TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• BURIAL SOCIETY DAY
The Chevrah Kadisha (Jewish Burial Societies) hold their annual get-together and feast on Adar 7th. This is based on the tradition that G-d Himself buried Moses on this day -- granting them a respite from their labors.
• SANCTIFICATION OF THE MOON
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the sky, we recite a special blessing called Kiddush Levanah, "the sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that very soon, the light of G d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. Once 15 days have passed, the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our knowledgebase.
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• MOSES' BIRTH & PASSING (1393 and 1273 BCE)
Moses was born in Egypt on the 7th of Adar of the year 2368 from creation (1393 BCE) and passed away on his 120th birthday -- Adar 7, 2488 (1273 BCE)
Links:
A brief biography
The Birth of a Leader
The Head
Moses Disappears
More on Moses
• THE SPANISH INQUISITION (1481)
The Inquisition was created in the twelfth century to find "Christian heretics" who would be punished or killed. Eventually, Jews too were open to such charges of heresy, simply for being Jewish; and torture was routinely used to extract "confessions." Over the years, the inquisition, which operated with Papal consent, spread to many countries.
In 1481 the Inquisition began to function in Spain to expose the secret Jews, known as the Anusim or Marranos. This Inquisition was anti-Jewish more than in any previous countries. The first public sentencing and burning alive of six marrano men and one woman by the Spanish Inquisition was held on this date in Seville in Southern Spain.
Following the start of the Spanish Inquisition many Jews fled Spain (see "Today in Jewish History" for Sivan 4).
DAILY QUOTE:
Bless for us, L-rd our G-d, this year and all the varieties of its produce for good; and bestow dew and rain for blessing upon the face of the earth...--Ninth blessing of the Amidah (winter version)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Tzav, 1st Portion Leviticus 6:1-6:11 with Rashi
• Chapter 6
1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: That is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn with it. ב. צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ:
Command Aaron: Heb. צַו. The expression צַו always denotes urging [to promptly and meticulously fulfill a particular commandment] for the present and also for future generations. Rabbi Simeon taught: Scripture especially needs to urge [people to fulfill commandments,] where monetary loss is involved. — [Torath Kohanim 6:1]
צו את אהרן: אין צו אלא לשון זרוז מיד ולדורות. אמר ר' שמעון ביותר צריך הכתוב לזרז במקום שיש בו חסרון כיס:
This is the law of the burnt-offering…: This passage comes to teach us that the burning of [sacrificial] fats and parts [of an animal] is valid throughout the entire night [following the day it is offered up]. — [Meg. 21a] And [this passage also] teaches us regarding invalid sacrifices: which one, if it has already been brought up [on the altar], must be taken down, and which one, if it has been brought up [on the altar], need not be taken down. [And how do we know the latter case from Scripture?] Because every [instance of] תּוֹרַת [in the Torah] comes to include. [Thus here, it comes] to say that there is one law (תּוֹרָה for all sacrifices that go up [on the altar], even invalid ones, namely, that if they have already been brought up [on the altar], they need not be taken down. [However,]
זאת תורת העלה וגו': הרי הענין הזה בא ללמד על הקטר חלבים ואיברים שיהא כשר כל הלילה, וללמד על הפסולין איזה אם עלה ירד, ואיזה אם עלה לא ירד, שכל תורה לרבות הוא בא, לומר תורה אחת לכל העולים, ואפילו פסולין, שאם עלו לא ירדו:
That is the burnt-offering: Heb. הִוא הַָעֹלָה [While the words תּוֹרַת הַָעֹלָה include invalid offerings, the words הִוא הַָעֹלָה come] to exclude the case of animals which have cohabited with a human, whether the animal was an active or a passive party to the transgression, and similar cases, in which their becoming invalid did not occur within the Holy [Temple precincts], but rather, they became invalid before they even arrived at the courtyard [of the Holy Temple]. - [Torath Kohanim 6:3]
הוא העלה: למעט את הרובע ואת הנרבע וכיוצא בהן, שלא היה פסולן בקדש, שנפסלו קודם שבאו לעזרה:
3. And the kohen shall don his linen tunic, and he shall don his linen trousers on his flesh. And he shall lift out the ashes into which the fire has consumed the burnt offering upon the altar, and put them down next to the altar. ג. וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִלְבַּשׁ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
his linen tunic: Heb. מִדּוֹ, lit. his measure. This is כֻּתֹּנֶת, a long tunic (see Exod. 28:39:40). Now why does it say מִדּוֹ ? [To teach us] that it must be [made] according to his size [of the kohen wearing it]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:7]
מדו בד: היא הכתונת. ומה תלמוד לומר מדו, שתהא כמדתו:
on his flesh: i.e., nothing must interpose between [the trousers and his flesh]. — [Zev. 19a]
על בשרו: שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בנתיים:
and he shall lift out the ashes: He would scoop out a full pan of ashes from the innermost [mass of ashes from] burnt out sacrificial parts [on the altar] and deposit them at the east side of the ramp [that led up to the altar (see Exod. 20:23, Rashi)]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:11; Tamid 28b]
והרים את הדשן: היה חותה מלא מחתה מן המאוכלות הפנימיות ונותנן במזרחו של כבש:
the ashes into which the fire has consumed the burnt-offering: and made it into ashes, and some of these ashes the kohen should lift out and put them down next to the altar.
הדשן אשר תאכל האש את העלה: ועשאתה דשן, מאותו דשן ירים תרומה ושמו אצל המזבח:
upon the altar: If he finds any [animal] parts which were not yet consumed, he must put them back onto the altar, after raking the burning embers in all directions and scooping out some of the innermost [ashes], because it is said, “the burnt-offering upon the altar,” [i.e., while it is still in the form of a burnt-offering, and not yet ashes, it must remain “upon the altar”]. — [Yoma 45a]
על המזבח: מצא אברים שעדיין לא נתעכלו, מחזירן על המזבח, לאחר שחתה גחלים אילך ואילך ונטל מן הפנימיות, שנאמר את העולה על המזבח:
4. He shall then take off his garments and put on other garments, and he shall take out the ashes to a clean place outside the camp. ד. וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל מָקוֹם טָהוֹר:
He shall then take off his garments: This is not an obligation, but proper practice, that, by taking out the ashes, he should not soil the garments in which he constantly officiates. [By analogy:] The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master, he should not wear when he mixes a glass [of wine] for his master. Hence, [the verse continues,] “and put on other garments,” inferior to those [garments of the kehunah he had been wearing till now]. — [Yoma 23b]
ופשט את בגדיו: אין זו חובה אלא דרך ארץ, שלא ילכלך בהוצאת הדשן בגדים שהוא משמש בהן תמיד. בגדים שבשל בהן קדרה לרבו אל ימזוג בהן כוס לרבו, לכך ולבש בגדים אחרים פחותין מהן: והוציא את הדשן - הצבור בתפוח, כשהוא רבה ואין מקום למערכה, מוציאו משם. ואין זה חובה בכל יום, אבל התרומה חובה בכל יום
and he shall take out the ashes: [By contrasting verse 3, “And he shall lift out (וְהֵריִם) the ashes,” with verse 4 here, “And he shall take out (וְהוֹצִיא) the ashes,” we see that there were two distinct obligations with regards to removing ashes from the altar: a) תּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, “lifting out” some of the innermost ashes from the altar and placing them next to the altar, and b) הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, “taking out” the heap of ashes from atop the altar when they became overflowing, to a place “outside the camp.” Thus, our verse here, “And he shall take out the ashes,” refers to those ashes] which were heaped up in the apple-shaped pile [of ashes on top of the altar]. When this pile became so large that there was no longer any room on the wood-pile, he [the kohen] would take it out of there. Now, this was not a daily obligation (Tamid 28b), but lifting out [some innermost ashes] was a daily obligation. — [Tamid 20a]
:
5. And the fire on the altar shall burn on it; it shall not go out. The kohen shall kindle wood upon it every morning, and upon it, he shall arrange the burnt offering and cause the fats of the peace offerings to [go up in] smoke upon it. ה. וְהָאֵשׁ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ לֹא תִכְבֶּה וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר וְעָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ הָעֹלָה וְהִקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים:
And the fire on the altar shall burn on it: Heb. תּוּקַד. [In this passage,] we have many phrases employing the term יְקִידָה, “burning: ” עַל מוֹקְדָה, וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ (verse 2), הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ וְהָאֵשׁ עַל (verse 5), and אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ (verse 6). All these are expounded on in Tractate Yoma (45a), where [it is discussed how] our Rabbis differ regarding the number of wood-piles [that had to be arranged on that altar].
והאש על המזבח תוקד בו: ריבה כאן יקידות הרבה על מוקדה, ואש המזבח תוקד בו, והאש על המזבח תוקד בו, אש תמיד תוקד על המזבח, כולן נדרשו במסכת יומא (מג ב) שנחלקו רבותינו במנין המערכות שהיו שם:
and upon it, he shall arrange the burnt-offering: [This teaches us that] the תָּמִיד עוֹלַת, the [morning] daily burnt-offering, must come first [in the order of sacrifices offered up on the altar]. - [Pes. 58b]
וערך עליה העלה: עולת תמיד היא תקדים:
the fats of the peace-offerings: Heb. עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים, [i.e.] if they bring peace-offerings [they are to be offered up on that fire]. Our Rabbis derived from here, however, “with it (עָלֶיהָ), i.e., with the morning burnt-offering [i.e., after the morning burnt-offering, but not after the evening burnt-offering], complete (הַשְּׁלֵם) all the sacrifices [of the day].” Hence, there must be no sacrifice offered after the [evening] daily burnt-offering. - [Pes. 58b]
חלבי השלמים: אם יביאו שם שלמים. ורבותינו למדו מכאן עליה, על עולת הבוקר השלם כל הקרבנות כולם. מכאן שלא יהא דבר מאוחר לתמיד של בין הערבים:
6. A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not go out. ו. אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא תִכְבֶּה:
A continuous fire: Heb. אֵשׁ תָּמִיד, the fire regarding which it says, “[to kindle the lamps] continually (תָּמִיד)” (Exod. 27:20) this fire must also be kindled from [the fire] on the outer altar. — [Yoma 45b]
אש תמיד: אש שנאמר בה תמיד, היא שמדליקין בה את הנרות, שנאמר בה (שמות כז כ) להעלות נר תמיד, אף היא מעל המזבח החיצון תוקד:
it shall not go out: [Since “it shall not go out” is stated twice, once in verse 5 and a second time here,] anyone who extinguishes the fire on top of the altar, transgresses two negative commandments.
לא תכבה: המכבה אש על המזבח עובר בשני לאוין:
7. And this is the law of the meal offering: that Aaron's sons shall bring it before the Lord, to the front of the altar. ז. וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
And this is the law of the meal-offering: Heb. וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה. [Since the תּוֹרַת (law) is always inclusive, the Torah teaches us that there is] one law for all meal-offerings, to require that they have oil and frankincense, as explained in this section. For one might think that only meal-offerings of ordinary Israelites [i.e., non- kohanim] need oil and frankincense, because their meal-offerings require scooping out (קְמִיצָה). How do we know [that] meal-offerings of kohanim, which are burned in their entirety (see verse 16 below), [also require oil and frankincense]? Scripture, therefore, תּוֹרַת [an inclusive term, in this case coming to include all meal-offerings in the requirement of oil and frankincense]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:24]
וזאת תורת המנחה: תורה אחת לכולן להטעינן שמן ולבונה האמורין בענין. שיכול אין לי טעונות שמן ולבונה אלא מנחת ישראל שהיא נקמצת, מנחת כהנים שהיא כליל מנין, תלמוד לומר תורת:
shall bring it: This refers to bringing the offering near the south-west ern corner [of the altar]. [And how do we know that it must be brought near this specific corner? Because the verse says:]
הקרב אתה: היא הגשה בקרן מערבית דרומית:
before the Lord: This refers to the west ern [side of the altar], which faced the Tent of Meeting, [and then it says:]
לפני ה': הוא מערב שהוא לצד אהל מועד אל פני המזבח - הוא הדרום, שהוא פניו של מזבח, שהכבש נתון לאותו הרוח:
to the front of the altar: This refers to the south [side of the altar], which is the front of the altar for the ramp-כֶּבֶשׂ, [leading up to it] was placed on that side [of the altar. Hence, the south-western corner of the altar]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:26]
:
8. And he shall lift out of it in his fist, from the fine flour of the meal offering and from its oil and all the frankincense that is on the meal offering, and he shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke on the altar as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. ח. וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ מִסֹּלֶת הַמִּנְחָה וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ וְאֵת כָּל הַלְּבֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ אַזְכָּרָתָהּ לַיהֹוָה:
And he shall lift out of it: i.e., out of what is attached, meaning that [the amount of the mixture from where he lifts out,] should be a complete tenth [of an ephah,] at one time, namely at the time of the scooping. — [Torath Kohanim 6:27]
והרים ממנו: מהמחובר, שיהא עשרון שלם בבת אחת בשעת קמיצה:
in his fist: [This teaches us that] he may not make a measure for a fistful [but rather, he must use his fingers directly]. - [Torath Kohanim 6:27]
בקמצו: שלא יעשה מדה לקומץ:
from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil: [Now, we already know that the flour to be scooped up is mixed with oil, so why does the verse specifically mention oil here?] From here, we learn that the fistful [must be taken] from a place [in the meal-offering] where there is an abundance of its oil [i.e., where the oil is mixed thoroughly with the flour]. — [Sotah 14b]
מסלת המנחה ומשמנה: מכאן שקומץ ממקום שנתרבה שמנה:
the meal-offering: [I.e., from that particular meal-offering;] it must not be mingled with another [meal-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:27]
המנחה: שלא תהא מעורבת באחרת:
and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering, and he shall cause to [go up in] smoke: [meaning] that he must gather up [all] its frankincense after the scooping, and cause it to go up in smoke. And since Scripture specifically stated this law only in one case of the meal-offerings mentioned in וַיִּקְרָא (see Lev.2:2), Scripture found it necessary to repeat this section [including this law], to include all [kinds of] meal-offerings, in accordance with their law.
ואת כל הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטיר: שמלקט את לבונתה לאחר קמיצה ומקטירו. ולפי שלא פירש כן אלא באחת מן המנחות בויקרא (ב, א - ג), הוצרך לשנות פרשה זו, לכלול כל המנחות כמשפטן:
9. And Aaron and his sons shall eat whatever is left over from it. It shall be eaten as unleavened bread in a holy place; they shall eat it in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. ט. וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִמֶּנָּה יֹאכְלוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ:
in a holy place: And which place is this? In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. — [Torath Kohanim 6:32]
במקום קדש: ואיזהו, בחצר אהל מועד:
10. It shall not be baked leavened. [As] their portion, I have given it to them from My fire offerings. It is a holy of holies, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering. י. לֹא תֵאָפֶה חָמֵץ חֶלְקָם נָתַתִּי אֹתָהּ מֵאִשָּׁי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם:
It shall not be baked leavened. [As] their portion: [literally, “It must not be baked leavened, their portion.” I.e., from the juxtaposition of these words, is derived the law that] even the leftover portions [of the meal-offering, which go to the kohanim,] are prohibited to be leavened. — [Men. 55a]
לא תאפה חמץ חלקם: אף השירים אסורים בחמץ:
like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering: [This refers to two different cases:] “Like a sin-offering” refers to the meal-offering of a sinner. [How is this sacrifice like a sin-offering? Insofar as just as the sin-offering must be sacrificed for that specific purpose, so too, the חוֹטֵא מִנְחַת] if [the kohen] performed the scooping while having in mind that should not be for the purpose of this sacrifice, it is invalid. And “like a guilt-offering” refers to a meal- offering brought as a voluntary donation. Therefore, if [the kohen] performed the scooping while having in mind that it should not be for the purpose of this sacrifice, it is still valid. — [Torath Kohanim 6:35]
כחטאת וכאשם: מנחת חוטא הרי היא כחטאת, לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה. מנחת נדבה הרי היא כאשם, לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה כשרה:
11. Any male among Aaron's sons may eat it. [This is] an eternal statute for your generations from the fire offerings of the Lord. Anything that touches them shall become holy. יא. כָּל זָכָר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן יֹאכְלֶנָּה חָק עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ:
Any male: Even if he has a blemish [which disqualifies him from performing the sacrificial service]. And why is this stated? If [this refers] to eating [the meal-offering, this is already stated [in Lev. 21:22, where Scripture says, referring to a kohen who has a blemish], “The offerings to his God from the holiest of the holy things [and from the holy things he may eat].” Rather, [Scripture here comes] to include blemished kohanim in the equal division [of meal-offerings, among all the kohanim [of the watch (מִשְׁמָר) , see Rashi Lev. 7:9)]
כל זכר: אפילו בעל מום. למה נאמר, אם לאכילה הרי כבר אמור לחם אלהיו מקדשי הקדשים וגו', אלא לרבות בעלי מומין למחלוקת:
Anything that touches [them, shall become holy]: Sacrifices that have a lesser degree of holiness or ordinary food that comes in contact with a meal-offering and absorbs from it,
כל אשר יגע וגו': קדשים קלים או חולין שיגעו בה ויבלעו ממנה:
shall become holy: to be like it [i.e., like the meal-offering], that if it is invalid, they will becomes invalid; and if it is valid, they will have to be eaten under the same stringency as the meal-offering [namely, within holy ground and only during the day of offering and the night following, until midnight]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:38; Zev. 97b]
יקדש: להיות כמוה, שאם פסולה יפסלו, ואם כשרה יאכלו כחומר המנחה:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 39 - 43
• Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering. But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when (will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth, for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my strength, before I depart and I am no more.
Chapter 40
The psalmist speaks of the numerous wonders that God wrought for the Jewish people, asking: "Who can articulate His might? I would relate and speak of them, but they are too numerous to recount!" He created the world and split the sea for the sake of Israel, [yet] He desires no sacrifices, only that we listen to His voice.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. I put my hope in the Lord; He turned to me and heard my cry.
3. He raised me from the turbulent pit, from the slimy mud, and set my feet upon a rock, steadying my steps.
4. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn to our God; multitudes will see and fear, and will trust in the Lord.
5. Fortunate is the man who has made the Lord his trust, and did not turn to the haughty, nor to those who stray after falsehood.
6. You have done much, O You, Lord my God-Your wonders and thoughts are for us; none can compare to You; should I relate or speak of them, they are too numerous to recount!
7. You desired neither sacrifice nor meal-offering, but [obedient] ears You opened for me; You requested neither burnt-offering nor sin-offering.
8. Then I said, "Behold, I come with a Scroll of the Book written for me."1
9. I desire to fulfill Your will, my God; and Your Torah is in my innards.
10. I proclaimed [Your] righteousness in a vast congregation; behold I will not restrain my lips-O Lord, You know!
11. I did not conceal Your righteousness within my heart; I declared Your faithfulness and deliverance; I did not hide Your kindness and truth from the vast congregation.
12. May You, Lord, not withhold Your mercies from me; may Your kindness and truth constantly guard me.
13. For countless evils surround me; my sins have overtaken me and I cannot see; they outnumber the hairs of my head, and my heart has abandoned me.
14. May it please You, Lord, to save me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
15. Let those who seek my life, to end it, be shamed and humiliated together; let those who desire my harm retreat and be disgraced.
16. Let those who say about me, "Aha! Aha!" be desolate, in return for their shaming [me].
17. Let all those who seek You exult and rejoice in You; let those who love Your deliverance always say, "Be exalted, O Lord!”
18. As for me, I am poor and needy; my Lord will think of me. You are my help and my rescuer; my God, do not delay!
Chapter 41
This psalm teaches many good character traits, and inspires one to be thoughtful and conscientious in giving charity-knowing to whom to give first. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the sick one, providing him with his needs.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the poor, [for] the Lord will save him on the day of evil.
3. The Lord will guard him and keep him alive; he will be praised throughout the land; You will not deliver him to the desires of his enemies.
4. The Lord will support him on the bed of illness; You will turn him over in his bed all throughout his sickness.
5. I said, "Lord, be gracious to me! Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You!”
6. My foes say that evil [awaits] me: "When will he die, and his name perish?”
7. And if one comes to see [me], he speaks insincerely, for his heart gathers iniquity for himself, and when he goes out he speaks of it.
8. Together they whisper against me-all my enemies; against me they devise my harm, [saying]:
9. "Let his wickedness pour into him; now that he lies down, he shall rise no more.”
10. Even my ally in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has raised his heel over me.
11. But you, Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up, and I will repay them.
12. With this I shall know that You desire me, when my enemies will not shout gleefully over me.
13. And I, because of my integrity, You upheld me; You set me before You forever.
14. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, to all eternity, Amen and Amen.
Chapter 42
This psalm awakens the hearts of the Children of Israel who do not feel the immense ruin, loss, and bad fortune in their being exiled from their Father's table. Were they wise, they would appreciate their past good fortune in coming thrice yearly, with joy and great awe, to behold God during the festivals, free of adversary and harm. May God place mercy before us from now to eternity, Amen Selah.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil1 by the sons of Korach.
2. As the deer cries longingly for brooks of water, so my soul cries longingly for You, O God!
3. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When will I come and behold the countenance of God?
4. My tears have been my bread day and night, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
5. These do I recall, and pour out my soul from within me: how I traveled [to Jerusalem] in covered wagons; I would walk leisurely with them up to the House of God, amid the sound of rejoicing and thanksgiving, the celebrating multitude.
6. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him for the deliverances of His countenance.
7. My God! My soul is downcast upon me, because I remember You from the land of Jordan and Hermon's peaks, from Mount Mitzar.2
8. Deep calls to deep3 at the roar of Your channels; all Your breakers and waves have swept over me.
9. By day the Lord ordains His kindness, and at night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.
10. I say to God, my rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?”
11. Like a sword in my bones, my adversaries disgrace me, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
12. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations. May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength; why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 36
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson Sunday, Adar II 7, 5774 • March 9, 2014
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 36
In the previous chapter, the Alter Rebbe began to explain why the observance of the practical mitzvot is the ultimate purpose of Torah and of one’s spiritual service to G d. (This practical aspect is underscored by the conclusion of the verse, “For the thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it.”) He explained that only mitzvot observed through action draw down the light of the Shechinah upon one’s animal soul and body (rather than upon the divine soul alone, as do the mitzvot performed only in thought and speech).
Yet this does not answer one question satisfactorily: Why is the illumination of the body and animal soul so important that those (practical) mitzvot which accomplish this illumination should be considered one’s primary objective?
The Alter Rebbe addresses this question in ch. 36. He explains that G d’s purpose in Creation is that he might have a dwelling place “in the lower realms”; specifically, in this physical world. In this world of doubled and redoubled spiritual darkness, His Ein Sof-light would radiate even more powerfully than it does in the higher, spiritual realms, through man’s transforming the darkness into light.
In man, the microcosm, the animal soul and the body are “the lower realms.” Therefore, the practical mitzvot which draw the light of the Shechinah upon them constitute man’s ultimate purpose.
Furthermore, through the practical mitzvot, and through their elevating effect on the body and animal soul, the material world in its entirety becomes a “dwelling place” for G d. (This, however, properly belongs to the discussion in ch. 37.)
והנה מודעת זאת מאמר רז״ל שתכלית בריאת עולם הזה הוא שנתאוה הקדוש ברוך הוא להיות לו דירה בתחתונים
In a well-known statement, our Rabbis declare1 that the purpose for which this world was created is that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have an abode in the lower realms.
He desired that the essence of His Ein Sof-light be revealed as it is, without veil or concealment, amidst the lower creations. Our Sages use the word “abode”, or “dwelling place,” to describe such revelation. Just as a man’s home serves as an abode for his essence, so too, is this world intended to be an “abode” for G d’s Essence.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain the phrase “the lower realms” mentioned above. He shows that this refers specifically to our physical world.
The explanation in brief:
The terms “higher” and “lower” realms do not denote degrees of respective importance in the sight of G d, or of closeness to Him. In G d’s eyes all the worlds, from the highest to the lowest, are equally insignificant; all are equally remote from Him. On the other hand, He fills the lowest world just as He fills the highest.
Thus, the terms “higher” and “lower” must be understood as a standard of comparison within the numerous worlds. They indicate to what degree G dliness is revealed in each individual world: the more revelation, the “higher” the world; the more obscurity and concealment, the “lower”. From this standpoint, our physical world is the very lowest, for here G dliness is most veiled and concealed.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
והנה לא שייך לפניו יתברך בחינת מעלה ומטה, כי הוא יתברך ממלא כל עלמין בשוה
But surely, before G d (i.e., in His sight) the distinction of “higher” and “lower” is not valid, one world is no higher than another, for he pervades all worlds equally. What, then, do our Sages mean by saying that “G d desired an abode in the ‘lower’ realms?”
אלא ביאור הענין
The explanation of the matter, however, is that G d desired an abode in that realm considered “lower” within the ranks of the worlds as follows:
כי קודם שנברא העולם היה הוא לבדו יתברך יחיד ומיוחד, וממלא כל כל המקום הזה שברא בו העולם
Before the world (any world) was created, there was only He alone, one and unique, filling all the space in which He created the world. Anything that could be conceived of as a “space” or possibility for creation, was filled with the Ein Sof-light.
וגם עתה כן הוא לפניו יתברך
In His view, indeed, it is still the same now. Creation wrought no change in His unity; He is One alone now just as He was prior to creation.
רק שהשינוי הוא אל המקבלים חיותו ואורו יתברך
The change applies only to the recipients of His vivifying force and His light — before creation there was none to receive the Divine life-force and light; Creation brought into being these recipients,
שמקבלים על ידי לבושים רבים המכסים ומסתירים אורו יתברך
who receive [this life-force and light- by way of numerous “garments” which veil and conceal G d’s light for without such garments they could not bear its intensity, and would cease to exist.
כדכתיב, כי לא יראני האדם וחי
So it is written:2 “For no man can see Me and live.”
Furthermore, not only man, a physical being, but even spiritual beings such as angels are unable to receive the divine light and life-force without concealing garments.
וכדפירשו רז״ל, שאפילו מלאכים הנקראים חיות אין רואין כו׳
And as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, interpret the word וחי (“...and live”) in this verse, as referring to angels; thus3: “Even angels, called חיות (‘[holy- chayyot’) cannot see...” G dliness, except by way of garments which conceal Him, thereby enabling them to receive His light.
The degree of concealment varies, however, from world to world and from level to level. Here the distinction between “higher” and “lower” realms becomes valid, as the Alter Rebbe continues:
וזהו ענין השתלשלות העולמות וירידתם ממדרגה למדרגה
This concealment is the subject of the Hishtalshelut (the chain-like, graded and downward succession) of the worlds, and their descent from level to level,
על ידי ריבוי הלבושים המסתירים האור והחיות שממנו יתברך
through the many “garments” that conceal the light and the life-force emanating from Him (— the more concealment, the lower the descent);
עד שנברא עולם הזה הגשמי והחומרי ממש
culminating in the creation of this physical, gross world.
This world is not only physical — so that the truth of G d’s creative power is not in evidence; it is also gross, in that the lie is held up as a truth.
והוא התחתון במדרגה, שאין תחתון למטה ממנו בענין הסתר אורו יתברך, וחושך כפול ומכופל
[This world] is the lowest in degree; there is none lower than it in terms of concealment of His light and no world compares with it for doubled and redoubled darkness; nowhere is G d’s light hidden as in this world.
עד שהוא מלא קליפות וסטרא אחרא שהן נגד ה׳ ממש, לומר אני ואפסי עוד
So much so, that it is filled with kelipot and sitra achra which actually oppose G d, saying: “I am, and there is nothing else besides me.”
It is thus clear that the term “lower realms” refers to this physical world, the very lowest in degree of divine revelation.
Since there is but one “order of Hishtalshelut,” a question arises: Does its ultimate purpose lie in the higher worlds, where G dliness is revealed to a greater degree, while the lower worlds serve only to emphasize the revelation found in those higher than them (since light is distinguishable only where darkness exists)? Or, on the contrary, does its purpose lie in the lower realms (but in order to create them an order of Hishtalshelut is necessary, entailing the creation of the higher realms)?
Obviously, concealment of G dliness is not an end in itself; thus, if we assume the second position, it follows that these lower realms were created so that the darkness pervading them be transformed to light.
The statement that “G d desired an abode in the lower realms” shows the latter position to be the true one; and the “abode” is built by the revelation of His Presence in this lowest of worlds to a degree surpassing even that in the highest. This, in brief, is the subject of the following paragraphs in the text.
FOOTNOTES
1. Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 7:1.
2. Shmot 33:20.
3. Sifrei, end of Parshat Behaalotecha; Bamidbar Rabbah, end of Parshat Nasso.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 171
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.
Giving a Half Shekel
Positive Commandment 171
Translated by Berel Bell
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.
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.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Hilchot Nizkei Mamon Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Thirteen Hilchot Nizkei Mamon - Chapter Thirteen
1. When utensils fall into a cistern and break, the owner of the cistern is not liable.1 [This is derived from Exodus 21:33, which] states: "And an ox or a donkey fell there." The Oral Tradition interprets2 this as an exclusion: "'An ox' and not a man;3 'a donkey' and not utensils." Even when an ox fell [into a cistern] when carrying utensils and died and broke the utensils, the owner is liable for the ox, but not for the utensils.
2. A cistern is considered one of the general categories of causes of damage. Its derivatives, like it, are considered mu'adim from the outset. Whenever a person leaves an obstacle [in the path of other living beings], it is considered to be a derivative of a cistern.4 If a person or an animal is injured because of it, the person who caused the obstacle to exist is liable, whether or not he renounced ownership of it. If it caused damage to utensils, [the person responsible] is not held liable.
3. What is implied? When a person leaves his stone, his knife, his straw, his burden or the like in the public domain, and they cause injury to another human or to an animal, [the first person] is liable for the full amount of the damages.
Similarly, if he left such items on his property and declared his property - but not these items - ownerless, and a person stumbled on the ground5 and received a blow from such an item that caused him injury, the person who caused the obstacle to exist is liable. If the person's utensils became damaged or soiled in such a situation, [the person who caused the obstacle to exist] is not liable.
4. If a person brought his ox into a courtyard belonging to another person without permission, the ox defecated, and the feces soiled utensils belonging to the owner, [the owner of the ox] is not liable. For the feces are considered to be a derivative of a cistern, and [the owner of] a cistern is never liable for damage to utensils.
5. [The following laws apply when a person] leaves his jug in the public domain, and a passerby stumbles over it and breaks it. The passerby is not liable, because it is not the practice of people to look out on the way as they walk.
If [the passerby] was injured, the owner of the jug is liable for his injury. [This applies] even if he declared his jug ownerless. For whenever a person declares ownerless an obstacle that he has created in a domain in which he has no permission to place it at the outset,6 he is liable, as if he had never declared it ownerless.
6. If the person placed the jug down in a place where he had permission to place it - e.g., the marketplace before the wine vats or the like7 - and a passerby stumbles over it and breaks it, [the passerby] is liable. If the passerby was injured, the owner of the jug is not liable, because [the passerby] should have looked to see [if there was anything in his way].8
If it was dark or [if the owner of the jugs] filled the entire path with jugs, the passerby is not liable for breaking it. If he is injured, the owner of the jugs is liable.9 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
7. [The following rules apply when] a jug belonging to a person breaks [accidentally] in the public domain, and another person slips on the water [that spilled] or receives a blow from its shards. The owner cannot be held liable by an earthly court, because [the jug] was broken by accident.10 He has, however, a moral and a spiritual obligation, because he did not gather the shards.11 The shards and the water are like ownerless entities, [even though] he did not rescind his ownership until after the accident, he is not held liable. If he intended to take possession of the shards, and another person was damaged by them, he is liable.
Similar laws apply to a person whose camel fell and he did not raise it up, or the like.12 In all these situations, if utensils were damaged, the owner of the obstacle is not liable, whether he declared his object ownerless or not, as we have explained.13
8. [The following laws apply when] two potters were following each other on a path, the first tripped and fell, and the second tripped over the first. If the first could have stood up but failed to do so, he is liable for the damages suffered by the second. Although he accidentally fell, the accident did not [force him to remain] lying in the road. [Therefore,] since he could have stood up, [he is liable].14
If he was unable to have risen [before the second potter tripped over him], he is not liable. [This applies] even though he did not warn [the potter] who tripped over him. [The rationale is] that he is concerned with his own [difficulties].15
9. When do we say that he is liable for the damages to the second [potter]? When he suffers damage to his body. If, however, his utensils are damaged, [the first potter] is not liable. For [an owner of] a cistern is not liable for the damage to utensils, and any obstacle is considered to be a derivative of a cistern, as explained above.16
10. [The following rules apply when] potters, glass blowers and the like were walking one after the other, the first one tripped and fell, the second tripped over the first one, and the third tripped over the second. Each of them had time to stand up, but failed to do so.
The first is liable for the damages to the body of the second, regardless of whether he was injured by the body of the first person who is lying on the earth,17 or he was injured by his burden.18
The second is liable for the injuries suffered by the body of the third person if he was injured by the second person's body. If, however, he was injured by the second person's burden, [the second person] is not liable. For he will say: "I did not dig this cistern - i.e., my burden." For it was the first person who caused the second person and his burden to fall.19
In all cases, [if the person who fell] warned [the person who tripped over him or his burden], [the person who fell] is not liable.
11. If the first person fell and was lying lengthwise across the road and one person tripped over his head, another [tripped] over his legs and a third over his abdomen, he is liable for the injuries each suffered, for he had the potential to arise.
12. When a person pours water into the public domain, and another person is injured by it, [the one who poured out the water] is liable for the damages.20 If the other person's garments were soiled, [the one who poured out the water] is not liable, as we have explained.21
If the water was absorbed by the earth, but the earth remained slippery,22 and a person slipped and fell and was injured by the ground, [the one who poured out the water] is liable.23
13. All those who open their sewage vats and rake out their cesspools do not have permission to pour this water into the public domain during the summer months.24 In the rainy season, a person has permission [to release such sewage].25 Nevertheless, if a person or an animal is damaged by the water, the one who released it is responsible for the entire sum of the damages.26
14. A person should not take his straw and hay out to the public domain so that it will be trod upon and become fit to use as fertilizer. If he did take it out, our Sages penalized him and declared the straw to be ownerless. The first person to take possession of it acquires it as his own, once it has been trod upon and its value has increased.27 If a person took possession of it before that time - i.e., directly after it was taken out to the public domain - it should not be expropriated from him.28
Although the straw and the hay are ownerless, if [they cause damage to] a person or an animal, the person who brought it out [to the public domain] must compensate [for the damages].29
15. A person may take out compost and manure to the public domain at a time when everyone does so and amass them there for 30 days so that they will be trodden upon by people and animals. Although [permission is granted], if these substances cause damage the owner is liable for the damages.
[If another person takes] this manure,30 he is liable for theft. Since its value will not increase [appreciably] by being trodden upon, [our Sages] did not penalize him [by declaring it ownerless].31
16. Mortar may not be left to soak in the public domain, nor may bricks be fashioned there.32 One may, however, mix mortar33 in the public domain. One may not, however, mix bricks.
17. When a person constructs a building in the public domain, the one who brings stones may bring stones, and the one who builds may build. If any of them causes damage, they are obligated to pay for the entire sum of the damages.34
18. When a quarrier hews out a stone and gives it to a stonecutter, and it causes damage to a human or an animal, the stonecutter is liable.
If the stonecutter gives it to a donkey-driver35 [and it causes damage], the donkey-driver is liable. If the donkey-driver gives it to a porter36 [and it causes damage], the porter is liable. If the porter gives it to a builder [and it causes damage], the builder is liable. If the builder gives it to the person who positions it on the building [and it causes damage], the latter is liable.
If they were working as contractors [in a partnership], and after it was positioned in its place on the building it fell and caused damage, they all share in the liability.37 If they are hired laborers, the one [who positioned the stone in its place] is liable, and the others are not liable.38
19. When a wall or a tree falls into the public domain and causes damage,39 the owner is not required to compensate [for the damages].40 [This applies] even when he declared [the tree or the wall] ownerless.41 [The rationale is that these entities] do not resemble a cistern, for at the outset, [it is not likely] that they will cause damage.
If they were not sturdy, the court sets a time for the person by which he must cut down the tree and tear down the wall. How much time is granted him? Thirty days.42 If the tree or the wall falls within this time and causes damage, he is not liable. [If it falls] afterwards, he is liable, because he delayed [beyond the limits set].
20. When a person places thorns or glass [within a wall], or when a person makes a fence of thorns that project into the public domain, and it causes damage to another person,43 he is liable for the full extent of the damages.
If he makes a fence of thorns that are contained within his property,44 he is not held liable, for it is not ordinary for people to rub against a wall [in the public domain].
21. [The following laws apply when] a person hid his thorns and [fragments of] glass in a wall belonging to a colleague, the owner of the wall came and tore down his wall into the public domain, and [the thorns or glass] caused damage. If the wall was shaky,45 the person who hid [the thorns or glass] is liable. If the wall was strong, its owner is liable.46
22. The pious men47 of the early generations would bury thorns and [fragments of] glass in their fields [at least] three handbreadths below the ground, so they would not be lifted up by a plow. Others would burn them in fire. Still others would throw them to the sea or to the river so that other people would not be injured by them.
23. A person should not clear stones from his private property into the public domain.48
One should not dig a cavity, a cistern, a trench or a cave under the public domain.49 [This applies] even when [the covering of the cavity is so strong] that it can support a carriage laden with stones, for there is the possibility that [at a later date] it will open from below without his knowledge.
It is permitted for a person to dig a cistern for the needs of people at large.50
24. One should not build projections and balconies that protrude into the public domain unless it is possible for a camel and its rider51 to pass beneath, and provided it does not cast shadows on the people in the public domain.
If he desires, he can withdraw the walls [of his building into his own domain] and build [the projection].52 If he did withdraw the walls [of his building], but has not built [a projection], he may do so at any time he desires. Never, however, may he return the walls to their original place. Once people at large have been granted permission to pass through a particular property, it cannot be withdrawn.53
25. When a person purchased a courtyard with projections and balconies protruding into the public domain, we operate under the presumption [that they were built legally].54 If the building falls, he is allowed to rebuild it according to its original proportions.
26. When [the foliage of] a tree leans into the public domain, it should be trimmed so that a camel and its rider can pass under it.
An empty space should be left next to the banks on both sides of a river wide enough for the crewmen who descend and pull a boat.55 Any tree that is found in this space should be cut down immediately. A warning need not be given to its owner,56 for it blocks the crewmen from pulling ships.
27. [The following rules apply when] there was a path for people at large passing through a person's field, he expropriated the path and prepared a new path at the side of the field. What he granted them, they acquire possession of,57 but he does not acquire possession of [the land] he took.
How wide is a path for people at large? Not less than sixteen cubits.58
FOOTNOTES
1. Similarly, as stated in the following halachah, the owner of thecistern is not held liable if the utensils are damaged. With regard toa human, by contrast, the owner is liable for damages. (See Chapter12, Halachah 16; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 410:21.)
2. See Bava Kama 28b, 53b.
3. See Chapter 12, Halachah 16.
4. See the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 410), which defines thederivatives of a cistern as including any property that causesdamage in its place, which does not move. Although the Rambammentions a moving obstacle in Chapter 2, Halachah 19, the intentis that the obstacle is being moved by another force.
5. The person stumbled on the earth, and this is what caused theinjury. Nevertheless, since the earth is ownerless, he collects thedamages from the person who left the obstacle in its place. Were itnot for the obstacle, the damage would not have taken place.
6. If, however, he left a jug on his own property and then declared itownerless, he is not liable. At the outset, he had permission to leavethe jug there. See Chapter 12, Halachah 2.
7. I.e. a place in front of oil vats or beehives, where jugs of oil orhoney would be filled.
8. Although, as stated above, it is not the general practice forpeople to watch for obstacles as they walk, since jugs are often lefton the ground in places like these, a passerby should watch his step(Kessef Mishneh).
9. In the dark, the owner of the jugs should have removed them beforenightfall, for he knows that a passerby will not be able to see. If hefilled the path with jugs, he made it likely that a person would breaka jug as he passed by.Note the quotation of this law in the Shulchan Aruch(Choshen Mishpat 412:2). There a further category is added: aninstance where a person places so many jugs in the road that it isimpossible for people to pass without breaking some of the jugs: thepasserby is not liable even if he intentionally broke enough jugs toallow him to pass.
10. Since the jug broke accidentally, the owner is not considerednegligent with regard to the damages that were caused. For thisreason, the laws stated in Halachah 5 are not applied to him.
11. If he did not have time to gather the shards before the otherperson was injured, he does not have such a moral obligation(Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 412:4.)
12. For the camel, like the broken pitcher, fell accidentally as thepitcher broke, and is thus considered to be an obstacleunintentionally placed in the public domain. Bava Kama 29astates that this is speaking of an instance where the camel died, andits owner rescinded his ownership over its carcass. Otherwise, hewould be held liable.
13. Halachah 1.
14. I.e., his body is considered like an obstacle in the publicdomain.
15. Although one might think that he could have been held liable fornot warning his colleague, this presumption is not accepted. Hisconcern for his own welfare takes priority. Rabbenu Asher (and hisopinion is accepted by the Tur and the Ramah ChoshenMishpat 413:1) differs and maintains that if the first potterhad the opportunity to warn the second and failed to do so, he isliable.
16. Halachah 2. Implied by the Rambam's wording in this halachah (andthe following one) is that the body of the first potter is consideredto be an obstacle. He is not considered to have caused damage to hiscolleague with his person.
17. This reflects the concept mentioned in the previous note. Aperson's body is considered to be an obstacle. Therefore, the Rambammentions damage to the body of the second person, implying that if thesecond person's utensils were damaged, the first would not be heldliable.
18. From Halachah 7, it would appear that this ruling applies onlywhen the potter did not declare his wares ownerless. See the Ra'avad,the Maggid Mishneh, the Tur and the Ramah (ChoshenMishpat 413:2).
19. This argument does not apply, however, with regard to injurycaused by the body of the second person. Since he had time to rise, heis liable for the injuries suffered.
20. In this instance, there is no difference whether or not the persondeclared the water ownerless, as reflected in Halachot 2 and 7.
21. For the owner of a derivative of a cistern is not liable fordamages to property (Halachot 1 and 2).
22. The Ra'avad explains that this ruling applies only when the groundis still muddy because of the water. The Maggid Mishneh states that even when the water has been absorbed totally, if the ground is still slippery, the person is liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 412:5) appears to follow the Ra'avad's view.
23. Although the ground did not belong to him, since the fall wascaused by the water that he poured, he is liable.
24. During these months, the streets are clean and it is forbidden forsomeone to soil them. Moreover, in Eretz Yisrael it does notrain during these months, and the sewage will remain in the streetsfor months.
25. For the streets are muddy at that time, and there is water flowingto wash away the sewage. Needless to say, as our sewage and sidewalkshave become more sophisticated, the relevance of these laws hasfaded.
26. Although our Sages granted a person permission to release hissewage at this time, they did not absolve him of responsibility.
27. There is an unresolved difference of opinion among the Sages(Bava Kama 30b) if the penalty takes effect from the time thestraw was taken out, or from the time it became useful asfertilizer.Note the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 414:1), whostate that at the outset a person who asks whether he may take thestraw and the hay, should not be told that he may retain possession ofits initial value. Instead, he should be told that he may keep onlythe increment. After the fact, he is allowed to keep the initial valueas well.
28. The Tur and the Ramah differ with regard to this point as well and maintain that in this instance, the straw should be expropriated from the person who took possession of it.
29. Whenever damage is caused by an object that was declared ownerlessafter being placed in the public domain without permission, the personwho placed it there is liable.
30. As stated in Hilchot Gezelah 6:5, this applies even if aperson takes his compost out at a time when it is forbidden to do so.A person who takes it is liable for theft.
31. The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 414:2) statethat if the compost causes damage, it is considered to be ownerless,and it may be taken by another person.
32. For these will remain in the public domain for an extendedperiod.
33. To be used for building in the near future.
34. In this instance as well, the license to perform an activity inthe public domain does not absolve a person of liability.
35. To transport to a construction site.
36. To carry it to the builder.
37. If they were partners, once the task is completed they all sharein the responsibility. Until the entire task is completed, however,the person who is responsible for the activity at the time the damagewas caused must pay for the damages, even when they were allpartners.
38. I.e., each person is liable for the portion of the task that heperforms.
39. The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that this applies when damageis caused by the tree or the wall as it falls. After it falls and thetree or the stones are lying in the public domain, the owner is notliable, if he declares them ownerless.
40. This is considered an oness, a loss due to forces beyond hiscontrol. The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this applies onlywhen the wall was constructed properly to begin with. When, however,it is built faultily, the owner is liable.
41. Generally, despite the fact that a person declares an obstacle that he created in the public domain as ownerless, he is liable. In this instance, however,since he had permission to plant the tree or build the wall, and itfell because of forces beyond his control, he is not heldresponsible.The Maggid Mishneh explains that the owner is liable, if he desires toestablish his possession over the entities which fell.The Tur and the Ramah (loc. cit.) differ.
42. As Bava Metzia 118a states, this is the ordinary timegranted by the court to adjust difficulties.
43. The thorns or glass that projects is considered to be an obstacleplaced in the public domain.
44. Even if they project beyond the wall itself, as long as they arecontained within the owner's property, he is not liable.
45. And thus one could assume that it would be torn down in the nearfuture.
46. The owner of the thorns or glass is not liable, because he had noreason to think that someone would tear down a sturdy wall. If thedamage was done when the wall was being destroyed, the owner of thewall is liable, because he should have taken care that no passersbywere hurt. If the damage was done after the wall was destroyed, theowner of the wall is liable, because he was responsible for clearingthe debris remaining from his wall (Tur, Beit Yosef, ChoshenMishpat 415).
47. I.e., men who went beyond the measure of the law. This teaching isbased on the examples of sages cited by Bava Kama 30a.
48. Lest another person stumble over them and be injured.
49. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 417:1) states that in his era, ithad already become customary to dig below the streets of the publicdomain. This is surely the case in our age, when engineering hasprogressed to the point that safety is not compromised by digging inthis manner.
50. E.g., to provide travelers with drinking water.This law is stated in a separate paragraph, because as is stated inthe Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat410:7, but see 417:1), it is a separate clause, and not a continuationof the previous idea. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch alsomention that the person must cover the cistern and entrust the coverto the trustees of the people at large, or at the very least informthe court that he has dug a cistern for people, but is expecting thecourt to arrange for its being covered.
51. A camel was the highest popular means of conveyance in Talmudictimes. Needless to say, in every era, the height should be adjusted to fit the highest contemporary means of conveyance, e.g., in the present era, allowances should be made for semi-trailers.
52. I.e., knock down the existing walls and build new walls furtherremoved from the public domain.
53. If, however, people do not frequently walk through this space(e.g., the person prevented that by building a platform there), he mayrebuild the walls in their original place when he desires RabbenuYerucham; Beit Yosef, Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 417:2).
54. I.e., that the person who originally constructed the buildingbuilt its walls removed from the public domain, so that theprotrusions and balconies were permitted.
55. I.e., the rivers of Eretz Yisrael and Babylon were for themost part neither wide nor deep. When a ship wanted to dock, severalof its crewmen would descend and they would pull the ship to the riverbank by ropes. This halachah requires that enough empty space be leftalong the river banks to allow these crewmen to maneuver. FromHilchot Geneivah 8:2, it appears that we are speaking about fourcubits.
56. This can be derived by the conduct of Rabbah bar Rav Nachman(Bava Metzia 108a), who cleared space without informing theowner of the property.
57. See Halachah 24.
58. This is derived from the width of the public thoroughfare in thecamp of the Jews in the desert.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shekalim Shekalim - Chapter One, Shekalim Shekalim - Chapter Two, Shekalim Shekalim - Chapter Three
Shekalim - Chapter One
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment from the Torah1 that every adult Jewish male2 give a half3-shekel each and every year.4 Even a poor man who derives his livelihood from charity is obligated [to make this donation]. He should borrow from others or sell the clothes5 he is wearing so that he can give a half-shekel of silver, as [Exodus 30:15] states: "The rich shall not give more,6 nor should the poor give less."7
[The half-shekel] should not be given in several partial payments - today a portion, tomorrow a portion. Instead, it is to be given all at once.8
Halacha 2
The sum of money mentioned in the Torah concerning [the fines paid by] a rapist,9 a seducer,10 a slanderer,11 or a slave killed [by an ox]12 is [calculated] in shekalim, a coin [of equal value] whenever mentioned in the Torah. Its weight is 320 barley corns [of pure silver].13
The Sages increased its value and made it equivalent to the coin called a sela, [which was prevalent] during the Second Temple period. How much did a sela weigh? 384 average size barley corns [of pure silver].14
Halacha 3
A sela is four dinarim, a dinar is six ma'ah and a ma'ah was called a gerah in the time of Moses our teacher.15 A ma'ah equals two poondionin, and a poondion is equal to two isarin. A prutah16 is worth an eighth of an [Italian] isar.
Thus, the weight of a ma'ah - and a gerah - is sixteen barley corns [of silver]; the weight of an isar is four barley corns; and the weight of a prutah is half a barley corn.
Halacha 4
[At that time,] there was also another coin that was worth two selaim; it was called a darcon.17
These coins whose weights we have listed and explained are used universally as standard measures. We have described them so that we will not have to describe their weight at all times.
Halacha 5
The mitzvah of giving the half-shekel entails giving half of the coin that is [common] currency at the time in question, even if that coin is larger than the shekel used for the sanctuary. [The converse, however, does not apply.] Never should one give less than the half-shekel18 that was given in the time of Moses our teacher, which weighed 160 barley corns [of silver].
Halacha 6
At the time when the common currency was a darcon, everyone would give a sela as a half-shekel.19 At the time when the common currency was a sela, everyone would give half a sela, the equivalent of two dinarim, as a half-shekel. At the time when the common currency was half a sela, everyone would give that coin, half of a sela, as a half-shekel.20 At no time did the Jews ever give less than the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah for the half-shekel.
Halacha 7
Everyone is obligated to give a half-shekel: priests,21 Levites, Israelites, converts, and freed slaves. Women,22 slaves, and children23 are not obligated. Nevertheless, if they give [a half-shekel], it may be accepted.24 By contrast, if a Samaritan25 gives a half-shekel, it should not be accepted.
A father who began giving a half-shekel on behalf of a child should not stop. Instead, he should [continue to] give a half-shekel on the child's behalf every year until he comes of age and gives [the half-shekel] by himself.26
Halacha 8
[The mitzvah of giving a half-]shekel is observed only during the era that the Temple is standing.27 During the era that the Temple is standing, the [half-]shekel should be given both in Eretz Yisrael and in the diaspora.28 When, however, it is destroyed, even in Eretz Yisrael it is not necessary to give.
Halacha 9
On the first of Adar, the court would announce [the collection of] the [half-]shekalim, so that every single individual would prepare his half-shekel and be ready to give.
On the fifteenth [of Adar],29 the money-changers would sit in every city30 and would gently prod [the people to give]. If people gave them, they would accept it. If someone did not give, they would not compel him to give.
On the twenty-fifth [of Adar], they would sit in the Temple to collect [the half-shekalim]. From this time onward, everyone who had not given [a half-shekel] as yet would be compelled to give.31 When a person did not give [voluntarily], his property would be taken by force as a pledge. Even his clothing was taken from him.
Halacha 10
We do not take property as a pledge by force from those individuals who are not obligated to give a [half-]shekel, even though they are accustomed to giving,32 or they will give in the future.33 Nor do we take the property of priests as a pledge by force, as a reflection of the ways of peace.34 Instead, when they give, we accept their donations. We do, however, [continue to] demand from them until they give.
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 171) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 105) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
2.Both concepts are implied by the Hebrew word ish. (See Halachah 7.)
3.One might ask: why were the Jews not commanded to give a full shekel? There is normally an emphasis that one's offerings be complete and unblemished. Why in this instance were we obligated to give only a half-shekel?
To offer a homiletic resolution to this question: Giving a half-shekel emphasizes that a person is only a half and can never reach fulfillment until he joins together with another individual. Alternatively, it is God who contributes the second half, which enables an individual to reach fulfillment (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. III, Parashat Ki Tissa).
4.Sefer HaKovetz states that this teaches that one may not give several shekalim in one year to fulfill the mitzvah for many future years.
5.See Halachah 9. (See also Hilchot Chanukah 4:12, which also mentions that one should sell one's clothes to perform the mitzvah mentioned there.)
6.The Ramban (in his commentary on the Torah, Exodus 30:15) and others raise the question: why is this not considered one of the 365 negative commandments of the Torah?
In resolution, the commentaries point to the Rambam's introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 8), where the Rambam explains that the use of negative terminology by the Torah - e.g., לא, "Do not..." - does not always imply that the subject should be considered a separate negative commandment. For example, concerning a Hebrew maidservant, Exodus 21:7 states, "She shall not go out [to freedom] as the slaves go out."
The Rambam explains that this is not a negative commandment, but a narrative verse introducing the concept. Similarly, the commentaries explain that the verse under discussion is not a negative commandment, but rather a description of how the half-shekel is given (Nimukei Mahari).
7.There is also a homiletic dimension to this requirement: The half-shekel relates to a level of soul shared equally by all.
8.Rav Kapach emphasizes that there are two dimensions implied by this law: a) that the half-shekel should be given on a single day, not in several payments;
b) that a single coin should be given, not several coins equal in value to a half-shekel.
9.One who rapes a maiden, whom Deuteronomy 22:29 obligates to pay 50 silver pieces.
10.One who seduces a maiden, whom Exodus 22:16 obligates to pay 50 silver pieces.
11.One who slanders his wife, claiming that she was not a virgin at the time of marriage. Deuteronomy 22:19 requires such a person to pay 100 silver pieces.
12.Thirty silver pieces (Exodus 21:32).
13.See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:8), where the Rambam describes the traditional measures for this figure in detail. According to the figures he gives, in modern measure, a shekel of the Torah is 16 grams of pure silver.
14.Today, it is common custom to give 96 grams of silver for the five shekalim required for the pidyon habeyn ceremony. Thus a shekel is 19.2 grams. According to the Piskei Siddur of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi a shekel is 20.4 grams.
15.Exodus 30:13 describes a shekel as being twenty ma'ah. Thus, in Talmudic times, the Sages increased the shekel's worth by one fifth, making the old value five sixths of the new total.
16.The coin of minimum value. Less than a prutah's worth is not considered as a significant financial amount.
17.This is the Talmudic term for the god Neptune. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Shekalim 2:1, the Rambam mentions darconim of gold, which, though smaller, were equal in value to the silver coins mentioned here.
18.The Mishnah (Shekalim 2:4) relates that, at one time, the dinar was the common currency in Eretz Yisrael, and the people proposed giving half a dinar instead of a half-shekel. The Sages, however, did not accept this proposal, since it entailed giving less than the half-shekel given at the time of Moses.
19.This halachah provides examples of the principles mentioned in the previous halachah, quoting from Shekalim, loc. cit. The Mishnah refers to the initial years of the Second Temple period.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's interpretation of that Mishnah and offers another explanation why the people gave a larger coin at that time: Only a small portion of the Jewish people returned to Zion with Ezra. Had the people been required to give only the minimum amount, there would not have been enough funds to purchase communal sacrifices. In his Commentary on the Torah, the Ramban (Exodus 30:12) also follows the Ra'avad's interpretation.
20.Because it was the equivalent of the half-shekel given in the time of Moses.
21.The Mishnah (Shekalim 1:4) mentions an opinion that maintains that priests are not obligated to give a half-shekel because they are entitled to partake of certain communal offerings.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:3) mentions another rationale why some maintain that priests are not obligated: The Torah (Exodus 30:13) states that the half-shekel should be given by: כל העובר על הפקודים, "all those included in the census." Since the priests were not included in the census, they are not obligated to fulfill this mitzvah.
Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim, loc. cit. Avot 4:7), the Rambam appears to accept the view that the priests are not required to give a half-shekel. Similarly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam cites the above verse as a proof-text explaining why women are not obligated in this mitzvah. Thus, his ruling in this halachah appears to reflect a change of position.
22.Although giving a half-shekel is a positive mitzvah that is not limited to a specific time, in Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) the Rambam states that women are explicitly excluded from the obligation to perform this mitzvah, as implied by the verse cited above, "all those included in the census." As mentioned in the previous note, although the Rambam appears to have changed his mind in relation to this phrase, it nevertheless appears that there is a specific exclusion concerning women, for the previous verse states, "A man shall give...." (See the glosses of Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Ovadiah of Bertinoro, Shekalim 1:3.)
23.Although the Torah obligates only those included in the census - and that meant men of the age of twenty and above - for posterity, the mitzvah must be fulfilled by any child who reaches the age of thirteen.
This ruling is not accepted by many authorities. The Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.) and Rabbenu Ovadiah of Bertinoro (Shekalim 1:3) maintain that the requirements of the original census were observed for posterity.
24.Several commentaries have offered explanations why the Temple treasury was allowed to accept the gift of a child, when (as reflected in Hilchot Lulav 8:10) according to Torah law, a child is not able to transfer ownership of his property to others.
[K'tzot HaShulchan (Section 235) uses this law as the basis for a thesis of a larger scope: That once a transaction sanctioned only by Rabbinic law is completed, it is acceptable according to the Torah. For if the child's gift of the half-shekel (a transaction sanctioned by Rabbinic law only) were not acceptable according to the Torah, the money could not be used to purchase sacrifices. Netivot HaMishpat and others do not accept this thesis and offer other explanations why a child's gift is acceptable.]
25.This restriction would appear to refer to all gentiles. Indeed, Rav Kapach's Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state גוי, "a gentile," rather than כותי, "a Samaritan."
Without discounting the possibility of a change having been made because of censorship, it would appear that the reference to Samaritans is historical in nature. The reason why donations were not accepted from gentiles is that, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 8, funds from these donations were also used to maintain the city of Jerusalem. No monies from gentiles may be used for that purpose, as reflected by Nechemiah 2:20: "You have no portion, or right, or memorial in Jerusalem." And that narrative (ibid. 3:34) relates that the Samaritans were among the foes of Israel at that time. (See also Hilchot Matnot Ani'im 8:8.)
26.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:3), the Rambam mentions that by giving a half-shekel once, a father "obligates his son in this mitzvah." Hence, it is inappropriate for him to cease giving on his son's behalf.
27.It is customary to give a half-shekel to charity on the Fast of Esther in the present age. Nevertheless, this practice is merely a custom and is not considered as fulfillment of the mitzvah of giving a half-shekel.
28.In explanation, the B'nei Binyamin cites the Mishnah at the conclusion of the first chapter of Kiddushin, which states that the half-shekel is an obligation incumbent on a person's body, like tefillin. Therefore, it must be performed in all places. The Kessef Mishneh draws attention to Shekalim 3:4, which states that the third time during the year that funds were taken from the Temple treasury, they were taken on behalf of the Jews living in the diaspora.
29.The Mishnah (Shekalim 1:1) and the Rambam (Hilchot Arachin 8:1) mention other communal responsibilities that were also discharged on that day.
30.Our translation of the Hebrew מדינה is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:3). Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro and others differ in the interpretation of the Mishnah and maintain that the money-changers would sit only in Jerusalem.
31.For the court is obliged to compel the people to perform all the positive commandments.
32.I.e., women or slaves.
33.I.e., a minor.
34.The Tosefot Yom Tov explains that the priests have a reputation for being short-tempered. (See Hoshea 4:4; Shabbat 149b.) If they were compelled to give, strife might arise. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:3) offers a different explanation. The priests were not compelled to give as a token of respect for their office.
Shekalim - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
How would the moneychangers collect the shekalim? In each and every city, they positioned two chests before them. The bottoms of the chests were wide, and the tops narrow like a shofar,1 so that the money could be deposited in them, but could not be removed from them easily.
Why did they have two chests? One to deposit the [half-]shekalim of the present year, and one to deposit the [half-]shekalim of the previous year,2 for [the collectors] would demand payment from the people who did not give in the previous year.
Halacha 2
In the Temple, there were always thirteen chests, each chest [shaped] like a shofar. The first chest was for the shekalim of the present year; the second for the shekalim of the previous year; the third was for all those who where obligated to bring an offering of two turtle doves or two common doves,3 one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. The funds [for these offerings] were deposited in this chest.
The fourth was for those who were obligated to bring [doves] as a burnt offering only. They would deposit the funds [for these offerings] in this chest. The fifth was for those who volunteered to buy wood for the altar; the sixth, for those who donated money [to purchase] frankincense;4 the seventh, for those who donated gold for the covering [of the ark].5
The eighth6 was for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] a sin-offering - i.e., a person set aside funds [to use to purchase] a sin-offering, and money remained after purchasing it. Those funds were deposited in this [chest].
The ninth was for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] a guilt-offering; the tenth, for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] the pairs [of doves necessary] for [the offerings of] zavim, zavot,7 and women after childbirth; the eleventh, for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] the offerings of a nazirite; the twelfth, for the [money that] remains after [purchasing] the guilt offering of a leper; the thirteenth, for a person who pledged money for an animal [to be brought] as a burnt offering.8
Halacha 3
The [purpose] for each category for which the funds in the chest were used was written on the outside of the chest. The court stipulated that all the monies that remained after the purchase of sacrifices for which they were designated should be used to offer animals as burnt offerings.9
It thus follows that all the funds in the latter six chests were used [to purchase] animals for burnt offerings. Their hides belonged to the priests, as did the hides [of other burnt offerings].10 All the funds in the third chest were to be used to purchase doves: half of them burnt offerings, and half of them sin offerings. All [the funds in] the fourth [chest] were to be used to purchase doves to be sacrificed as burnt offerings.
Halacha 4
When the shekalim were collected from each and every city, they were sent to the Temple with emissaries.11 They might be exchanged for golden dinarim, so that [they would not become a] burden on the journey.12 [All the funds] were amassed in the Temple.
They were placed in one of the chambers of the Temple. All the doors to the chamber were closed [under lock and] key, and then they were covered with seals. All the shekalim that were collected there [were stored] in three large baskets. Each of the baskets was large enough to contain nine seah.13 The remainder [of the money] was left in the chamber.
The money in the baskets was referred to as terumat halishcah ("[the funds of] the chamber that were set aside").14 [The funds that] remained besides [the funds] stored in the baskets were referred to as sheyarei halishcah ("the remainder within the chamber").15
Halacha 5
On three occasions during the year16 funds were taken from this chamber: On Rosh Chodesh Nisan, on either the day before or the day after the festival of Rosh Chodesh Tishrei17, and fifteen days before Shavuot.18
How is the money set aside? One person enters the chamber, while the guards stand outside. He asks them: "Should I set aside the funds?" They answer him: "Set them aside; set them aside; set them aside," [repeating the answer] three times.19
The person then filled three smaller baskets, each containing three seah, from [the funds in] the three large baskets. He then took the money outside to use it until it was depleted. Afterwards, he returned and refilled the three small baskets from the three large baskets a second time before Shavuot. The money was then used until it was depleted.
Halacha 6
In Tishrei, he returned a third time, filled [the three small baskets] from the three large baskets, and used the funds until they were exhausted [or] until Rosh Chodesh Nisan.20 On Rosh Chodesh Nisan, [funds] were set aside from the new collection.21
If the funds in the three large containers were insufficient and were exhausted before the month of Nisan, they would set aside other funds from the remainder within the chamber.22
Halacha 7
The three smaller baskets into which the funds were set aside and taken outside were labeled alef, bet, gimmel.23 [In this manner,] he would know to take [the funds] from the first until they were exhausted, and then to take from the second, and then to take from the third.
He should fill the first basket from the first large basket, and then cover the large basket with a handkerchief. Afterwards, he should fill the second basket from the second large basket and then cover the large basket with a handkerchief, and then the third basket from the third large basket.
He does not cover this large basket with a handkerchief, thus making it apparent that he concluded with it. And he would begin with it when he entered a second time before Shavuot. At that time, he would first set aside [the funds] from the large basket that was uncovered, and then he covered it. He then set aside from the large basket from which he had taken [the funds] first on the previous occasion, and covered it. He would then take funds from the large basket that is next to it.
He would not cover this basket, so that [he would know] to start from it in Tishrei, the third time he entered.24 Thus, he would have placed [funds] into the first, second, and third of the small baskets from each of the large baskets.
Halacha 8
When he placed the funds in these three [small] baskets, he placed the funds in the first basket on behalf of [the inhabitants of] Eretz Yisrael; in the second basket, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] the walled cities surrounding Eretz Yisrael,25and on behalf of [the inhabitants of] the totality of Eretz Yisrael; and in the third basket, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] Babylonia, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] Media, on behalf of [the inhabitants of] other distant countries, and on behalf of the remainder of the Jewish people.26
Halacha 9
When he set aside the funds, he had the intention of including [all those whose shekalim] had been collected and were present in the chamber, [all those whose shekalim] had been collected and had not reached the chamber, and [all those whose shekalim] would be collected in the future.27
[In this manner,] the shekalim that he set aside to use [to purchase the sacrifices] would serve as atonement for the entire Jewish people. It is as if their shekalim had already reached the chamber, and were included in the money that was set aside.
Halacha 10
When the person entered to set aside the funds, he should not enter wearing a garment in which he could hide money, nor wearing shoes or sandals,28 nor wearing tefillin or an amulet, lest the people suspect that he hid funds from the chamber underneath them when he set aside the funds. And they would talk to him [continuously] from the time he entered until the time he departed, so that he could not place [a coin] in his mouth.
Even though all these safeguards were taken, a poor person or someone who craved money should not [be appointed to] set aside these funds.29 [In this way,] the matter will not arouse suspicion, thus [fulfilling the advice of Numbers 32:22]: "You shall be blameless before God and before Israel."
FOOTNOTES
1.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 6:1), the Rambam refers to the Jerusalem Talmud, which explains that the chests had curved necks to prevent people from removing the coins from them.
2.There is a reference in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1) that differs and maintains that in the outlying cities collections would be made only for the present year. It was in Jerusalem alone that they would collect for the previous year.
The Or Sameach explains that this reference follows a minority opinion, while the Rambam's decision is accepted as halachah. Other authorities maintain that there were variant versions of the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud.
3.These offerings were brought by zavim, zavot, and women after childbirth. Since the money was placed in the chest without distinction, half was used to purchase doves for burnt offerings, and half for sin-offerings.
4.This was used for the meal offerings as well as the incense offerings.
5.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 6:5), the Rambam states that these funds were to repair the Holy of Holies. Rav Kapach notes that, on occasion, the Holy of Holies is referred to as "the chamber of the kaporet." This appears to be the Rambam's intent. Rabbenu Ovadiah of Bertinoro, by contrast, interprets this term as referring to the Temple vessels made from gold.
6.Concerning the purpose of the latter six chests, the Mishnah (loc. cit.) states "six were for voluntary donations." The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud each offer a different interpretation of the purposes for which these six chests were used. The Rambam chooses the interpretation of the Tosefta.
7.Zavot is a venereal condition resembling gonorrhea that renders men (zavim) ritually impure. For women (zavot), the term refers to a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than those of her menstrual period. She also becomes impure.
8.The commentaries note that by choosing this interpretation, the Rambam defines a purpose for this chest that is different in nature from that of the previous five. Since these six chests were mentioned in one group by the Mishnah, this represents somewhat of a difficulty.
9.Had the court not made such a stipulation, it would not have been permissible to change the purpose of these funds from the intent for which they were originally donated. (See also Chapter 4, Halachah 9.)
10.Shekalim 6:6 relates that from Leviticus 5:19, "a guilt offering unto God," one might think that the offering should be consecrated entirely. Since II Kings 12:17 states, "The money from the guilt offerings and the money from the sin offerings shall... be for the priests," the following resolution was offered. The remaining funds were used to purchase burnt offerings that were dedicated entirely to God; the priests did not partake of them at all. The hides, however, were given to the priests.
11.More particulars concerning these emissaries are discussed in Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9.
12.I.e., a golden coin is far lighter than several silver coins of equivalent value.
13.Thus, the basket would contain 74.6 cubic liters according to Shiurei Torah and 130 cubic liters according to Chazon Ish.
14.These funds were used to purchase the communal sacrifices and for other purposes, as related in Chapter 4, Halachot 1-7.
15.These funds were used for various communal projects, as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 8. There is a substantial difference in status between these two groups of funds. The funds in the three baskets were considered sanctified, and a person who used them for mundane purposes would be liable for the misuse of a sacred article (me'ilah). The other funds, by contrast, were used for mundane purposes, albeit those of the community, and not those of an individual. (See Hilchot Me'ilah 6:13.)
16.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 3:1), the Rambam explains that the funds were set aside on these three occasions so that the matter would be publicized.
17.Although the wording of the Mishnah (Shekalim 3:1) implies that the money was set aside on Rosh HaShanah, since Rosh HaShanah is a holiday, the money was set aside either beforehand or afterwards.
18.Note also the parallel to (and slight difference from) Hilchot Bechorot 7:8, which describes the setting aside of the tithes of the herds on three occasions during the year.
19.Responses were frequently repeated in the Temple service for the purpose of emphasis. (See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:11 and Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2.)
20.There is an apparent difficulty with the Rambam's wording here, which appears to imply that the measures of funds set aside on each occasion were equal. This is inaccurate, for there are far more days between the middle of Iyar - the time of the second separation - and Tishrei - the time of the third - than between Tishrei and Nisan - the time of the first separation. And both of these periods are far greater than the period from Rosh Chodesh Nisan until the middle of Iyar. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 3:1), the Rambam resolves this difficulty, explaining that on each occasion they would set aside an amount of money appropriate for the period, implying that the amounts were not equal.
21.Rosh HaShanah 7b emphasizes that Rosh Chodesh Nisan was considered to be Rosh HaShanah concerning the Temple sacrifices, and from that time onward the funds to purchase the sacrifices were taken from the new collection.
22.I.e., the funds that were not within the three large baskets and were ordinarily used for other communal purposes.
In explanation of this halachah, the Kessef Mishneh points to a difference of opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 3:3) between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. The Sages maintain that if the funds were exhausted, a new collection should be made. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, maintains that the funds should be taken from those remaining in the chamber.
There is, however, a difficulty with the reference to this source, because Rabbi Meir maintains that the funds remaining in the chamber were consecrated, and therefore one who uses them for his individual purposes transgresses the prohibition against me'ilah. As mentioned above, the Rambam (Hilchot Me'ilah 6:13) does not accept that ruling.
23.The first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrew letters also serve as numerals. In this instance, it is as though the baskets were labeled 1, 2, and 3.
24.The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his interpretation of the Mishnah (Shekalim 3:4). (See his Commentary on the Mishnah.) The Ra'avad, Rabbenu Asher, and others offer a different interpretation, which appears to fit more closely the plain meaning of the Jerusalem Talmud's explanation of the Mishnah.
25.Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro (Shekalim 3:4) gives as examples, the inhabitants of the lands of Ammon and Moab.
26.Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro (who interprets the abovementioned Mishnah differently from the Rambam) explains that the reason for the mention of these three locales is chronological. First, the shekalim would be collected from Eretz Yisrael, then from the surrounding areas, and lastly from the outlying diaspora. Nevertheless, whenever they set aside the money for the communal sacrifices, they had the intent that the money was to be given for the entire Jewish people.
It is unlikely that the Rambam would follow this view. It appears that he considers these divisions as merely geographic indicators.
27.I.e., even if for some reason a person had not given his half-shekel as yet, retroactively he received a share in these sacrifices. In this manner, everyone who ultimately contributes toward the sacrifices will have a portion in all the communal sacrifices, even those offered before his contribution was made.
Ketubot 108a, cited by many as the source for this halachah, also mentions that the person setting aside the funds had in mind those people whose half-shekalim were lost and never reached the Temple treasury. Nevertheless, since the lost shekalim were not mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1), nor in the Tosefta (Shekalim 2:5), the Rambam also omits mention of them. (See also Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9.)
28.See Yevamot 102b, which mentions in this context that it is forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard wearing shoes or sandals. The Rambam quotes this law in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2.
29.The source for this law is the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 3:2), which states "A קווץ should not set aside funds." The Rambam interprets this term as referring to either a poor or a greedy individual. The Ra'avad maintains that the term refers to a person with long hair, lest he be suspected of hiding a coin among his locks.
Shekalim - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
Coins of a half-shekel were required by everyone so that each individual could give the half-shekel he was obligated to give. Therefore, when a person went to a money-changer to exchange a shekel for two half-shekalim, he would give the money changer an extra amount in addition to the shekel.1 This extra amount is referred to as a kolbon. Therefore, when two individuals give a shekel [to discharge the obligation incumbent] upon both of them, they are obligated to give a kolbon.2
Halacha 2
Any [two individuals] who are not obligated to give shekalim - e.g., two women or two slaves - and who gave a shekel are not obligated to give a kolbon.3 Similarly, if one person was obligated and another was not obligated, and the one who was obligated gave [a half-shekel] on behalf of the one who was not obligated - e.g., a man gave a [full] shekel on his own behalf, and on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave - he is not obligated to give a kolbon.
Priests are also not obligated to give a kolbon,4 nor is a person who gives on behalf of a priest.
Halacha 3
A person who gives a shekel on behalf of himself and a poor person, or his neighbor, or an inhabitant of his city, is not obligated to give a kolbon, if he gave [the half-shekel on behalf of his colleague] as a gift.5 [The rationale is] that he gave an [extra] half-shekel to increase the number of shekalim. If, however, he gave the half-shekel on behalf of his colleagues as a loan to be repaid when they have the means, he is obligated to give a kolbon.
Halacha 4
Brothers who have not divided the estate left to them by their father - and similarly, partners6 who give one shekel on behalf of the two individuals - are not obligated to give a kolbon.7
When does the above apply? When the partners have conducted business with the funds of the partnership, and [the initial funds are no longer present]. If, however, one individual brought funds and the other brought funds and they joined them together, but did not exchange or spend the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon.8
If they conducted business with the funds of the partnership, afterwards divided the assets, and then entered into a new partnership, they are obligated to give a kolbon until they conduct business under the new partnership agreement, and exchange the money [in the partnership's account].
Halacha 5
When [by contrast] brothers or partners jointly own an animal and funds, and then they subsequently divide the funds, they are obligated to give a kolbon although they have not divided the animal.9 Conversely, however, if they divided the animal, but did not divide the funds, they are not obligated to give a kolbon until they divide the funds. We do not say that the funds are about to be divided.10
Halacha 6
When a person gives a shekel to the Temple treasury so that it will be considered as if he gave the half-shekel he is obligated to give, and so that he should receive a half-shekel that was collected from others, he is obligated [to give] two kolbonot.11 In contrast, if his shekel were given entirely to [the Temple treasury], he would be obligated to give one kolbon [only].12
Halacha 7
What is the value of a kolbon? When two dinarim were given as a half-shekel, the value of a kolbon was half a ma'ah - i.e., one twelfth of a dinar. A kolbon of a lesser value was never given.13
The kolbonot do not have the same status as the shekalim. The money-changers would gather them in a separate collection until they were required by the Temple treasury.14
Halacha 8
A person whose shekel is lost is responsible for it until it is given to the Temple treasury.15
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a city send their shekalim by means of an emissary and they are stolen or lost: If [the emissary] was an unpaid watchman, he should take an oath to them,16 and then he is freed of liability, as is any other unpaid watchman. [The people] then must give their half-shekalim a second time.17
If the inhabitants of the city say, "Since we are giving our shekalim a second time [regardless], we do not desire for the emissary to be required to take an oath, for he is trusted by us," their request is denied. It is an edict of the Sages that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken.18
If the first19 shekalim were discovered after the emissary took the oath, both sets of shekalim are consecrated, but [the later shekalim] are not considered [as payment] for the following year. The first [shekalim] should be included among the shekalim of the present year, and the later [shekalim] should be included together with [the collection of shekalim] from the previous year.20
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] they sent their shekalim with a paid watchman, who is liable in the event of theft and loss, and [the shekalim] were lost because of forces beyond their control - e.g., they were taken by armed thieves. [The emissary] is not held liable.21
[Whether or not the inhabitants of the city are required to pay a second time depends on whether or not the funds in the Temple treasury have been set aside22.] If [the inhabitants' funds] were lost because of forces beyond [the emissary's] control after the funds [in the Temple treasury] were set aside, the emissary is required to take an oath23 to the Temple treasurer,24 and the inhabitants of the city are no longer liable. For the person who set aside the funds in the Temple treasury, did so on behalf of [those whose funds] have been collected, and on behalf of [those whose funds] have not yet been collected. Thus, the funds were already in the custody of the Temple treasury.25
The inhabitants of the city [are freed of liability], because there was nothing more that they could have done. They gave [the funds] to a paid watchman, who is liable in the event of theft and loss, and [the loss of property] due to forces beyond a person's control is an uncommon phenomenon.
If [the inhabitants' funds] were lost before the funds [in the Temple treasury] were set aside, they are considered as still being in the possession of the inhabitants of the city. The emissary is required to take an oath to the inhabitants of the city, and they are required to pay [their half-shekalim a second time].
If [the emissary] took [the required] oath, and they collected shekalim a second time, and then the thieves returned [the stolen funds], both sets of shekalim are consecrated, but [the later shekalim] are not considered [as payment] for the following year. Instead, [the later shekalim] should be included together with [the collection of shekalim] from the previous year.
There is an opinion26 that states that the first shekalim, which will be included among the shekalim of the present year, are the shekalim that were originally stolen, lost, or taken by forces beyond the emissary's control and returned. Another opinion states that the first shekalim are the shekalim that come to the hands of the Temple treasurer first.
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a person gives a half-shekel to a colleague to give to the money-changer on behalf of the donor, and instead the agent gives it to him on his own behalf, so that he will not be compelled [to give his own half-shekel at this time]: If the funds [in the Temple treasury] were already set aside,27 the agent is considered to have misappropriated consecrated property.28 For the [half-]shekel was already considered to be the property of the Temple treasury, since [the funds] were set aside on behalf of all those who would give in the future. Thus, [the agent] extricated himself29 [by using] consecrated funds and hence derived benefit from this [half-]shekel.
If the funds [in the Temple treasury] have not yet been set aside, the agent is not considered to have misappropriated consecrated property. He is, however, obligated to return the half-shekel to the colleague who gave it to him. Similarly, a person who robs [one of the money-changers of the Temple treasury] of a half-shekel, or steals30 it from him, and uses it for his half-shekel, is considered to have fulfilled his obligation [to give a half-shekel]. He must [reimburse] the [money-changer], [and] pay twice its value31 or add a fifth of its value32 [depending on the situation].
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] a person give his half-shekel from consecrated funds:33 After the funds from the Temple treasury are set aside, when the funds [from the Temple treasury] are used [to purchase a sacrifice], the person becomes obligated for the misappropriation of consecrated property.34 He has, however, fulfilled his obligation to give a half-shekel.
Should one give [a half-shekel] from funds that were designated as the second tithe,35 he should partake of a quantity of food that is of equivalent value in Jerusalem.36 Should one give [a half-shekel] from funds that were given in exchange for the produce of the Sabbatical year,37 he should partake of a quantity of food that is of equivalent value, and treat it with the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical year.38 Should one give [a half-shekel] from an apostate city,39 his act is of no consequence whatsoever.40
Halacha 12
When a person has set aside a [half-]shekel under the impression that he was obligated to give it, and then discovers that he was not obligated, his [half-]shekel is not consecrated.41
When a person gave two [half-]shekalim, and later discovered that he was obligated to give only one, [the following rules apply:] If he gave them one after another, the second [half-]shekel is not consecrated.42 If he gave them both at one time, one is a [half-]shekel, and one is considered as overpayment for a [half-]shekel.43 If a person set aside a [half-]shekel and died, the [half-shekel] should be designated as funds donated [for the purpose of purchasing burnt offerings].44
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when a person] takes coins in his hands and says, "These are for my [half-]shekel,"45 or when he collects ma'ah46 after ma'ah or prutah47 after prutah, and says, "I am collecting money for my [half-]shekel": Even if he collects an entire purse-full, [all that he is required] to give is the half-shekel that he is obligated to give, and the rest of the funds remain unconsecrated. For [any] overpayment given for the [half-]shekel remains unconsecrated.
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] money is discovered [in the collection area in the Temple] between the chest of the [half-]shekalim and the chest designated for donations [for burnt offerings]:48 [If the funds are] closer to [the chest of] the shekalim, they should be considered as shekalim. If they are closer to [the chest designated for] donations [for burnt offerings], they should be used for that purpose.49 If the funds are equidistant between the two chests, they are designated as donations for burnt offerings. [The rationale is that] these donations [involve a more severe type of offering,50 for they] are used entirely for burnt offerings. The shekalim, by contrast, are used for burnt offerings and for other purposes.51
Halacha 15
Similarly, all the funds that are found between chests should be designated for the purpose of the chest to which they are closest. If [funds] are [discovered] equidistant between chests - for example, if they are between the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] wood and the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] frankincense - they should be designated [for purchasing] frankincense.52 [If they are discovered] between the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] pairs of doves53 and the chest [whose contents are used to purchase] doves for burnt offerings, they should be designated [for purchasing] doves for burnt offerings.54
This is the general principle: In all cases, we designate [the funds for the purposes of the chest] to which they are closest;55if [the funds] are equidistant [from two chests], [we designate them] for the purposes that are governed by] more stringent requirements.
All the coins found on the Temple Mount are [considered] unconsecrated funds,56 because the Temple treasurer does not take money out of the Temple treasury until he transfers their consecrated dimension to the animals that he purchases for sacrifices.
FOOTNOTES
1.Rashi (Chulin 25b) explains that this additional amount was given to tip the scales in favor of the money changer. The Meiri explains that since half-shekel coins were in demand, the value of two such coins was slightly more than a shekel. Rav Kapach [based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:6)] explains that this additional amount was a fee paid to the Temple treasury for providing the services of a money-changer. Based on the latter two explanations, if a person gives a half-shekel coin, he is not obligated to add a kolbon.
2.A single kolbon. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah [loc. cit.].)
3.Since their gift is voluntary in nature, they are not obligated to add more to it.
4.Since priests are not compelled to give a half-shekel for the reasons mentioned above (see the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 10), they are also not obligated to give a kolbon (Kessef Mishneh).
5.Although these individuals are obligated to give a half-shekel, since they did not give on their own behalf, the individual who gave on their behalf is doing a service for the Temple treasury. Hence, he is freed of the obligation of the kolbon.
6.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, because of a disagreement regarding the version of the text in the Mishnah (Shekalim 1:7), which serves as the Rambam's source. The Rambam's version of the text appears to have read האחים והשותפים, "The brothers and the partners." The Ra'avad's version of the text read האחים השותפים, "The brothers who are partners." According to the Ra'avad, ordinary partners are obligated to give a kolbon.
7.Since their business interests are combined, they are considered as a single individual. In the above-mentioned Mishnah, and in Bechorot 9:3 and other sources, our Sages contrast the obligation to give a kolbon with the obligation to tithe one's herds. Whenever these individuals are not obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are considered as a single entity, and they are obligated to tithe them together. Whenever they are obligated to give a kolbon, their herds are not considered as a single entity, and they are not obligated to tithe them together.
8.Although joining the funds together establishes a partnership (Hilchot Shluchin V'Shutafin 4:1), as long as the initial funds are still in the hands of the partnership, there is still an individual dimension to each person's investment (loc. cit.:3). When the initial funds have been spent and the partnership begins generating its own income, then the two people are considered to have a joint income.
9.The intent appears to be that since the brothers or the partners divided the funds available to them, it is clear that they no longer desire to conduct business as a single entity. We assume that the reason they did not divide the animal was merely one of convenience, and ultimately the partnership will be divided entirely.
The Ra'avad quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:7), which states that this applies only when the livestock do not comprise the majority of the assets of the estate or the partnership. If they did comprise the majority of the assets, a different ruling would apply. The Kessef Mishneh and the Migdal Oz offer different explanations for the Rambam's position.
10.Although there is no difficulty in dividing funds, the very fact that the funds have not been divided is an indication that the brothers and the partners still intend to do business as a single enterprise.
11.He is requiring that two different exchanges be made on his behalf: a) the division of his shekel so that he will have fulfilled his obligation of giving a half-shekel; and
b) that he receive a half-shekel in return.
He is obligated to pay a kolbon for each of these transactions (Rav Kapach, based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shekalim 1:6).
12.As stated in Halachah 3.
13.For as explained in Chapter 1, Halachot 5-6, this was the value of the half-shekel given in the desert. A lesser amount was never given.
14.The Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:4) quote different Sages who offer varying opinions regarding the purpose for which the kolbonot were used. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam used an indefinite choice of words because no final decision is reached in these texts.
15.Even if the initial setting aside of funds had already been performed in the Temple, the half-shekalim given afterwards are required actually to reach the Temple treasurers.
16.The emissaries must take three oaths: that the funds were lost or stolen, that they did not use them for their own purposes prior to their being lost, and that they were not negligent (Hilchot She'ilah UFikadon 4:1).
17.In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1), the Rambam emphasizes that the people are required to pay a second time because entrusting the funds to an unpaid watchman is considered a careless and irresponsible approach.
Note the contrast to the laws regarding a paid watchman in the following halachah, which differentiates between whether or not the loss took place before funds were set aside from the Temple treasury.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that it is possible to interpret Bava Metzia 58a as implying that the inhabitants should be freed of the obligation of paying a second time if the money was lost after the funds were set aside in the Temple treasury. The Rambam, however, does not choose this interpretation, for the reasons mentioned above.
18.According to the Torah itself, an oath is never required concerning consecrated articles. Bava Metzia (loc. cit.) explains, however, that our Sages instituted this oath so that the people would not treat consecrated articles in a disrespectful manner.
19.We have translated the terms "first" and "later" without adding any clarification at this point, because, as mentioned in the conclusion of the following halachah, there is a difference of opinion regarding their meaning.
20.As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2, every year, it was possible for a person to give a half-shekel to compensate for his failure to do so in the previous year. The extra shekalim were added to this collection.
21.A paid emissary is never liable for losses due to forces beyond his control, as explained in Hilchot Sechirut, Chapter 3.
22.As described in Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 9.
23.This oath, like the one mentioned in the previous halachah, and like the one mentioned in the following clause, is Rabbinic in origin.
24.The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam is quoting the text of the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:1) despite the fact that the meaning of that phrase is changed by an interpretation offered in the preliminary discussion of the issue in Bava Metzia 58a: that the emissary takes the oath to the inhabitants of the city in the presence of the Temple treasurer in order to collect his wage, or in order to clear their reputation.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains, however, that once the Talmud mentions the reason for the oath stated in the previous halachah, "that [nothing] consecrated should be released without an oath having been taken," this interpretation is no longer necessary.
25.As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 9, when the person setting aside the funds in the Temple treasury makes the separation, he has the intention that the money set aside should be used to purchase sacrifices on behalf of all the Jews who donated or who will donate money for that purpose. Therefore, after the inhabitants of the city fulfill their obligation by sending the funds with a paid watchman, it is considered as if the funds were already given to the Temple treasury.
26.The source for the difference of opinion mentioned by the Rambam is the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 2:1).
27.This ruling is also based on the principles mentioned in the previous halachah: that the person who set aside the funds has in mind all the funds that will be donated in the future. Accordingly, once the person gives his half-shekel to his colleague, it becomes the property of the Temple treasury.
28.If his act was intentional, he receives lashes as punishment and must reimburse the Temple treasury. If his transgression was unintentional, he is obligated to bring a sacrifice for atonement and to reimburse the Temple treasury, adding a fifth of the shekel's value. (See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:3.)
29.A person is liable for misappropriating consecrated property when benefit is derived from it. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:2), the Rambam emphasizes that the benefit the person derives is that he extricates himself from a situation where his property would be taken to compel him to pay the half-shekel. The actual fulfillment of the mitzvah is not taken into account, because "the mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction."
30.In halachic terminology, robbery refers to the seizure of a person's property by force, while stealing refers to the theft of an object without his knowledge.
31.This ruling applies to a thief, but not to a robber. If, at the time of the theft the funds had not been set aside in the Temple treasury, the half-shekel the person steals has not been consecrated. Hence, the thief is required to make double restitution, as stated in Exodus 22:3.
32.The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers to a person who steals from a money-changer after the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. He is thus making personal use of consecrated property and must add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained above.
The Or Sameach differs and states that this refers also to a person who steals before the funds have been set aside in the Temple treasury. A person who is charged with theft, clears himself by taking an oath in court, and later admits the theft, is required to add a fifth of its value when making restitution, as explained in Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1.
33.I.e., money that was designated for the improvement of the Temple complex. The Rambam is speaking about an instance where the person is unaware that the funds that he used had been consecrated. If he had been aware, different rules would apply.
34.For a portion of his half-shekel is considered to have been used towards this purchase. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention the need for an animal to be purchased with the funds from the Temple treasury in the previous halachah as well. (See Or Sameach.)
35.I.e., money used to redeem the second tithe, which must be used to purchase food that will be eaten in Jerusalem. (See Deuteronomy 14:24-26.)
36.I.e., after the fact, it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used.
37.When produce that grew in the Sabbatical year is purchased, the seller may use the funds he receives for only one purpose: to purchase produce (that was not grown in the Sabbatical year). Moreover, the produce he purchases must be eaten according to all the laws that pertain to produce of the Sabbatical year. (See Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 6:6-10.)
38.In this instance, as well, after the fact it is as if he transferred the designated nature of the half-shekel to the funds he later used.
39.Which must be destroyed entirely, together with all the property contained within it. (See Deuteronomy 13:17.)
40.For the property from such a city is considered as having no value whatsoever. It is as if he gave ashes. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's statements, noting that this concept is so well known that it would seem unnecessary for the Rambam to mention it.
Several of the later commentaries offer possible resolutions to this difficulty. For example, the Merkevet HaMishneh states that this refers to money from the second tithe found in an apostate city. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 4:15.) Aruch HaShulchan states that this refers to money set aside for the half-shekel, but not given to the money-changers for that purpose. If it has already been given, it should be brought to the Temple treasury.
41.This follows a general principle that when a person consecrates property because of a misconception, the property is not consecrated.
42.For this is identical to the situation described in the first clause.
43.Which, as stated in the following halachah, remains unconsecrated.
44.The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 105) explains the reason for this law. Exodus 30:15 states that the half-shekalim are given for the purpose of atonement, and the dead are not in need of atonement.
45.The decision rendered in this clause represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from that of his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:3), where he writes that if a person brings money and says that it is for his half-shekel, the remainder is considered a donation and is used to purchase burnt offerings. This change of view is based on the discussion of the subject in the Jerusalem Talmud.
46.A ma'ah was worth one sixth of a half-shekel in Talmudic times (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).
47.A coin of little value.
48.Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements, which are based on those of the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:1). According to the description of the order of the chests in Chapter 2, Halachah 2, there are several other chests between the chests of the half-shekalim and the chests for the donations for burnt offerings.
49.Actual closeness is considered the determinant of primary importance in this and other halachic questions.
50.And this becomes the determining factor, as stated in the following halachah.
51.As explained in the following chapter.
52.For the frankincense was itself considered a sacrifice, in contrast to the wood, which was considered merely a medium to make possible a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh).
53.Which were sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering.
54.For the pairs of doves are offered, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering. Since the priests also partook of the sin offerings, the burnt offerings are considered more stringent.
The Kessef Mishneh cites the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro on Shekalim 7:1, where he states that a pair of doves were also donated from communal funds to be sacrificed, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. In this manner, if the funds came from those donated for this purpose, the person would receive atonement.
55.Regardless of whether the contents of the chest are used for purposes that are governed by more lenient or more stringent requirements.
56.As indicated by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2, a person was not allowed to enter the Temple Mount holding money in a visible manner. Thus, we can assume that most of the money lost there came from the Temple treasury, and that as the Rambam continues to explain, that money had already been redeemed through the purchase of the sacrifices.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• "Today's Day" Sunday, Adar II 7, 5774 • 09 March 2014
Sunday, Adar Sheini 7, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 39-43.
Tanya: Ch. 36. It is a (p. 163)...else besides me." (p. 163).
Walking in the street one must think words of Torah. Whether to actually pronounce the words depends on the place, if one is permitted - according to Torah law - to utter words of Torah there. But when someone goes about not occupied with Torah words,1 then the stone he treads on exclaims: "Bulach! ('clod', in Russian) How dare you trample me! How are you any higher than I am?"
FOOTNOTES
1. See 15 Adar I.
------
Daily Thought:
Realistic Optimism
People believe that only fools are optimists. But the opposite is true.
Precisely because we understand how desperate the situation really is, how helpless we are and how impossible the challenge, that itself tells us how great a G‑d we have—a G‑d who can lift us high beyond the natural order and transform the most ominous darkness to brilliant good.
The greater a realist you are, the greater your joy.
20 Cheshvan 5741 (1980), on the verse,
“I lift my eyes to the mountains, from whence will come my help?”
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment