portions of his Commentary on the Mishnah have raised questions concerning his conception of the limits of the day, the night, and the intermediate period referred to as beyn hash'mashot. See the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1379), the Ralbach, the Or Sameach and others, who address themselves to this issue.)
It is also significant to mention that Rashi (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.) and others differ with the Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah, and consider it as referring to the citing of the moon at the conclusion of the thirtieth day, on the eve of the thirty- first.
34.From this time onward, they can no longer sanctify the new month on the basis of their sighting alone. Instead, the procedure outlined by the Rambam must be followed.
35.Significantly, instead of mentioning the court as being forced to sanctify the month on the wrong day, Rosh HaShanah 25a states "even if they purposefully sanctified the moon on the wrong day" - i.e., they accepted the testimony of witnesses even when they knew that it was flimsy. The Rambam chooses not to mention such an instance, and instead quotes the Mechilta D'Rashbi and the Sifra.
36.Rosh HaShanah 2:10 relates that once Rabbi Yehoshua differed with Rabban Gamliel concerning the acceptance of the testimony of witnesses with regard to Rosh HaShanah. Since Rabban Gamliel was the head of the High Court, his opinion was accepted. To emphasize the importance of following the necessity for uniform adherence to the decisions of the court, Rabban Gamliel ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to appear before him carrying his staff and his wallet on the day that Rabbi Yehoshua thought should be considered as Yom Kippur.
After consulting with his colleagues, Rabbi Yehoshua obeyed Rabban Gamliel's instructions. Afterwards, Rabban Gamliel honored Rabbi Yehoshua for his humility and deference to the court's authority.
37.אתם, meaning "which" in the above verse, can also mean "you," when vocalized differently. Thus, the authority of "you," the Jewish court to whom this matter is entrusted, is emphasized more powerfully (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.).
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Monday, Adar Sheini 8, 5703 - 10 March 2014
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 44-48.
Tanya: Clearly, the purpose (p. 163)...out of existence. (p. 165).
My father writes in one of his letters: A single act is better than a thousand groans. Our G-d lives, and Torah and mitzvot are eternal; quit the groaning and work hard in actual avoda, and G-d will be gracious to you.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
------
Daily Thought:
Stories of Life
Life does not tell stories. People do.
Life provides no more than raw materials. Raw enough for us to look back and construct at least two versions of our own biography: one a prison, the other a palace.
This is the greatest kindness the Master of Life has given us: He has placed His own pen in our hands, so that we may enjoy the dignity of a palace constructed by our own design.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment