Omer: Day 43 - Chessed sheb'Malchut
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Forty-Four Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the forty-fourth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer fortomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is forty-four days, which are six weeks and two days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day isShavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Gevurah sheb'Malchut -- "Restraint in Receptiveness"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of Samuel (877 BCE)
The prophet Samuel (931-877 BCE) was one of the most important figures in Jewish history; our sages describe him as the equivalent of "Moses and Aaron combined." Samuel was the last of the Shoftim ("Judges") who led the people of Israel in the four centuries between the passing of Joshua and the establishment of the monarchy, and the author of the biblical books of "Judges", "Samuel" and "Ruth"
Samuel was born in the year 2830 from creation (931 BCE) after his barren mother, Chanah (Hannah), prayed for a child at the Sanctuary at Shiloh and pledged, "O L-rd of hosts... If You will give Your maidservant a man child, I shall dedicate him to G-d all the days of his life..." (I Samuel 1:11). At age two, his mother brought him to Shiloh in fulfillment of her vow, where he was raised by Eli the High Priest; shortly thereafter, Samuel had his first prophetic communication (described in I Samuel 3). In 890 BCE, Samuel succeeded Eli as leader of the Jewish people.
After ten years under Samuel's guidance, the people approached him with the request, "Appoint for us a king... like all the nations around us." Samuel disapproved of their request, believing that the people of Israel should be subject only to G-d and not to any mortal king; but G-d instructed him to do as the people ask. Samuel then anointed (879 BCE) Saul as the first king of Israel. When Saul disobeyed G-d during the war on Amalek, Samuel proclaimed David the legitimate king in Saul's stead.
Shortly thereafter, Samuel passed away in his birthplace, Ramah, in the hills of Judah, on the 28th of Iyar of the year 2884 from creation (877 BCE).
• Jerusalem Liberated (1967)
The Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were liberated during the 1967 Six-Day War (see “Today in Jewish History” for Iyar 26). The day is marked in Israel as “Jerusalem Day.”
Daily Quote:
Courageous, G‑dfearing, truthful, and money-hating.[Torah’s requirements for a judge, Exodus 18:21]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bamidbar, 1st Portion Numbers 1:1-1:19 with Rashi
• Chapter 1
1The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying. אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר:
The Lord spoke... in the Sinai Desert... on the first of the month :Because they were dear to Him, He counted them often. When they left Egypt, He counted them (Exod. 12:37); when [many] fell because [of the sin] of the golden calf, He counted them to know the number of the survivors (Exod. 32:28); when He came to cause His Divine Presence to rest among them, He counted them. On the first of Nissan, the Mishkan was erected, and on the first of Iyar, He counted them. וידבר. במדבר סיני באחד לחדש: וגו' מתוך חיבתן לפניו מונה אותם כל שעה, כשיצאו ממצרים מנאן, וכשנפלו בעגל מנאן לידע מנין הנותרים. כשבא להשרות שכינתו עליהן מנאן. באחד בניסן הוקם המשכן, ובאחד באייר מנאם:
2Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names. בשְׂאוּ אֶת רֹאשׁ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת כָּל זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם:
by families: To ascertain the number of [people in] each tribe. למשפחתם: דע מנין כל שבט ושבט:
following their fathers’ houses: If one’s father was from one tribe and his mother from another tribe, he is counted with his father’s tribe. לבית אבתם: מי שאביו משבט אחד ואמו משבט אחר יקום על שבט אביו:
a head count: Heb. לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם, by means of shekels;“a bekka (half a shekel) per head (לְגֻלְגֹּלֶת.)” לגלגלתם: על ידי שקלים בקע לגלגולת:
3From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions you and Aaron. גמִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל תִּפְקְדוּ אֹתָם לְצִבְאֹתָם אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן:
all who are fit to go out to the army: This informs [us] that no one went out to the army below the age of twenty. כל יצא צבא: מגיד שאין יוצא בצבא פחות מבן עשרים:
4With you there shall be a man from each tribe, one who is head of his father's house. דוְאִתְּכֶם יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אִישׁ לַמַּטֶּה אִישׁ רֹאשׁ לְבֵית אֲבֹתָיו הוּא:
With you: When you count them, there should be with you a prince from each tribe. ואתכם יהיו: כשתפקדו אותם יהיו עמכם נשיא כל שבט ושבט:
5These are the names of the men who shall stand with you; for Reuben, Elitzur the son of Shedeur. הוְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַעַמְדוּ אִתְּכֶם לִרְאוּבֵן אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן שְׁדֵיאוּר:
6For Simeon, Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. ולְשִׁמְעוֹן שְׁלֻמִיאֵל בֶּן צוּרִישַׁדָּי:
7For Judah, Nahshon the son of Amminadab. זלִיהוּדָה נַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב:
8For Issachar, Nethanel the son of Zu'ar. חלְיִשָּׂשכָר נְתַנְאֵל בֶּן צוּעָר:
9For Zebulun, Eliab the son of Helon. טלִזְבוּלֻן אֱלִיאָב בֶּן חֵלֹן:
10For the children of Joseph: for Ephraim, Elishama' the son of 'Ammihud; for Manasseh, Gamliel the son of Pedazur. ילִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף לְאֶפְרַיִם אֱלִישָׁמָע בֶּן עַמִּיהוּד לִמְנַשֶּׁה גַּמְלִיאֵל בֶּן פְּדָהצוּר:
11For Benjamin, Abidan the son of Gideoni. יאלְבִנְיָמִן אֲבִידָן בֶּן גִּדְעֹנִי:
12For Dan, Ahi'ezer the son of 'Ammishaddai. יבלְדָן אֲחִיעֶזֶר בֶּן עַמִּישַׁדָּי:
13For Asher, Pag'iel the son of 'Ochran. יגלְאָשֵׁר פַּגְעִיאֵל בֶּן עָכְרָן:
14For Gad, Eliasaph the son of De'uel. ידלְגָד אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן דְּעוּאֵל:
15For Naphtali, Ahira' the son of 'Enan. טולְנַפְתָּלִי אֲחִירַע בֶּן עֵינָן:
16These were the ones summoned by the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they are the heads of the thousands of Israel. טזאֵלֶּה קְרוּאֵי (כתיב קריאי) הָעֵדָה נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם:
the ones summoned of the congregation: They were summoned for every important matter concerning the congregation. אלה קרואי העדה: הנקראים לכל דבר חשיבות שבעדה:
17Then Moses and Aaron took these men, who were indicated by [their] names, יזוַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמוֹת:
these men: These twelve princes. האנשים האלה: את שנים עשר נשיאים הללו:
who were indicated: to him here by their names. אשר נקבו: לו כאן בשמות:
18and they assembled all the congregation on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees according to their families according to their fathers' houses; according to the number of names, a head count of every male from twenty years old and upward. יחוְאֵת כָּל הָעֵדָה הִקְהִילוּ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וַיִּתְיַלְדוּ עַל מִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם:
and they declared their pedigrees according to their families: They brought the records of their pedigrees and witnesses of their birth claims, so that each one should trace his genealogy to a tribe. ויתילדו על משפחתם: הביאו ספרי יחוסיהם ועידי חזקת (לידתם) [לידת] כל אחד ואחד, להתייחס על השבט:
19As the Lord commanded Moses, so did he count them in the Sinai desert. יטכַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָֹה אֶת משֶׁה וַיִּפְקְדֵם בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Chapter 135
• Lessons in Tanya
•Sunday, Iyar 28, 5775 · May 17, 2015
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Iyar 28, 5775 · May 17, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 68
Off-Limits Areas for the Priests
"That he may not come at all times into the holy place"—Leviticus 16:2.
The high priest is forbidden from entering the Holy of Holies any time other than Yom Kippur, and only when he is then performing the special Yom Kippur service.
The regular priest is forbidden from entering the Holy Temple's sanctuary unless he is discharging a service there [e.g., kindling the menorah, offering incense, or simply entering to prostrate himself before G‑d].
Negative Commandment 165
A Priest Leaving the Holy Temple Mid-Service
"And you shall not go out the door of the Tent of Meeting"—Leviticus 10:7.
It is forbidden for a priest to leave the Temple while he is in middle of performing his service.
A high priest may not leave the Temple even if he is an onen, i.e. he is informed that one of his next of kin has passed away.
Ejecting the Ritually Impure from the Temple Area
"They shall send out from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'at or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead"—Numbers 5:2.
We are commanded to expel from the Temple area all those who are ritually impure.
Negative Commandment 77
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Holy Temple
"They shall not defile their camp"—Numbers 5:3.
All ritually impure individuals are forbidden from entering the Holy Temple—i.e., any area in [the sanctuary and] the Holy Temple Courtyard, starting from the Nikanor Gate.
Negative Commandment 78
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Temple Mount
"He may not enter this camp"—Deuteronomy 23:11.
All ritually impure individuals [with the exception of individuals impure due to contact with a corpse] are forbidden from entering the Temple Mount.
• 1 Chapter: Shevitat Yom Tov Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter Five
• Sunday, Iyar 28, 5775 ·17 May 2015
Iyar 28, 43rd day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: Bamidbar, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Ch. 52. Now, just as (p. 271)...from the sun. (p. 273).
In one of the nocturnal visions in which the Tzemach Tzedek saw the Alter Rebbe (his grandfather), during the Thirty Days of Mourning for the Alter Rebbe, the latter recited for him the maamar, Al shlosha dvarim. After the maamar the Alter Rebbe said, "If the man emits seed first, she bears a female"1 - that is your mother; "if the woman emits seed first, she bears a male" - that is you.
FOOTNOTES
1. Berachot 60a. Translator's note: The Tzemach Tzedek was adamant in refusing to accept the mantle of Rebbe after the passing of the Mitteler Rebbe. A senior Chassid, Reb Peretz Chernigover, prevailed upon him, arguing the statement in our text, that the Tzemach Tzedek is the "rightful heir," being the son of the daughter of the Alter Rebbe; the "quality" of the Alter Rebbe, dominant in his daughter (since "...man...first...female etc.") was in turn transmitted to, and dominant in her son ("...woman...first...male.") See Sefer Hasichot 5701 p. 148.
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bamidbar, 1st Portion Numbers 1:1-1:19 with Rashi
• Chapter 1
1The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying. אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר:
The Lord spoke... in the Sinai Desert... on the first of the month :Because they were dear to Him, He counted them often. When they left Egypt, He counted them (Exod. 12:37); when [many] fell because [of the sin] of the golden calf, He counted them to know the number of the survivors (Exod. 32:28); when He came to cause His Divine Presence to rest among them, He counted them. On the first of Nissan, the Mishkan was erected, and on the first of Iyar, He counted them. וידבר. במדבר סיני באחד לחדש: וגו' מתוך חיבתן לפניו מונה אותם כל שעה, כשיצאו ממצרים מנאן, וכשנפלו בעגל מנאן לידע מנין הנותרים. כשבא להשרות שכינתו עליהן מנאן. באחד בניסן הוקם המשכן, ובאחד באייר מנאם:
2Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names. בשְׂאוּ אֶת רֹאשׁ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת כָּל זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם:
by families: To ascertain the number of [people in] each tribe. למשפחתם: דע מנין כל שבט ושבט:
following their fathers’ houses: If one’s father was from one tribe and his mother from another tribe, he is counted with his father’s tribe. לבית אבתם: מי שאביו משבט אחד ואמו משבט אחר יקום על שבט אביו:
a head count: Heb. לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם, by means of shekels;“a bekka (half a shekel) per head (לְגֻלְגֹּלֶת.)” לגלגלתם: על ידי שקלים בקע לגלגולת:
3From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions you and Aaron. גמִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל תִּפְקְדוּ אֹתָם לְצִבְאֹתָם אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן:
all who are fit to go out to the army: This informs [us] that no one went out to the army below the age of twenty. כל יצא צבא: מגיד שאין יוצא בצבא פחות מבן עשרים:
4With you there shall be a man from each tribe, one who is head of his father's house. דוְאִתְּכֶם יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אִישׁ לַמַּטֶּה אִישׁ רֹאשׁ לְבֵית אֲבֹתָיו הוּא:
With you: When you count them, there should be with you a prince from each tribe. ואתכם יהיו: כשתפקדו אותם יהיו עמכם נשיא כל שבט ושבט:
5These are the names of the men who shall stand with you; for Reuben, Elitzur the son of Shedeur. הוְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַעַמְדוּ אִתְּכֶם לִרְאוּבֵן אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן שְׁדֵיאוּר:
6For Simeon, Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. ולְשִׁמְעוֹן שְׁלֻמִיאֵל בֶּן צוּרִישַׁדָּי:
7For Judah, Nahshon the son of Amminadab. זלִיהוּדָה נַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב:
8For Issachar, Nethanel the son of Zu'ar. חלְיִשָּׂשכָר נְתַנְאֵל בֶּן צוּעָר:
9For Zebulun, Eliab the son of Helon. טלִזְבוּלֻן אֱלִיאָב בֶּן חֵלֹן:
10For the children of Joseph: for Ephraim, Elishama' the son of 'Ammihud; for Manasseh, Gamliel the son of Pedazur. ילִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף לְאֶפְרַיִם אֱלִישָׁמָע בֶּן עַמִּיהוּד לִמְנַשֶּׁה גַּמְלִיאֵל בֶּן פְּדָהצוּר:
11For Benjamin, Abidan the son of Gideoni. יאלְבִנְיָמִן אֲבִידָן בֶּן גִּדְעֹנִי:
12For Dan, Ahi'ezer the son of 'Ammishaddai. יבלְדָן אֲחִיעֶזֶר בֶּן עַמִּישַׁדָּי:
13For Asher, Pag'iel the son of 'Ochran. יגלְאָשֵׁר פַּגְעִיאֵל בֶּן עָכְרָן:
14For Gad, Eliasaph the son of De'uel. ידלְגָד אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן דְּעוּאֵל:
15For Naphtali, Ahira' the son of 'Enan. טולְנַפְתָּלִי אֲחִירַע בֶּן עֵינָן:
16These were the ones summoned by the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they are the heads of the thousands of Israel. טזאֵלֶּה קְרוּאֵי (כתיב קריאי) הָעֵדָה נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם:
the ones summoned of the congregation: They were summoned for every important matter concerning the congregation. אלה קרואי העדה: הנקראים לכל דבר חשיבות שבעדה:
17Then Moses and Aaron took these men, who were indicated by [their] names, יזוַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמוֹת:
these men: These twelve princes. האנשים האלה: את שנים עשר נשיאים הללו:
who were indicated: to him here by their names. אשר נקבו: לו כאן בשמות:
18and they assembled all the congregation on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees according to their families according to their fathers' houses; according to the number of names, a head count of every male from twenty years old and upward. יחוְאֵת כָּל הָעֵדָה הִקְהִילוּ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וַיִּתְיַלְדוּ עַל מִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם:
and they declared their pedigrees according to their families: They brought the records of their pedigrees and witnesses of their birth claims, so that each one should trace his genealogy to a tribe. ויתילדו על משפחתם: הביאו ספרי יחוסיהם ועידי חזקת (לידתם) [לידת] כל אחד ואחד, להתייחס על השבט:
19As the Lord commanded Moses, so did he count them in the Sinai desert. יטכַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָֹה אֶת משֶׁה וַיִּפְקְדֵם בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 135 - 139
• Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 52• Lessons in Tanya
•Sunday, Iyar 28, 5775 · May 17, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 52
ובירידתה בהשתלשלות מעולם לעולם, גם השכינה ירדה ונתלבשה בה בכל עולם ועולם
As [this wisdom] came down by progressive descents from World to World, theShechinah, too, came down and clothed itself in it in each World.
Thus, within the Supernal Wisdom which descends into each World is to be found theShechinah of that World.
וזהו היכל קדשי קדשים שבכל עולם ועולם
This is the shrine of the “Holy of Holies,” which is contained in each World.
I.e., the Shechinah resides with the “Holy of Holies” of each World, this being the Divine “intelligence” enclothed in the Torah of each particular World.
וכמו שכתוב בזהר ועץ חיים, שהשכינה, שהיא מלכות דאצילות שהיא בחינת גילוי אור אין סוף ברוך הוא וחיות שמאיר לעולמות, ולכן היא נקראת דבר ה׳ ורוח פיו כביכול
So also has it been stated in the Zohar and Etz Chayim, that the Shechinah,which is Malchut of Atzilut (1 being the manifestation of the light and vitality of the blessed Ein Sof, which illumine the worlds, wherefore i.e., since it is a revelationit is called “G‑d’s speech” and the “breath of His mouth,” as it were, for the purpose of speech is to reveal that which was concealed in thought,
על דרך משל, כמו שבאדם הדבור מגלה מחשבתו הסתומה ונעלמה להשומעים
as in the case of a person, by way of example, speech reveals to the hearers the speaker’s concealed and hidden thought),
The same applies Above: Malchut of Atzilut, the level at which the light of Ein Sof and the previously concealed vitality becomes manifest, is called “G‑d’s speech,” for it reveals G‑dliness to the Worlds. This level of Shechinah, which is Malchut of Atzilut:
היא מתלבשת בהיכל קדשי קדשים דבריאה, שהוא חב״ד דבריאה, ובהתלבשותן במלכות דבריאה נבראו הנשמות והמלאכים שבבריאה
clothes itself in the shrine of the Holy of Holies of Beriah, namely, theChochmah, Binah and Daat of Beriah. Through the fact that [the latter Sefirot] clothe themselves in the Malchut of Beriah, the souls and angels which exist in the World of Beriah have been created.
At this point the Rebbe notes: “[The ChaBaD of Beriah clothe themselves in the Malchutof Beriah] together with the Malchut of Atzilut which is within them, for, as stated earlier [in this chapter], ‘from this source... have been created....’*”
The souls and angels of the World of Beriah are created beings. Unlike the Sefirot of any particular World, they are not the G‑dliness of their World, but are created from the level ofMalchut therein. Thus, the souls and angels of the World of Beriah are created from Malchut of that World.2
וגם משם נמשך התלמוד שלפנינו
And from there also — from Malchut of Beriah, in which is enclothed the Shechinah, i.e.,Malchut of Atzilut, which previously had clothed itself in the Chochmah, Binah and Daat of the World of Beriah, after which the latter are clothed in Malchut of the World of Beriah — derives the Talmud that we possess.3
וכמו שנתבאר לעיל בשם התיקונים, שבעולם הבריאה מאירות ומשפיעות שם חכמתו ובינתו ודעתו של אין סוף ברוך הוא בבחינת צמצום עצום, בכדי שיוכלו הנשמות והמלאכים, שהם בעלי גבול ותכלית, לקבל השפעה מבחינת חב״ד אלו
And as has previously been explained in the name of the Tikkunim, that in the World of Beriah there shine and flow forth the Chochmah, Binah and Daat of the Ein Sof, in a powerfully contracted manner, in order that the souls and the angels, which are finite beings, shall be able to receive influence from these categories of ChaBaD.
Souls and angels in the World of Beriah are unable to receive influence from ChaBaD as it exists in its essential state, in Atzilut. Only after ChaBaD descends in a powerfully contracted manner into Beriah are they able to receive its influence.
ולכן נמשך משם התלמוד, שהוא גם כן בחינת חב״ד, שהתלמוד הוא טעמי ההלכות על בוריין, והטעמים הם בחינת חב״ד
Therefore the Talmud (not the Mishnah, but the Gemara) also originates from there— from the World of Beriah, for it (the Talmud) is also of the category of ChaBaD, for the Talmud is i.e., it consists of the clearly defined reasons of the Halachot, and the reasons being rational are from the category of ChaBaD (“intelligence”).
וההלכות עצמן הן ממדותיו של אין סוף ברוך הוא, שהן חסד דין רחמים כו׳ שמהן נמשך ההיתר והאיסור, והכשר והפסול, והחיוב והפטור
And the laws themselves found in the Mishnah derive from the middot (the emotive attributes) of the Ein Sof, namely, kindness, severity, mercy, and so on, from which originate permission and prohibition, permission deriving from kindness and prohibition from severity, ritual validity and invalidity, liability and blamelessness,ritual validity and blamelessness originating from the attribute of kindness, and ritual invalidity and liability originating from the attribute of severity,
כמו שכתוב בתיקונים
as is explained in the Tikkunim.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 2. | Iggeret HaKodesh, on the third page of Epistle 25. |
| 3. | The Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe has added, “that we possess,” i.e., the Talmudthat we possess here, in this world. Possibly, he says, this was added in order to anticipate a question that might arise from ch. 23 above. There the Alter Rebbe says that Torah is the illumination of the blessed Ein Sof, for “He is the Knower....” This indicates that Torah is wholly one with G‑d Himself. How, then, can it be said that the Talmud emanates from a level and Sefirah no higher than the World of Beriah? The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that this refers only to the Talmud “that we possess,” as man studies it in this world. This concept sits well with the statement in ch. 23, that the laws are “particular streams flowing from the inner Supreme Will itself” — but an emanation from the Supreme Will. The Rebbe also cites the Alter Rebbe’s second note to ch. 40, which says that the core and the essence of the Supreme Will is in Atzilut, and only a glow therefrom radiates to each World according to its rank. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Sunday, Iyar 28, 5775 · May 17, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 68
Off-Limits Areas for the Priests
"That he may not come at all times into the holy place"—Leviticus 16:2.
The high priest is forbidden from entering the Holy of Holies any time other than Yom Kippur, and only when he is then performing the special Yom Kippur service.
The regular priest is forbidden from entering the Holy Temple's sanctuary unless he is discharging a service there [e.g., kindling the menorah, offering incense, or simply entering to prostrate himself before G‑d].
Off-Limits Areas for the Priests
Negative Commandment 68
Translated by Berel Bell
The 68th prohibition is that [even] a kohen gadol may not always enter the Temple, due to its exalted status and the awe of the Divine Presence.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He [Aaron] may not always enter the Sanctuary."
There are various categories within this prohibition: a kohen gadol may not enter the Holy of Holies even on Yom Kippur, expect for times designated for the service.2 Similarly, a regular kohen may not enter the Temple building (heichal) the entire year, expect for when he is performing the Temple service.
In summary, this prohibition says that if not performing the Temple service, a kohen may not even enter an area he would be allowed to enter, and at a time he would be allowed to enter, unless he is performing a Temple service — whether a kohen gadol inside the Holy of Holies or a kohen outside.3
The punishment for entering such an area without performing the Temple service [varies]: if he entered the Holy of Holies, there is a [Divine] death penalty. If he entered the Temple building (heichal), he receives lashes.
In the words of the Sifra: "The phrase 'He may not always enter' refers to Yom Kippur [— that he may not enter except for the designated times]. The phrase 'the Sanctuary' comes to include the rest of the year. The phrase 'from inside the partition' comes to include the rest of the Temple.4 One might think that the death penalty applies to the entire Temple — therefore the verse adds '[from inside the partition] which faces the Ark, so that he shall not die.' This means that [for entering the area] which faces the Ark [i.e. the Holy of Holies] the penalty is death, but [entering] the rest of the Temple is only a prohibition." Our Sages stated clearly in tractate Menachos,5 "One who enters the Temple building receives 40 lashes."
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 16:2.
2.The kohen gadol entered the Holy of Holies four times on Yom Kippur. Entering a fifth time is prohibited by this commandment.
3.By this statement, the Rambam evidently wishes to explain why this counts as just one commandment rather than two. See Yad Halevi, footnote 4.
4.See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 2:2 and commentaries. Heller, footnote 13.
5.27b.
Negative Commandment 165
A Priest Leaving the Holy Temple Mid-Service
"And you shall not go out the door of the Tent of Meeting"—Leviticus 10:7.
It is forbidden for a priest to leave the Temple while he is in middle of performing his service.
A high priest may not leave the Temple even if he is an onen, i.e. he is informed that one of his next of kin has passed away.
A Priest Leaving the Holy Temple Mid-Service
Negative Commandment 165
Translated by Berel Bell
The 165th prohibition is that the kohanim are forbidden from leaving the Temple when they are in the middle of performing the Temple service.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not go out from the entrance of the Communion Tent (pesach ohel moed)." The prohibition is repeated in reference to the kohen gadol in the verse,2 "He may not leave the Temple."
In the words of the Sifra: "From the phrase 'from the entrance of the ohel moed' I would think that the prohibition applies regardless of whether or not the Temple service was being performed. The verse,3 'He may not leave the Temple in order that he not profane' [the Temple service] teaches that the prohibition applies only when the Temple service is being performed. [What is the significance of the conclusion of the verse] 'because G‑d's anointing oil is upon you'? One might think that the death penalty for one who leaves while in the middle of the Temple service is only for Aaron and his sons — who were anointed with this special oil. What is the source to apply this law for all kohanim and for all generations? This verse 'because G‑d's anointing oil is upon you.' "
This law contains an extra stringency for a kohen gadol in that he may not [leave the Temple even to] attend the burial [of a close relative]. This is the meaning of the verse, "He may not leave the Temple." This is explained in the second chapter of Sanhedrin,4 which clearly derives the law that he may not attend a relative's burial from this verse, "He may not leave the Temple."
From here we learn that he may perform the Temple service even on the day of the relative's death. To quote the statement of our Sages from tractate Sanhedrin:5 "The verse states, 'He may not leave the Temple in order that he not profane' [the Temple service] — however there is someone else who would profane the Temple service if he would not leave [and instead continue the Temple service]." This refers to a regular kohen, who may not perform the Temple service when an onen. This law which prohibits an onen from performing the service is derived as mentioned above. This principle that a regular kohen is not allowed to perform the service when an onen, while a kohen gadol is allowed is explained in the end of tractate Horios.6
It7 has been made clear that the phrase v'lo y'chalel ("[he may not leave the Temple] in order that he not profane") is a statement that something will not happen [sh'lilah] rather than a prohibition, because his service is not profaned although he is an onen.8
On the simple level, the phrase v'lo y'chalel [has another interpretation: it] gives the reason for the prohibition which immediately precedes it — "He may not leave" in order that "he not profane." According to both interpretations9 this phrase is not counted as a separate commandment, as is clear to all who understand the principles which were given as the introduction to this work.10
We have explained that these three prohibitions — not to grow long hair, wear torn clothing, or leave the Temple — are repeated regarding the kohen gadol in order to convey a particular idea. This is similar to the verses which prohibit [a kohen from marrying] a divorcee, chalalah, or zonah, which are repeated [in reference to the kohen gadol] in order to convey a particular idea.
The three areas prohibited by these three laws are the same ones referred to in the verses, "Your heads al tifrau," "Your clothing lo tifromu," and "Do not go out from the entrance of the ohel moed." Moshe Rabbeinu, may he rest in peace, gave them over to Elazar and Isamar, saying, "in spite of your shock over this frightening event [i.e. the death of Nadav and Avihu], those things which are normally forbidden to you do not become permitted. Rather, you remain forbidden from doing all the things you were forbidden from doing beforehand, i.e. allowing the hair to grow long, wearing torn clothing, and leaving the Temple during the Temple service."
The repetition in reference to the kohen gadol teaches that the prohibition applies [only] at the time that the Temple service is being performed, and that only at such a time is the [Divine] death penalty in effect. This is similar to the way that the commandment, "Do not go out from the entrance of the ohel moed" is explained by the verse, "He may not leave the Temple."11
Although each repetition of these prohibitions in reference to the kohen gadol is used to derive an additional law, as explained above, nevertheless, they do not increase the total number of mitzvos — as is understood by anyone who understands our introduction.12 This is because each repeated verse is used to teach you that the act is prohibited specifically during the time of the Temple service. One should understand this well.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 10:7.
2.Ibid. 21:12.
3.Ibid.
4.18a.
5.84a.
6.12b.
7.The Rambam now proves that the phrase "he not profane" does not count as a separate prohibition, i.e. to not profane the Temple service.
8.Therefore, the verse means to say, "He may not leave the Temple, and may continue to perform the Temple service, and he still does not profane the service, although he is an onen."
9.1 — that it is a sh'lilah; 2 — that it gives the reason.
10.See Principle 8.
11.See Sifra, beginning of this mitzvah.
12.See the Ninth Introductory Principle. ____________________________________________________________
Positive Commandment 31Ejecting the Ritually Impure from the Temple Area
"They shall send out from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'at or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead"—Numbers 5:2.
We are commanded to expel from the Temple area all those who are ritually impure.
Ejecting the Ritually Impure from the Temple Area
Positive Commandment 31
Translated by Berel Bell
The 31st mitzvah is that we are commanded to remove from the Temple people who are tameh.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Send out of the camp everyone who has a leprous mark or a male discharge, and all who are ritually defiled by the dead."
The camp referred to [in the desert] is the machaneh Shechinah, which in later generations corresponds to the Temple courtyard, as we explained in our commentary on the Mishneh, at the beginning of Seder Taharos.2 In the words of the Sifri, "The verse 'Send out of the camp' is a prohibition to those who are tameh, that they may not enter the Temple when still in a state of tumah."
This mitzvah is repeated in another form in G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "If a man is tameh because of a nocturnal emission, he must go outside the camp." The camp referred to in this phrase is the machaneh Shechinah, just as in [the passage quoted above as the source for] this same mitzvah,4 "Send them out of the camp." In tractate Pesachim,5 it is explained, "The verse 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Shechinah." In the words of the Mechilta,6 "The verse 'Command the Jewish people to send out of the camp,' constitutes a positive commandment. What is the source for the prohibition? The verse, '[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp.' "
The Sifra7 states, "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' constitutes a positive commandment."
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 5:2.
2.Keilim 1:8. There were three levels of holiness in the Mishkan that accompanied the Jewish people in the desert. The lowest was the machaneh Yisroel, the next, the machaneh Leviyah, and the highest, the machaneh Shechinah. In later generations they corresponded to the city of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple courtyard, respectively.
3.Deut. 23:11.
4.Num. 5:3.
5.68a.
6.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 62, that our versions of Mechilta do not have this passage. It can be found in Sifri Zuta.
7.Deut. 23:11.
Negative Commandment 77
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Holy Temple
"They shall not defile their camp"—Numbers 5:3.
All ritually impure individuals are forbidden from entering the Holy Temple—i.e., any area in [the sanctuary and] the Holy Temple Courtyard, starting from the Nikanor Gate.
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Holy Temple
Negative Commandment 77
Translated by Berel Bell
The 77th prohibition is that anyone who is tameh is forbidden from entering anywhere in the Temple. In later generations, this corresponds to the entire Temple courtyard, from the Gate of Nikanor and inward, which is the beginning of the Courtyard of the Israelites.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp," i.e. the machaneh Shechinah.
In tractate Makkos2 it is explained, "Regarding a person who enters the Temple when he is tameh, both the punishment and the prohibition are written. The punishment is from the verse,3 '[Any person who touches the corpse of a dead person...] shall receive kares if he defiles G‑d's Temple [by entering it].' The prohibition is derived from the verse, '[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp.' "
The Mechilta4 says, "The verse 'Command the Jewish people to send out of the camp' constitutes a positive commandment. What is the source for the prohibition? The verse, 'and they shall not defile their camp.' "
This prohibition is repeated with different wording regarding a woman who has recently given birth, "She shall not enter the Temple."5
The Sifra says, "From the verse6 'You must warn the Jewish people about their impurity, so that it not cause them to die [if they defile the Temple that I have placed among them]' I would think that the same applies both from the inside and the outside," i.e. that if he is tameh, he receives kares even if he touches the Temple from the outside. [The Sifra concludes,] "The Torah therefore says regarding a woman who recently gave birth, 'She shall not enter the Temple.' "
There it is explained that the law regarding a woman who has given birth is identical to that of other individuals who are tameh as far as this law is concerned.7
The Sifra also comments on G‑d's statement8 (exalted be He), "If he does not immerse his clothing and body, then he will bear his guilt" — "What does this mean? For not immersing his body, he is punished with kares; for not immersing his clothing, he is punished by receiving 40 lashes. How do we know that this speaks exclusively about someone who is tameh and either enters the Temple or consumes holy offerings? From the fact that it warns, and then indicates the punishment."
We have already explained that one who intentionally transgresses this prohibition is punished with kares. If done unintentionally, the person must bring an offering of adjustable value, as we explained in P72.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the beginning of tractate Shavuos, in Horios,9 Kerisus,10 and a number of passages in Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 5:3.
2.14b.
3.Num. 19:13.
4.See footnote to P31 above regarding our versions of the Mechilta.
5.Lev.12:4.
6.Ibid., 15:31.
7.We see from this that the law regarding a woman who recently gave birth is included in this commandment, and does not count as a separate commandment.
8.Ibid. 17:16.
9.9a.
10.2a.
Negative Commandment 78
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Temple Mount
"He may not enter this camp"—Deuteronomy 23:11.
All ritually impure individuals [with the exception of individuals impure due to contact with a corpse] are forbidden from entering the Temple Mount.
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Temple Mount
Negative Commandment 78
Translated by Berel Bell
The 78th prohibition is that a person who is tameh is forbidden from entering the machaneh Leviyah, which later corresponded to the Temple Mount, as we explained in our commentary on the beginning of tractate Keilim.1 The prohibition against people who are tameh entering the Temple Mount is explained there.
The verse which serves as the source of this prohibition refers to a man who is tameh because of a nocturnal emission, "He may not enter inside the camp."2
The3 passage in tractate Pesachim4 reads: "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Shechinah," as we explained in positive commandment 31. [Pesachim continues,] "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Leviyah."
"Ravina then asked, 'perhaps both phrases refer to the machaneh Shechinah, and the repetition serves to cover both the positive and negative commandments?!'"
[The Gemara answers,] "If so, it could have just written, 'he may not enter inside,'" i.e. "he may not enter inside it."5 [The Gemara continues,] "Why is the word 'camp' repeated? To refer to a second type of camp, i.e. the machaneh Leviyah." This means that even this camp he may not enter.
The Sifri6 says [clearly that this phrase counts as a separate commandment]: "The phrase, 'He may not enter inside the camp, 'is a negative commandment."
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in our commentary to the beginning of tractate Keilim.
FOOTNOTES
1.See footnote to P31.
2.Deut. 23:11.
3.The full verse reads, "He must go outside the camp; he may not enter inside the camp." The Rambam proves that the "camp" referred to in the beginning of the verse refers to the machaneh Shechinah, which is positive commandment 31; while the second "camp" refers to the machaneh Leviyah, which is this commandment.
4.68a.
5.The Rambam makes this clarification because in Hebrew, removing the word hamachaneh ("the camp") would make the phrase non-sensical.
6.Deut. 23:11.
Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
Although the Torah allowed carrying on a holiday even when it is not necessary [for the preparation of food], one should not carry heavy loads as he is accustomed to do on a weekday; instead, he must depart [from his regular practice].1 If, however, making such a departure is impossible, it is permitted.
What is implied? A person who brings jugs of wine from one place to another place should not bring them in a basket or in a container. Instead, he should carry them on his shoulder or in front of him. A person who is carrying hay should not sling the bale over his shoulder. Instead, he should carry it in his hands.
Halacha 2
Similarly, loads that a person might ordinarily carry with a pole should be carried on his back. Those that are ordinarily carried on one's back should be carried on one's shoulder. And those that one usually carries on one's shoulder should be carried in one's hands before him, or a cloth should be spread over them. Similarly, one should depart from one's ordinary practice with regard to carrying loads. If it is impossible to depart from one's ordinary practice,2 one may bring the load in the ordinary manner.
When does the above apply? When a person is carrying the burden. If, however, an animal is carrying the burden, one should not bring them at all, so that one does not follow one's weekday practice.3
Halacha 3
We may not direct an animal with a staff, nor may a blind man go out with a cane,4 nor may a shepherd carry his pack.5
Neither a man nor a woman may be carried out in a chair, so that the ordinary weekday practice will not be followed. A person whose presence is required by many6 may be carried out on a chair on another person's back. Similarly, he may be carried out in a litter, even on people's shoulders.
Halacha 4
We may not move a ladder used for a dovecote7 from one dovecote to another in the public domain, lest [an observer] say, "He is moving [the ladder] to fix his roof."
It is, however, permitted to move such a ladder in a private domain. Although all the restrictions instituted by the Sages because of the impression that might be made on an onlooker normally apply even in the most private places, leniency was granted in this instance [to increase] rejoicing on the holiday.8
Halacha 5
A person who has [left] produce [to dry] on his roof and who must move it from one place to another9 should not pass it from one roof to another roof - even if both roofs are of the same height - nor should he lower it by a rope from a window or carry it down a ladder. [These restrictions were instituted] so that he will not follow his ordinary practice. He may, however, throw it down through an aperture, [thus moving it] from place to place on one roof.10
Halacha 6
On a holiday it is permitted to send a colleague13 any article from which one could benefit on a weekday, even though one cannot benefit from it on a holiday - e.g., tefillin. Needless to say, one may send [a colleague] articles from which one may benefit on the holiday itself - e.g., wine, oil, and fine flour.14
When, however, one could not derive benefit from an article on a weekday unless one performed a task whose performance is forbidden on a holiday, one may not send that article to a colleague on a holiday.15
Halacha 7
What is implied? One may not send grain, because one does not benefit from it on a weekday unless one grinds it,16 and it is forbidden to grind on a holiday. We may, by contrast, send legumes, since one may cook them on a holiday or roast them, and eat them.
We may send a beast, a domestic animal, or a fowl on a holiday even when alive, because it is permitted to slaughter them on a holiday.17 The same rules apply in other similar situations.
Halacha 8
When one sends a colleague as a present any article that is permitted to be sent on a holiday, one should not send it with a delegation.18 A delegation includes at least three people.
What is implied? When one sends a colleague animals or wines with a group of three people who walk together, or four who walk one after the other, and they all walk in a single line,19 this is forbidden, so that one does not follow one's weekday procedure.20It is permitted, however, to send three different types [of articles] with three people who walk together.
Halacha 9
When a person establishes an eruv t'chumim for a holiday, his animal, his articles, and his produce are bound by the same restrictions as he is.21 They also may not be taken beyond two thousand cubits in all directions from the place where the person established his eruv.
Halacha 10
[The holiday limits] of ownerless articles follow the limits of those who acquire them.22 [The holiday limits] of articles belonging to a gentile are determined by their place [at the commencement of the holiday]. They are granted [only] two thousand cubits in all directions from this place.23 This is a decree. [Our Sages placed restrictions on articles] belonging to gentiles, because of articles belonging to Jews.
When produce was taken beyond [the holiday limits] and returned - even if this was done with a conscious intent to violate the prohibitions involved - there is no prohibition against moving it throughout [the holiday limits]. It is considered analogous to a person who was forcibly taken beyond [the holiday limits] and forcibly returned.24
Halacha 11
When a person entrusts an animal to his son, [the holiday limits] of the animal follow those of the father.25 If he entrusts [an animal] to a shepherd, even if he gives it to him on a holiday,26 its [holiday limits] follow those of the shepherd. If he entrusts it to two shepherds, its [holiday limits] follow those of the owner, since neither acquired [responsibility for it beforehand].27
Halacha 12
When a person invites guests on a holiday, [the guests] should not carry the portions [of food they were given] to a place where their host may not go himself. For the [holiday limits] of [the food served at] the feast depend on those of the host, and not on those of the guests.28 [These restrictions apply] unless [the host] granted [the guests] their portions [as presents via] another individual29 before the commencement of the holiday.
Halacha 13
Similarly, when produce belonging to a person was left in another city for safekeeping, and the inhabitants of that city established an eruv [t'chumim] so that they could visit [the owner], they should not bring him his produce. For his produce [is governed by the same laws] as he is,30 even though it was [entrusted] to people who established an eruv [t'chumim].
Halacha 14
[The holiday limits of the water in] a cistern belonging to one person follow those of the owner.33 If a cistern is owned by a city, [the holiday limits of its water] follow those of the inhabitants of the city.34 [The holiday limits of the water in a cistern made] for the festive pilgrims coming from Babylon, which is donated to the public at large, follow those of the person who draws the water.35 Whoever draws water may carry it wherever he is allowed to proceed.
Halacha 15
[The holiday limits of] an ox belonging to a herder follow those of the inhabitants of his city.38 [The holiday limits of] an ox fattened for slaughter follow those of the person who purchased it with the intention of slaughtering it on the holiday [even if he lives outside the city]. [This leniency was granted] because the fact that it was fattened for slaughter makes its reputation well known, and many come to purchase it [even from afar].
Similarly, if the owner slaughtered [such an ox] on a holiday and sold its meat [to many different people], each of the purchasers may bring the meat to any place where he is allowed to proceed himself. [The reason for this leniency is] that on the day before the holiday, [the ox's] owner had the intent that people from [surrounding] villages would purchase [its meat]. Therefore, this ox is comparable to a well designated for festive pilgrims, [the water of] which is provided to the public at large.
Halacha 16
[The holiday limits of] a coal follow those of its owners,39 and not those of a person who borrows it. [Those of] a flame, by contrast, follow those of the person carrying it.40 Therefore, a person who lights a lamp or a piece of wood [from] a colleague's [flame] may carry it to any place where he is permitted to proceed himself.
Halacha 17
When on the day prior to a holiday, a person [secures] a colleague's [consent] to lend him a utensil, [on the holiday, the holiday limits of] the utensil follow those of the borrower, even when [the owner] did not give him the utensil until [after the commencement of] the holiday.41
When a person borrows a utensil on the holiday, even if he always borrows this utensil from [its owner] on a holiday, [the holiday limits of the utensil] follow those of the owner.42
Halacha 18
When [before a holiday commences] two people both [arrange to] borrow the same cloak [from a person on the holiday], one [asks] to borrow it on the morning and the other [asks] to borrow it towards evening, [the holiday limits] of this [cloak] are dependent on those of both borrowers.43 They may not bring it to a place other than one to which they both may proceed.
Halacha 19
What is implied? If the first established an eruv [t'chumim] that was one thousand cubits to the east of the cloak, and the other established an eruv that was five hundred cubits to the west of the cloak, when the first person takes the cloak he may move it no more than one thousand five hundred cubits to the east of the cloak's present location. For this is the end of the holiday limits to which the person who established his eruv to the west may proceed.
When the second person takes the cloak, he may move it no more than one thousand cubits to the east of the cloak's present location. For this is the end of the holiday limits to which the person who established his eruv to the east may proceed.
Based on the above, if one person established his eruv two thousand cubits to the east of the cloak and the other established his eruv two thousand cubits to the west [of the cloak], they may not move it from its place.44
Halacha 20
Similarly, when a woman borrows water or salt from a friend to use in the kneading of dough or in the preparation of food, [the holiday limits of] the dough or the food are dependent on those of both women.45
By the same token, if two people purchased an animal in partnership and slaughtered it on a holiday, [the holiday limits of] the meat are dependent on those of both [partners]. If, by contrast, they purchased a jug [of wine] in partnership, and divided it on the holiday, [the holiday limits of] each partner's portion follow those of [its owner].
[What is the difference between these two laws? In the latter instance,] since the [prohibition against going beyond the holiday] limits is Rabbinic in origin,46the principle of b'reirah applies. Thus, it is considered as if the portion that is given to [either partner] were distinct and separated as his in the jug before the holiday; [i.e.,] it is as if [the two portions of wine] were not mixed with [the other].47
This cannot be said with regard to an animal. Even if the portion that was given to [either partner] were considered to be separated within the animal, and it is as if it were distinct [leniency cannot be shown in this instance]. For the portion derived nurture from the portion belonging to the other colleague while the animal was alive, since all of an animal's limbs derive nurture from each other. Thus, all the animal's limbs are considered as being intermingled with the portions belonging to both partners. Therefore, [the holiday limits of the animal] are dependent on both of them.48
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Rashi (Beitzah 29b) explains that this restriction applies even to foods that are necessary for the holiday. The reason for this stringency is that a person carrying large loads appears to be going about his weekday affairs without awareness of the holiday.
Rashi [cited by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 510:8)] also states that these restrictions apply only in the public domain. Within a courtyard or a home, one may carry in one's ordinary fashion. Rav Kapach explains that this is also the Rambam's view, for (although it is not explicitly stated) the entire chapter speaks about passage through the public domain.
|
| 2. |
As an example, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 510:10) cites an instance where a person has invited many guests and must bring food for them promptly. Therefore, instead of requiring him to bring smaller loads that would take more time, he is allowed to bring a larger amount in his usual fashion.
|
| 3. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that other opinions explain that it is forbidden to use an animal on a holiday, just as it is forbidden to do so on the Sabbath, lest one break a branch of a tree. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 495:12 accepts this view as binding.
|
| 4. |
This refers to a blind man who uses a cane to tap his way. By contrast, a person who needs a cane to walk may use a cane on a holiday (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 522:3).
|
| 5. |
Carrying a pack in this way appears as an act of disrespect for the holiday (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 522:1; Mishnah Berurah 522:2).
|
| 6. |
Beitzah 25b interprets this as referring to a sage who lectures to the people.
|
| 7. |
I.e., this type of ladder is mentioned in contrast to a ladder leading to a loft, which may not be carried on Sabbaths and holidays, because it is considered a permanent part of the structure of a building and not a utensil (Hilchot Shabbat 26:7).
|
| 8. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's interpretation of Beitzah 9a. According to the Ra'avad, an even greater leniency is in place, and it is permitted to carry such a ladder even in the public domain (for the ladders used for dovecotes could be distinguished from other ladders). The Ra'avad's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 518:4).
|
| 9. |
E.g., he sees rain coming, which will spoil the produce (Rashi, Beitzah 35b).
|
| 10. |
Our translation is based on the explanation in the D'rishah of the interpretation of the Rambam's statements provided by the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 521). The Beit Yosef maintains that the Rambam, unlike Rashi, loc. cit. and the Tur, forbids bringing the produce indoors in this manner. Others, however, interpret the Rambam's words as meaning: "One may throw them down the aperture, even though this involves moving them from place to place..."
|
| 11. |
The Mishnah (Beitzah 3:3) mentions this law with regard to an animal that is sick and is slaughtered before it dies. The Rambam, however, explains that the law applies in all instances, even when the animal is healthy (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 12. |
Although this involves greater effort (for one will have to return to the field several times), it is preferable, so that one departs from his ordinary practice.
|
| 13. |
As the Ramah (Orach Chayim 516:3) emphasizes, it is permissible to send these presents in the public domain. For since sending and receiving these articles increases one's festive joy, there is no prohibition against their transfer.
|
| 14. |
See the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which permits sending clothing, although it is unfinished, provided it is fit to use for some purpose in its present state.
|
| 15. |
According to the Rambam, it would appear that the reason for this prohibition is not that it involves the forbidden labor of transferring articles, since, as he states in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, this activity is permitted even when no benefit can be derived on the holiday itself. Rather, the reason is - as in the previous halachot - so that one will not conduct oneself in a weekday manner on a holiday.
Significantly, the Magen Avraham 516:1 and the Turei Zahav 516:1 associate this prohibition with the forbidden labor of transferring articles. Therefore, they explain, when a city has an eruvconstructed, it is permitted to send such articles on a holiday as well. (See the discussion of this law in the Mishnah Berurah 516:4.)
[Significantly, in Hilchot Eruvin 8:4, the Rambam mentions the establishment of an eruv t'chumimon a holiday, but he does not mention the establishment of an eruv chatzerot on a holiday at all.]
|
| 16. |
There are certain people who eat roasted grains. Therefore, there is a minority opinion in Beitzah14b that allows grain to be sent on a holiday. Nevertheless, since this is not a widely prevalent practice, this view was not accepted by the majority of Sages.
|
| 17. |
This leniency applies even when one knows that the recipient will not slaughter them on the holiday (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 516:1; Mishnah Berurah 516:1).
|
| 18. |
Since this prohibition was instituted as an expression of respect for the holiday, it applies even in a courtyard and a private domain if there are many people there (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 516:6;Mishnah Berurah 516:6).
|
| 19. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 516:2) uses slightly different wording: "Three people or more, one after the other." There are versions of the Mishneh Torah which also use such wording.
|
| 20. |
Rashi (Beitzah 14b) states that by sending the articles in this manner, it appears that one is taking them to the market to be sold.
|
| 21. |
A person is forbidden to proceed more than 2000 cubits in any direction from his location at the onset of the Sabbath or a holiday. If he is in a private domain or in an enclosed city, the 2000-cubit limit begins from that area's peripheries.
Our Sages offered an additional leniency: a person can establish a location within his Sabbath limits as his place for the Sabbath or a holiday by depositing food at that location before the onset of the Sabbath or the holiday. This is referred to as an eruv t'chumim. In this instance, his 2000-cubit limits are calculated from that place, and not from the place where he is located at the onset of the Sabbath.
In this halachah, the Rambam is stating that the restriction against proceeding beyond 2000 cubits applies not only to the person himself, but to the possessions he owns. For them as well, the 2000-cubit limit is calculated from the location of the food he deposited.
[The Rambam does not mention this concept with regard to the Sabbath, since it is forbidden to carry articles or to lead an animal on that day. There are, nevertheless, ramifications of this law with regard to the Sabbath. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 305:23) states that it is permitted to entrust one's animals to a gentile shepherd to watch, even though one knows that he will lead them beyond the Sabbath limits. The commentaries explain that since the Jew himself neither performs nor initiates the activity, there is no prohibition.]
|
| 22. |
I.e., they may be carried within a 2000-cubit radius beginning from the place where the person who acquires them was located at the commencement of the Sabbath, or from the place where he deposited his eruv t'chumim.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point and maintains that the Sabbath limits are calculated from the place where the article itself was located at the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the later authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 401:1), follow the Rambam's view.
|
| 23. |
For this reason, our Sages placed several restrictions on benefitting from articles brought by gentiles on a holiday, lest they have brought them from beyond the holiday limits.
|
| 24. |
A person who left his Sabbath or holiday limits and returned is allowed to walk only within a square of four cubits by four cubits (Hilchot Shabbat 27:12-13). These restrictions are not placed on a utensil. A person is capable of acting on his own initiative, while a utensil must be carried by a person. It is thus comparable to a person who was taken from and returned to his Sabbath limits by force. As stated in Hilchot Shabbat (ibid.), it is considered as if he had never departed. Nevertheless, as reflected in Hilchot Shabbat 6:24, if the produce was taken from the city by a Jew with a conscious intent to violate the law, one should not benefit from it on the holiday.
|
| 25. |
Because the father does not expect his son to take responsibility for the animal, it is not considered as having entered the son's possession (Maggid Mishneh). Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 397:4) follows the Rambam's ruling, there are later authorities who differ. (See Mishnah Berurah 397:10.)
|
| 26. |
The Mishnah Berurah 397:12 explains that the rationale is that we assume that even before the commencement of the holiday he had the intention of entrusting it to the shepherd. As the Mishnah Berurah mentions, other authorities differ with this ruling when there is more than one shepherd in a city and the owner does not also entrust his sheep to the same one, because it is not clear - even in the owner's mind - to which shepherd he will entrust his animal.
|
| 27. |
In this instance as well, although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling, many later authorities differ. They maintain that this applies only when a person entrusted the animal to the shepherds on the holiday. If he entrusted it to them before the holiday, they are responsible, and the animal may be taken only within an area in which they both may walk (Mishnah Berurah 397:13).
|
| 28. |
Since the food belonged to the host at the beginning of the holiday, the holiday limits in which it may be carried are dependent on him. Although he gives the guests permission to take portions of the food home, they may not take the food beyond the limits in which it could originally be carried.
|
| 29. |
I.e., he must give another person the portions of food, and he will acquire them on behalf of each of the guests (Rashi, Beitzah 40a).
|
| 30. |
And he did not establish an eruv.
|
| 31. |
In such an instance, it is as if that corner were loaned to the owner of the produce. The people to whom the article was entrusted, however, are not held responsible for it. Therefore, the status of the produce depends on the owner.
|
| 32. |
For they are responsible for the article.
|
| 33. |
I.e., the water may be brought only to a place to which the owner of the cistern is permitted to proceed.
|
| 34. |
The Mishnah Berurah 397:34 interprets this as follows: If an inhabitant of the city draws the water, he may carry it as far as he is permitted to proceed himself, even if he extended his holiday limits by establishing an eruv t'chumim. If a person who does not live in the city draws the water, he may carry it only within the city itself.
|
| 35. |
Since the water is left for all travelers without distinction, its status is comparable to that of the ownerless articles mentioned in Halachah 10. (For that reason, the Ra'avad, who raises an objection to that halachah, also objects here.)
|
| 36. |
Seemingly, the intent of the latter phrase is the same as "those of the person who draws the water." [Indeed, Rabbenu Asher and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 397:15) use the phrase, "those of the person who draws the water."] One wonders why the Rambam uses different wording.
|
| 37. |
Since the water continuously flows and does not stay in a single place, there is no place that is considered to have been established as its "place" for the Sabbath or holiday.
|
| 38. |
The herder raises oxen for slaughter. Nevertheless, the oxen he raises are not unique, and he cannot expect them to attract the attention of people beyond his immediate area. For that reason, their holiday limits are confined to those of their owner's town.
|
| 39. |
A coal is considered to be an object with substance. Therefore, the laws that govern all other articles pertain to it as well.
|
| 40. |
For a flame, by contrast, has no substance, and is therefore not considered to be an article that belongs to a person and is subject to his holiday limits.
|
| 41. |
A borrower does not become responsible for an object until he performs a formal kinyan(contractual act). Nevertheless, since the owner consented to give the borrower the article before the commencement of the holiday, with regard to the law at hand it is considered as if it were already in the borrower's possession (Mishnah Berurah 397:26).
|
| 42. |
It is at the commencement of the holiday that the holiday limits of a utensil are established. Since the owner did not consent to give the utensil to the borrower before this time, the utensil's limits still depend on its owner. The fact that he frequently lends the article to the borrower is of no halachic significance. Since the borrower did not ask for the article before the holiday began, the owner could have assumed that he had found another person from whom to borrow it.
|
| 43. |
Since the owner of the cloak agreed to let both of the borrowers use it before the holiday began, they both figure in the determination of the holiday limits of the cloak.
|
| 44. |
For by moving it to either direction, one will be taking it beyond the holiday limits of one of the people to whom it is entrusted.
|
| 45. |
Since the ingredients belonged to both women at the commencement of the holiday, the holiday limits of the dough or the food made from them are dependent on those of both women.
|
| 46. |
In Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 27, the Rambam explains that the concept of Sabbath limits has its origins in the Torah itself. Nevertheless, according to the Torah, it is permitted to proceed twelvemil from one's place. The restriction of two thousand cubits is Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 47. |
Therefore, each of the partners is allowed to take his portion with him throughout his own holiday limits without worrying about his partner's circumstances.
|
| 48. |
This represents the opinion of Rav (Beitzah 37b). The Talmud, however, records the opinion of other Sages who differ and maintain that there is no difference between the laws pertaining to an animal and those pertaining to wine.
In the debate concerning this manner, two of the other Sages, Rav Kahana and Rav Assi, asked Rav: There is another relevant prohibition, that of muktzeh, for each of the partners diverted his attention from the portion designated for the other. Nevertheless, although the portions of meat belonging to each of the partners derived nurture from each other, none of the Sages thought of applying the prohibition of muktzeh for that reason.
Rav did not reply. This has led some authorities (see the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen, Tur, Orach Chayim 397) to the conclusion that Rav conceded and retracted his position. According to these views, the meat belonging to each partner may be taken throughout his holiday limits. Others (including the Rambam) maintain that Rav's inability to reply at that time does not represent a retraction of his position. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 397:10) follows the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, the Be'ur Halachah 397 states that if there is a necessity, it is possible to rely on the more lenient view.
|
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
The priests were all3 warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies when they are not in the midst of the service,4 as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "He shall not come to the Holy Chamber at all time" - this refers to the Holy of Holies. "...Within the curtain" - this warns [the priests against unwarranted entry] into the entire Temple.5
Halacha 3
A priest - whether an ordinary priest or a High Priest - who enters the Holy of Holies on any of the other days of the year, or a High Priest who enters there on Yom Kippur outside the time of service, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.] states: "And he shall not die."
How many times does he enter on Yom Kippur? Four, as will be explained in the appropriate place.6 If he enters a fifth time, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven.
Halacha 4
One - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who enters the Sacred Chamber outside the Holy of Holies not for the sake of service, nor prostrating oneself7 is liable for lashes, but is not liable for death. [This is derived from the above verse which states:] "Before the covering [that is upon the Ark] so that he will not die." [Implied is that] for [unauthorized entry into] the Holy of Holies, he is liable for death, but [entering] the remainder of the Sanctuary is merely the violation of a negative commandment and is punishable by lashes.
Halacha 5
A priest - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who departs from the Temple is liable for death8 [at the hand of heaven] only in the midst of his service,9 as [ibid 10:7] states: "From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, you shall not depart, lest you die." Implied is that you should not abandon the service and leave hastily and in panic because of this decree.10 Similarly, the charge [issued to] the High Priest [ibid. 21:12]: "He shall not depart from the Temple," applies only in the midst of his service, i.e., that he should not abandon his service and depart.
Halacha 6
If so, why was this warning repeated for the High Priest? [Because there is a difference between the laws that apply to him and those which apply to an ordinary priest]. When an ordinary priest was in the midst of his service in the Temple and he heard that a person for whom he is obligated to mourn has died, he should not perform sacrificial service, even though he does not leave the Temple,11 because he is in an acute state of mourning.12 if he performed service while in an acute state of mourning, he profanes his service, whether he is offering an individual sacrifice or a communal offering. A High Priest, by contrast, performs sacrificial service while he is in a state of acute mourning, as [implied by ibid.]: "From the Temple, he should not depart and not profane." Implied is that he should remain [in the Temple] and perform the service with which he was involved and it does not become profaned.
Halacha 7
What is the source that teaches that the service of one in an acute state of mourning is invalid? [It is derived from] an inference from a less severe situation to a more severe one.13 A priest disqualified because of a physical deformity may partake of sacrificial foods.14 Nevertheless, if he performs service, he profanes it.15 How much more so should one who is in acute mourning and thus forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods16 - as [Deuteronomy 26:14] states: "I did not eat from it in a state of acute morning" - profane his service [if he performs it].
Halacha 8
Although a High Priest may perform service while he is in a state of acute mourning, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food, as [Leviticus 10:19] states: "If I had partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have found favor in God's eyes."17Similarly, he does not participate in the division of the sacrificial foods so that he could partake of the food in the evening.
When a person in an acute state of mourning performs sacrificial service, he is not liable for lashes. He is permitted to touch sacrificial foods even though he did not immerse himself [in a mikveh], for this safeguard was enforced only with regard to eating. With regard to touching [objects], he is considered as pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.18
Halacha 9
What is meant by a person in an acute state of mourning? One who lost one of the relatives19 for whom he is required to mourn. On the day of the person's death, he is considered in acute mourning according to Scriptural Law. And at night, he is in acute mourning according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 10
When [it was necessary] to wait several days and [only] afterwards, a corpse was buried, for all those days after the day of the deceased's passing, [his relative] is considered in an acute state of mourning according to Rabbinic Law. This also [applies] with regard to the day of burial, but not the following night.
Therefore if [a close relative of a priest] dies and he buries him after the day of his death, throughout the day of the burial, he may not offer or partake of sacrifices according to Rabbinic Law. He should then immerse himself and partake of sacrifices at night. The day on which a person hears a report that a relative of his died within 30 days20 and the day on which he gathers his bones21 is considered as the day of one's burial, but [the restrictions] do not apply at night. On the day of [a close relative's] death, by contrast, just as it is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods during the day according to Scriptural Law, so too, it is forbidden for him to partake of them that night according to Rabbinic Law. [The only] exception is the Paschal sacrifice which he may eat at night, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22
Halacha 11
Throughout the seven days of mourning, a mourner should not send sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple].23 [Indeed, he should not send] even wine, wood, or frankincense. Similarly, a person afflicted with tzara'at24 should not send his sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple]. For as long as he is not fit to enter the camp [of the Levites],25 he is not fit for his sacrifices to be offered. There is an unresolved question whether a person under a ban of ostracism26 may send his sacrifices [to be offered] or not.27 Hence, if they were offered on his behalf, [his obligation] is satisfied.
Halacha 12
A person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard or the like and an uncircumcised person may send their sacrifices28 and they are offered with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice. That sacrifice may not be offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard.29 Nor may a Paschal sacrifice be offered for an uncircumcised person, as will be explained.30 No sacrifices at all are offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a corpse until he becomes ritually pure.31
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As explained in Halachah 3.
|
| 2. |
I.e., to offer incense, kindle the menorah, or to bow.
|
| 3. |
According to its simple meaning, the prooftext cited below refers only to Aaron. Nevertheless, through the Biblical exegesis, the Sifra interprets it as referring to all priests (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 4. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 68) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 184) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is an expression of honor and reverence toward the Temple.
|
| 5. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's interpretation of the verse, for seemingly, "within the curtain" refers to the Holy of Holies. On the surface, the opposite would be more appropriate: "The Holy Chamber" could be interpreted as referring to the entire Temple and "within the curtain" to the Holy of Holies. He explains the verse as follows: Were the verse to have mentioned "the Holy Chamber" alone, we would have thought that it refers only to the Holy of Holies and not to the Temple at large. Since, however, the verse adds "within the curtain," we understand that it refers to the Holy of Holies" and "the Holy Chamber" refers to the entire Sanctuary.
There is, however, a difference in the punishments for which one is liable for the violation of the two aspects of this commandment, as the Rambam states in Halachah 4.
|
| 6. |
Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 4.
|
| 7. |
With regard to the priests' prostrating themselves, see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the priests were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary to prostrate themselves at all times. Instead, they would enter only at a specific time, when the service of the morning was completed.
|
| 8. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 151) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 9. |
If, however, he is not involved in the Temple service, he is not required to remain in the Temple.
|
| 10. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the prooftext the Rambam cites was directed to Aaron's sons and applied only at the time of the death of Nadav and Avihu at the dedication of the Sanctuary. In other instances, there is no prohibition for an ordinary priest to leave the Temple. The prohibition applies to the High Priest alone. The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Sifra which - as interpreted by the Ramban - serves as support for the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 11. |
The Ra'avad amplifies his difference of opinion with the Rambam, maintaining that the ordinary priest should certainly leave the Temple to participate in the funeral of a close relative. Indeed, he is forced to become impure to take part in the burial. Indeed, since he cannot complete the service, what value is there in him remaining?
The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that were he to depart from the Temple, it would be demeaning to the service that he had performed. The implication would be that it was not of serious importance to him. Also, there is a practical dimension; if he would depart, there might not be anyone to see that the service is in fact completed.
|
| 12. |
See Halachah 9 for a definition of this term. See also Hilchot Evel 4:6, 9, for particulars with regard to the state of aninut, acute mourning.
|
| 13. |
The Rambam's statements are taken from Zevachim 17b. The Talmud there offers another derivation. Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam uses that derivation and not the one mentioned here.
|
| 14. |
See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.
|
| 15. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:7.
|
| 17. |
Aaron asked this rhetorical question to Moses after serving in the Sanctuary, but not partaking of the offerings, on the day his sons died.
|
| 18. |
As explained in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:15, since a person who was in a state of acute mourning was forbidden to partake of holy objects, it is possible that he diverted his attention from his hands and touched a source of impurity unknowingly. Nevertheless, this is only a safeguard and applies only with regard to partaking of food and not to touching it.
[It must be emphasized that there is a difference in the versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1). Some versions of the text follow the ruling here, but others state that it is forbidden for a person to touch sacred food.]
|
| 19. |
A person's mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. One must mourn for his or her spouse according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Evel 2:1).
|
| 20. |
I.e., the person died beforehand and the priest heard the report within 30 days of his death. In that instance, he is required to observe a full week of shivah mourning (Hilchot Evel 7:1).
|
| 21. |
I.e., unearths his grave for the sake of reburying him in another place.
|
| 22. |
Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:9. There it is explained that our Sages did not wish to enforce their decree in a situation that would lead to the violation of a transgression punishable by karet.
|
| 23. |
See Mo'ed Kattan 16b which states that this is derived from the term shelamim ("peace-offerings"). That name implies that these offerings may only be brought when a person is at peace with himself.
|
| 24. |
A physical ailment similar to leprosy which causes one to become ritually impure.
|
| 25. |
I.e., the Temple Mount; see Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which explains these concepts.
|
| 26. |
See Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 7, for a definition of this term.
|
| 27. |
Mo'ed Kattan 15b explains this question as follows: During the 40 years between the sin of the spies and the entry of the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, they were considered as if they were under a ban of ostracism from God. Nevertheless, their sacrifices were offered. Hence one might conclude that even though a person is under a ban of ostracism, his sacrifices may be offered. That conclusion is not accepted unquestionably, however, because it is possible to make a distinction between one who is ostracized by God (as the Jews were in the desert) and one ostracized by man. It is possible that the latter situation is more severe.
|
| 28. |
They may not, however, enter the Temple themselves to take part in the offering.
The Kessef Mishneh raises a question for it is necessary to perform semichah (leaning on the sacrificial animal with all one's strength; see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3) on sacrifices. Since these individuals may not enter the Temple Courtyard, because of their impurity, they cannot perform semichah. Hence, seemingly, the sacrifices should not be offered. The Kessef Mishneh states that perhaps the Rambam is speaking only of certain sacrifices where semichahis not required.
|
| 29. |
Unless he has already immersed himself. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:1.
|
| 30. |
For as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 2:3, 5-6, the Paschal sacrifice should be sacrificed only on behalf of individuals who are fit to partake of it and a person who is ritually impure and an uncircumcised person are forbidden to do so.
|
| 31. |
I.e., he must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, and he must immerse in themikveh.
|
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to send all impure persons away from the Temple,1 as [Numbers 5:2] states: "And they shall send away from the camp all those with tzara'at and zav2 [afflictions] and all those who are impure because of contact with a corpse.
Halacha 2
"The camp" cited refers to "the camp of the Divine presence," i.e., from the entrance to the Courtyard of the Israelites onward.3 Should one infer that a person with tzaraat or zav ailments and one impure due to contact with a corpse are all three sent to the same place? With regard to one inflicted withtzara'at, [Leviticus 13:46] states: "He shall abide alone outside the camp where he dwells." [The camp from which he is sent] refers to the camp of the Israelites which parallels the area from the entrance to Jerusalem and beyond.4 [From this we conclude,]5 just like a person who is afflicted with tzara'at, because his impurity is more severe, is sent away in a more severe manner than others,6 so too, any individuals whose state of impurity is more severe than others should be sent out in a more sever manner.7
Therefore a person afflicted with tzara'at is sent outside of all three camps, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [His impurity is considered more severe,] because he causes [a house] to be considered impure when he enters it.8 This does not apply with regard to a zav.
Halacha 3
Men with a zav condition,9 women with a zavah condition,10 niddot,11 and women who gave birth12 are sent outside two camps, i.e., outside the Temple Mount.13 [The rationale for this severity is that] they cause an entity upon which they are seated or upon which they are lying to become ritually impure,14 even if it is under a stone.15 [This does not apply] with regard to impurity [contracted] from a corpse.16
Halacha 4
A person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse - and even a corpse itself - is permitted to enter the Temple Mount. [This is derived fromExodus 13:19]: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him."17 "With him" [implies] into the camp of the Levites.18
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
From the Women's Courtyard,23 one who immersed himself that day is sent away,24 but not one who has not completed the purification process.25 For [the day on which] a person who has not completed the purification process [immersed himself] has already passed.26 The prohibition against a person who has immersed himself entering [this portion of] the camp of the Levites is Rabbinic in origin.27
Halacha 7
From the Courtyard of the Israelites28 and onward even one who has not completed his process of purification should not enter, because his process of purification is not yet consummated. [This is evident from Leviticus 12:8 which, with regard to a woman who seeks purification after childbirth,]29 states: "And the priest will bring atonement for her and she will become pure." One can infer that until then, she was not pure.30
Halacha 8
An impure person who [must be] sent away from the Temple Mount, violates a negative commandment31 if he enters there, as [can be inferred fromDeuteronomy 23:11 which] states: "And he shall go outside the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Shechinah - "and he shall not enter the midst of the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Levites.32 Similarly, a person afflicted bytzara'at who enters Jerusalem is liable for lashes.33 If, however, he enters any of the other walled cities34 [in Eretz Yisrael], although he is not allowed to,35 as [implied by the verse]: "He shall abide alone, he is not liable for lashes."
Halacha 9
If one afflicted with tzara'at entered the Temple Mount, he is liable for 80 lashes.36 If, however, one who is impure because of contact with a human corpse or one who immersed himself that day entered the Women's Courtyard,37 or one who has not completed his process of purification entered the Israelites' Courtyard,38 he is not given lashes.39 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.40
Halacha 10
Just as there is a positive commandment to send impure persons out from the Temple, so too, if they enter, they violate a negative commandment,41 as [Numbers 5:3] states: "They shall not make your camp impure." This refers to the camp of the Shechinah.42
Halacha 11
What source teaches that one does not violate the prohibition unless he enters [the Temple], but that he he is exempt43 if he touches the Temple Courtyard from the outside? [Leviticus 12:4] states with regard to a woman who gives birth: "She shall not enter the Sanctuary."44
Halacha 12
When an impure person willfully enters the Temple, he is punishable by karet,45as [Leviticus 17:16] states: "If he will not clean [his garments] or wash his flesh, he will bear his iniquity."46 [If he enters] unknowingly, he is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,47 as [ibid. 5:2] states: "Or a soul that will touch any impure entity." One is liable for karet or a sacrifice only when one enters from the Israelites' Courtyard or onward or into an addition to the Courtyard that was sanctified in a consummate manner, as we explained.48
Halacha 13
What are the types of impurity for which one is liable [for entering] the Temple [while impure]?
a) Anyone who became impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner which would require a nazirite to shave [his head] because of them; these are explained in [Hilchot] Nizirut;49
b) one who touched a person or a utensil that became impure through those types of impurity for which a nazirite must shave [his head]; for such a person is considered as a second level of impurity to a primary object of impurity that touched a corpse;50
Halacha 14
The general principle is: Anyone who is required to immerse himself in water53according to Scriptural Law is liable for karet for entering the Temple [while impure] even after he immersed himself until nightfall [that day].54 If, however, one became impure due to impurity stemming from a human corpse that does not require a nazirite to shave [his head], he is exempt for entering the Temple, even though his impurity lasts for seven days.55
Halacha 15
Similarly, if one touches utensils that touched a human corpse or touches a person who is touching utensils that touch a corpse, even though he is considered as impure to the first degree with regard to terumah56 and with regard to imparting impurity to sacrificial foods, he is exempt for entering the Temple. For these matters are laws received through the Oral Tradition.57Although he is exempt, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.58
Halacha 16
A person who brings a dead teeming animal59 or the like60 into the Temple or when he brings an impure person into the Temple, he is liable for karet, because he made God's sanctuary impure. If, however, he threw impure utensils into the Temple - even if they were utensils that touched a corpse61 - he is exempt from karet, but liable for lashes, as [implied by the prooftext cited above]: "If he will not clean [his garments]...."62 According to the Oral Tradition, [for entering the Temple without] washing his body, he is liable forkaret. [For entering without] cleaning his garments, he receives 40 lashes.
Halacha 17
It appears to me63 that he is liable for lashes only for his clothes that are a source of ritual impurity, i.e., clothes that were touched by a person who became impure through contact with a corpse that themselves become a source for ritual impurity, as will be explained.64 If, by contrast, one brings a garment which is of first degree impurity65 into the Temple, he is not liable for lashes.66 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 18
Similarly, when an impure person inserts his hand [alone] into the Temple,67 he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, anyone who purposely enters the Temple before immersing himself68 while he is impure because of contact with objects that are sources of ritual impurity by virtue of Rabbinic decree, because he ate impure foods, or because he drank impure beverages is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 19
When an impure person enters the Temple through the rooftops, he is exempt.69 [This is derived from the prooftext cited above:] "He shall not enter the Temple." [Implied is that] the Torah held him liable [only when he entered in] the way one usually enters.70Although he is exempt for karet, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
[This exemption applies] even if he enters in a compartment flying in the air,71whether he entered the Temple in this compartment through the roofs or through the entrances.
Halacha 20
In all places where one is liable for karet72 for a willful transgression or a sacrifice for an unknowing transgression, should an impure object be found there on the Sabbath, it should be removed.73 In other places,74 it should be covered with a utensil until after the Sabbath.75 When it is removed, it should be removed only with flat wooden utensil which do not contract ritual impurity,76 so that there should not be an increase in ritual impurity.77
Halacha 21
Both an impure person who entered the Temple when it was pure78 and a pure person who entered the Temple when there was impurity within it - e.g., a corpse was lying under a shelter in the Temple and he entered under that shelter - are liable for karet. [In the latter situation,] his entrance and his impurity occur at one time.
Halacha 22
It is forbidden for him to tarry, to bow, or to depart via a longer way. If he tarried or departed via a longer way even though he did not tarry, or he turned his face to the Sanctuary and bowed even if he did not tarry, he is liable for karet. If he acted unknowingly, he must bring a sacrifice.81
Halacha 23
If he did not turn his face [toward the Sanctuary], but bowed as he was departing toward the outside area, he is not liable unless he tarrys.
How long a delay [creates a liability]? Enough time to read the verse:82 "And they bowed with their faces to the ground on the floor, prostrating themselves and giving thanks to God who is good and whose kindness is everlasting." This is the measure of the delay [for which one is liable].
Halacha 24
What is meant by [departing] via longer way? Any way for which it is possible to depart from the Temple via a shorter way.
If one departed via a shorter way, even if he did not run, but instead walked [slowly], positioning his heel by his toes,83 although it takes the entire day, he is exempt. If he took a longer path, even though he ran and pressed himself with all of his power and thus the amount of time it took for him to leave in this manner was less than it would take other men via the shorter way, he is liable, because he departed via the longer path.
If he departed via the shorter path, but walked some, then stood, tarried some, [and continued this pattern] until all of his delays together amount to the time it takes to bow, he is not liable for lashes if he acted willfully, nor is he liable for a sacrifice if he acted unknowingly, because there is an unresolved question concerning the matter.84 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.85
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 31) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 362) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11 which states:
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8).
|
| 4. |
The verse implies that he must abide in a place where others do not dwell.
|
| 5. |
The Sifra understands this to be an example of the principle of Biblical exegesis: A subject (a person impure because of tzara'at) was included in a general category (impure people) and then was singled out to teach us a new law (that he must dwell separate from all others). This does not only teach us about this instance, but about the entire category (that there are distinctions in the extent people with impurity must distance themselves).
|
| 6. |
For in no other instance is an impure person required to depart from the camp of the Israelites. See also Halachah 8.
|
| 7. |
Thus as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachot, there are differences in the extent people with various types of impurities are forced to distance themselves.
|
| 8. |
Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:12.
|
| 9. |
A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.
|
| 10. |
I.e., they experience vaginal bleeding at times other than their ordinary monthly cycle. This causes them to be considered ritually impure.
|
| 11. |
Women who are impure because of menstrual bleeding.
|
| 12. |
This - or a miscarriage - renders a woman as ritually impure.
|
| 13. |
Since there is an added dimension to the severity of their impurity, they must distance themselves in a more sever manner.
|
| 14. |
See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1.
|
| 15. |
See ibid. 6:5, 7:1, which explains that even if there is a stone - which itself never contracts ritual impurity - intervening between the person's body and the entity, the entity becomes impure.
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:14.
|
| 17. |
Joseph had asked the Jewish people to bring his body from Egypt to be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Moses brought his body with him from Egypt, transporting it on the entire journey through the desert.
|
| 18. |
For that is where Moses had his personal dwelling.
|
| 19. |
The rampart surrounding the walls of the courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3).
|
| 20. |
For through that act, the man also becomes ritually impure.
|
| 21. |
This is a Rabbinic restriction. According to Scriptural Law, these places are not on a different rung of holiness than the other portions of the Temple Mount. This and the restrictions mentioned in the next two halachot are also found in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:16-18.
|
| 22. |
When a person must immerse himself to ascend from ritual impurity, according to Scriptural Law, he does not achieve that status until nightfall. Nevertheless, since he has already immersed, our Sages relaxed this and several other of the prohibitions that they had placed upon such individuals.
|
| 23. |
A square courtyard outside the Temple Courtyard, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-9.
|
| 24. |
For he is still impure, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
|
| 25. |
This term refers to a zav,, a zavah, a woman who gave birth or miscarried, or a convert, who even after immersing themselves in the mikveh, must bring a sacrifice before their purification process is complete. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1.
|
| 26. |
The Sifri brings proof that one who has not yet completed the purification process is in a different category than a person who has immersed himself from the fact that the former is permitted to partake of terumah, while the latter is not.
|
| 27. |
Zevachim 32b relates that this restriction was imposed by Yehoshefat, King of Judah.
|
| 28. |
The first eleven cubits of the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:11). This area begins "the camp of the Shechinah" into which all of those who are impure may not enter according to Scriptural Law.
|
| 29. |
And from this example, we extrapolate with regard to others in that category.
|
| 30. |
Even though she had already immersed herself. Hence, she and others in the same category may not enter an area which is reserved for those who are ritually pure. This is a Scriptural restriction.
|
| 31. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 78) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 565) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Its violation is punishable by lashes.
|
| 32. |
Which, as mentioned above, parallels the camp of the Levites.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's interpretation of the verse reverses the order found in Pesachim 68a and the Sifri. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.
|
| 33. |
Significantly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4 where the Rambam lists those who are punished by lashes, he does not mention this instance.
|
| 34. |
See Hilchot Megilah 1:4 and Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 12:15 which explain that this term applies only to a city surrounded by a wall at the time when Joshua conquered the land. Even if the wall of such a city is destroyed, the city is still placed in that category. Moreover, if a city was not walled at the time of Joshua's conquest, even if it was walled afterwards, it is not placed in this category.
|
| 35. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:7. Based on Tosafot (Berachot 5b), Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that these restrictions apply only during the era when the Jubilee year was observed.
|
| 36. |
I.e., he violated two negative commandments: he entered Jerusalem and he entered the Temple Mount. Therefore he is liable for two sets of lashes. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8, based on the Tosefta to Keilim), the Rambam states these concepts slightly differently.
The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person afflicted with tzara'at enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for an addition set of lashes.
|
| 37. |
As mentioned in Halachot 5-6, this constitutes the violation of a Rabbinical commandment. TheKessef Mishneh adds that if the person enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for 120 lashes.
|
| 38. |
And thus violates a positive commandment, as indicated by Halachah 1.
|
| 39. |
For he does not violate a Scriptural prohibition.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that since the person is impure, his entry into the Temple Courtyard violates a Scriptural prohibition and is punishable by karet. The Kessef Mishneh cites a passage from Zevachim 17b which appears to support the Ra'avad's objection. To resolve the Rambam's ruling, the Kessef Mishneh, however, quotes Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14, where the Rambam distinguishes between an impure person who has immersed and one who has not done so as of yet. He also quotes other opinions in support of the distinction the Rambam makes.
|
| 40. |
A punishment instituted by the Rabbis for the violation of their decrees or positive commandments.
|
| 41. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 77) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 363) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 42. |
I.e., the area encompassed by the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 43. |
I.e., the act is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes or a sin-offering for its violation.
|
| 44. |
Implying that entry into the Temple area is what is forbidden.
|
| 45. |
Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50,Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
|
| 46. |
Har HaMoriah explains that the Rambam quotes this verse rather than Numbers 19:13-20 which is more explicit, because the latter passage speaks only about one who became impure due to contact with a human corpse and the prohibition applies even when one became impure for other reasons.
|
| 47. |
See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.
|
| 48. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:10-14 which describes the manner in which additions are made to the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 49. |
See Hilchot Nizirut 7:1-6 which describes this subject in detail. As stated in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." Implied is that since a nazirite is forbidden to cut his hair according to Scriptural Law, when he contracts ritual impurity stemming from a human corpse that is only Rabbinic in origin, he should not cut his hair, because then the Rabbinic safeguard would lead to the violation of Scriptural Law. Note also the commentary to Hilchot Nizirut which explains that the Rambam is referring to ritual impurity that is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis.
|
| 50. |
A person or an object that touches a human corpse becomes a source of impurity that can cause other people or objects to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4-5).
The Ra'avad states however that a nazirite is not obligated to shave his head if he touched a utensil or a person that became impure due to contact with a corpse. Hence, he concludes, one should not be liable for entering the Temple after having contracted impurity in this manner. TheKessef Mishneh maintains that the simple meaning of the passage in Nazir 54a appears to support the Ra'avad's understanding. Nevertheless, he cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) which could be interpreted as supporting the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 51. |
There are entities that are considered sources of impurity according to Rabbinic Law. They do not make a person impure to the extent that he is liable for entering the Temple.
|
| 52. |
See Sefer Taharah.
|
| 53. |
I.e., in a mikveh.
|
| 54. |
For as stated in Halachah 6, one who has immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity is still impure until nightfall of that day. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such a person is not liable for karet. The Radbaz cites the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14 which would seem to support the Ra'avad's ruling. It states that a person who was ritually impure, then immersed himself, and then partook of sacrificial foods before nightfall is liable for lashes, but is not liable for karet. Nevertheless, the Radbaz explains that a distinction can be made between these two situations.
|
| 55. |
Although he is required to observe the strictures of someone who is ritually impure, he is not liable for entering the Temple.
|
| 56. |
In Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4, the Rambam describes the impurity caused by such situations.
|
| 57. |
In ibid.:5, the Rambam continues: "Even though according to the Oral Tradition [one is rendered impure for such matters], this is not Scriptural Law. For it is not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who becomes impure through contact with a human corpse becomes a source of impurity and one who touches him becomes impure to the first degree." In this instance, however, the Rambam is probably following his renown approach that any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah is considered as "from the Oral Tradition" even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai.
|
| 58. |
For the Rabbis instituted decrees to insure that the prohibitions established by the Oral Tradition were observed.
|
| 59. |
This is speaking about a situation where he brought the dead teeming animal into the Temple without touching it, since, as stated in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 4:1, a dead teeming animal imparts ritual impurity only when one touches it and not when one carries it. For if the person had touched it, he would become impure and be liable for karet entering the Temple in that state.
|
| 60. |
I.e., another source of impurity that imparts impurity through touch, but not when carried.
|
| 61. |
And thus serve as a source of impurity.
|
| 62. |
The verse concludes: "He will bear his iniquity." "Clean[ing] his garments" refers to immersing them to remove their impurity.
|
| 63. |
This expression implies that there is no Talmudic source for this ruling, but instead, it was derived by deduction.
|
| 64. |
Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:2. There the Rambam states that if a person touching the corpse touches any other utensil at the same time, that utensil is considered as if it touched the corpse itself.
|
| 65. |
I.e., the person touched the garments after he let go of the corpse.
|
| 66. |
Since the object brought into the Temple is not a source for ritual impurity, the person is not liable for karet. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even bringing an object that is not a source for ritual impurity into the Temple causes one to be liable for lashes. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view, explaining that there is a logical basis for his conclusion. Since the Torah was lenient with regard to utensils (and garments), absolving one from karet even when the utensil was a source of impurity, we can conclude that leniency would also be shown with regard to lashes.
|
| 67. |
I.e., he stands outside the Temple Courtyard and inserts only his hand. He is not given lashes, because his entire body has not entered the Temple Courtyard. Even the Rambam would agree that he is forbidden by Rabbinic decree to insert his hand. The Ra'avad is more stringent and rules that inserting part of one's body is equivalent to entering entirely. The Kessef Mishnehsupports the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 68. |
The Rambam's words imply that once he immersed himself, he is not liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for entering the Temple even if night has not yet fallen. Since his impurity is only Rabbinic in origin and he has immersed himself, he is not given punishment. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 9:1.
|
| 69. |
Such entry is, nevertheless, forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 70. |
I.e., on foot through the gate. The Mishneh LiMelech emphasizes that if he remains in the Temple for the amount of time for which he is liable (see Halachah 22), he is liable for karet even if he entered through the rooftops.
|
| 71. |
For this also is not the usual way of entry.
|
| 72. |
I.e., in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 73. |
An object for which one has no purpose is muktzeh and there is a Rabbinic prohibition against transporting it on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature are not applied in the Temple (Rashi, Eruvin 104b).
|
| 74. |
I.e., in the chambers that are considered as being separate entities from the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 75. |
So that it will not be touched.
|
| 76. |
See Hilchot Keilim 1:10. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:6.
|
| 77. |
I.e., if a priest would carry it out in his garment, he would be causing his garment to become impure. Hence, it was desirable to use a flat wooden utensil even if it takes time to find such a utensil (Eruvin, loc. cit.).
|
| 78. |
As stated in Halachah 12.
|
| 79. |
There is an unresolved question concerning whether such a person is liable in Sh'vuot 17a. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 80. |
If he departs in this manner, he is not liable for karet.
|
| 81. |
An adjustable guilt offering.
|
| 82. |
The Rambam is citing Sh'vuot 16b which quotes the description of the people's bowing in II Chronicles 7:3.
|
| 83. |
I.e., taking very short steps. As long as he does not stop for the amount of time mentioned in the previous halachah, he is not liable.
|
| 84. |
See Sh'vuot 17a. Hence we rule leniently.
|
| 85. |
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied.
|
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When an impure person serves in the Temple,1 he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there,2 as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure.3
Further on,4 [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.5
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard10 and departed in the shortest way possible,11 but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames.12 [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service13 is considered as equivalent to that service.
Halacha 4
Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall of that day,14 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their God."15 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid.22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure.16 A person whose atonement process was not completed17 who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment]18 even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice].
Halacha 5
What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.19
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known,20 all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths,21 the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.22Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally.23We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.
Halacha 7
Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure,24 as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation,25 in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.
Halacha 8
The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead,26 as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before God."
Halacha 9
[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath27 or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering,28 supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.29
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten.32 Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar].33 The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten34 are burnt in the same manner35 as are other sacrifices that became impure.36
Halacha 12
What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority37 of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse,38 or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure39 due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together40 and enter the Temple Courtyard.41
Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karetfor entering [the Courtyard]42 or death [at the hand of Heaven]43 for [carrying out] the service.44 For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices].
Halacha 13
When a Paschal sacrifice45 is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard.46 Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.47
Halacha 14
If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day48 were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices.49If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve].50 If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.
Halacha 15
Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clain?51 Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation.52 We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.53
Halacha 16
What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because a [deceased] human soul."54 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred.55 Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice:56 [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.
Halacha 17
This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure....57 For many of the people, may from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves."
What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"?58 Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month,59 because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves."60 As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh,61 as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.62
Halacha 18
There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh.63
Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions,64 as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May God Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'God heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.
|
| 2. |
As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 3. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 4. |
In reference to terumah.
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above.
|
| 6. |
In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."
|
| 7. |
The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment to him. All they can do is bring him to the court.
|
| 8. |
I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.
|
| 9. |
The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken.
|
| 10. |
For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
|
| 11. |
In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.
|
| 12. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act.
|
| 13. |
And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service.
|
| 14. |
As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe punishment.
|
| 15. |
See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 16. |
The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in themikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple.
|
| 17. |
I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure.
|
| 18. |
The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offence is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult.
|
| 19. |
I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted with tzara'at.
|
| 20. |
To even one person.
|
| 21. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.
Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about."
|
| 22. |
The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.
|
| 23. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot Korban Pesach6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishneh explains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet.
|
| 24. |
I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34.
|
| 25. |
I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot.
|
| 26. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist.
|
| 27. |
I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time.
|
| 28. |
I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices.
|
| 29. |
For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.
|
| 30. |
I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices, are not offered at a specific time.
|
| 31. |
And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 32. |
With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim7:5).
|
| 33. |
For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be offered on the altar.
|
| 34. |
Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omer offering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered on Rosh Chodesh.
|
| 35. |
Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.
|
| 36. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.
|
| 37. |
Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).
|
| 38. |
This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference whether or not the people at large are impure.
|
| 39. |
As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning.
|
| 40. |
I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 41. |
I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).
|
| 42. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
|
| 43. |
As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.
|
| 44. |
They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).
|
| 45. |
Although this law also applies with regard to other communal sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of people in the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 46. |
Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the Sanctuary itself.
|
| 47. |
There is a question concerning this issue in Pesachim 95b. Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes. The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well.
|
| 48. |
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term.
|
| 49. |
As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure.
|
| 50. |
For the reason stated in the following halachah.
|
| 51. |
And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 52. |
The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely, with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Shabbat 2:1.
|
| 53. |
As stated in Halachah 7.
|
| 54. |
The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.
|
| 55. |
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.
|
| 56. |
Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2 states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now since Numbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.
|
| 57. |
King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them an extra month.
|
| 58. |
I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 59. |
I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap year.
|
| 60. |
Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 61. |
Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
|
| 62. |
For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.
|
| 63. |
Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before.
|
| 64. |
I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).
|
• Sunday, Iyar 28, 5775 ·17 May 2015
Iyar 28, 43rd day of the omer
Torah lessons: Chumash: Bamidbar, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: Ch. 52. Now, just as (p. 271)...from the sun. (p. 273).
In one of the nocturnal visions in which the Tzemach Tzedek saw the Alter Rebbe (his grandfather), during the Thirty Days of Mourning for the Alter Rebbe, the latter recited for him the maamar, Al shlosha dvarim. After the maamar the Alter Rebbe said, "If the man emits seed first, she bears a female"1 - that is your mother; "if the woman emits seed first, she bears a male" - that is you.
FOOTNOTES
1. Berachot 60a. Translator's note: The Tzemach Tzedek was adamant in refusing to accept the mantle of Rebbe after the passing of the Mitteler Rebbe. A senior Chassid, Reb Peretz Chernigover, prevailed upon him, arguing the statement in our text, that the Tzemach Tzedek is the "rightful heir," being the son of the daughter of the Alter Rebbe; the "quality" of the Alter Rebbe, dominant in his daughter (since "...man...first...female etc.") was in turn transmitted to, and dominant in her son ("...woman...first...male.") See Sefer Hasichot 5701 p. 148.
Daily Thought:
Four Realms
The ancient philosophers divided the world into four realms, each realm transcendental in a way beyond those that precede it:
The “silent” realm—earth, rocks, water, air, etc., do not transcend their bounds in any way.
Plants transcend their bounds by growing.
Animals transcend their bounds by traversing space.
And Man, how does he transcend his bounds?
Man reaches outside of himself with words. With dialogue.
Man alone is capable of hearing his own self through the ears of another. Man alone is capable of transcending the very bounds of self.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment