Today's Laws and Customs:
"The Three Weeks"
During the Three Weeks, from 17th of Tamuz to the 9th of Av, we commemorate the conquest of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Holy Temple and the dispersion of the Jewish people.
Weddings and other joyful events are not held during this period; like mourners, we do not cut our hair, and various pleasurable activities are limited or proscribed. (The particular mourning customs vary from community to community, so consult a competent halachic authority for details.)
Citing the verse (Isaiah 1:27) "Zion shall be redeemed with mishpat [Torah] and its returnees with tzedakah," the Rebbe urged that we increase in Torah study (particularly the study of the laws of the Holy Temple) and charity during this period.
Links:
The Three Weeks
Today in Jewish History:
R. Moshe Cordovero (1570)
Passing of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522?-1570) of Safed, the Holy Land, known as the "Ramak", authoritative Kabbalist and author of Pardes Rimonim.
Daily Study:
Should you say: what one sage permits, another prohibits; what Rabbi Eleazar condemns, Rabbi Joshua acquits; what the House of Shammai disqualifies, the House of Hillel declares fit; to whom then shall we listen? Says G-d: Nevertheless, it is all given from one shepherd...(Midrash Rabbah)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash with Rashi - Parshat Massei, 2nd Portion (Numbers 33:50-33:53)
Chapter 33
50. The Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying: נ. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב עַל יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ לֵאמֹר:
51. Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, נא. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן:
When you cross the Jordan…you shall drive out…: Were not they previously forewarned about this a number of times? However, Moses said to them,“When you cross over the Jordan on dry land, you shall cross on this condition, for if not, water will come and inundate you.” And so we find that Joshua said the same to them while they were still in the Jordan. — [Sotah 34a]
כי אתם עברים את הירדן וגו' והורשתם וגו': והלא כמה פעמים הוזהרו על כך, אלא כך אמר להם משה כשאתם עוברים בירדן ביבשה, על מנת כן תעברו, ואם לאו מים באין ושוטפין אתכם, וכן מצינו שאמר להם יהושע בעודם בירדן:
52. you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples, destroy their molten idols, and demolish their high places. נב. וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת כָּל ישְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֵת כָּל מַשְׂכִּיֹּתָם וְאֵת כָּל צַלְמֵי מַסֵּכֹתָם תְּאַבֵּדוּ וְאֵת כָּל בָּמוֹתָם תַּשְׁמִידוּ:
You shall drive out: Heb. וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם, you shall drive them out.
והורשתם: וגרשתם:
their temples: Heb. מַשְׂכִּיֹּתָם, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders, סִגְדַּתְהוֹן, their houses of worship, so called because they would cover (מַסְכְּכִין) the ground with a marble floor, on which they would prostrate themselves with outstretched hands and legs, as it is written,“And in your land you shall not place a pavement stone on which to prostrate yourselves (אֶבֶן מַשְׂכִּית) in your land on which to prostrate yourselves” (Lev. 26:1).
משכיתם: כתרגומו בית סגדתהון, על שם שהיו מסככין את הקרקע ברצפת אבנים של שיש להשתחוות עליהם בפישוט ידים ורגלים, כדכתיב (ויקרא כו, א) ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחוות עליה:
their molten [idols]: Heb. מַסֵּכֹתָם, as the Targum renders, מַתְּכַתְהוֹן, their molten [idols].
מסכתם: כתרגומו מתכתהון:
53. You shall clear out the Land and settle in it, for I have given you the Land to occupy it. נג. וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ כִּי לָכֶם נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ לָרֶשֶׁת אֹתָהּ:
And you shall clear out the Land: You shall vacate it of its inhabitants, and then you shall“settle in it.” Only then will you be able to survive there, but if you do not do this, you will be unable to survive there.
והורשתם את הארץ: והורשתם אותה מיושביה ואז וישבתם בה, תוכלו להתקיים בה, ואם לאו לא תוכלו להתקיים בה:
-------
Daily Tehillim - Psalms Chapters 108-112
Chapter 108
1. A song, a psalm by David.
2. My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and chant praises even with my soul.
3. Awake, O lyre and harp; I shall awaken the dawn.
4. I will thank You among the nations, Lord; I will sing praises to You among the peoples.
5. Indeed, Your kindness reaches above the heavens; Your truth reaches to the skies.
6. Be exalted upon the heavens, O God, [show] Your glory upon all the earth.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God spoke in His holiness that I would exult, I would divide portions [of the enemies' land], I would measure the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head, Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, I will cast my shoe upon Edom, I will shout over Philistia.
11. Who brings me to the fortified city? Who led me unto Edom?
12. Is it not God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth, O God, with our armies?
13. Give us help against the adversary; futile is the help of man.
14. Through God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 109
David composed this psalm while fleeing from Saul. At that time he faced many enemies who, despite acting friendly in his presence, spoke only evil of him; he therefore curses them bitterly.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O God of my praise, be not silent.
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they spoke to me with a false tongue.
3. They have surrounded me with words of hate, and attacked me without cause.
4. In return for my love they hate me; still, I am [a man of] prayer.
5. They placed harm upon me in return for my favor, and hatred in return for my love.
6. Appoint a wicked man over him; let an adversary stand at his right.
7. When he is judged may he go out condemned; may his prayer be considered a sin.
8. May his days be few; may another take his position.
9. May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.
10. May his children wander about and beg; may they seek charity from amid their ruins.
11. May the creditor seize all that he has, and may strangers plunder [the fruits of] his labor.
12. May he have none who extends him kindness, and may none be gracious to his orphans.
13. May his posterity be cut off; may their name be erased in a later generation.
14. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord, and the sin of his mother not be erased.
15. May they be before the Lord always, and may He cut off their memory from the earth.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued the poor and destitute man and the broken-hearted, to kill [him].
17. He loved the curse and it has come upon him; he did not desire blessing, and it has remained far from him.
18. He donned the curse like his garment, and it came like water into his innards, like oil into his bones.
19. May it be to him like a cloak in which he wraps himself, as a belt with which he girds himself always.
20. This is from the Lord for the deeds of my enemies, and [for] those who speak evil against my soul.
21. And You, God, my Lord, do [kindness] with me for the sake of Your Name; for Your kindness is good, rescue me!
22. For I am poor and destitute, and my heart has died within me.
23. Like the fleeting shadow I am banished, I am tossed about like the locust.
24. My knees totter from fasting, and my flesh is lean without fat.
25. And I became a disgrace to them; they see me and shake their heads.
26. Help me, Lord, my God, deliver me according to Your kindness.
27. Let them know that this is Your hand, that You, Lord, have done it.
28. Let them curse, but You will bless; they arose, but they will be shamed, and Your servant will rejoice.
29. May my adversaries be clothed in humiliation; may they wrap themselves in their shame as in a cloak.
30. I will thank the Lord profusely with my mouth, and amid the multitude I will praise Him,
31. when He stands at the right of the destitute one to deliver him from the condemners of his soul.
Chapter 110
This psalm records the response of Eliezer, servant of Abraham (to those who asked how Abraham managed to defeat the four kings). He tells of Abraham killing the mighty kings and their armies. Read, and you will discover that the entire psalm refers to Abraham, who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.
1. By David, a psalm. The Lord said to my master, "Sit at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”
2. The staff of your strength the Lord will send from Zion, to rule amid your enemies.
3. Your people [will come] willingly on the day of your campaign; because of your splendid sanctity from when you emerged from the womb, you still possess the dew of your youth.
4. The Lord has sworn and will not regret: "You shall be a priest forever, just as Melchizedek!”
5. My Lord is at your right; He has crushed kings on the day of His fury.
6. He will render judgement upon the nations, and they will be filled with corpses; He will crush heads over a vast land.
7. He will drink from the stream on the way, and so will hold his head high.
Chapter 111
This psalm is written in alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two verses which contain three letters each. The psalm is short yet prominent, speaking of the works of God and their greatness.
1. Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, in the counsel of the upright and the congregation.
2. Great are the works of the Lord, [yet] available to all who desire them.
3. Majesty and splendor are His work, and His righteousness endures forever.
4. He established a memorial for His wonders, for the Lord is gracious and compassionate.
5. He gave food to those who fear Him; He remembered His covenant always.
6. He has declared the power of His deeds to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations.
7. The works of His hands are true and just; all His mandates are faithful.
8. They are steadfast for ever and ever, for they are made with truth and uprightness.
9. He sent redemption to His people, [by] commanding His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His Name.
10. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord; sound wisdom for all who practice it-His praise endures forever.
Chapter 112
This psalm, too, follows alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two which contain three letters each. It speaks of the good traits man should choose, and of how to give charity-the reward for which is never having to rely on others.
1. Praise the Lord! Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, and desires His commandments intensely.
2. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; he will be blessed with an upright generation.
3. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.
4. Even in darkness light shines for the upright, for [He is] Compassionate, Merciful, and Just.
5. Good is the man who is compassionate and lends, [but] provides for his own needs with discretion.
6. For he will never falter; the righteous man will be an eternal remembrance.
7. He will not be afraid of a bad tiding; his heart is steadfast, secure in the Lord.
8. His heart is steadfast, he does not fear, until he sees his oppressors [destroyed].
9. He has distributed [his wealth], giving to the needy. His righteousness will endure forever; his might will be uplifted in honor.
10. The wicked man will see and be angry; he will gnash his teeth and melt away; the wish of the wicked will be ruined.
-------
Tanya Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 6
Lesson in Tanya:
Monday, 23 Tammuz 5774 - July 21, 2014
Today's Tanya
Igeret HaTeshuva , beginning of Chapter 6
The Alter Rebbe opened the fourth chapter by beginning to explain the concept of repentance according to the mystical approach to the Torah. He prefaced his commentary by noting that according to Scripture and our Sages a person who committed a sin punishable by excision would actually die before his fiftieth year, while one who committed a sin punishable by death by Divine agency would actually die before his sixtieth year.
The Alter Rebbe thereupon posed the following question: How is it, he asked, that “in every generation there are so many individuals liable to excision and death [by Divine agency] who nevertheless enjoy extended and pleasant days and years!”
In answer, the Alter Rebbe explained that the soul is part of the Divine Name Havayah, the Tetragrammaton. Furthermore, both the internal and external aspects of the soul are “blown” or “breathed” forth, i.e., their source is the innermost reaches of G‑dliness. The innermost core of the soul derives from the internal aspect of the Tetragrammaton, the internal level of holiness. And even the external level of the soul, which is drawn down into man’s body through the Utterance “Let us make man,” derives from the internal aspect of this Utterance. Thus all aspects of the soul, even as enclothed within the body, ultimately derive from an act of “blowing”. And it is noted in ch. 5 that unlike speech, which can be heard even when something separates the listener from the speaker, exhaled breath does not reach its destination when there is an intervening obstruction (in this case, the individual’s sins).
The Alter Rebbe next uses this image and another to explain the concept of excision. The Jewish people’s relationship to G‑d is compared in Scripture to a rope, whose upper end is bound above and whose lower end is bound below — “Jacob is the rope of [G‑d’s] inheritance.” This rope is the lifeline through which G‑dliness is drawn down even into the external aspect of the soul that lodges within the body. Sins, especially those incurring excision, sever this lifeline, thus preventing the life-force which is “blown” forth to penetrate to the soul that is invested in the body. In the past, this meant that a person liable to excision would actually die before his fiftieth year, while a person liable to death by Divine agency would actually die before his sixtieth year.
In this, the sixth chapter, the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain that this applied only during the time when the Divine Presence dwelt among Israel, for then each Jew’s spiritual sustenance reached him only from the “side” of holiness — from the Four-Letter Name of the Infinite One.
In times of exile, however, when the Divine presence too is (so to speak) in exile, even the life-force of holiness can be drawn down through a garb of kelipah. It is therefore then possible that even individuals guilty of sins punishable by excision and death by Divine agency continue to receive their vitality, even though their spiritual lifeline to the Tetragrammaton has been severed. This explains why during the era of exile even those guilty of the above-mentioned sins can live long lives. Parenthetically, this also provides them with the opportunity to repent and rectify their past misdeeds.
אמנם זהו בזמן שהיו ישראל במדרגה עליונה, כשהיתה השכינה שורה בישראל בבית המקדש
However, all this obtained when Israel was on an elevated plane, when the Divine Presence dwelt among Israel1 in the Beit HaMikdash.2
ואז לא היו מקבלים חיות לגופם רק על ידי נפש האלקית לבדה, מבחינת פנימיות השפע שמשפיע אין סוף ברוך הוא, על ידי שם הוי׳ ברוך הוא, כנ״ל
Then the body3 received its vitality only through the divine soul, from the innermost source of the life-giving power issuing from the Infinite One, through the Tetragrammaton, as discussed above.
Thus, if the spiritual lifeline emanating from the Tetragrammaton was severed, it was impossible for them to continue living. However, as the Alter Rebbe now goes on to say, once they had fallen from that spiritual height, and thereby diverted the flow of the Divine life-force from its accustomed course, even deliberate transgressors can now receive their vitality as freely as do mere creatures.
אך לאחר שירדו ממדרגתם, וגרמו במעשיהם סוד גלות השכינה
But they then fell from their estate, and through their actions brought about the mystic exile of the Divine Presence,
That the Divine Presence should be in a state of exile among the forces of unholiness is indeed an inconceivable mystery.4
כמו שכתוב: ובפשעיכם שולחה אמכם
as the verse5 states,6 “Through your sins was your mother banished.”
“Your mother” refers to the Divine Presence, the “mother of the children” (as explained in Part I, ch. 52), also known as Knesset Yisrael, the source of Jewish souls — the level of Malchut of Atzilut. In the context of the letters that constitute the Tetragrammaton, this corresponds to the final hei, from which proceeds the “rope” or “lifeline” to the soul.
דהיינו, שירדה השפעת בחינת ה״א תתאה הנ״ל, ונשתלשלה ממדרגה למדרגה למטה מטה
This means that the benevolence flowing forth from the above-mentioned7 latter hei of the Tetragrammaton was lowered far down, from plane to plane,
עד שנתלבשה השפעתה בי׳ ספירות דנוגה
until it became enclothed in the Ten Sefirot of nogah,
Inasmuch as the kelipah called nogah includes an admixture of goodness, it is composed of Ten Sefirot, corresponding to the Ten Sefirot of holiness.8
המשפיעות שפע וחיות על ידי המזלות וכל צבא השמים והשרים שעליהם
which transmit9 the benevolence and vitality through the hosts of heaven and those charged over them,
לכל החי הגשמי שבעולם הזה, וגם לכל הצומח
to every living physical being in this world, even to vegetation,
כמאמר רז״ל: אין לך כל עשב מלמטה שאין לו מזל וכו׳
as our Sages state:10 “There is no blade of grass below that has no spirit [Above that smites it and commands it: Grow!]”
Thus, the life-force of all living beings — even of vegetation, which expresses its vitality through growth — derives from the kelipah of nogah.
ואזי יכול גם החוטא ופושעי ישראל לקבל חיות לגופם ונפשם הבהמיות
Hence, even the sinful and deliberate transgressors11 of Israel may receive vitality [from it] for their bodies and animal souls,
כמו שאר בעלי חיים ממש
exactly as other living creatures do,
כמו שכתוב: נמשל כבהמות נדמו
as Scripture states,12 that there exists a state wherein human beings are “likened and similar to beasts.”
ואדרבה
In fact, not only is it possible for the sinner to receive his nurture from kelipah as do animals and other living beings, but indeed,
ביתר שאת וביתר עז
with even greater emphasis and force.
על פי המבואר מזוהר הקדוש פרשת פקודי, שכל שפע וחיות הנשפעות לאדם התחתון
For, as explained in the holy Zohar, Parshat Pekudei, all the benevolence and vitality granted mortal man
בשעה ורגע שעושה הרע בעיני ה׳, במעשה או בדיבור או בהרהורי עבירה וכו׳
while he commits evil in the eyes of G‑d, in deed or speech, or by musing on sin, and so on,13 i.e., through any of the three soul-garments of thought, speech and action, —
הכל נשפע לו מהיכלות הסטרא אחרא המבוארים שם בזוהר הקדוש
all [this life-force] issues to him from the [various] chambers of the sitra achra described there in the holy Zohar.
והאדם הוא בעל בחירה, אם לקבל השפעתו מהיכלות הסטרא אחרא, או מהיכלות הקדושה שמהם נשפעות כל מחשבות טובות וקדושות וכו׳
The choice is man’s — whether to derive his nurture from the chambers of the sitra achra, or from the chambers of holiness14 from which flow all good and holy thoughts, and so on.
When one’s thoughts, words and deeds are wholesome and holy, he receives his nurture from holiness; when his thoughts, words and deeds are evil, he derives his nurture from the chambers of the sitra achra.
כי זה לעומת זה עשה האלקים וכו׳
For15 “one opposite the other did G‑d make….”
Every manifestation of holiness has a counterpart in the kelipah and sitra achra.
והיכלות הסטרא אחרא מקבלים ויונקים חיותם מהתלבשות והשתלשלות השפע די׳ ספירות דנוגה
The chambers of the sitra achra derive their vitality from the issue of the Ten Sefirot of nogah that is embodied within them and that descends into them by stages,
הכלולה מבחינת טוב ורע, היא בחינת עץ הדעת וכו׳, כנודע ליודעי ח״ן
and [this kelipah of nogah] is comprised of good and evil, as in “the Tree of Knowledge [of good and evil],” as is known to those who are knowledgeable in the Kabbalah.
Since the kelipah of nogah is composed of both good and evil it serves as a source, after a multitude of descents, for the evil of the chambers of the sitra achra — the reservoir from which a man is refuelled when he sins in thought, speech or action.
The Alter Rebbe now resumes his explanation of why a sinful person not only receives his vitality from the “other side” like other living creatures, but in fact does so to an even greater degree. Since through his freely-chosen thoughts, words and deeds it was the sinner himself who replenished the reservoirs of the kelipot with life-force of Divine origin, it is he who will now have to swallow the lion’s share of those reservoirs.
FOOTNOTES
1. Note of the Rebbe: “This indicates the level of the Jewish people at that time.”
2. Note of the Rebbe: “This applies to the world as a whole and to the Divine Presence. Specifically, with regard to man, there is yet another aspect.”
3. Note of the Rebbe: “I.e., also with regard to each and every individual.”
4. Note of the Rebbe: “See below, p. 140b.” [I.e., Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 25, para. beg. VeHinei Zeh Leumat Zeh....]
5. Note of the Rebbe: “At first glance it is incomprehensible that man’s actions should cause the exile of the Divine Presence. The Alter Rebbe therefore provides proof and also an explanation: (a) proof — that it is indeed so; (b) an explanation — for the Divine Presence is ‘your mother.’”
6. Yeshayahu 50:1.
7. Note of the Rebbe: “In ch. 4 — on a cosmic scale; in ch. 5 — in each individual soul.”
8. Note of the Rebbe: “Cf. Part I, ch. 6.”
9. Note of the Rebbe: “They do so in any case (and not necessarily because of the state of exile discussed here; rather, as a result of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge; see below, beg. of p. 140a).”
10. Bereishit Rabbah 10:6.
11. Note of the Rebbe: “It would seem that the text should read ‘transgressor’, in the singular.”
12. Tehillim 49:13.
13. The Rebbe notes that the Alter Rebbe may have added the words “and so on” for the following reason. In Part I, ch. 11, the Alter Rebbe differentiates between two situations: (a) contemplating the commission of a sin, (b) “and even where one does not actually contemplate committing a sin, but indulges in contemplation on the carnal union of male and female in general.” The term “and even” seems to imply that the latter form of contemplation is not an entirely distinct form of sin (for which reason no distinct mention of it is made in Iggeret HaTeshuvah). Nevertheless some reference to it must be made here, and this the Alter Rebbe does by adding the words “and so on.”
14. The Rebbe comments that it seems to be entirely superfluous for the Alter Rebbe to state that “the choice is man’s.” He goes on to provide two possible explanations.
(a) Paradoxically, this statement is indeed novel: The Alter Rebbe desires to emphasize that even in times of exile, when “through your sins was your mother banished,” and the benevolence flowing forth from the latter hei is enclothed in the kelipah of nogah, man can still choose to receive his vitality from the chambers of holiness.
This is possible because the garment of nogah becomes nullified to its wearer — to holiness, and is thereby itself transformed to goodness and absorbed within holiness. This recalls the statement in Part I, early in ch. 40, that in the case of the holy letters of Torah and prayer, the kelipah of nogah is converted to good and is absorbed into holiness.
(This explanation, that the Alter Rebbe wished to tell us that even in times of exile man can choose to derive his nurture from the chambers of holiness, does not accord with the explanation given in Likutei Biurim BeSefer HaTanya, by Rabbi Yehoshua Korf.)
(b) Another possible explanation (which would also go a long way in explaining why it is specifically here that the Alter Rebbe states that “the choice is man’s”): The Alter Rebbe means to tell us that it is specifically during the times of exile, when they “fell from their estate,” that Jews can choose to receive their vitality from the chambers of sitra achra. This, however, could not be done during the time of the Beit HaMikdash, as explained at the end of ch. 5 above. [For at that time, if the “rope” connecting a person to his spiritual source was severed — if, for example, he committed a sin punishable by excision — he could not live at all; during that period Jews truly could not receive their vitality from the kelipah of nogah.]
15. Kohelet 7:14.
-------
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah N106, P87 - Sefer Hamitzvot
Monday, 23 Tammuz 5774 - July 21, 2014
Negative Commandment 106 (Digest)
Exchanging an Animal Designated for Sacrifice for Another
"He shall not exchange it or transfer it"—Leviticus 27:10.
It is forbidden to exchange an animal designated for sacrifice for another animal; i.e., to attempt to transfer the holiness from one animal to another.
The 106th prohibition is that we are forbidden from exchanging an animal that has been designated for a sacrifice [with another animal]. This is called Temurah.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "One may not exchange it nor offer a substitute for it."
This prohibition is mentioned separately2 regarding ma'aser [of cattle].3 The reason [for the apparent repetition] is given in the Sifra: "Ma'aser was already included in the general prohibition. Why did it need to be mentioned separately? In order to compare [the general prohibition] to it: just as ma'aser, for which exchanging is forbidden, is kadshei mizbe'ach,4 so too the only animals that are covered by the prohibition, 'One may not exchange it' are only kadshei mizbe'ach [and not kadshei bedek habayis]."5
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Temurah.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 27:10.
2.Ibid., 27:33.
3.See P78.
4.There are two distinct types of sanctity: kadshei mizbe'ach and kadshei bedek habayis. The former are animals dedicated as offerings, whereas the latter become property of the Temple treasury.
5.Perhaps the Rambam's intention is quoting the Sifra is to prove that verses 10 and 33 do not constitute separate commandments. Rather, they both come together to define the single commandment. See N170.
_____________________
Positive Commandment 87 (Digest)
The Sanctity of an "Exchanged" Animal
"Both it and its substitute shall be holy"—Leviticus 27:10.
In the event that someone exchanges an animal designated for sacrifice with another animal – i.e., he attempts to transfer the holiness from one animal to another – the animal upon which holiness was transferred becomes holy, [also] designated for sacrifice.
The 87th mitzvah is that an animal that has been designated as a substitute [for a sanctified animal] itself becomes sanctified.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "[If he replaces one animal with another,] both the original animal and its replacement shall be sanctified."
Our3 Sages said explicitly in tractate Temurah4 that G‑d's statement5 (exalted be He), "no substitutions may be made" is a lav she'nitak l'aseh6 (a prohibition with a remedial positive commandment): [after the statement is made that lashes are never given for a lav she'nitak l'aseh, the Gemara asks,] "But what about Temurah, which is a lav she'nitak l'aseh [and the punishment is still lashes]!"
There, the Gemara elaborates on the reason why Temurah is punished by lashes even though it is a lav she'nitak l'aseh: "One positive commandment cannot outweigh two prohibitions." This means that the prohibition of Temurah is said twice: [1] "one may not exchange it," [2] "nor offer a substitute for it."7 However, there is only one positive command: "both the original animal and its replacement shall be consecrated."
We have therefore explained what we set out to do [i.e. to prove that this counts as a positive mitzvah.]
The details of this mitzvah — when the substitution is binding and when it is not, what is its status, and how it is sacrificed — are explained in tractate Temurah.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.As explained in the previous mitzvah (N106) one is forbidden from making such a substitution. However, if one did so, this mitzvah dictates that both animals become sanctified.
2.Lev., 27:10.
3.Evidently the Rambam's intention in quoting the Gemara is to show that this command is referred to as an "aseh." It therefore counts as a positive mitzvah, and is not just a statement of fact, etc. See below.
4.4b.
5.Lev. 27:33.
6.See N214.
7.Lev. 27:10.
_____________________
Rambam:
1 Chapter a Day - Sechirut - Chapter 10
Sechirut - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when a person gives a loan to a colleague and takes security in return. He is considered to be a paid watchman. This applies regardless of whether he lent him money or lent him produce, and regardless of whether he took the security at the time when he gave him the loan or afterwards.
Accordingly, if the security is lost or stolen, he is responsible for its value. If the security was lost because of causes beyond the lender's control -e.g., it was taken by armed thieves or the like - the lender must take an oath that it was lost due to forces beyond his control, and the owner of the security must repay his debt until the last p'rutah.
Halacha 2
Whenever a person tells a colleague: "Watch my article for me and I will watch your article for you," it is considered as if the owner was employed by the watchman.
If, however, he tells his colleague: "Watch an article for me today, and I will watch an article for you tomorrow," "Lend an article to me today and I will lend an article to you tomorrow," "Watch an article for me today, and I will lend an article to you tomorrow," or "Lend an article to me today and I will watch an article for you tomorrow," they are each considered to be paid watchman for the other.
Halacha 3
All craftsmen are considered to be paid watchman. Whenever a craftsman says: "Take your article and pay for it," or "I have completed it," and the owner does not take the article, the craftsman is considered to be an unpaid watchman from that time onward.
If, however, the craftsman says: "Bring money and take your article," he is considered a paid watchman as before.
Halacha 4
If a person gives an article to a craftsman to fix and the craftsman ruins it, the craftsman is liable to make restitution.
What is implied? If a person gives a carpenter a chest, a box or a closet to place a nail into, and he breaks the article he must make restitution. Similarly, if a person gives a carpenter the wood to make a chest, a box or a closet, and he breaks them after he completes making them, the carpenter must pay the employer for a chest, a box or a closet. The rationale is that the craftsman does not acquire a share in the increase in the value of the article.
If a person gives a craftsman wool to dye, and the vat in which he dyes it boils until the water evaporates, thus destroying the wool, the dyer must reimburse the owner for his wool.
The following rules apply in the ensuing situations: The dyer dyed the wool unattractively, the owner asked him to dye it red and he dyed it black, he asked him to dye it black and he dyed it red, or he gave wood to a carpenter to make an attractive chair, and he made a poor chair or a bench. In all these instances, if the increase in the value of the article exceeds the cost,' all the owner of the article is required to pay is the cost. If the cost exceeds the increase in the value of the article, all the owner of the article is required to pay is the increase in the value of the article.
If the owner of the article says: "I do not desire this dispensation. I would prefer that he give me the value of the wool or the value of the wood," we do not heed his request. Conversely, if the craftsman says: "Here is the cost of your wool or your wood, depart," he is not heeded. The rationale is that the craftsman does not acquire a share in the increase in the value of the article.
Halacha 5
When a person brings raw materials to a professional and he ruins them, the professional is liable to reimburse the owner for their value, for he is like a paid watchman. For example, a person gave wheat to a miller to grind and he did not soak it. Hence the flour came out as bran or coarse flour. A person gave flour to a baker and he made bread that crumbles, or a person brought an animal to a slaughterer and he slaughtered it unacceptably. They are all liable to make restitution.
Therefore, if an expert slaughterer ? slaughters an animal without charge and he caused it to be unacceptable, he is not liable to make restitution. If he is not an expert, even if he works without charge, he is required to make restitution.
Similar rules apply when a person shows a coin to a money changer and he says that it is acceptable, and it is discovered to be unacceptable. If he charged for his services, he is obligated to pay even though he is an expert and does not require further training. If he did not charge, he is not liable, provided he is an expert and does not require further training. If he is not an expert, he must reimburse the questioner even when he does not charge for his services.
The above applies when the questioner tells the money changer: "I am relying upon you," or it is obvious from the situation that he is relying on his opinion and is not seeking another opinion.
When a ritual slaughterer slaughtered an animal without charge, but rendered it unfit, a money changer said that a coin was acceptable, and it was not, or in any similar situation, the person who caused the damage must supply proof that he is an expert. If he cannot supply proof, he is required to make restitution.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply in a place where it is customary for a person who plants trees to receive half of the increase in value, and for the owner of the land to receive half of the increase in value. If he planted trees in a portion of the land and increased the value, but planted other trees in another portion of the land and caused a loss, we calculate the half of the profit that is due the planter and deduct the entire loss he caused. He then receives the remainder. Even if he stipulated that if he causes a loss in a certain portion of the land, he will not receive any profit at all, his words are not heeded and only the loss he actually caused is deducted from his profits. The rationale is that this stipulation is an asmachta.
When the person who plants trees terminates his relationship with the owner before reaping the crop, he bears the responsibility for his actions. To illustrate this principle: The local custom is that the person who plants receives half of the profits and the owner of the land, the other half. A sharecropper receives a lesser share, one third of the crop. The person who planted the trees caused the land to increase in value and then wished to terminate his relationship with the owner, forcing the owner to employ a sharecropper. The owner of the land may employ a sharecropper. Even so, the owner of the land receives half of the profits; he does not suffer a loss.
The sharecropper receives a third and the remaining sixth is given to the person who planted the trees. Since he willingly terminated his relationship, he suffers the consequences.
Halacha 7
The following principle applies with regard to a person who plants trees on behalf of all the members of a city who caused a loss; similarly, a ritual slaughterer of a village who rendered an animal unacceptable for consumption, a blood-letter who caused an injury, a scribe who erred in composing a legal document, a teacher who was negligent with the children and did not teach them or taught them in error, or any other professional who made an error that cannot be corrected. They may be removed from their positions without warning, for the warning for them to perform their work carefully is self evident. They must faithfully apply themselves to their tasks, for they were appointed by the community to discharge this responsibility.
-------
Rambam:
3 Chapters a Day - Temurah - Perek 1, Temurah - Perek 2, Temurah - Perek 3
Temurah - Perek 1
Halacha 1
Anyone who transfers holiness from one animal to another is liable for lashes for every animal from which he transferred the holiness, as Leviticus 27:10 states: "Do not exchange it and do not transfer its holiness," even though he did not perform a deed. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that any negative commandment that does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashes with the exception of one who takes a false or unnecessary oath, one who transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, and one curses a colleague mentioning God's name. These three negative commandments can never involve a deed at all, and yet one is liable for lashes for their violation.
Why is one liable for lashes for transferring the holiness of an animal, it is a negative commandment that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as ibid.:33 states: "If he will transfer its holiness, it and the animal to which its holiness will be transferred shall be consecrated"? Because it has one positive commandment and two negative commandments and because the negative commandment it involves is not of the same nature as the positive commandment.This is reflected in the ruling that if the Jewish community or partners try to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is not effective. Nevertheless, they are warned not to transfer the holiness. Thus when an individual transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the animal to which he transferred the holiness is consecrated. Even if he transfers holiness on the Sabbath, he is liable for forty lashes. If, by contrast, partners in a sacrificial animal endeavors to transfer its holiness or an endeavor is made to transfer the holiness of an animal designated for a communal sacrifice - since that person has a share in these sacrifices he is liable for lashes, but the animal to which he endeavored to transfer the holiness is not consecrated.
Halacha 2
Whether one transfers the holiness of an animal as an intentional transgression or one does so inadvertently, the transfer of holiness is effective and the person is liable for lashes.
What is implied? One intended to say: "This animal should be considered as an exchange for an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering that I possess," and instead, he said: "This animal should be considered as an exchange for an animal consecrated as a peace-offering that I possess," the transfer of holiness is effective and he is liable for lashes. If, however, he thought that it was permitted to transfer holiness or he said: "I will enter that house and transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal willfully," and instead, he entered and transferred the holiness of the animal unknowingly, the transfer of holiness is effective, but he is not liable for lashes for it.
Halacha 3
A person cannot transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal that does not belong to him. If the owner of a sacrificial animal says: "Whoever desires to transfer the holiness of my sacrificial animal may come and do so," another person may transfer the holiness of that animal.
If a person transferred the holiness of a sacrificial animal belonging to him to another animal that does not belong to him, the transfer is not effective. The rationale is that a person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.
Halacha 4
It is the one who will receive atonement who has the potential to exchange the holiness of a sacrificial animal, not the person who consecrates it.
What is implied? A person consecrated an animal so that his colleague could gain atonement through its sacrifice, e.g., one consecrated the animals required for the sacrifices of a nazirite so that so-and-so, the nazirite, could gain atonement thereby. It is that nazirite who can transfer their holiness, but not the person who consecrated them, because they do not belong to him.
Halacha 5
An heir can transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal he inherits. If a person dies, leaving a sacrificial animal to his two sons, this animal should be offered, but its holiness cannot be transferred. The rationale is that the sons are partners and partners cannot transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, as we explained.
Halacha 6
The holiness of sacrificial animals consecrated by gentiles may not be transferred according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, if a gentile transfers the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is effective. If a gentile consecrated a sacrificial animal with the intent that a Jew receive atonement through its being offered and then the gentile transferred its holiness to another animal, there is an unresolved question whether the transfer is effective.
Halacha 7
When either a man or a woman seek to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal, the transfer is effective.
Halacha 8
Even though he is not liable for lashes, there is an unresolved question whether a transfer of holiness made by a minor who has reached the age when his vows are binding is effective or not.
Halacha 9
The priests cannot transfer the holiness of animals to be sacrificed as sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that were given to them to offer. Although portions of the animal belong to them, they do not acquire them during the lifetime of the animal, for they do not receive a portion of the meat until the blood is cast on the altar.
A priest cannot transfer the holiness of a firstborn animal; even though he does acquire it while it is alive, he does not acquire it at the outset. On the contrary, at the outset, it should be in the home of the Israelite. When, by contrast, an owner transfers the holiness of a firstborn animal, as long as it is in his household, the transfer is binding.Similarly, when a priest transfers the holiness of a firstborn animal born in his herd, not a firstborn animal given to him by an Israelite, the transfer is binding.
Halacha 10
The holiness of the ram of the High Priest can be transferred to another animal. The holiness of his bull, by contrast, cannot be transferred to another animal. Even though it is brought from his own resources, since his priestly brethren derive atonement through its sacrifice, they are considered as partners in it.
Halacha 11
The holiness of fowl and meal-offerings cannot be transferred, for the relevant verses mention only animals.
Halacha 12
The holiness of animals consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple may not be transferred, for with regard to the tithe offering, Leviticus 27:33 states: "He shall not distinguish between good and bad and he should not transfer its holiness." Now the tithe offering was part of the general category of all the sacrifices, why was it singled out?To teach us a concept that applies to the entire general category. The tithe-offering is the sacrifice of an individual, thus excluding communal offerings and sacrificial animals owned by partners. The tithe-offering is a sacrifice offered on the altar, thus excluding animals consecrated for the sake of the upkeep of the Temple. There is an association between the tithe-offerings and the tithes of the crops in which are obligated Jews and not non-Jews; thus excluding sacrifices of the gentiles whose holiness cannot be exchanged as stated.
Halacha 13
When a person consecrates an animal that has a permanent disqualifying blemish, its holiness cannot be transferred to another animal, because its body has not been consecrated in a complete way; only its worth was consecrated. If, however, one consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish or one consecrates an unblemished animal and then it contracted a permanent blemish, its holiness can be transferred.
Halacha 14
Whether one transfers the holiness of a blemished animal to an unblemished one or that of an unblemished animal to a blemished one, one transferred the holiness of sheep to cattle, or the holiness of cattle to sheep, or that of goats to sheep or that of sheep to goats, or that of males to females or that of females to males, or transferred the holiness of 100 animals to one or that of one to 100, whether he did so all at once or one after another, the transfer is effective and he is liable for the same number of sets of lashes as animals to which he transferred holiness.
Halacha 15
The holiness of an animal to which holiness has been transferred cannot be transferred to another animal, nor may the holiness of the offspring of a consecrated animal be transferred to another animal. This is derived from Leviticus 27:10: "And it and the animal to which its holiness was transferred shall be holy." Implied is "it" and not its offspring, "the animal to which its holiness was transferred" and not an animal to which there was an attempt to transfer the holiness of the animal to which its holiness was transferred. If, however, one transferred the holiness of an animal and then transferred its holiness a second time, even 1000 times, the holiness has been transferred to each of them, and one is liable for lashes for each transfer, as we explained.
Halacha 16
The holiness of an entire animal may not be transferred to limbs or fetuses, nor may the holiness of the latter be transferred to an entire animal.
What is implied? If one says: "The hindfoot of this animal..." or "Its forefoot should be substituted for this burnt-offering," or he said: "The fetus of this animal should be substituted for this burnt-offering," the holiness is not transferred. Similarly, if one says: "This animal should be substituted for the forefoot..." or "the hindfoot of this burnt-offering," or he said: "This animal should be substituted for the fetus of this sin-offering," the holiness is not transferred.
Halacha 17
When one seeks to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a hybrid, and animal that is tereifah, one born of Caesarian section, a tumtum, or an adrogynus, the holiness is not transferred to them and it is as if one sought to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to a camel or a donkey. The rationale is that this type of animal is not fit for sacrifice. Therefore one who tries to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to it is not liable for lashes.
What is the difference between these and an animal that is blemished? There is the possibly of the type of animal that is blemished serving as a sacrifice, while these types of animals cannot serve as sacrifices.
Halacha 18
An animal that was engaged in intercourse with humans - whether it acted as the male or female - is considered as a blemished animal and the holiness of a sacrificial animal can be transferred to it. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 19
When an animal was half consecrated and half unconsecrated, holiness cannot be transferred to it, not may its holiness be transferred.
Halacha 20
The holiness of all of the sin-offerings that are consigned to death may not be transferred to another animal. By contrast, the holiness of all of the sin-offerings that are designated to pasture until they contract a blemish and are sold may be transferred to another animal.
Halacha 21
When a person sets aside a female animal for his Paschal sacrifice, burnt-offering, or guilt-offering, its holiness can be transferred even though it is not fit to be offered. The rationale is that since its worth is consecrated and it is unblemished, it is considered as if its body was consecrated.
If, by contrast, one separated a goat as a sin-offering, a king separated a she-goat as a sin-offering, and a High Priest separated a cow as a sin-offering, their holiness cannot be transferred. The rationale is that anyone who deviates from the commandments prescribed for a sin-offering does not cause the designated animal to be consecrated at all, not even its worth, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.
Temurah - Perek 2
Halacha 1
The act of transferring the holiness of a sacrificial animal involves the owner of the animal saying with regard to an ordinary animal that he possesses: "This should be substituted for this" or "This is a replacement for this." Needless to say, holiness is transferred if one says: "This should be substituted for this sin-offering" or "... substituted for this burnt-offering." Similarly, holiness is transferred if one says: "This should be substituted for the sin-offering I possess at home" or "...substituted for the burnt-offering I possess in such-and-such a place."
If, by contrast, one said with regard to an ordinary animal: "This should be substituted for a burnt-offering" or "This is substituted for a sin-offering," his words are of no consequence. If he states: "The holiness of this is conveyed to this," a transfer of holiness is not brought about.
Halacha 2
The following rules apply when there were two animals before a person, one ordinary animal and one consecrated animal that became blemished. If he placed his hand on the ordinary animal and said: "This one is substituted for this," he has brought about a forbidden exchange of holiness and he is liable for lashes. If, by contrast, he placed his hand on the consecrated animal and said: "This is substituted for this," he has exchanged its holiness and transferred it to the ordinary animal. This is not a forbidden exchange of holiness, but instead, is comparable to redeeming the blemished sacrificial animal with this ordinary animal.
Halacha 3
The following rule applies when there were three animals consecrated for the altar before a person and one of them was blemished and awaiting redemption and also three unblemished ordinary animals. If he says: "These are substituted for these," the holiness of two of the consecrated animals is transferred to two of the ordinary animals through the convention of temurah and he is liable for two sets of lashes. The third ordinary animal is substituted for the blemished animal through the convention of chillul. We assume that he sought to use that convention rather than the convention of temurah. The rationale is that since the person had a forbidden course of action, temurah and a permitted course of action, chillul, we operate under the assumption that a person will not abandon the permitted course of action and follow the forbidden one. Therefore he is not liable for three sets of lashes.
Similarly, if one says: "These ten ordinary animals are substituted for these ten consecrated animals," and one of the consecrated animals is blemished, the person is liable for only nine sets of lashes, for he intended to transfer the holiness of the tenth animal through the convention of chillul. Even though he had established a halachic presumption by being liable for many sets of lashes, since there is a permitted way for him to transfer the animal's holiness, we presume that he will not abandon the permitted course of action and follow the forbidden one.
When there are two consecrated animals and one of them is blemished and two ordinary animals and one of them is blemished, and one says: "These are substituted for these," the holiness of the unblemished animal is transferred to the unblemished animal through the convention of temurah and he is liable for one set of lashes and the holiness of the blemished animal is transferred to the blemished animal through the convention of chillul. The rationale is that we presume that he will not abandon the permitted course of action and follow the forbidden one.
Halacha 4
When one says: "The holiness of an animal designated as a burnt-offering and one designated as a peace-offering is transferred to this animal," his statements are of consequence. The animal should be sold and half of the proceeds used to bring the exchange of a burnt-offering and half used to bring the exchange of a peace-offering.
If one said: "The holiness of an animal designated as a burnt-offering and the holiness of an animal dedicated as a peace-offering are transferred to this animal," we examine if that was his original intent. If it was, his words are of consequence. If his original intent was merely to transfer the holiness of a burnt-offering, and he afterwards, added "the holiness of a peace-offering" later, only his original statements are of consequence. Even though he retracted them immediately thereafter, only the holiness of a burnt-offering was transferred to the animal.
Temurah - Perek 3
Halacha 1
What are the laws governing the offering of an animal to which holiness was transferred? A male animal to which the holiness of a burnt-offering was transferred should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. If the animal to which the holiness of a burnt-offering was transferred was female or blemished, the female should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.
An animal to which the holiness of a sin-offering was transferred should be consigned to death, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim. An animal to which the holiness of a guilt-offering was transferred should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and freewill offerings brought with the proceeds of the sale. An animal to which the holiness of a peace-offering was transferred is like a peace-offering in all respects: It requires semichah, accompanying offerings, and the waving of the breast and the thigh.
An animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred is like a thanksgiving-offering except that it does not require bread, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.The following laws apply to an animal to which the holiness of a Paschal sacrifice was transferred. If the transfer was made before noon on the fourteenth of Nisan, the animal to which the holiness was transferred is not offered. Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and a peace-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale. If the transfer was made after noon, the animal to which the holiness was transferred should itself be sacrificed as a peace-offering.
An animal to which the holiness of a firstborn offering or a tithe offering was transferred should never be sacrificed. This is derived from Leviticus 27:26 which states with regard to a firstborn: "It is God's." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: "It" is sacrificed, but an animal to which its holiness is transferred is not sacrificed. The laws pertaining to the tithe offering are the same as those pertaining to the firstborn offering. An animal to which the holiness of these offerings was transferred should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, it may be eaten.
Halacha 2
An animal to which the holiness of a firstborn is transferred should be given to the priests and an animal to which the holiness of a tithe offering was transferred is given to its owners. Just as a firstborn animal or a tithe offering that contracts a disqualifying physical blemish is not redeemed, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, so too, an animal to which their holiness is transferred is not redeemed.
Halacha 3
When an animal was consecrated half as a burnt-offering and half as a peace-offering, an animal to which its holiness was transferred is given the same status. Similarly, when the holiness of any consecrated animal which should not be sacrificed because of a difficulty at the time of its consecration was transferred to another animal, that second animal should also not be sacrificed.
If one said: "The holiness of a sacrificial animal should be transferred to half this animal and the other half should be consecrated as a burnt-offering," it should be offered as a burnt-offering. If he consecrated it half as a burnt-offering and half, as a tithe offering, it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. If he transferred the holiness of a sacrificial animal to half of it and he consecrated half as a tithe offering, its status is in doubt and it should not be sacrificed.
Halacha 4
The following rules apply when a person consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish or, needless to say, an unblemished animal and then it contracts a permanent blemish and it is redeemed. If one endeavored to transfer its holiness after it was redeemed, the transfer is binding, but the animal to which the transfer was made should neither be sacrificed, nor redeemed. Instead, it should be left until it dies. It should not be sacrificed, because it comes from holiness that was already deferred. Nor may it be redeemed, because its holiness does not have the strength to encompass the entity used to redeem it.
Halacha 5
When any animal to which holiness was transferred was permanently blemished from the outset, they should be redeemed. Nevertheless, they do not become ordinary animals in a complete sense to the extent that it is permitted to shear them or perform work with them after they are redeemed. For holiness that is transferred can encompass an animal that possesses a permanent blemish, as evident from Leviticus 27:10 which speaks of transferring holiness "from the good to the bad." Here the intent of the term "bad" is an animal that is blemished or the like and thus is not fit to serve as a sacrifice. Nevertheless, concerning it, the verse continues: "It shall be consecrated."
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering became intermingled with sacrificial animals consecrated as peace-offerings and one transferred the holiness of one of the animals in the mixture to an ordinary animal.One should bring another animal and consecrate it, saying: "If this one had the holiness of a burnt-offering transferred to it, this animal is a peace-offering. And if this onehad the holiness of a peace-offering transferred to it, this animal is a burnt-offering." Thus the animal which he brought together with the animal to which the holiness of the animal was transferred are like animals consecrated as burnt-offerings and as peace-offerings that became intermingled.
If the person transformed the holiness of one of these two to a third animal and it is not known which one's holiness he transferred, he should bring another animal fit forsacrifice from his home and consecrate it conditionally, saying with regard to the second animal to which holiness is being transferred: "If this is an animal to which was transferred the holiness of an animal was transferred, this animal that was brought remains an ordinary animal. If this animalis an animal to which the holiness of a burnt-offering or a peace-offering was transferred, the animal that was brought is a burnt-offering or a peace-offering." Thus the animal which he brought with the second animal to which holiness was transferred is like a sacrificial animal that became intermingled with an animal to which holiness was transferred. We have already explained the laws pertaining to the intermingling of animals to which holiness was transferred in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.
Halacha 7
When an animal consecrated as a peace-offering became intermingled with a firstborn animal or a tithe offering and one transferred the holiness of one of the animals of the mixture to another animal, that animal should not be offered. Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then be redeemed, and then it should be eaten in the same manner as a blemished firstborn or tithe offering, as explained.
-------
Hayom Yom
Monday, 23 Tammuz 5774 - July 21, 2014
Today's Hayom Yom
Monday, Tamuz 23, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Matot-Massai, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: Ch. 6. However (p. 363) ...to the initiate. (p. 365).
When Matot and Massai are separate, then on Shabbat at Mincha, as well as on Monday and Thursday, the Levi-aliya ends with the last journey.1
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1. Bamidbar 33:50.
-------
Daily Thought:Fearless
The pain is real. The fear is not.
The pain is real, because we are not in our true place. Nothing is in its true place. It is called exile.
The fear is not real, because no matter where we are, our G‑d is still with us.
The only thing we have to fear is that we may no longer feel the pain. For it is that pain of knowing we are in the wrong place that lifts us higher, beyond this place.(Likutei Sichot, vol. 30, pg. 234 on “G‑d said to Jacob: I am the G‑d of your fathers. Do not fear descending to Egypt…”(Genesis 46:3.)
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment