TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• GOLDEN CALF MADE; HUR KILLED (1313 BCE)
In the year 2448 from Creation (1313 BCE), Tammuz 16 was the 40th day following the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and the people of Israel wrongly expected Moses' return from the mountain (he would actually return on the following day). When their leader failed to return, they demanded from Aaron: "Make us a god that shall go before us". Hur (Moses' nephew, the son of Miriam and Caleb) tried to stop them and was killed by the mob. Aaron fashioned a calf of molten gold.
Links:
The Making of the Golden Calf (text of Exodus 32 with Rashi's commentary)
An anthology of Midrashim and Commentaries on the making of the Calf
The Day Before (on the deeper significance of Tammuz 16, from the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe)
More on the Golden calf
See also "Today in Jewish History" for tomorrow, Tammuz 17.
DAILY QUOTE:
Just as the olive yields light only when it is pounded, so are man's greatest potentials realized only under the pressure of adversity(The Talmud)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Matot, 2nd Portion Numbers 31:1-31:12 with Rashi
• Chapter 31
1. The Lord spoke to Moses saying, א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. "Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people." ב. נְקֹם נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים אַחַר תֵּאָסֵף אֶל עַמֶּיךָ:
against the Midianites: But not against the Moabites, for the Moabites were involved in the matter out of fear, since they were afraid of being plundered by them, because all it says is, “do not provoke them into battle” (Deut. 2:9), but the Midianites were angered over a dispute which did not concern them (See Sifrei Mattoth 33). Another interpretation: Because of the two good doves [virtuous proselytes] whom I have [in mind] to bring forth from them, [namely] Ruth the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess (I Kings 14: 21). - [B.K. 38b]
מאת המדינים: ולא מאת המואבים, שהמואבים נכנסו לדבר מחמת יראה שהיו יראים מהם, שיהיו שוללים אותם, שלא נאמר אלא (דברים ב, ט) אל תתגר בם מלחמה. אבל מדינים נתעברו על ריב לא להם. דבר אחר מפני שתי פרידות טובות שיש לי להוציא מהם, רות המואביה ונעמה העמונית:
3. So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian. ג. וַיְדַבֵּר משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם לֵאמֹר הֵחָלְצוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם אֲנָשִׁים לַצָּבָא וְיִהְיוּ עַל מִדְיָן לָתֵת נִקְמַת יְהֹוָה בְּמִדְיָן:
Moses spoke: Although he heard that his death depended on the matter, he did it joyfully, without delay. — [Sifrei Mattoth 34, Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Num. Rabbah 22:2]
וידבר משה וגו': אף על פי ששמע שמיתתו תלויה בדבר עשה בשמחה ולא איחר:
arm: Heb. הֵחָלְצוּ, as the Targum [Onkelos renders זְרִיזוּ], in the sense of “armed for battle” (verse 5), armed with weapons. — [See Sifrei Mattoth 34]
החלצו: כתרגומו לשון חלוצי צבא מזויינים:
men: Righteous men. Similarly, “choose men for us” (Exod. 17:9), and“men who are wise and renowned” (Deut. 1:15). - [Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Sifrei Mattoth 36, Num. Rabbah 22:2]
אנשים: צדיקים, וכן (שמות יז, ט) בחר לנו אנשים, וכן (דברים א, טו) אנשים חכמים וידועים:
the revenge of the Lord: For anyone opposing Israel is reckoned as opposing the Holy One, blessed is He. — [See Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Num. Rabbah 22:2]
נקמת ה': שהעומד כנגד ישראל, כאלו עומד כנגד הקב"ה:
4. A thousand for each tribe, a thousand for each tribe, from all the tribes of Israel you shall send into the army." ד. אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל תִּשְׁלְחוּ לַצָּבָא:
from all the tribes: including the tribe of Levi. — [Sifrei Mattoth 35]
לכל מטות ישראל: לרבות שבט לוי:
5. From the thousands of Israel one thousand was given over for each tribe, twelve thousand armed for battle. ה. וַיִּמָּסְרוּ מֵאַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אֶלֶף חֲלוּצֵי צָבָא:
was given over: Heb. וַיִּמָּסְרוּ. [The passive form is used] to inform you of the virtues of the Israelite shepherds [leaders]-how cherished they were by Israel. When they had not yet heard of his death, what did he say? “Just a little longer and they will stone me” (Exod. 17:4). But as soon as they heard that Moses’ demise was contingent upon the revenge against Midian, they refused to go, until they were given over against their will. — [Sifrei Mattoth 36, Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3, Num. Rabbah 22:3]
וימסרו: להודיעך שבחן של רועי ישראל כמה הם חביבים על ישראל, עד שלא שמעו במיתתו מה הוא אומר (שמות יז, ד) עוד מעט וסקלוני, ומששמעו שמיתת משה תלויה בנקמת מדין, לא רצו ללכת עד שנמסרו על כרחן:
6. Moses sent them the thousand from each tribe to the army, them along with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the kohen to the army, with the sacred utensils and the trumpets for sounding in his possession. ו. וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם משֶׁה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לַצָּבָא אֹתָם וְאֶת פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן לַצָּבָא וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת הַתְּרוּעָה בְּיָדוֹ:
them along with Phinehas: This shows that Phinehas equaled them all (Sifrei Mattoth 34). Why did Phinehas go, and Eleazar did not go? The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “The one who began the mitzvah by killing Cozbi the daughter of Zur, should finish it” (Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 3). Another interpretation: He sought the vengeance of Joseph, his maternal grandfather, for it says, “And the Medanites sold him” (Gen. 37:36) (Sifrei Mattoth 34, Sotah 43a). How do we know that the Phinehas’s mother was [descended] from Joseph? Because it says,“[Eleazar the son of Aaron took himself one] of the daughters of Putiel (פּוּטִיאֵל)” (Exod. 6:25) [meaning] of the descendants of Jethro, who fattened (פִּטֵּם) calves for idolatry, and from the descendants of Joseph, who made light of (פִּטְפֵּט) his passion and prevailed over it [when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife]. Another interpretation: He was [the kohen] anointed for war. — [Sotah 43a]
אותם ואת פינחס: מגיד שהיה פינחס שקול כנגד כולם. ומפני מה הלך פינחס ולא הלך אלעזר. אמר הקב"ה מי שהתחיל במצוה, שהרג כזבי בת צור, יגמור. דבר אחר שהלך לנקום נקמת יוסף אבי אמו, שנאמר (בראשית לז, לו) והמדנים מכרו אותו. ומנין שהיתה אמו של פנחס משל יוסף, שנאמר (שמות ו, כה) מבנות פוטיאל, מזרע יתרו שפיטם עגלים לעבודה זרה ומזרע יוסף שפטפט ביצרו. דבר אחר שהיה משוח מלחמה:
the sacred utensils: The holy Ark (Sifrei Mattoth 34, Num. Rabbah 22:4) and the golden showplate (Mid. Aggadah), since Balaam was with them and through sorcery was able to make the Midianite kings fly, and he flew along with them, he [Phinehas] showed them the showplate on which God’s Name was engraved, and they fell down [to earth]. For this reason it says, concerning the Midianite kings, “upon their slain” (verse 8), for they fell from the air on top of those slain. Likewise, it says in the book of Joshua (13:22) in connection with Balaam,“upon (sic) their slain.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Mattoth 4]
וכלי הקדש: זה הארון והציץ. שהיה בלעם עמהם ומפריח מלכי מדין בכשפים, והוא עצמו פורח עמהם. הראה להם את הציץ, שהשם חקוק בו, והם נופלים, לכך נאמר על חלליהם במלכי מדין, שנופלים על החללים מן האויר, וכן בבלעם כתיב (יהושע יג, כב) אל חלליהם:
in his possession: Heb. בְּיָדוֹ, lit. in his hand, [here] in his possession. Similarly,“taking all his land from his possession (מִיָּדוֹ) ” (Num. 21: 26). - [Sifrei Mattoth 37]
בידו: ברשותו וכן (במדבר כא, כז) ויקח את כל ארצו מידו:
7. They mounted an attack against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. ז. וַיִּצְבְּאוּ עַל מִדְיָן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל זָכָר:
8. And they killed the Midianite kings upon their slain: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword. ח. וְאֶת מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן הָרְגוּ עַל חַלְלֵיהֶם אֶת אֱוִי וְאֶת רֶקֶם וְאֶת צוּר וְאֶת חוּר וְאֶת רֶבַע חֲמֵשֶׁת מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב:
the five kings of Midian: Do I not see that the verse lists five [kings]? Why was it necessary [for Scripture] to say “five”? But it is to teach you that they were all equally involved in the conspiracy, and they all received the same punishment. Balaam went there [to Midian] to receive his reward for the twenty-four thousand that had fallen from Israel as a result of his advice, and now he left Midian to meet the Israelites, and he offered them harmful advice. He said to them, “If, when you were six hundred thousand, you could not overcome them, and now with twelve thousand, you come to fight?” They gave him his just deserts-in full, without depriving him in the least. — [Sifrei Mattoth 40]
חמשת מלכי מדין: וכי איני רואה שחמשה מנה הכתוב, למה הוזקק לומר חמשת, אלא ללמדך ששוו כולם בעצה והושוו כולם בפורענות. בלעם הלך שם ליטול שכר עשרים וארבעה אלף שהפיל מישראל בעצתו, ויצא ממדין לקראת ישראל ומשיאן עצה רעה. אמר להם אם כשהייתם ששים רבוא לא יכולתם להם, ועכשיו בי"ב אלף אתם באים להלחם. נתנו לו שכרו משלם ולא קפחוהו:
with the sword: He came against Israel and exchanged his craft for theirs. For they are victorious only with their mouths, through prayer and supplication, and he came and adopted their craft to curse them with his mouth. So they too came against him by exchanging their craft for the craft of the nations, who come with the sword, as it says [concerning Esau],“And you shall live by your sword” (Gen. 27:40). - [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8]
בחרב: הוא בא על ישראל, והחליף אומנתו באומנותם, שאין נושעים אלא בפיהם ע"י תפלה ובקשה. ובא הוא ותפש אומנותם לקללם בפיו, אף הם באו עליו והחליפו אומנותם באומנות האומות, שבאין בחרב, שנאמר (בראשית כז, מ) ועל חרבך תחיה:
9. The children of Israel took the Midianite women and their small children captive, and they plundered all their beasts, livestock, and all their possessions. ט. וַיִּשְׁבּוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְשֵׁי מִדְיָן וְאֶת טַפָּם וְאֵת כָּל בְּהֶמְתָּם וְאֶת כָּל מִקְנֵהֶם וְאֶת כָּל חֵילָם בָּזָזוּ:
10. They set fire to all their residential cities and their castles. י. וְאֵת כָּל עָרֵיהֶם בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם וְאֵת כָּל טִירֹתָם שָׂרְפוּ בָּאֵשׁ:
their castles: Heb. בְּטִירֹתָם, the place of their notaries (נוֹטֵירִין), [or the place of their palaces (פַּלְטֵירִין)] which is an expression denoting the residence of the priests, knowledgeable in their laws. Another interpretation: The residence of their lords, for the Targum renders“the lords of the Philistines” פְלִשְׁתִּים) (סַרְנֵי (I Sam. 6:4) as טוּרְנֵי פְלשְׁתָּאֵי. - [See Sifrei Mattoth 41]
טירתם: מקום פלטרין שלהם, שהוא לשון מושב כומרים יודעי חוקיהם. דבר אחר לשון מושב שריהם, כמו שמתורגם סרני פלשתים טורני פלשתאי:
11. They took all the booty and all the plunder of man and beast. יא. וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת כָּל הַשָּׁלָל וְאֵת כָּל הַמַּלְקוֹחַ בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה:
They took all the booty: This teaches us that they were virtuous and righteous, and were not suspect of theft, to appropriate the booty without permission, for it says, “ all the booty” (Sifrei Mattoth 42). In tradition, [i.e., in the Prophets and the Writings] Scripture explicitly refers to them, [for it says,]“your teeth are like a flock of ewes…” (Song 6: 6)-even your warriors; they are all righteous. — [See Rashi on Song 6:6]
ויקחו את כל השלל וגו': מגיד שהיו כשרים וצדיקים ולא נחשדו על הגזל לשלוח יד בבזה שלא ברשות, שנאמר את כל השלל וגו', ועליהם מפורש בקבלה שניך כעדר הרחלים וגו', אף אנשי המלחמה שביך כולם צדיקים:
booty: Heb. שָׁלָל, movable objects such as garments and ornaments.
שלל: הן מטלטלין של מלבוש ותכשיטין:
spoil: Heb. בָּז denotes plunder of movable objects which are not ornaments.
בז: הוא ביזת מטלטלין שאינם תכשיטין:
plunder: Heb. מַלְקוֹחַ, man and beast, but when“captives” (שְׁבִי) is mentioned together with“plunder” (מַלְקוֹחַ) , the “captives” refers to people and the “plunder” to animals.
מלקוח: אדם ובהמה. ובמקום שכתוב שבי אצל מלקוח, שבי באדם ומלקוח בבהמה:
12. They brought the captives, the plunder, and the booty to Moses and to Eleazar the kohen and to the entire community of Israel in the camp, in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. יב. וַיָּבִאוּ אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשְּׁבִי וְאֶת הַמַּלְקוֹחַ וְאֶת הַשָּׁלָל אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל עַרְבֹת מוֹאָב אֲשֶׁר עַל יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 79 - 82
• Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
-------
Tanya: Igeret HaTeshuva , middle of Chapter 3
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Monday, Tammuz 16, 5774 • July 14, 2014
Igeret HaTeshuva , middle of Chapter 3
ומכל מקום, כל בעל נפש החפץ קרבת ה׳, לתקן נפשו, להשיבה אל ה׳ בתשובה מעולה מן המובחר, יחמיר על עצמו
Nevertheless, though it has just been stated that in contemporary generations when excessive fasting causes illness and pain, the fasts of penance should be substituted by charity, every man of spirit who desires to be close to G d, to amend his nefesh1 (his soul), to restore it to G d with the finest and most preferred repentance, should be stringent with himself.
להשלים על כל פנים פעם אחת כל ימי חייו, מספר הצומות לכל עון ועון מעונות החמורים שחייבין עליהם מיתה על כל פנים, ואפילו בידי שמים בלבד
He should complete, at least once during his lifetime, the number of fasts for every grave sin incurring death at least, if only death by divine agency.
כגון להוצאות זרע לבטלה, פ״ד צומות פעם אחת בימי חייו
For example, for wasteful emission [he should undergo the series of] eight-four fasts once in his life.
ויכול לדחותן לימים הקצרים בחורף, ויתענה כעשר תעניות על דרך משל בחורף אחד או פחות
He may postpone the fasts until the short winter days and fast some ten days or less, for example, in one winter,
ויגמור מספר הפ״ד צומות בט׳ שנים או יותר, כפי כחו
and complete the series of eighty-four in nine or more years, according to his stamina.
וגם יכול לאכול מעט כג׳ שעות לפני נץ החמה, ואף על פי כן נחשב לתענית אם התנה כן
(2Besides, he may also eat a little about three hours before sunrise, and this would still be considered a fast, if he so stipulated.)
ולתשלום רנ״ב צומות כנ״ל, יתענה עוד ד׳ פעמים פ״ד עד אחר חצות היום בלבד
For the completion of the above-mentioned 252 fasts — three times eighty-four, this being the accepted arbitration in the above difference of opinion, so that one undertakes three times the number of fasts prescribed for this specific sin, even if it was committed many times — he may fast another four times eighty-four only until past noon;
דמיחשב גם כן תענית בירושלמי, וב׳ חצאי יום נחשבים לו ליום אחד לענין זה
this, too, the Talmud Yerushalmi3 considers a fast. In this context, moreover, two half-days are reckoned as one full day.
וכן לשאר עונות כיוצא בהן
This approach applies to other, similar sins as well,
Until now the Alter Rebbe addressed himself to those sins which at least incur death by divine agency. The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that this approach also applies to sins which do not incur such a harsh penalty but are similarly grave — “similar sins” — such as those which are actually comparable to idolatry, murder, and so on, as mentioned in ch. 7 below. Concerning these sins as well, the Alter Rebbe is saying here, one should be stringent and undertake the required number of fasts at least once in his lifetime.
אשר כל לב יודע מרת נפשו וחפץ בהצדקה
for each heart knows its own anguish and desires its vindication.
And this vindication is enhanced by fasting.
* * *
FOOTNOTES
1. Note of the Rebbe: “In this and all similar contexts, the term specifically used is nefesh [as distinct from the other four terms for the various levels of the soul] — possibly in view of the statement in the Zohar III (24b) and Sefer HaGilgulim, et al., that ’it is specifically the level of nefesh that sins.‘”
2. Parentheses are in the original text.
3. Nedarim 8:1.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Tammuz 16, 5774 • July 14, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 109
Selling the Animal Tithe
"It shall not be redeemed"—Leviticus 27:33.
It is forbidden to sell the Animal Tithe, in any condition whatsoever—whether live or slaughtered, whether the animal is whole or blemished.
Selling the Animal Tithe
Negative Commandment 109
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 109th prohibition is that we are forbidden from selling a tithed animal1 in any way.2
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "Do not redeem it."
The Sifra says, "Regarding the tithed animal it is written, 'do not redeem it.' It may not be sold, whether live or slaughtered, whether unblemished or blemished."
The details of this mitzvah as well as the preceding one4 are explained in tractate Bechoros5 and in the beginning of tractate Ma'aser Sheini.6
FOOTNOTES
1.Ma'aser beheimah. See P78.
2.I.e. it may neither be redeemed nor sold. This is in contrast with the firstborn animal, which may not be redeemed, but may be sold. See N108.
3.Lev. 27:33.
4.N108.
5.31b.
6.Chapter 1, Mishneh 2.
________________________________________
Positive Commandment 69
The Sin Offering
"And if any one of the people sins unintentionally"—Leviticus 4:27.
If someone inadvertently transgresses a grave sin, he is obligated to bring an animal Sin Offering.
The Sin Offering
Positive Commandment 69
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 69th mitzvah is that we are commanded that one who unintentionally transgressed any one of the serious, well-known1 prohibitions must bring a sin-offering.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "If any person commits an inadvertent violation."
This is the "fixed sin-offering" [chatos kavua], since it is always an animal.3
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Horayos4 and Kerisus,5 and in several places in Shabbos,6 Shavuos,7 and Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.These are the prohibitions for which the punishment is kares. There are 43 such transgressions, as enumerated in the beginning of tractate Kerisus.
2.Lev. 4:27.
3.Unlike other sin-offerings, that are not always animals. See P72.
4.8a.
5.19a.
6.69.102.
7.24a.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sechirut Sechirut - Chapter 3 Sechirut - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when a watchman claims that the entrusted article was destroyed by a major factor over which he had no control - e.g., it was broken or it died. If the loss occurred in a place where witnesses are ordinarily present, we require him to bring proof to support his claim that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control. He is then freed of liability, even for a watchman's oath. If he does not bring proof, he is required to make restitution, as Exodus 22:9-10 states: "If there are none who see, the oath of God will be between the two of them." This impliesthat in a place where it is possible to bring proof, he cannot free himself of responsibility by taking an oath. Either he brings proof or he makes restitution.
If, however, the watchman claims that the article was destroyed in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, we do not require him to prove his claim. Instead, he must take an oath that it was destroyed by factors beyond his control, and then he is freed of responsibility. If he brings witnesses who testify that he was not negligent in his care for the article, he is not liable; he is not even required to take an oath.
An incident occurred with regard to a person who was hired to transfer a jug of wine and it broke in the market place of Mechuzah. The matter was brought before the Sages and they said that people are ordinarily present in the market place where the watchman claimed that the jug was broken. Hence they required him to either bring proof that he was not negligent, but instead stumbled and fell or make restitution. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
When a person is hired to transfer a jug from place to place for a wage, and the jug is broken, according to Scriptural Law, he should be required to pay. For this is not a major factor that is beyond the porter's control; breaking an article is equivalent to its being stolen or lost, for which he is liable.
Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that the porter should be liable merely to take an oath that he was not negligent in caring for it. For if he were required to make financial restitution, no person would ever carry a jug for a colleague. Therefore, the Sages ordained that the breaking of a jug is equivalent to the death or the injury of an animal.
With regard to this matter, our Sages also ordained that if two people were carrying a jug with shafts, and it was broken, they should pay half the damages. For since this burden is very great for one person, but light for two people, it can be considered both similar and dissimilar to a loss due to factors beyond one's control. Therefore, if there are witnesses who testify that they were not negligent, they should pay half the damages.
If the jug was broken in a place where witnesses are not ordinarily present, the porters must take an oath that they did not break it through negligence. Afterwards, they are required to pay half the damages. For each one of should not have attempted to transport anything more than a burden that he could transport on his own. From this, one can derive thaht when a person transports a large jug that a porter would not ordinarily transport, he is considered to be negligent. If it breaks in his hands, he must make full restitution.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when a porter breaks a jug of wine belonging to a merchant and was obligated to make restitution, and the jug was worth four zuzim on a market day, and three zuzim on other days. If he makes restitution on a market day, he must give him either a jug of wine or four zuzim This applies if the merchant does not possess other wine to sell on the market day. If the merchant possesses other wine, the porter is required to pay only three. If the porter makes restitution on another day, he is required to return only three.
Whenever the porter makes restitution, a deduction is made for the effort the merchant would have to undertake in selling the jug, the damage the hole causes in the jug, and other similar matters.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when wolves come and attack herds being watched by a shepherd and seize some of them. If there is only one wolf, it is not considered to be a loss due to factors beyond his control. This applies even when there is an outbreak of wolves. If there are two wolves, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control." Two dogs are not considered to be a loss beyond his control, even if they come from two directions. If there are more than two, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control.
Armed thieves are considered to be a loss beyond his control. This applies even if the shepherd was armed and only one armed thief opposed him; it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. For a shepherd will not risk his life as a thief will.
A lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah or a snake are considered to be losses beyond his control.
When does this apply? When they come on their own initiative. If, however, the shepherd brings his herd to a place of wild beasts or thieves, losses incurred because of them are not considered to be losses beyond his control, and the shepherd is liable to make restitution.
Halacha 5
When a shepherd encounters a thief and begins to boast to him, trying to show him that he is not concerned with him, saying: "We are in this and this place. We have these and these many shepherds, and these and these types of weapons," and the thief comes and overcomes him and seizes the animals, the shepherd is liable. For there is no difference between bringing the animal(s) to a place of beasts and thieves, or boasting and thus bringing the thieves to the place of the animal(s).
Halacha 6
If a shepherd had the opportunity of saving an animal that was preyed upon or taken captive by calling to other shepherds or bringing staves, and he did not call to other shepherds or bring staves to save the animal, he is liable. This applies to both an unpaid watchman and a paid watchman. The difference is that an unpaid watchman should call to other watchman and bring staves without charge. If he cannot find any available for free, he is not liable. A paid watchman, by contrast, is obligated to hire other shepherds and staves until the value of the animal(s) in order to save them. Afterwards, he should collect their hire from the owner. If he does not do so and had the opportunity to hire others and did not avail himself of it, he is considered to be negligent and is liable to make restitution.
Halacha 7
When a shepherd claims that he hired other shepherds to save a herd from danger, he is required to take an oath. He may then collect the amount that he claims. The rationale is that he cannot claim more than the value of the herd and he could have claimed that the herd was preyed upon. He is required to take an oath while holding a sacred object, as required of all those who take oaths and expropriate property.
Halacha 8
The following laws apply when a shepherd abandoned his herd and came to the city - whether at the time the shepherds usually come to the city or at a time when this is not their practice - and wolves came and preyed upon the herd, or lions came and attacked them. We do not postulate that if he had been there, he definitely could have saved the animals. Instead, we assess the situation. If he could have saved them - even by hiring other shepherds and staves - he is liable. If not, he is not liable. If it is impossible to make such an assessment, he is liable.
Halacha 9
If an animal dies in an ordinary manner, this is considered to be a loss beyond the shepherd's control, and he is not liable. If he oppressed it and it died, it is not considered a loss beyond his control. If it overcame the shepherd and ascended to a high cliff, and it overcame him and fell, it is considered to be a loss beyond his control. If he led it up a steep cliff or it ascended on its own accord, but he could have prevented it from doing so and failed to do so, even though it overcame him and fell and died or was injured, he is liable. For whenever there is negligence at the outset, but ultimately the actual loss happens because of factors beyond the watchman's control, he is liable.
Similarly, when a shepherd leads animals across a bridge, and one pushes another and it falls into the current of the river, the shepherd is liable. The rationale is that he should have brought them over one by one. Indeed, the reason a shepherd receives a wage is to watch the animals in a effective manner. Since he was negligent at the outset, by causing them to cross together, even though when the animal fell, the loss was beyond his control, he is liable.
Halacha 10
If the shepherd was negligent and the animal went out to a swamp and died in an ordinary manner, he is not liable. For the animal's going there did not cause it to be lost due to forces beyond the shepherd's control. Since it died in an ordinary manner, what difference is it whether it diedin the watchman's house or in the swamp?
If, by contrast, a thief stole it from the swamp, and it died in an ordinary manner in the thief's house, the watchman is liable, even if he is an unpaid watchman. For even if it had not died, it would have been lost to its owner in the possession of the thief, and its going out to the swamp allowed it to be stolen. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Bechorot Bechorot - Perek 8, Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 1, Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 2
Bechorot - Perek 8
Halacha 1
The following laws apply when a person brought sheep into a corral, they began to depart one by one with him counting them as we explained, and he erred in numbering them, and called the eighth lamb or a lesser number, the tenth. In such a situation and, similarly, if he called the twelfth or a greater number, the tenth, those animals are not consecrated. If, however, he called the ninth or the eleventh, the tenth, they become consecrated.
This matter is a halachah, [communicated by the Oral Tradition: that an error when tithing causes one greater than the tenth or one lesser than the tenth to be consecrated, but not those greater or lesser than they.
Even if one called the ninth, the tenth, and the eleventh, the tenth, whether in error or intentionally, all three are consecrated.
Halacha 2
What are the laws that apply to them? The ninth is not sacrificed. Instead, it should be eaten after it becomes blemished. The tenth is the tithe offering and the eleventh should be offered as a peace offering. Accompanying offerings are required to be brought with it. Its holiness may not be transferred to another animal, because it is considered as an animal to which holiness has been transferred itself.
When does the above apply? When the person counting was the owner of the animals. When, however, a person appoints an agent to tithe for him and the agent errs with regard to the ninth or the eleventh, only the true tenth one is consecrated, for he was not appointed as an agent to err and to cause him a loss, only to consecrate the animals in the appropriate manner.
Halacha 3
The statement that if one called the eleventh animal "the tenth," it becomes consecrated applies when one called the tenth, "the ninth." If, however, he called the tenth "the tenth," and called the eleventh, "the tenth," the eleventh is not consecrated. The rationale is that the name "tenth" was not removed from the true tenth animal.
Moreover, even if the owner was silent when the tenth animal departed and did not call it "the tenth" or "the eleventh" and when the eleventh departed, he called it "the tenth," it is not consecrated. The rationale is that the tenth is consecrated as a matter of course, even though it was not explicitly called "the tenth." Hence, since the name "tenth" was not removed from the appropriate animal, the eleventh is not consecrated.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when the ninth and the tenth depart together. Whether the owner called both of them "the ninth" or both of them "the tenth," they are both consecrated. They both, however, should be eaten after they contract blemishes and neither should be sacrificed.
Similarly, if the tenth and the eleventh departed together, if he called them "the tenth," the tenth and the eleventh are considered as intermingled. It is as if a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, in which instance, the law is that they should be eaten after they contract blemishes, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.If he called them "the eleventh," it is considered as if the tenth animal and an ordinary animal are intermingled and they should be eaten after they contract blemishes.
Halacha 5
If, when the owner began counting, two animals, the first and the second, departed together, he should count all the animals in pairs and consecrate the tenth pair. Similarly, if he counted them all in sets of three or in sets of five, the tenth set becomes consecrated.
Halacha 6
If, at the outset, two departed and he counted them as one, and then he called the third that departed after them, "the second," and continued counting one by one in the ordinary manner, the ninth and the tenth are both consecrated and should be eaten after they contract blemishes. The rationale is that the ninth is the true tenth, because two animals departed at the outset. And the one that he called "the tenth" is really, the eleventh and when the eleventh is called "the tenth," it is consecrated, as we explained.
Halacha 7
If one counted backwards, i.e., when the first one departed, he counted it "ten;" when the second departed, he counted "nine;" until the tenth departed and he counted "one," it is consecrated, because the tenth is consecrated on its own accord.
Halacha 8
If one mistakenly called the ninth, "the tenth" and the tenth remained in the corral, the ninth should be eaten after becoming blemished and the one that remained in the corral is the tithe. This applies even though it did not depart, nor was it designated as the tenth, because the tenth is consecrated on its own accord.
If the tenth died in the corral, the ninth should be eaten after becoming blemished and the eight which departed after being counted are exempt even though the tenth among them was not consecrated to be offered, but instead, died before departing, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed, they are exempt.
Halacha 9
When one brought ten lambs into a corral and proceeded to count, if one of those counted died, he should continue counting and complete the reckoning in its ordinary manner, consecrating the tenth, even though there are only nine that are alive at the time.
Halacha 10
If after a person began counting, one of the animals in the corral died, those which were counted are exempt, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed even though one was not separated for them, they are exempt, as stated.Those that remained in the corral should be left for a later "threshing floor" until others are added to them.
Similar concepts apply when one had fourteen lambs and brought all of them into a corral and four departed through one opening and were counted, then six departed through another opening and were counted and four remained in the corral. If the four depart through the opening that the six departed, one should be taken as the tithe and all the others are exempt. The four that departed at first through the first opening are exempt, because once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed, they are exempt.
If the remaining four departed from the opening through which the first four departed, the four that departed at the outset and the six that departed afterwards through the second opening are exempt, because each one of them was counted in a manner that was fitting for them to be tithed. For at the time each of the groups departed, others remained in the corral to complete the counting and the tithing. The four that remained, however, although they departed through the first opening and were counted, were not counted in a manner appropriate for tithing. Therefore they must be included in another "threshing floor."
The following laws apply if four departed through one opening, four departed through another opening, and six remained. If all six departed from the same one of the two openings, one should be taken as a tithe and all the lambs are exempt from being tithed again. If, however, the six departed from both openings, some from one and some from the other, the six are included in another "threshing floor." The eight that departed from the two openings at the outset, however, are exempt, for each set of four was counted in a manner appropriate for ten to be counted and the tithe taken, for there were six remaining in the corral.
Halacha 11
If there were nineteen lambs in the corral and nine departed from one opening and nine departed from the other opening, the last one should be taken as the tithesand all the previous are exempt, for both sets of nine were counted in a manner appropriate for tithing.
12 . If one was counting and a lamb stuck out its head and the majority of its body from the corral and then returned, it is considered as having been counted in all contexts.
Halacha 13
If a person was counting and interrupted the reckoning because his colleague spoke to him or because night fell beginning the Sabbath, he should continue and complete his counting afterwards.
Halacha 14
When one was counting those that departed one by one and one consecrated the tenth and one of those which had been counted jumped back into the corral, becoming intermingled with those which had not been counted as of yet and which were not tithed, all of those in the corral are exempt. The rationale is that there is a doubt concerning every lamb in the corral: Is the one that was counted and jumped back in or is it another one? And we have already stated, that all those which were counted are exempt.
Halacha 15
If one of the animals selected as the tithes jumped back into the corral and became intermingled with the remaining animals, they should all be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Then they should be eaten after acquiring the blemish.
Shegagot - Perek 1
Halacha 1
Whenever a person inadvertently violates one of the negative commandments that involve a deed and for which one is liable for karet, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering. It is a positive commandment for him to offer a sin-offering for his inadvertent transgression.
Halacha 2
All transgressions for which one is liable for karet for their willful violation, one is liable to bring a sin-offering for their inadvertent violation except for three transgressions: blasphemy, negating circumcision, and negating the Paschal sacrifice. Negating circumcision and the Paschal sacrifice does not require such an offering, because they are positive commandments and a sin-offering is brought only for the inadvertent violation of a negative commandment, as Leviticus 4:27 states that the offering should be brought for violating: "one of the commandments of God that forbids an act to be performed." And blasphemy does not involve a deed. Thus a sacrifice is not necessary, because Numbers 15:29 speaks about this sacrifice being brought by "one who acts inadvertently," excluding a blasphemer who does not perform an action.
Accordingly, one who accepts a false deity as a god, even though he is liable for karet if he acts willfully and is liable for execution by stoning, is exempt from a sacrifice if he accept the deity inadvertently, because he did not perform a deed and Leviticus 4:27 states: "Acting in violation of one."
Halacha 3
With regard to all the transgressions punishable by karet in the Torah except for the three which were mentioned, if a private individual violated one of these prohibitions inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering with the exception of an impure person who partook of sacrificial meat and an impure person who entered the Temple. These two do not bring a fixed sin-offering, but rather an adjustable guilt-offering, as will be explained.
Halacha 4
Only an animal is brought as a fixed sin-offering. In contrast, an adjustable guilt-offering is a sacrifice whose object is not fixed. If one is rich, he must bring an animal as a sin-offering. If he is poor, he brings a fowl or a tenth of an ephah as a meal-offering, as will be explained. Thus all the sins for which a private person brings a fixed sin-offering are 43. They include:
a) one who is intimate with his mother,
b) one who is intimate with his wife's mother,
c) one who is intimate with his maternal grandmother,
d) one who is intimate with his paternal grandmother,
e) one who is intimate with his daughter,
f) one who is intimate with his daughter's daughter,
g) one who is intimate with his son's daughter,
h) one who is intimate with his wife's daughter,
i) one who is intimate with the daughter of his wife's daughter,
j) one who is intimate with the daughter of his wife's son,
k) one who is intimate with his sister,
l) one who is intimate with his sister who is the daughter of his father's wife,
m) one who is intimate with his father's sister,
n) m) one who is intimate with his mother's sister,
o) one who is intimate with his wife's sister,
p) one who is intimate with his father's wife,
q) one who is intimate with the wife of his father's brother,
r) one who is intimate with his son's wife,
s) one who is intimate with his brother's wife,
t) one who is intimate with another man's wife,
u) one who is intimate with a woman in the niddah state,
v) one who is intimate with a male,
w) one who is intimate with his father,
x) one who is intimate with his father's brother,
y) one who is intimate with an animal,
z) a woman who has an animal engage in relations with her. Thus all the prohibitions involving forbidden relations punishable by karet are 26.
Among other sins, there are seventeen. They are: a) one who serves a false deity by performing a deed,
b) one who gives his descendants to Molech,
c) one who divines through an ov,
d) one who performs a deed while divining with a yidoni,
e) one who desecrates the Sabbath,
f) one who performs forbidden labor on Yom Kippur,
g) one who eats or drinks on Yom Kippur,
h) one who eats chametz on Pesach,
i) one who partakes of fat,
j) one who partakes of blood,
k) one who partakes of sacrificial meat after the time for eating it passes,
l) one who partakes of sacrificial meat that was disqualified, because of an undesirable intent concerning time,
m) one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple Courtyard,
n) one who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard,
o) one who prepares anointing oil like that used in the Temple,
p) one who prepares incense like that used in the Temple,and
q) one who anoints himself with the anointing oil of the Temple. These are the 43 transgressions for which one brings a fixed sin-offering for their inadvertent violation.
What is the sacrifice that a person who inadvertently violates one of these transgressions should bring? If he inadvertently violated the prohibition against worshiping a false deity, he must bring a female goat in the first year of its life. This is the sacrifice mentioned in the portion Shelach Lecha. This applies whether the transgressor is an ordinary person, a king, a High Priest, or the priest anointed to lead the people in war. Every one is equal with regard to the inadvertent transgression of the worship of false divinities.
If, however, one inadvertently violated one of the other 42 transgressions mentioned above, different rules apply. If the transgressor was an ordinary person, he should bring a she-goat or a ewe. This is the sin offering of one of the common people mentioned in the portion Vayikra. If the king inadvertently violated one of these trangressions, he should bring a male goat as a sin-offering. If the transgressor is an anointed priest, he should bring a bull, the offspring of an ox as a sin-offering. It is burnt, as described there.
Halacha 5
The same laws apply whether one person inadvertently violates one of these transgressions or many do, as implied by Numbers 15:29: "There will be one law for those who transgress inadvertently."
What is implied? If the people of a city inadvertently transgressed and thought the day was an ordinary day, but it was Yom Kippur. As a result, they all ate and performed work, each one of the transgressors should bring two sin-offerings, ewes or she-goats. Similarly, if they all inadvertently transgressed and offered incense to a false deity, each one of the transgressors must bring a goat in its first year of life as a sin-offering.
Shegagot - Perek 2
Halacha 1
A person is not liable for a sin-offering for an inadvertent transgression unless he acts inadvertently from the beginning to the end. If, however, he acted inadvertently at the beginning, but acted willfully at the end or began acting willfully, but acted inadvertently at the end, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a sin-offering.
What is implied? A person transferred an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath. If one lifted up the article willfully, but placed it down inadvertently or lifted it up inadvertently, but placed it down willfully, he is exempt. To be liable for a sin-offering, he must lift it up inadvertently and placed it down inadvertently. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
If a person violated a transgression knowing that involved violation of a negative commandment, but he did not know that he is liable for karet for its violation, he is considered to have transgressed inadvertently and he must bring a sin-offering. If, however, he did know that it was punishable by karet, but was unaware of the obligation for a sacrifice, i.e., he did not know whether or not he was liable for a sacrifice for the transgression, he is considered to have acted willfully. For the lack of knowledge concerning a sacrifice is not considered as a lack of knowledge concerning these transgressions for which one is liable for karet.
Halacha 3
When a person does not know the nature of the transgression that he violated, even though he definitely knows that he violated a negative commandment punishable by karet, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as implied by Leviticus 4:23: "that he transgressed with regard to it," implying that he must know the transgression that he violated.
What is implied? There was a piece of forbidden fat and meat from a sacrifice left beyond its permitted time before him and he partook of one of them, but did not know which he ate; his wife who was in the niddah state and his sister were at home, he inadvertently was intimate with one of them, but did not know with whom he had relations; the Sabbath and Yom Kippur passed, he performed a forbidden labor on one of them, but did not know on which, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a sin-offering.
Halacha 4
If a person transgressed, became aware of the transgression, and then forgot which transgression he violated, he should bring a sin-offering for whichever transgression he violated. This offering should be eaten, like the other sin-offerings that are eaten.
Halacha 5
If one inadvertently committed one transgression, but there are two persons involved and he is unaware of the one with whom he committed the transgression, he is liable.
What is implied? There were two women in the niddah state. Inadvertently, he was intimate with one of them, but he did not know with whom. He had two sisters. Inadvertently, he was intimate with one of them, but he did not know with whom. In these instances, he is liable for a sin-offering. To what can this be compared? To two lamps that are burning and one extinguished one of them on the Sabbath without knowing which one he extinguished or two pots of forbidden fat from which he ate one and yet, he did not know the identity of the one from which he ate.In these instances, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 6
In all situations when a person is obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering for his inadvertent transgression and he transgressed inadvertently and he becomes aware of the transgression after violating it, he is liable for a sin-offering, even though initially, he was not aware that this act is a a transgression.
What is implied? A child was captured by gentiles and raised by them without knowing who are the Jewish people or what their faith is. He performed labor on the Sabbath, ate forbidden fat, blood, and the like. When he discovers that he is Jewish and commanded to eschew all of the above, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for every particular sin. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 7
When a person transgresses unintentionally by engaging in forbidden sexual relations or partaking of forbidden foods, he is liable for a sin-offering. If he does so with regard to the Sabbath, he is exempt from the obligation of a sin-offering.
What is implied? If he was acting casually with a woman and engaged in relations with her without intending to engage in relations and she is forbidden to him as an ervah, he is liable for a sin-offering. This ruling also applies if he thought that what was in his mouth was spittle and he swallowed it without the intent of eating at all and then he discovered that it was forbidden fat. If, by contrast, his intent was to lift up produce that was already cut and instead, he cut off a plant that was growing without intending to cut it off, he is exempt from a sin-offering, for the Torah forbade only the performance of purposeful labor, as explained in the appropriate place.
Halacha 8
Whenever one performs one of the mitzvot and while he was performing it, a transgression punishable by karet was violated inadvertently, he is not liable for a sin-offering, because the person was acting with license.
What is implied? A man engaged in intimacy with his yevamah. She was in the niddah state, but he was unaware. He is exempt from a sin-offering, for he acted with license. If, by contrast, one was intimate with his wife when she was in the niddah state, he is liable, because he did not ask her before engaging in relations. With regard to his yevamah, however, he is not familiar with her, so that he might ask her.
Similarly, if a person had two infants to circumcise, one, on the Sabbath, and one on Friday or on Sunday, should he have forgotten and circumcised them both on the Sabbath, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. For he was licensed to circumcise one of them on the Sabbath, the Sabbath laws are suspended in his regard, and he performed a mitzvah. Even though two bodies are involved, since it is a pressing time, he is not precise. If, however, neither of the children was scheduled to be circumcised on the Sabbath and on the Sabbath, he circumcised a person who was not fit to be circumcised on the Sabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering.
Halacha 9
The following rules apply when a proficient expert comes to circumcise a child before sunset on the Sabbath and he is told: "There is not enough time in the day left to perform the circumcision. If you begin circumcising, you will not be able to complete the act before the Sabbath departs. Thus you will have made a wound on the Sabbath without performing a mitzvah." If he says: "I am familiar with the task and deft and I will circumcise him speedily," should he not complete the circumcision until after the conclusion of the Sabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering, for they warned him.
Halacha 10
When a person takes a lulav out to the public domain on the first day of Sukkot which falls on the Sabbath in order to fulfill his obligation or carries it four cubits in the public domain inadvertently, he is exempt from a sin-offering, because he acted with license.
Similarly, if one slaughters an animal for a Paschal sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan which fell on the Sabbath and afterwards, he discovered that the owners removed their connection from it, they died or became impure before it was slaughtered, or it became tereifah in a hidden place, e.g., its intestines or lungs were perforated, he is exempt, because he slaughtered it with license. If, however, it was discovered to be blemished or there was a readily apparent factor that caused it to be deemed tereifah, he is liable for a sin-offering, since he should have checked it before slaughtering. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 11
If one slaughtered a Paschal sacrifice on the Sabbath for the sake of another sacrifice in error, he is exempt, because the sacrifice is acceptable. For supplanting the designation of a sacrifice in error is not considered of consequence, as explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.
Halacha 12
The following rules apply if, on the Sabbath, one slaughtered animals designated for other sacrifices for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice in error. If they are fit to serve as a Paschal sacrifice, he is free from the obligation of bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with license. If they are not fit to serve as a Paschal sacrifice, e.g., the animal was female or in its second year of life, he is liable for a sin-offering, because they are not fitting for this sacrifice.
Similarly, one is liable for a sin-offering if he slaughtered an animal as a Paschal sacrifice on the Sabbath for the sake of individuals who cannot partake of it, for those who were not enumerated on it, for the uncircumcised, or for the ritually impure. If, however, he slaughtered it on the Sabbath for the sake of individuals who can partake of it and for those who cannot partake of it, for those enumerated on it and for those who were not enumerated on it, for the circumcised and for the uncircumcised, or for the pure and for the impure, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because the Paschal sacrifice is acceptable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 13
When a person slaughters an animal designated for a communal sacrifice on the Sabbath for an intent other than that for which it was designated, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering. Nevertheless, the fats and the organs from the sacrificial animal should be offered on the altar's pyre on Saturday evening. Similarly, if on the Sabbath one slaughtered other animals besides those required as the day's obligations, he is liable for a sin-offering for the additional animal.
Halacha 14
A person who slaughters animals for individual sacrifices whose offering does not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions on the Sabbath inadvertently is liable for a sin-offering. One is, however, permitted to benefit from the meat of those sacrifices and the blood should not be cast on the altar. If he transgressed and cast the blood on the altar for the intent of those sacrifices whether without knowing it is a transgression or knowingly, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, the organs and fats may be offered on the altar's pyre, and the meat should be eaten. The one who slaughtered the animal should bring a sin-offering for his inadvertent violation.
Halacha 15
The following laws apply when, on the Sabbath, there were two animals designated for communal offerings before a priest, one, lean and one, stocky, and the sacrificial obligation of the day required - as either a sin-offeringor a burnt-offering - the offering of only one of them and he inadvertently slaughtered them both. If he slaughtered the lean one first and afterwards, slaughtered the stocky one, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a sin-offering. Indeed, he is told: "Bring the stocky animal and slaughter it as an initial preference." If, however, he slaughtered the stocky animal initially and then the lean one, he is liable for a sin-offering for the additional slaughter.
Nevertheless, in the latter instance, there is room for leniency if the stocky animal was slaughtered first and discovered to be tereifah because of a disqualifying factor in its intestines. Even though he did not know that the stocky one was tereifah when he slaughtered the lean one and he did not have that intent, since the last one was slaughtered as required by law, he is exempt from a sin-offering for its slaughter.
A similar law also applies if one spreads out a net to catch fish at sea on the Sabbath unknowingly and lifts up a child with the fish, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Even though his intent was only to catch fish, since he acted unknowingly and lifted up a child with the fish, he is exempt whether he heard that a child had fallen into the sea or not, he is exempt. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 16
When, on the night of Pesach, a person had roasted meat from the Paschal sacrifice and meat that was left over from other sacrifices before him and intended to partake of the roasted meat which is a mitzvah and inadvertently partook of the leftover meat, he is liable for a sin-offering, since he did not perform a mitzvah when eating. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Monday, Tammuz 16, 5774 • 14 July 2014
"Today's Day"
Monday, Tamuz 16, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Pinchas, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82.
Tanya: Nonetheless, every man (p. 351) ...its vindication. (p. 353)
The Baal Shem Tov's ahavat yisrael (love of fellow Jew) was beyond imagination. The Maggid said: If only we could kiss a sefer-Torah with the same love that my Master kissed the children when he took them to cheder as a teacher's assistant!
-------
Daily Thought:
Internal Terrorism
Each of us has a terrorist inside, a mad impulse to abandon that which is rightfully ours, to blow ourselves to smithereens.
You cannot outsmart it, for it has hijacked the mind that you use. It believes it is you; you believe you are it.
No peace can be made with it, no compromise—for compromise is the name of its game, step by step to your oblivion.
You cannot even recognize its existence—for that would be your admission that evil has a place in G‑d’s world.
There is only one solution:
If you know what is right, do that.
Do not stop to look backwards—certainly not to negotiate with a terrorist.(Tanya, chapter 28.)
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment