Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Forty-Seven Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the forty-seventh 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-seven days, which are six weeks and five 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: Hod sheb'Malchut -- "Humility 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:
• Chosen People (1313 BCE)
Sivan 2 is marked on the Jewish calendar as Yom HaMeyuchas ("Day of Distinction"); it was on this day that G-d told Moses -- when Moses ascendedMount Sinai for the first time -- to tell the people of Israel: "You shall be My chosen treasure from among all the nations, for all the earth is Mine. You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:4-6).
Links:
Who Are the Jews?
On the Essence of Choice
More on the "choseness" of the Jewish people
• Israeli Defense Forces Capture Golan Heights (1967)
Until the Six-Day War (see “Today in Jewish History” for Iyar 26), the Syrian army was deployed in strong fortifications on the Golan Heights, from which they repeatedly shelled the Israeli settlements below. On the fifth day of the war, the Israeli Army broke through the Syrian front. Facing very difficult topographical conditions, they scaled the steep and rugged heights. The Engineering Corps cleared the way of mines, followed by bulldozers which leveled a route for the tanks on the rocky face. After more than 24 hours of heavy fighting, the Syrian deployment collapsed and the Syrian forces fled in retreat.
Links: More on the Six-Day War
Daily Quote:
He struck the rock, and out came water[From the "Prayer for Rain" in the Sukkot festival prayers]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bamidbar, 4th Portion Numbers 3:1-3:13 with Rashi
• Chapter 3
1These are the descendants of Moses and Aaron on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. אוְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן וּמשֶׁה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר יְהוָֹה אֶת משֶׁה בְּהַר סִינָי:
These are the descendants of Moses and Aaron: Yet only the sons of Aaron are mentioned. However, they are considered descendants of Moses because he taught them Torah. This teaches us that whoever teaches Torah to the son of his fellow man, Scripture regards it as if he had begotten him - [Sanh. 19b] ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה: ואינו מזכיר אלא בני אהרן. ונקראו תולדות משה, לפי שלמדן תורה. מלמד שכל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו ילדו:
on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses: they became his descendants, because he taught them what he had learned from the Almighty. ביום דבר ה' את משה: נעשו אלו התולדות שלו, שלמדן מה שלמד מפי הגבורה:
2These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. בוְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַבְּכֹר | נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר:
3These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed kohanim, whom he consecrated to serve as kohanim. גאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים הַמְּשֻׁחִים אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּא יָדָם לְכַהֵן:
4Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord when they brought alien fire before the Lord in the Sinai desert, and they had no children. Eleazar and Ithamar, however, served as kohanim in the presence of Aaron, their father. דוַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לָהֶם וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם:
in the presence of Aaron: During his lifetime. [Num. Rabbah 2:26, Lev. Rabbah 20:11, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana p. 173b] על פני אהרן: בחייו:
5The Lord spoke to Moses saying: הוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
6Bring forth the tribe of Levi and present them before Aaron the kohen, that they may serve him. והַקְרֵב אֶת מַטֵּה לֵוִי וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְשֵׁרְתוּ אֹתוֹ:
that they may serve him: What form does this service take? “They shall keep his charge” (verse 7). Since guarding the Sanctuary so that no stranger (non- kohen) should come near is his obligation, as it says, “You, your sons, and your father’s house with you, shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary” (Num. 18:1), and these Levites assisted him this was the service. ושרתו אתו: ומהו השירות, ושמרו את משמרתו, לפי ששמירת המקדש עליו שלא יקרב זר, כמו שנאמר (במדבר יח, א) אתה ובניך ובית אביך אתך תשאו את עון המקדש, והלוים הללו מסייעין אותם, זה הוא השירות:
7They shall keep his charge and the charge of the entire community before the Tent of Meeting, to perform the service of the Mishkan. זוְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וְאֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת כָּל הָעֵדָה לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
They shall keep his charge: Any office to which a person is appointed and [the duty] he is bound to carry out, is מִשְׁמֶרֶת in Scripture and in Mishnaic idiom, as in reference to Bigthan and Teresh [where it says], “But my duty is not similar to your duty” (Meg. 13b), [meaning that the hours of my service do not coincide with those of yours]. Similarly [we find the word used in the clause],“The watches (מִשְׁמְרוֹת) of the kehuna and of the Levites.” ושמרו את משמרתו: כל מנוי שהאדם ממונה עליו ומוטל עליו לעשותו, קרוי משמרת בכל המקרא ובלשון משנה, כמו שאמרו בבגתן ותרש (מגילה יג ב) והלא אין משמרתי ומשמרתך שוה, וכן משמרות כהונה ולויה:
8They shall take charge of all the vessels of the Tent of Meeting and the charge of the children of Israel, to perform the service of the Mishkan. חוְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת כָּל כְּלֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
the charge of the children of Israel: All of them were bound [to take care of] the needs of the Sanctuary, but the Levites were in their stead, as their agents. Thus, in reward, they [the Levites] take tithes from them [the Israelites], as it says,“for it is your reward, in exchange for your service” (Num. 18: 31). ואת משמרת בני ישראל: שכולן היו זקוקין לצרכי המקדש, אלא שהלוים באים תחתיהם בשליחותם, לפיכך לוקחים מהם המעשרות בשכרן, שנאמר (במד' יח, לא) כי שכר הוא לכם חלף עבודתכם:
9You shall give over the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they shall be wholly given over to him from the children of Israel. טוְנָתַתָּה אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו נְתוּנִם נְתוּנִם הֵמָּה לוֹ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Given over to him: for assistance. נתונים המה לו: לעזרה:
from the children of Israel: Heb. מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, like מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, from among the children of Israel, that is to say, they have been singled out for this purpose from the rest of the congregation by the decree of the Omnipresent, and He gave them to him, as it says, “And I have given the Levites, they are… given” (Num. 8:19). מאת בני ישראל: כמו מתוך בני ישראל, כלומר משאר כל העדה נבדלו לכך בגזרת המקום, והוא נתנם לו, שנאמר (במד' ח, יט) ואתנה את הלוים נתונים וגו':
10You shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall keep their kehunah; any outsider [non kohen] who approaches shall be put to death. יוְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו תִּפְקֹד וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהֻנָּתָם וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת:
You shall appoint Aaron…: [The word תִּפְקֹד is] an expression of appointment, not of counting. ואת אהרן ואת בניו תפקד: לשון פקידות ואינו לשון מנין:
They shall observe their kehunah: [This refers to] receiving the blood [in a basin], dashing the blood, burning [the fats], and other rites entrusted to the priests. ושמרו את כהנתם: קבלת דמים וזריקה והקטרה ועבודות המסורות לכהנים:
11The Lord spoke to Moses, saying. יאוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
12As for Me I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of all firstborns among the children of Israel who have opened the womb, and the Levites shall be Mine. יבוַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת הַלְוִיִּם מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּחַת כָּל בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם:
As for Me: I have taken-As for Me; what right do I have to them ? ואני הנה לקחתי: ואני מהיכן זכיתי בהן:
from among the children of Israel: That the Israelites should have to hire them for My service? I gained My right to them through the [Israelite] firstborns, taking them [the Levites] in their place. For [originally] the service was performed by the firstborns, but when they sinned by [worshipping] the [golden] calf, they became disqualified. The Levites, who had not committed idolatry, were chosen in their stead. [Midrash Aggadah] מתוך בני ישראל: שיהיו ישראל שוכרין אותן לשירות שלי. על ידי הבכורות זכיתי בהם ולקחתים תמורתם, לפי שהיתה העבודה בבכורות, וכשחטאו בעגל נפסלו, והלוים שלא עבדו עבודה זרה נבחרו תחתיהם:
13For all the firstborns are Mine; since the day I smote all the firstborns in the land of Egypt, I sanctified for Myself all the firstborns of Israel, both man and beast they shall become Mine, I am the Lord. יגכִּי לִי כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה לִי יִהְיוּ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 10 - 17
• Chapter 10
This psalm tells of the wicked one’s prosperity and his boasting of it, until he says: “There is neither law nor judge. God pays no attention to the actions of mere mortals.”
1. Why, O Lord, do You stand afar, do You hide Yourself in times of distress?
2. The wicked man in his arrogance pursues the poor; they are caught by the schemes they have contrived.
3. For the wicked man glories in the desire of his heart, and the robber boasts that he has scorned the Lord.
4. The wicked one in his insolence [thinks], “He does not avenge”; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5. His ways always succeed; Your retribution is far removed from before him; he puffs at all his foes.
6. He says in his heart, “I shall not falter; for all generations no evil will befall me.”
7. His mouth is full of oaths, deceit and malice; mischief and iniquity are under his tongue.
8. He sits in ambush near open cities; in hidden places he murders the innocent; his eyes stealthily watch for the helpless.
9. He lurks in hiding like a lion in his lair; he lurks to seize the poor, then seizes the poor when he draws his net.
10. He crouches and stoops, then the helpless fall prey to his might.
11. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, He conceals His countenance, He will never see.”
12. Arise, O Lord! O God, lift Your hand! Do not forget the lowly.
13. Why does the wicked man scorn God? Because he says in his heart, “You do not avenge.”
14. Indeed, You do see! For You behold the mischief and vexation. To recompense is in Your power; the helpless place their trust in You; You have [always] helped the orphan.
15. Break the strength of the wicked; then search for the wickedness of the evil one and You will not find it.
16. The Lord reigns for all eternity; the nations have vanished from His land.
17. Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; direct their hearts, let Your ear listen,
18. to bring justice to the orphan and the downtrodden, so that [the wicked] shall no longer crush the frail of the earth.
Chapter 11
This psalm declares that the suffering of the righteous one is for his own benefit, to cleanse him of his sins; whereas the wicked one is granted prosperity in this world-similar to the verse, "Wealth remains with its owner, to his detriment."
1. For the Conductor, by David. I have placed my trust in the Lord; [thus] how can you say of my soul, your mountain,1 that it flees like a bird?2
2. For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they have readied their arrow upon the bowstring, to shoot in darkness at the upright of heart.
3. They destroyed the foundations; 3 what [wrong] has the righteous man done?
4. The Lord is in His holy Sanctuary, the Lord's throne is in heaven, [yet] His eyes behold, His pupils probe [the deeds of] mankind.
5. The Lord tests the righteous, but He hates the wicked and the lover of violence.
6. He will rain down upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone; a scorching wind will be their allotted portion.
7. For the Lord is righteous, He loves [the man of] righteous deeds; the upright will behold His countenance.
Chapter 12
This psalm admonishes informers, slanderers, and flatterers.
1. For the Conductor, upon the eight-stringed instrument, a psalm by David.
2. Help us, Lord, for the pious are no more; for the faithful have vanished from among men.
3. Men speak falsehood to one another; with flattering lips, with a duplicitous heart do they speak.
4. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks boastfully-
5. those who have said, "With our tongues we shall prevail, our lips are with us, who is master over us!”
6. Because of the plundering of the poor, because of the moaning of the needy, the Lord says, "Now I will arise!" "I will grant deliverance," He says to him.
7. The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in the finest earthen crucible, purified seven times.
8. May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation,
9. [in which] the wicked walk on every side; when they are exalted it is a disgrace to mankind.
Chapter 13
A prayer for an end to the long exile. One in distress should offer this prayer for his troubles and for the length of the exile.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. How long, O Lord, will You forget me, forever? How long will You hide Your countenance from me?
3. How long must I seek counsel within my soul, [to escape] the grief in my heart all day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
4. Look! Answer me, O Lord, my God; give light to my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.
5. Lest my enemy say, "I have overcome him," [and] my oppressors rejoice when I falter.
6. I have placed my trust in Your kindness, my heart will rejoice in Your deliverance. I will sing to the Lord, for He has dealt kindly with me.
Chapter 14
This psalm speaks of the destruction of the two Holy Temples-the first by Nebuchadnezzar, and the second by Titus.
1. For the Conductor, by David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" [Man's] deeds have become corrupt and abominable, no one does good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any wise man who searches for God.
3. They have all gone astray together, they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4. Indeed, all the evildoers, who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon the Lord, will [ultimately] come to know [the consequences of their actions].
5. There they will be seized with fright, for God is with the righteous generation.
6. You scorn the counsel of the lowly, that he puts his trust in the Lord.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When the Lord returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 15
This psalm speaks of several virtues and attributes with which one should conduct oneself. He is then assured that his soul will rest in Gan Eden.
1. A psalm by David. Who may abide in Your tent, O Lord? Who may dwell on Your holy Mountain?
2. He who walks blamelessly, acts justly, and speaks truth in his heart;
3. who has no slander on his tongue, who has done his fellowman no evil, and who has brought no disgrace upon his relative;
4. in whose eyes a despicable person is abhorrent, but who honors those who are God-fearing; who does not change his oath even if it is to his own detriment;
5. who does not lend his money at interest, nor accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never falter.
Chapter 16
When one is in need, he should not implore God in his own merit, for he must leave his merits for his children.
1. A michtam,1 by David. Watch over me, O God, for I have put my trust in You.
2. You, [my soul,] have said to God, "You are my Master; You are not obligated to benefit me.”
3. For the sake of the holy ones who lie in the earth, and for the mighty-all my desires are fulfilled in their merit.
4. Those who hasten after other [gods], their sorrows shall increase; I will not offer their libations of blood, nor take their names upon my lips.
5. The Lord is my allotted portion and my share; You guide my destiny.
6. Portions have fallen to me in pleasant places; indeed, a beautiful inheritance is mine.
7. I bless the Lord Who has advised me; even in the nights my intellect admonishes me.2
8. I have set the Lord before me at all times; because He is at my right hand, I shall not falter.
9. Therefore my heart rejoices and my soul exults; my flesh, too, rests secure.
10. For You will not abandon my soul to the grave, You will not allow Your pious one to see purgatory.
11. Make known to me the path of life, that I may be satiated with the joy of Your presence, with the bliss of Your right hand forever.
Chapter 17
A loftily person should not ask God to test him with some sinful matter, or other things. If one has sinned, he should see to reform himself, and to save many others from sin.
1. A prayer by David. Hear my sincere [plea], O Lord; listen to my cry; give ear to my prayer, expressed by guileless lips.
2. Let my verdict come forth from before You; let Your eyes behold uprightness.
3. You have probed my heart, examined it in the night, tested me and found nothing; no evil thought crossed my mind; as are my words so are my thoughts.
4. So that [my] human deeds conform with the words of Your lips, I guard myself from the paths of the lawbreakers.
5. Support my steps in Your paths, so that my feet shall not falter.
6. I have called upon You, for You, O Lord, will answer me; incline Your ear to me, hear what I say.
7. Withhold Your kindness-O You who delivers with Your right hand those who put their trust in You-from those who rise up against [You].
8. Guard me like the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of Your wings
9. from the wicked who despoil me, [from] my mortal enemies who surround me.
10. Their fat has closed [their hearts]; their mouths speak arrogantly.
11. They encircle our footsteps; they set their eyes to make us stray from the earth.
12. His appearance is like a lion longing to devour, like a young lion lurking in hiding.
13. Arise, O Lord! Confront him, bring him to his knees; rescue my soul from the wicked [who serves as] Your sword.
14. Let me be among those whose death is by Your hand, O Lord, among those who die of old age, whose portion is eternal life and whose innards are filled with Your concealed goodness; who are sated with sons and leave their abundance to their offspring.
15. Because of my righteousness, I shall behold Your countenance; in the time of resurrection, I will be sated by Your image.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 53• Lessons in Tanya
• Wednesday, Sivan 2, 5775 · May 20, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 53
ובבית שני, שלא היה בו הארון והלוחות
As for the Second Temple, in which the Ark and the Tablets did not repose, these being among the five things found in the First Temple and lacking in the Second,
אמרו רז״ל שלא היתה שכינה שורה בו, פירוש: מדרגת שכינה שהיתה שורה בבית ראשון, שלא כדרך השתלשלות העולמות
our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said1 that the Shechinah did not abide there. This means not that, G‑d forbid, the Shechinah did not abide there at all, rather it speaks ofthe category of the Shechinah which used to abide in the First Temple — which was not in the manner of the ordinary descent of the Worlds.
It was this level of Shechinah that did not abide in the Second Temple, but only a far lesser level.
אלא בבית שני היתה שורה כדרך השתלשלות והתלבשות: מלכות דאצילות במלכות דבריאה, ודבריאה במלכות דיצירה, ודיצירה בהיכל קדשי קדשים דעשיה
But in the Second Temple it abided according to the order of gradual descent, ofMalchut of Atzilut vested in Malchut of Beriah and the latter in Malchut ofYetzirah, and the latter in the shrine of the Holy of Holies of Asiyah, that shrine being ChaBaD of Asiyah.
וקדשי קדשים דעשיה היה מתלבש בקדשי קדשים שבבית המקדש שלמטה, ושרתה בו השכינה: מלכות דיצירה, המלובשת בקדשי קדשים דעשיה
And the Holy of Holies of Asiyah was clothed in the Holy of Holies of the Temple below. In it rested the Shechinah, i.e., Malchut of Yetzirah, which was clothed in the Holy of Holies of Asiyah.
ולכן לא היה רשאי שום אדם ליכנס שם, לבד כהן גדול ביום הכפורים. ומשחרב בית המקדש
Therefore, because the Shechinah resided in the Temple’s Holy of Holies, no man was permitted to enter there, except the High Priest on Yom Kippur. And since the destruction of the Temple,
of which the Sanctuary was a part, G‑d resides in the shrine of Holy of Holies of Torah and the mitzvot, for as mentioned earlier, the Shechinah must reside in the Holy of Holies:
אין לו להקב״ה בעולמו אלא ד׳ אמות של הלכה בלבד
“HaKadosh Baruch Hu (the Holy One, blessed be He) has but the four cubits ofHalachah alone.”2
Torah is the shrine of the Holy of Holies that connects G‑d with the world, so thatHaKadosh (the illumination of the Shechinah, which is Kadosh, i.e., separated and apart from the world) should become Baruch (from the Hebrew root meaning “to draw down”) — drawn down into the world.
ואפילו אחד שיושב ועוסק בתורה, שכינה עמו, כדאיתא בברכות, פרק קמא. פירוש שכינה עמו
And even if one Jew sits and engages in Torah study, the Shechinah is with him, as is stated in the first chapter of Berachot.3 The phrase, “the Shechinah is with him” means that although he is a being of this material world, the Shechinah is nevertheless with him.
The level of Shechinah that is with him is:
כדרך השתלשלות והתלבשות מלכות דאצילות במלכות דבריאה ויצירה ועשיה
in order of the gradual descent and investment of Malchut of Atzilut in Malchutof Beriah and Yetzirah and Asiyah.
It is thus inferior even to the indwelling of the Shechinah in the Second Temple, an indwelling that did not require the vestment in Malchut of Asiyah.
It differs from the drawing down of the Shechinah in the world in general, in which case the identical progressive descent occurs, in that the Shechinah which resides in the world passes through the additional “garment” of kelipat nogah, while Torah and the mitzvot do not.
The reason that it must go through Malchut of Asiyah is that the overwhelming majority of the mitzvot of the Torah involve physical action. The Shechinah therefore descends into the level of action — Asiyah, as shall now be explained.
כי תרי״ג מצות התורה רובן ככולן הן מצות מעשיות, וגם התלויות בדבור ומחשבה, כמו תלמוד תורה, ברכת המזון, קריאת שמע ותפלה
For the 613 commandments of the Torah are by and large precepts which involve action, including even those mitzvot which are fulfilled by word and thought, such as Torah study, the Grace after Meals, the recital of the Shema,and prayer,
This is so even though these mitzvot involve thought — seeking to grasp the concepts in one’s studies, and to experience the kavanot of the Shema and prayer — and as such they are not bound up with action,
הא קיימא לן דהרהור לאו כדבור דמי, ואינו יוצא ידי חובתו בהרהור וכוונה לבד, עד שיוציא בשפתיו
for it has been ruled that meditation has not the validity of speech, and one does not fulfill one’s obligation by meditation [in a manner of hirhur] and kavanahalone, even when his manner of meditation is close to speech, as is the case when one thinks about the way in which he will utter certain words, which is called hirhur, until he gives it utterance with his lips;
וקיימא לן דעקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה
moreover, it has been ruled that the motion of the lips while one is speaking is considered an “action” — in which case all these mitzvot involve a form of action.
The Rebbe explains that the Alter Rebbe will now anticipate the following question: It still remains to be understood why specifically the four cubits of Halachah take the place of the Holy of Holies; why should this be not so when a Jew studies a subject in Torah which is notHalachah, for there too the Shechinah is with him? The Alter Rebbe therefore explains thatHalachah possesses the especial merit of expressing the Divine Will (as explained at length inIggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 29).
ותרי״ג מצות התורה, עם שבע מצות דרבנן, בגימטריא כת״ר, שהוא רצון העליון ברוך הוא
And the 613 commandments of the Torah, together with the seven commandments of our Rabbis, combine to total the numerical equivalent ofKeter (“crown”), which is the Supernal Will,
Will is called a crown, for like a crown it encompasses the head and brain; Iggeret HaKodesh, loc. cit., where this is discussed at length.
המלובש בחכמתו יתברך
which is clothed in His wisdom,
Thus, in addition to the fact that Torah is G‑d’s wisdom, which in its descent in the downward progression of Worlds becomes the shrine of the Holy of Holies for the Shechinah,there is the additional quality of its being the Supernal Will, which is even loftier than wisdom. This is uniquely found in the Halachah and the mitzvot, as they are expressions of the Supernal Will.
המיוחדות באור אין סוף ברוך הוא בתכלית היחוד
and they (G‑d’s Will and wisdom) are united with the light of the Ein Sof in a perfect union.
Further to an earlier statement that Torah derives from Supernal Wisdom, the Alter Rebbe will now say that the Oral Law also emanates from that source.
וה׳ בחכמה יסד ארץ, היא תורה שבעל פה דנפקא מחכמה עילאה, כמו שכתוב בזהר, דאבא יסד ברתא
“G‑d founded the earth with wisdom.”4 This refers to the Oral Law that is derived from Supernal Wisdom, as it is written in the Zohar, “The father(Chochmah) begat the daughter” (i.e., Malchut, the Oral Law; as it is written, “Malchut — the mouth, which we call the Oral Law”).
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Yoma 9b. |
| 2. | Berachot 8a. |
| 3. | Berachot 6a. |
| 4. | Mishlei 3:19. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Wednesday, Sivan 2, 5775 · May 20, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 94
Burning the Fats of a Blemished Animal on the Altar
"Nor shall you make a fire offering of them"—Leviticus 22:22.
It is forbidden to burn the fats of an animal with a permanent blemish on the altar.
Burning the Fats of a Blemished Animal on the Altar
Negative Commandment 94
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 94th prohibition is that we are forbidden from burning the fats of a blemished animal [on the altar].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not place any of them on the altar as a burnt-offering." The Sifra says, "The verse, 'Do not place any of them as a burnt-offering,' refers to the fats. The phrase, 'Do not place,' implies [that a prohibition exists only if one burns] all of them. How do I know [that it is prohibited to burn] even some of them? This is derived from the phrase, 'any of them' — i.e. even some of them." It is therefore clear that one who sacrifices a blemished animal transgresses four prohibitions [N91-94].
But this is true only if we count burning the fats as a single prohibition. However, if we would count burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats as two prohibitions, as this Sage does here, you would have a total of five prohibitions. This is because he considers "some" of the fats to be one thing, and "all" of them to be something else, as he said, "even any of them."
This is so even though it [burning the fats] is essentially one prohibition, because this Sage holds that one is lashed for [each element of] a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition].2 Therefore the Sifra says, "One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions: designating, slaughtering, sprinkling the blood, burning the fats, and burning a portion of the fats."
The Gemara says in Temurah,3 "In a case of one who brought the limbs of a blemished animal to the altar — Abaye says he is lashed separately for burning 'all' and for burning 'some.' Rava says, we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus." The Gemara then presents a contradiction: "But it says, 'One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions,' which shows that we do give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus! This disproves Rava!"4
This discussion shows that [the Sifra] counts them as five prohibitions because of the opinion that we give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, and therefore the prohibitions of burning "all" and "some" are counted separately. As is well known, this is Abaye's opinion in all cases, as we explained in the Ninth Principle that preceded this work. But according the Rava, who holds that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, one would receive only one set of lashes for burning the fats, as we explained.
We have already explained that the final law is that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, as explained in tractate Sanhedrin5 and as we demonstrated in the Ninth Principle. Therefore, there are only four prohibitions, as indicated by Scripture, and one who designates and offers a blemished animal receives four sets of lashes for these four prohibitions, as we explained.
All these prohibitions refer to animals which are permanently blemished, as the verse6 enumerates, [an animal with] "an overgrown7 limb or unsplit hoof8 ...or genitals which are crushed, mashed,9 detached or severed10..." — which are all permanent blemishes.11
All animal blemishes, both permanent and temporary, are explained in the sixth chapter of Bechoros. The laws regarding these four prohibitions dealing specifically with sacrificing a blemished animal are explained in various passages in tractates Zevachim and Temurah.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.As the Rambam explains below, and at length in the Ninth Introductory Principle, there is a disagreement in the Talmud regarding a lav she'b'klalus, an "inclusive prohibition," or a prohibition that has several elements. The Torah prohibits a Nazirite, for example, from eating grape skins and grape pits. If he eats both, how many sets of lashes does he receive? According to Abaye, he receives two sets, but according to Rava, only one set, because he rules that we do not give lashes separately for each element of a lav she'b'klalus. (In our versions of the Talmud, the positions of Abaye and Rava are reversed. See Kapach, 5731, note 66.)
In our case of burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats, Abaye would dictate two sets of lashes, and Rava one set. Therefore, the Rambam says, the Sifra counts five prohibitions in accordance with Abaye's view. However, since the law is like Rava, there are only four prohibitions.
3.7b.
4.The Talmud answers this apparent contradiction, and, as the Rambam concludes below, the law is that there are four prohibitions.
5.63a.
6.Lev. 22:23-24.
7.See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 7:9, and notes 58, 59 in Rambam L'Am, 5723, ibid.
8.See Bechoros 40a. See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, ibid., where this blemish is apparently omitted, or perhaps explained in a different fashion.
9.Ibid. See note 48.
10.Ibid. See notes 49, 50, 52, 53.
11.In Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5, as well as in N95 below, the Rambam rules that these prohibitions apply to an animal with a temporary blemish as well. See Kapach 5731, note 70.
Negative Commandment 95
Sacrificing Animals with Temporary Blemishes
"You shall not sacrifice to G‑d, your G‑d, any ox or sheep in which there is a blemish"—Deuteronomy 17:1.
It is forbidden to offer as a sacrifice an animal with a temporary blemish.
Sacrificing Animals with Temporary Blemishes
Negative Commandment 95
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 95th prohibition is that we are forbidden from sacrificing an animal with a temporary blemish.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement in Deuteronomy,1 "Do not sacrifice to G‑d your L‑rd any ox, sheep that has a blemish." The Sifri2 explains that this verse refers to a temporary blemish.
The penalty for transgressing this prohibition by bringing the animal as an offering is also lashes.3
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 17:1.
2.Our versions of the Sifri do not have this statement. See Heller, 5706, who points to "the Sifri that is called 'Midrash Tannaim.'"
3.See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5.
Negative Commandment 96
Sacrificing Blemished Animals Presented by Non-Jew
"And from a foreigner's hand you may not offer the bread of your G‑d from any of these"—Leviticus 22:25.
It is forbidden to offer as a sacrifice an animal with a blemish that is presented by a non-Jew.
Sacrificing Blemished Animals Presented by Non-Jew
Negative Commandment 96
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 96th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering blemished animals that are brought by non-Jews. We should not say, "since he is not Jewish, it may be offered even if blemished."1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not offer any such animal as a sacrifice to your G‑d, [even if it is] presented by a non-Jew."
One who transgresses and brings it as an offering is also punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Non-Jews are allowed to bring sacrifices to G‑d even outside the Temple, and they can even offer blemished animals. This prohibition teaches that if they bring the animal to the Temple, it must conform to the requirements of all Temple animals, and blemished animals are therefore invalid.
2.Lev. 22:25.
Negative Commandment 97
Causing a Blemish in an Animal that was Designated for Sacrifice
"No blemish shall be in it"—Leviticus 22:21.
It is forbidden to cause a blemish to an animal designated for sacrifice [making it unfit for sacrificial use].
Causing a Blemish in an Animal that was Designated for Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 97
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 97th prohibition is that we are forbidden from causing a blemish in a sanctified animal. This is known as being matil mum bakodshim, and the punishment for doing so is lashes — upon condition that the Temple is standing and it therefore could be sacrificed, as explained in tractate Avodah Zorah.1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "It shall not have any blemish in it."
The Sifra says, "The verse, 'It shall not have any blemish in it,' means that one may not place a blemish in it."
FOOTNOTES
1.13b.
2.Lev. 22:21.
Positive Commandment 86
Redeeming a Blemished Offering
"However, as per your every desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in all your cities, according to the blessing of G‑d, your G‑d"—Deuteronomy 12:15.
We are commanded to "redeem" any animal consecrated for sacrificial use. The animal is then relieved of its holiness and may be eaten. [The redemption money is used to purchase a new animal for sacrifice.]
Redeeming a Blemished Offering
Positive Commandment 86
Translated by Berel Bell
The 86th mitzvah is that we are commanded to redeem sanctified animals that develop a blemish, whereupon they become like regular animals and may be slaughtered and eaten.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants, so that you will be able to eat the meat that G‑d gives you as His blessing."
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants,' speaks of sanctified animals that have become invalid and were subsequently redeemed."
The details of this mitzvah of redeeming sanctified animals are explained in tractates Bechoros2 and Temurah,3 and a number of places in Chullin,4 Erachim,5 and Me'ilah.6
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:15.
2.15a.
3.32a.
4.130a.
5.4-5.
6.19b.
Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
When streams flow from a pond, it is permitted to irrigate parched land from them during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, provided they do not cease flowing.1 Similarly, it is permissible to irrigate [fields] from a pool through which an irrigation ditch flows.2
Similarly, if a pool [was created from water] dripping from parched land, one may irrigate another portion of parched land from it, provided the stream that irrigated the first portion of parched land has not ceased flowing.
Halacha 2
When half a row of crops is located on low land and half on higher land, one should not draw water from the lower land to irrigate the higher land, for this involves very strenuous activity.
Halacha 3
One should not dig a pit at the roots of a grapevine to collect water. If such pits have already been dug, and they have become impaired, one may fix them during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. Similarly, one may fix an irrigation ditch that has become impaired6 during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.
What is implied? If the ditch was only one handbreadth deep, one may dig until it is six handbreadths deep.7 If it was two handbreadths deep, one may dig until it is seven.8
One may cause water to flow from one tree to another,9 provided one does not irrigate the entire field.10 If the field has already been watered, it is permitted to irrigate the entire field.11 One may sprinkle a field during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. For all these activities do not involve very strenuous effort.
Halacha 4
When plants have not been watered before [the beginning of] the festival, they should not be watered during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, for [in this situation] they require much water, and this will lead to strenuous effort.12
It is permitted to change [the direction of] a river from one place to another and to open a river that has been dammed. [The following rules apply to] cisterns, trenches, and grottos that belong to a private individual:13 If he needs them,14they may be cleaned and their breaches sealed. One may not, however, dig new ones.15 One may cause water to flow into them, even when one has no [immediate] need for them. One may make a small pool [for soaking flax]16during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.17
Halacha 5
Mice which damage trees may be snared during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. In an orchard, one may snare them in one's ordinary fashion. What is implied? One may dig a hole and hang a net.
If an unplowed field18 is located close to an orchard, one may snare the mice in the unplowed field using a technique that departs from one's ordinary practice,19 so that they do not enter the orchard and ruin it. What is meant by snaring them using a different technique? [Instead of digging a hole,] one should implant a shaft in the ground and strike it with a hatchet. Afterwards, one should remove it, leaving a hole in its place.
Halacha 6
When the wall to a garden falls, one may build it as would an amateur,20 put up a divider of reeds, bullrushes, or the like. Similarly, if one erects a guardrail for one's roof, one should build it as would an amateur.21
When, by contrast, the wall to a courtyard falls, one may rebuild it in an ordinary manner.22 If it is deteriorating [and likely to fall], one should tear it down because of the danger and rebuild it in an ordinary manner.
Halacha 7
A person may build a bench23 to sit on or to sleep on. If a hinge, a drainpipe,24a lintel, a lock, or a key becomes broken, one may fix it during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed in an ordinary manner.25 [This ruling applies] whether they are made of iron or of wood - [the rationale is that] this [could result in] a great loss. For if a person leaves the entrance to his house open and the doors broken, he will lose everything within the house. As explained previously,26 whenever [the failure to perform a task will result] in a loss, one need not deviate from one's ordinary practice.
Halacha 8
One may not dig a grave [during Chol HaMo'ed] so that it will be ready for a person should he die; nor may one build a structure for this purpose.27 If [a grave] is already prepared, one may modify it during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. What is implied? One may increase or decrease its size, so that it will be ready when it is necessary to bury [the intended] in it.
Halacha 9
We may not move a corpse or bones from one grave to another - neither from a more esteemed grave to one of lesser esteem, nor from one of lesser esteem to one of greater esteem. [Indeed,] it is always forbidden to do so, even on ordinary weekdays,28 unless one moves the corpse to an ancestral plot.29 [In such an instance,] on ordinary days, one may move the corpse [even] from an esteemed grave to one of lesser esteem.30
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
We may not bring sheep to pasture [on a field] so that they will fertilize the land [with their manure], for in this way one is enriching one's field during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed. If the sheep come to the field on their own accord,36 it is permitted [to allow them to remain].
We may not help them [enter the field], nor may we entrust them to a shepherd37 who will cause [the herd of] sheep to proceed [from place to place within the field].38 If [a shepherd] is hired on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis, on a yearly basis, or on a seven-year basis [to fertilize one's fields by pasturing sheep within them], one may help them enter the field.39 One may also hire40 a shepherd [on such a basis during Chol HaMo'ed] to cause [the herd of] sheep to proceed from place to place.
One may move manure in a courtyard to the side.41 If [the manure accumulates to the extent that] the courtyard becomes like a barn, one may take the manure out to the waste heap.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when a person] levels the surface of the earth [in his field]: If his intent is to prepare a place to store a mound of grain or to thresh there, it is permitted. If his intent is to till his land, it is forbidden.42
Similarly, if a person gathers wood from his field because he needs the wood, it is permitted. If his purpose is to improve the land, it is forbidden. Similarly, when a person opens [a dam, letting] water into his garden, if his intent is that fish will enter,43 it is permitted. If [his intent is] to irrigate the land, it is forbidden.
By the same token, when one trims branches from a date palm, if one's intent is to feed them to an animal, it is permitted. If one's intent is to cultivate the tree, it is forbidden. From the person's deeds, the nature of his intent becomes obvious.44
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
We may seal a jug with tar so that the wine [it contains] will not spoil.50 Similarly, we may seal a bottle with tar, since this does not involve strenuous activity. We may seal the mouth of a jug of beer so that it will not spoil.
We may cover figs [that have been left to dry] with straw so that they will not deteriorate.51 One may soften a garment by hand [after laundering it],52because this does not involve professional expertise. One may not tie the cuffs [of a garment], because this involves a professional activity. The same principles apply in all similar situations.
Halacha 15
We may cut the nails of a donkey that works in a mill53 and we may build a feeding-trough for an animal.54 It is permitted to cut the nails of a horse upon which one rides and to comb its hair so that it will look attractive.
We may not mate animals during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed,55 but we may let their blood. We do not prevent them from receiving any medical treatment.
Any food or drink that is not usually eaten by healthy people and is taken only for therapeutic purposes may be eaten or drunk during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed.56
Halacha 16
We may not move from [a dwelling in] one courtyard to [one in] another courtyard during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed - neither from an unpleasant one to a pleasant one, nor from a pleasant one to an unpleasant one.57 We may, however, move from house to house within the same courtyard.
We may bring articles that will be used during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed from the premises of the craftsman [who made them] - e.g., pillows, blankets, and cups. But articles that are not necessary for the sake of the festival may not be brought [during Chol HaMo'ed]58 - e.g., [we may not bring] a plow from an ironmonger or wool from a dyer.
If the craftsman has nothing to eat, we may pay him and leave the articles in his care.59 If one does not trust him, we may deposit them in the house next to his. If we fear that they might be stolen, we may move them to another courtyard, but we should not bring them home unless [this can be done] in a discreet manner.60
Halacha 17
It is forbidden to perform labor61 on the day before a holiday from mid-afternoon62 onward, as this is forbidden on Friday [afternoons].63
If a person ever performs work during this time, he will never see a sign of blessing from it. We should rebuke him, and force him to stop against his will. He should not, however, be punished with stripes for rebelliousness,64 nor should he placed under a ban of ostracism.
There is an exception: after midday on Pesach afternoon. A person who works at that time should be placed under a ban of ostracism. Needless to say, if he was not placed under a ban of ostracism, he should be given stripes for rebelliousness.65 For the fourteenth of Nisan differs from the day preceding other holidays, because at that time the festive offering is brought and [the Paschal offering] is slaughtered.66
Halacha 18
Therefore, the performance of labor on the fourteenth of Nisan is forbidden by Rabbinical decree67, as on Chol HaMo'ed. [The rulings pertaining to the fourteenth of Nisan] are, however, more lenient than [those pertaining to] Chol HaMo'ed.68
Moreover, it is forbidden to perform labor on [the fourteenth of Nisan] only from midday onward, for this is the time when the sacrifice is offered. From sunrise69until noon, [the practice] is dependent on [local] custom. In places where it is customary to perform labor, one may. In places where it is not customary to perform labor, one may not.70
Halacha 19
Even in a place where it is customary to perform labor, one should not begin the performance of a task on the fourteenth [of Nisan], even though one could complete it before noon.
There are, however, three exceptions to this principle: tailors, barbers, and launderers. With regard to other craftsmen, if they began before the fourteenth, they may finish before noon.71 [The rationale for this distinction is that] the people at large do not have a great need for other labors [for the sake of the holiday].
Halacha 20
When a person journeys from a place where it is customary to perform [labor on the fourteenth] to a place where it is not customary to perform [labor], he should not perform [labor] in a settled region,72 lest [this cause] strife.73 He may, however, perform labor in the desert.74
When a person journeys from a place where it is not customary to perform [labor on the fourteenth] to a place where it is customary to perform [labor], he should not perform [labor at all].75 To a person [who journeys], we apply the stringencies observed in the place that he left and those observed in the place where he arrives.76
Even though [he is prohibited to perform work], he should not make it appear to [the local people] that he is idle because of a prohibition.77 For a person should never deviate [from local custom], lest strife arise.
Similarly, a person who intends to return to his place should follow the customs of the inhabitants of his place, whether stringent or lenient. He should not, however, be seen [conducting himself contrary to the local custom] by the inhabitants of the place where he is located, lest strife arise.78
Halacha 21
[In contrast to Chol HaMo'ed,] we may bring articles to and from the homes of craftsmen on the fourteenth of Nisan after midday, even though they are not needed for the festival.79 We may rake manure from under the feet of livestock and take it out to the dung heap.80
We may make a nest for chickens. When a chicken that sat on eggs for three days or more dies,81 we may place another chicken on the eggs on the fourteenth [of Nisan], so that they will not spoil.82 During [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, by contrast, we may not place [a chicken on the eggs]. If [a chicken] leaves the eggs on which it is sitting during [Chol Ha]Mo'ed, one may return it to its place.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This halachah is based on the principle discussed in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, which states: "When a person irrigates [such land], he should not draw water and irrigate [the land, using water] from a pool or rain water, for this involves strenuous activity. He may, however, irrigate it [using water] from a spring." In all the instances mentioned in this halachah, the water is free-flowing. Hence, there is no need to fear that the person will draw the water using buckets.
|
| 2. |
If, however, an irrigation ditch does not pass through these pools, it is forbidden to use their water during Chol HaMo'ed, for the person will have to refill them by bringing water from a far-removed place. The strenuous activity this involves is not appropriate for the festive spirit of Chol HaMo'ed.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies even when the pool has enough water in it so that one would not have to draw water by hand throughout Chol HaMo'ed. This stringency was instituted to allow for a uniform ruling.
|
| 3. |
Or sold to be eaten by others (Ritba; Mishnah Berurah 537:14).
|
| 4. |
Since the preparation of food for the celebration of the festival is involved, this is permitted even though it involves strenuous effort (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 5. |
As mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, it is permitted to irrigate parched land during Chol HaMo'ed, because excessive effort is not involved. In this instance, however, excessive effort is involved. Therefore, it is forbidden to draw water for vegetables. If, however, the vegetables are necessary for use during the holiday, this activity is permitted (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 6. |
As the Rambam continues to explain [see also Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 4b)], this refers to the ditches becoming filled with silt and debris.
|
| 7. |
The Hebrew word for irrigation ditch אמה also means "cubit." A cubit is six handbreadths high. The fact that the ditch is a handbreadth deep is significant enough to enable the person to be allowed to dig it to its full depth.
|
| 8. |
This question is left unresolved by Mo'ed Katan (loc. cit.). Although the Nimukei Yosef and others differ with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:6) follows the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 9. |
For trees, like parched land, require irrigation.
|
| 10. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it reflects a minority opinion among the Sages. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7), however, follows the Rambam's decision.
|
| 11. |
Since it has been watered already, irrigating it further does not require very strenuous activity.
|
| 12. |
The Kessef Mishneh cites this as an expression of a principle of greater scope: Even when the failure to perform a labor will result in significant loss, labor that involves strenuous activity is not performed during Chol HaMo'ed.
|
| 13. |
Compare to the laws pertaining to cisterns and the like constructed on behalf of the public, as described in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
|
| 14. |
For drinking water.
|
| 15. |
Even when the person needs to dig a well because he lacks drinking water and would prefer to take water from a private well rather than carry water from a distant place. Needless to say, if the person has no water whatsoever to drink, he may dig a well during Chol HaMo'ed.
|
| 16. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:6). The Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher interpret the Hebrew term as referring to a pit similar to a grave, and hence forbid digging it unless a person has already died.
|
| 17. |
I.e., the individuals who were given permission to do laundry. (See Chapter 7, Halachah 17.)
|
| 18. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:4).
|
| 19. |
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, Rabbenu Asher, and others allow one to snare mice in the ordinary manner in this instance as well. In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 537), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the difference between these two rulings depends on a difference of opinion regarding the correct version of the text of Mo'ed Katan 6b. Although he quotes both views in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:13), it appears that Rav Karo favors the more lenient ruling.
|
| 20. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:4, based on Mo'ed Katan 7a), the Rambam explains that this means that one may pile the stones one on top of the other, without placing mortar between them. One is not allowed to build it in an ordinary manner, because building involves professional craftsmanship, and there is not a possibility of great loss should others enter one's garden (Mishnah Berurah 440:1-2).
|
| 21. |
Note the Be'ur Halachah, which cites the Ritba's commentary interpreting this as referring to a guardrail on a roof upon which people do not frequently walk. If the roof is used frequently, one should construct a guardrail and fulfill the mitzvah of the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:8). The Be'ur Halachah notes, however, that none of the other commentaries make such a distinction.
|
| 22. |
A wall to one's courtyard protects one's house against thieves. Therefore, building it is considered necessary to prevent a loss and is permitted during Chol HaMo'ed.
|
| 23. |
The Ramban states that this leniency is permitted only when one constructs the bench as would an amateur; it is forbidden to build it in a professional manner. This conception is accepted by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 540:6).
|
| 24. |
Our translation is based on Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 1:10). Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 11a), Rav David Arameah and the Mishnah Berurah540:11 interpret the Hebrew term as referring to an attachment for the hinge.
|
| 25. |
Even if doing so involves professional craftsmanship.
|
| 26. |
Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
|
| 27. |
The restrictions mentioned in this halachah stem from the fact that it is speaking about digging a grave for a person before his death. When the person has already died, there are no restrictions at all, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 15. The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that the present halachah is speaking about a place where the cemetery is located on rocky terrain, and digging or building a grave takes several days.
|
| 28. |
The Radbaz (in his gloss on Hilchot Eivel) explains that this is a disgrace to the deceased.
|
| 29. |
For a person takes comfort in being buried together with his ancestors (Jerusalem Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 2:4).
|
| 30. |
See Hilchot Eivel 14:15; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 363:1. In the latter source, other reasons why one may disinter a corpse are also mentioned, including a) to re-inter it in Eretz Yisrael, b) because water might destroy it, or c) because it was buried initially with the intent that it be moved.
|
| 31. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:4), the Rambam explains that foul-smelling material was applied to saplings so that insects would stay away from them.
|
| 32. |
These activities are forbidden because they involve strenuous activity (Mishnah Berurah 537:35).
|
| 33. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:5), the Rambam explains that oil would be applied to trees and their fruit so that they would ripen more quickly. For this reason, this is permitted during Chol HaMo'ed, for it enables one to have fruit for the festival.
|
| 34. |
Our translation follows the interpretation of Rashi (Mo'ed Katan 12b), who explains that it was common to cover figs and dates with flax while they were being dried.
|
| 35. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 8.
|
| 36. |
Or they are brought by a gentile shepherd (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 537:14).
|
| 37. |
The intent is that it is forbidden to hire even a gentile shepherd.
|
| 38. |
In this way, manure will be deposited throughout the entire field and not only in one portion.
|
| 39. |
Since the shepherd is not hired with the specific intent of working during Chol HaMo'ed, but rather Chol HaMo'ed is included within a responsibility of a greater scope (הבלעה), this is permitted.
|
| 40. |
Based on the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), the Mishnah Berurah 537:49 states that it is forbidden to hire a shepherd for this purpose during Chol HaMo'ed. (See also the Kessef Mishneh, where Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam's interpretation of Mo'ed Katan 12a differs from that of Rashi and the other Ashkenazic authorities.)
|
| 41. |
But one may not remove it unless a large amount accumulates (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim535:3).
|
| 42. |
In this and the following instances, the permitted intent involves preparing food for oneself or one's beast that may be used during the festival. The forbidden intent involves performing a task that is not necessary for the festival and which will not necessarily lead to a loss if it is not performed.
|
| 43. |
And then he will catch them for use during the festival.
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:5-8, where the Rambam illustrates how the person's deeds reveal his intent. For example, when a person removes both thin twigs and larger logs, it is obvious that he desires to clean his field. If he removes only larger logs, we may assume that his intent is to gather firewood. If he opens a dam, but does not leave a place for water to flow out, he intends to water his field. If he also opens an outlet for the water, we may assume that his intent is to catch fish.
|
| 45. |
Which were made of clay.
|
| 46. |
Even if this involves professional activity, it is permitted, because it will enable a person to cook his food for the festival (Mishnah Berurah 540:18).
|
| 47. |
This upper layer serves as insulation and maintains the oven's heat. It will serve this purpose even if it does not dry during the festival (Mishnah Berurah 540:20).
|
| 48. |
In the Talmudic era, the beds resembled hammocks. This is permitted only when one's intent is to use the bed during the festival (Mishnah Berurah 541:4).
|
| 49. |
For the mill can produce flour that is necessary for the festival.
|
| 50. |
For we are allowed to perform labor during Chol HaMo'ed to prevent the occurrence of a loss.
|
| 51. |
Because of rain or dew.
|
| 52. |
For a garment often becomes stiff after it is laundered. (See Hilchot Shabbat 22:17.)
|
| 53. |
Unless the donkey's nails are trimmed, they will cause it pain, and prevent it from working to its capacity (Mishnah Berurah 540:25).
|
| 54. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 540:5) specifies that the stall must be built without professional expertise.
|
| 55. |
The Mishnah Berurah 536:6 states that although we may not take an active role in the mating process, we may put a male and a female animal in the same corral and allow them to mate.
|
| 56. |
Although these activities are forbidden on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 21). Moreover, one may perform any labors necessary to prepare drugs or medicines during Chol HaMo'ed (Mishnah Berurah 532:5).
|
| 57. |
The Ra'avad (based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 2:4) states that one may move from a rented apartment into one's own home during Chol HaMo'ed, even if the rented apartment is more pleasant than one's own home, because it is comfortable for a person to dwell in his own home. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam does not mention this ruling because it conflicts with the statements of the Babylonian Talmud. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, the rulings of the former are followed.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 535:2) mentions the Ra'avad's opinion with the preface "There are those who say...." The Ramah (loc. cit.:1) mentions that if one lives in a dangerous neighborhood, one may move during Chol HaMo'ed. The Mishnah Berurah 535:7 states that leniency may also be granted to allow a person to move from a non-Jewish neighborhood to a Jewish one.
|
| 58. |
This prohibition applies even when the articles were finished before the commencement of the festival. The Mishnah Berurah 534:16 mentions two reasons for this prohibition: a) because bringing these articles involves strenuous effort, b) because an observer might think that the person intended that they be repaired during Chol HaMo'ed.
|
| 59. |
The Mishnah Berurah 534:17 explains that we may pay the craftsman whether or not he has food to eat. He interprets the wording as meaning that even when he has nothing to eat, and it is therefore necessary to pay him, we may not take the article from him.
|
| 60. |
The Mishnah Berurah 534:18 explains that although he is permitted to work during Chol HaMo'ed, it is forbidden to carry the articles in public view because of the impression that it might create.
|
| 61. |
Here also the intent is not the labors forbidden on Sabbaths and holidays, but rather involvement in tasks that are not for the sake of the festival.
|
| 62. |
This refers to minchah k'tanah, nine and a half seasonal hours after sunrise (3:30 PM on a day when the sun rises at 6 AM and sets at 6 PM).
|
| 63. |
See Hilchot Shabbat 5:19-20.
|
| 64. |
This punishment is administered for violating a Rabbinic commandment, while the prohibition against doing work on these days is considered merely a custom.
|
| 65. |
As reflected in Chapter 1, Halachah 22, being placed under a ban of ostracism is a more severe punishment that receiving stripes for rebelliousness.
|
| 66. |
"It is not appropriate that a person should be involved in his everyday tasks while his sacrifice is being offered" (Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 4:1).
Although at present the Temple is destroyed and it is impossible to bring the Paschal sacrifice, the original decree is still in force and it is forbidden to perform labor at this time (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 67. |
Note Tosafot (Pesachim 50a) and the Tzalach, who consider the fourteenth of Nisan to be a holiday established by the Torah itself.
|
| 68. |
As explained in Halachah 21.
|
| 69. |
During the night [until sunrise], however, there are no restrictions against performing labor (Pesachim 2b, 55a).
|
| 70. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 468:3) states that the Ashkenazic custom is not to perform labor before noon on this day. Nevertheless, subsequent authorities have not accepted this as a universal ruling, and maintain that everything is dependent on local custom.
|
| 71. |
The Rambam's ruling is based on his interpretation of the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:7) as applying in a place where it is customary to perform labor on the fourteenth. Others (the Ra'avad and Rabbenu Asher) interpret the Mishnah as applying in a place where it is customary not to perform labor on the fourteenth.
This interpretation leads to a more lenient ruling: In a place where it is customary to perform labor, all labor may be performed on the fourteenth of Nisan. In a place where it is not customary to perform labor, any labor that was begun before the fourteenth and is intended for the sake of the holiday may be completed before dawn. The three labors mentioned may be begun on the fourteenth of Nisan if they are performed for the sake of the holiday, provided they can be completed before noon. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 468:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Ramah follows the more lenient approach.
|
| 72. |
Where people will see his actions.
|
| 73. |
I.e., people will see him departing from the local custom, and when he explains the reason for his actions an argument may arise.
|
| 74. |
This leniency applies provided he intends to return to his original locale.
|
| 75. |
In this instance as well, the ruling applies to a person who intends to return to his original locale. If he does not intend to return, he is not bound by the stringencies observed there (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:9).
|
| 76. |
This is a general principle applying not only on the fourteenth of Nisan, but to the entire year, provided the person intends to settle permanently in the city.
This principle does not, however, apply in most contemporary Jewish communities, because they were settled by people with different customs, and a fixed practice was never adopted for the city at large. Accordingly, in such an instance, a person should follow the customs of his ancestral home (Orach Mishpat, Responsum 17).
|
| 77. |
There are many idle people in the public thoroughfare who do not perform labor. He should conduct himself like one of these individuals and not like a person who refrains from performing labor because of a prohibition (Pesachim 51b).
|
| 78. |
These are also principles whose scope extends beyond the particular laws of the fourteenth of Nisan (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:14; Mishnah Berurah 468:22). Shulchan Aruch HaRav goes further and explains that if it is impossible for the person not to perform work without calling attention to his actions, he should perform the work, because maintaining peaceful social relations overrides the importance of preserving the customs of one's native land.
|
| 79. |
Compare to Halachah 16.
|
| 80. |
Compare to Halachah 11.
|
| 81. |
Before three days have passed, the eggs would still be eaten by a person who is not fastidious about his food. Therefore, leniency is not granted (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:19; Mishnah Berurah 468:34).
|
| 82. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) interprets the Rambam's decision as forbidding the placing a chicken on eggs at the outset on the fourteenth of Nisan. The Mishnah Berurah 468:36, however, mentions opinions that advise leniency in a case of need.
|
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4 There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5 if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6 d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7 e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11 a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12 k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13 m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14 n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short.
To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15 If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.
Halacha 5
s) A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16 u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the termkalut mentioned in the Torah;17 w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,
Halacha 6
All of the 73 blemishes18 listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19 Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20 Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21 Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22 nor sacrificed.23
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39 For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40 Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41 [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42
Halacha 11
If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43 [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed a tereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44 Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45 Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46 Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47 An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48we count from the time it stopped seeing.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54 an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55 They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56 and [the animal] should be neither offered,57 nor redeemed.58
Halacha 15
What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59 Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60 If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.
Halacha 16
There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal61 after they despaired of its recovery,62 there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore63 he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.64
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple.
|
| 2. |
From being offered as a sacrifice.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
|
| 4. |
See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified.
|
| 5. |
If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 6. |
If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b).
|
| 7. |
Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6.
|
| 8. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an alternate meaning, the animal's teeth.
|
| 9. |
If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes.
|
| 10. |
I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen.
|
| 11. |
Compare to Halachah 8.
|
| 12. |
Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
|
| 13. |
I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)].
|
| 14. |
Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish.
|
| 15. |
The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11 which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in the categorycharutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is considered such a limb; the ribs are not.
|
| 16. |
See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11.
|
| 17. | |
| 18. |
The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
|
| 19. |
These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13.
|
| 20. |
Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes."
|
| 21. |
Which would disqualify it in its own right.
|
| 22. |
Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice.
|
| 23. |
Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice.
|
| 24. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed.
|
| 25. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4.
|
| 26. |
Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal.
|
| 27. |
And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not.
|
| 28. |
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
|
| 29. |
The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
|
| 30. |
If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2.
|
| 31. |
Compare to Halachah 4.
|
| 32. |
Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed.
|
| 33. |
For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish.
|
| 34. |
At which point, it can be redeemed.
|
| 35. |
For its blemish did not disqualify it.
|
| 36. |
It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6.
|
| 37. |
Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
|
| 38. |
An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten.
|
| 39. |
See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin.
|
| 40. |
The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God.
|
| 41. |
For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 42. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11.
|
| 43. |
I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1.
If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz).
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal astereifah.
|
| 45. |
See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11.
|
| 46. |
And his hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general principle in Torah Law. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al.
|
| 47. |
Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
|
| 48. |
In the midst of the above period.
|
| 49. |
Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
|
| 50. |
In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh.
|
| 51. |
I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order.
|
| 52. |
In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried.
|
| 53. |
Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3).
|
| 54. |
Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value.
|
| 55. |
I.e., the two month and a half periods.
|
| 56. |
All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment.
|
| 57. |
For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed.
|
| 58. |
For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed.
|
| 59. |
But not at the appropriate time of year.
|
| 60. |
It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable.
|
| 61. |
Thus if the redemption was valid, the article used to redeem the animal is consecrated and the person who benefited from it transgressed. If, however, the redemption was not valid, the article is not given that status and hence, there is no transgression involved.
|
| 62. |
I.e., even if the benefit was derived after they despaired of its recovery in which instance, it was definitely permanently blemished, since it was redeemed before that time, the situation is still questionable as explained.
|
| 63. |
I.e., because the matter is unresolved.
|
| 64. |
See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:5; Hilchot Shegagot 9:11. As will be explained in the notes to those halachot, it is not necessary to bring a sacrifice conditionally, stipulating: "If I transgressed, this will serve as atonement for my transgression, and if I did not transgress, it will be considered a free-will offering" (Radbaz).
|
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Blemishes1 do not disqualify a fowl [as a sacrifice]. This applies both with regard to a male and to a female in the instance of a fowl, for the expression [Leviticus 22:18] "a perfect male" was stated only with regard to an animal.2
When does the above apply? With regard to small blemishes. Nevertheless, if the wing of a fowl became dried out, its eye was lost,3 or its foot was cut off, it is forbidden to [be offered on] the altar, for an animal that is lacking a limb is never offered.4 Similarly, if it incurred one of the factors that cause it to be deemed tereifah and forbidden to be eaten, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.5
Halacha 2
Small6 turtle-doves and large ordinary doves are unacceptable as [can be inferred from Leviticus 1:14]: "from the turtle doves and the children of the doves."7When it begins to sprout yellow feathers,8 it is unacceptable for both species.9
Until when are young ordinary doves acceptable? As long as when one pulls out [a feather from] the wing, the place from which it was pulled out will fill with blood. Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue.
Halacha 3
Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum10or anandrogynus,11 they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: "a perfect male" and "a perfect female." [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl12 which is a tumtum or anandrogynus is unacceptable for the altar.13
Halacha 4
Similarly, a hybrid animal, one born through Caesarian section, and one that is lacking in age are unacceptable even if they are unblemished. [These are all excluded through the exegesis of Leviticus 22:27]: "An ox, a lamb, and a goat..." - [this implies] each of the species must be separate; an animal should not be a hybrid between a lamb and a goat. "When it gives birth..." - this excludes one born through Caesarian section.14 "It will be seven days..." - This excludes one that it is lacking in age.15 "Together with its mother" - This excludes an "orphan," i.e., an animal born after its mother was slaughtered.16
Halacha 5
An animal which looks like a different species is unacceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar even though it is not a hybrid. What is implied? A ewe gave birth to an animal that resembled a goat or a she-goat gave birth to an animal that resembled a lamb. Even though it has some of the signs of its own species, it is unacceptable like an animal that has a permanent blemish. For there is no blemish greater than a change [in appearance].
Halacha 6
Similarly, an animal that had relations with a person,17 which was sodomized,18which was set aside for pagan worship,19 or which was worshipped,20 even though it is permitted to be eaten,21 is unacceptable as a sacrifice for the altar. [This is derived as follows: When describing animals unfit for sacrifices,Leviticus 22:25] states: "For their perversion is in them." [Implied is that] any [animal] characterized by perversion is forbidden. With regard to forbidden [sexual behavior, Genesis 6:12] states: "For all flesh has perverted [its path]."22With regard to pagan worship, [Exodus 32:7] states: "For your nation has perverted itself." Similarly, an animal or fowl which killed a person are considered equivalent to one that had relations with a person or which was sodomized and they are unacceptable for the altar.23
Halacha 7
It appears to me that even though all of these types of animals are unfit to be brought as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered them as a sacrifice, he is not worthy of lashes according to Scriptural Law, because the prohibition [against using these animals as sacrifices] is not explicitly stated in the Torah. An animal given as a present to a harlot or exchanged for a dog are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. One who offers a sacrifice from either of them or from both together is liable for one set of lashes, 24 as [Deuteronomy 23:19] states: "Do not bring a present to a harlot or the exchange of a dog [to the house of God]." Why is one liable for only one set of lashes for them both? Because they are both mentioned in one prohibition.
Halacha 8
It is a positive commandment25 to offer all of the sacrifices26 from the eighth day [of their lives] and onward, as [Leviticus 22:27] states: "It will be together with its mother for seven days and on the eighth day and onward, it will be desirable." Throughout these seven days, it is called lacking in age.27
Halacha 9
Turtle-doves that have not reached the stage of development when they are fit for sacrifice30 and young doves that matured beyond the appropriate stage31are all considered as blemished [animals].32 One who offers them is not liable for lashes,33 even though the sacrifice is invalid and is not acceptable.
Halacha 10
One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood,34 for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold35 and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires.36 It is not considered like a blemished animal,37 for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.38
When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog,39 it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish.40 Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.41
Halacha 11
Thus there are fourteen types of animals that are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar: a blemished animal, one that is not choice,42 one that is lacking an internal organ,43 a tereifah, a hybrid, one born from Caesarian section, one that had relations with a person, one that was sodomized, one that killed a person, one that was worshipped, one set aside for pagan worship, one given to a harlot as her fee, one exchanged for a dog, one which is lacking in age.
Halacha 12
All of the animals which are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar are forbidden regardless of the proportion in which they are intermingled. Even if one of them becomes mixed together with ten thousand,44 they are all disqualified and unacceptable for the altar.45
In all instances, the offspring [of these unacceptable animals] are acceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar, with the exception of the offspring of an animal that was sodomized, worshipped, set aside for worship, or which killed a person. The offspring of these animals are forbidden for the altar as they are.46
Halacha 13
When does the above47 apply? When the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person while it was pregnant, in which instance, the offspring was together with it when it became disqualified and was considered as one of its limbs.48 If, however, it became pregnant after the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person, its offspring is acceptable for the altar.49 Even if an animal was sodomized while it was consecrated and then it became pregnant, [the offspring is acceptable]. Needless to say, the offspring is acceptable if [the mother] was sodomized while it was of ordinary status and then it was consecrated and became pregnant. Similarly, a chick born from an egg from atereifah is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar.50
Halacha 14
When a person bows down to standing grain, its kernels are permitted to be used for meal offerings, for their [form] has changed. They resemble the offspring of animals forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.51 Similarly, an animal that was fattened with vetch from a false deity is permitted [as a sacrifice] for the altar, for the [form of the vetch] has changed.52
Halacha 15
[Animals for] any of the sacrifices may be purchased from gentiles.53 We do not suspect that [the animal] had relations with a person, had been sodomized, set aside for pagan worship, or worshipped unless it is known that it was disqualified. [Support for this concept can be brought from I Samuel 15:16:] "From the Amalekites, they were brought, for the people had mercy on the prime quality sheep and cattle, to sacrifice [them] to God your Lord."54
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
I.e., those outlined in the previous chapter.
|
| 2. |
I.e., with regard to an animal, there are sacrifices which require a male and others which require a female. Such distinctions are not made with regard to sacrifices brought from fowl. All sacrifices are acceptable whether one brings a male or a female. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8.
|
| 3. |
The commentaries explain that the fact that the fowl lost its sight is not enough to disqualify it. It must be as if the eye has been removed.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.
|
| 5. |
See ibid.:10.
|
| 6. |
I.e., young, underdeveloped birds. They are considered as "lacking in age" (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8).
|
| 7. |
We have translated the verse literally so that the source for the concept derived is clear. None of the other animals prescribed for sacrifices are described as b'nai, "the children of." By using that term, the Torah sought to imply that the birds must be young and underdeveloped.
|
| 8. |
An intermediate stage of development.
|
| 9. |
It is unacceptable for turtle-doves, because such a fowl is still considered in its preliminary stages of development. It is not mature yet. Yet it is unacceptable for ordinary doves, because such a fowl has developed beyond its initial stages.
|
| 10. |
An animal whose sexual organs were covered by a mass of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined.
|
| 11. |
An animal with both a male and female sexual organ.
|
| 12. |
Which could be offered if it possessed a blemish.
|
| 13. |
Even though it makes no difference if a fowl is male or female, it must be definitely a male or definitely a female.
|
| 14. |
For Caesarian section is not considered as "birth."
|
| 15. |
See Halachah 8.
|
| 16. |
I.e., the mother was pregnant. It was slaughtered and the fetus was removed alive from its womb and then consecrated as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that since this animal is also born through Caesarian section, it is not mentioned as a separate category in the first clause of this halachah and in Halachah 11.
|
| 17. |
Either a male or a female. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3.
|
| 18. |
In Chapter 4, Halachah 2, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation where the forbidden sexual act was observed by only one witness, by the owners, or the animal was consecrated before being brought to court, or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If, however, the forbidden sexual act was performed by a Jew and observed by two witnesses, once the matter was ruled upon by the court, the animal must be executed and is certainly unacceptable as a sacrifice. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 3,5 for more details regarding the disqualification of such an animal.
|
| 19. |
Even if it had not been used for such worship as of yet. See Chapter 4, Halachah 4, which explains when such an animal is disqualified. As the Radbaz explains in his gloss to that halachah, this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
|
| 20. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
|
| 21. |
This refers even to an animal that was worshipped or set aside for pagan worship, as stated inHilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1.
|
| 22. |
The commentaries to that verse explain that its intent is that even animals were mating with partners from different species. It is, however, unlikely that this is the Rambam's intent in citing that prooftext. Most probably, the intent is that only animals that shared relations with humans are forbidden.
|
| 23. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, for more particulars concerning this category.
|
| 24. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 100) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 571) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the prohibition involves two subjects, not one, it is still considered as only one prohibition. See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, for more details on why the two prohibitions are considered as one mitzvah.
|
| 25. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 60) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 293) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 26. |
Rabbi Akiva Eiger postulates that this mitzvah applies only with regard to animals. Young doves, by contrast, may be offered even before their eighth day of life. This conclusion can be derived from the Rambam's wording in the following halachah and in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 3:10 which allows a chick to be slaughtered for food even on the day of its birth.
|
| 27. |
See ibid. 1:11-12 for more particulars. There the Rambam states that it is preferable to offer a sacrifice after it is at least one month old.
|
| 28. |
The Rambam adds this explanation, because in contrast to the disqualifying factors mentioned in Halachah 7, this factor is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
As can be inferred from the prooftext cited.
|
| 30. |
See Halachah 2 which explains when these doves are fit to be offered.
|
| 31. |
That same halachah explains when these doves become unacceptable.
|
| 32. |
See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:7-9 which mentions other time factors that render an animal unfit to be sacrificed.
|
| 33. |
There is no specific prohibition forbidding such offerings. Instead, the manner in which the positive commandment is stated in the Torah makes it clear that a younger fowl is prohibited, as stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 34. |
Since these types of animals are not acceptable as sacrifices as explained in the previous halachot, the consecration is not effective.
|
| 35. |
Immediately; there is no need that one wait until the animal is blemished.
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad emphasizes that the person's words are not entirely of no consequence. Instead, the animal must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. This, he explains, applies only when the person states: "This animal is consecrated to the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," his words are of no consequence and no holiness is attached to it at all.
|
| 37. |
I.e., if an animal with a blemish is consecrated, the animal itself becomes holy. Also, the one who consecrates it is liable for lashes (Radbaz).
See also Hilchot Temurah 1:14, 3:5, when one desires to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a blemished animal, the transfer is effective and the blemished animal is considered as consecrated. This does not apply with regard to these animals.
|
| 38. |
Were it to be unblemished. Therefore even when it is blemished, the holiness of an animal can be transferred to it.
|
| 39. |
Which are all unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachot.
|
| 40. |
For ultimately, it will come of age, and then be acceptable for sacrifice.
|
| 41. |
In Halachah 8. There the Rambam states that one who offers such a fowl is not liable. From that, we can infer that one who consecrates it is also exempt.
|
| 42. |
As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
|
| 43. |
As explained ibid.:11.
|
| 44. |
And the forbidden animal cannot be identified. Note the parallels in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim6:2.
|
| 45. |
Zevachim 73a,b states that the rationale is that animals are important and therefore are never nullified in a mixture. The Sages then ask: Let us have the herd in which the animal is mixed moved and then we will follow the principle: Whenever one is separated, we consider it to have separated from the majority (which in this instance is permitted). They reply that this is not done because of a Rabbinical decree, lest an animal be removed from the mixture while it is at rest.
|
| 46. |
Temurah 30b states that it is disrespectful to offer an animal that has been associated with such a transgression as a sacrifice. From the following halachah, it appears that the rationale is that it is considered to have actually taken part in the transgression.
|
| 47. |
The disqualification of the offspring in those four instances.
|
| 48. |
In keeping with the principle (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:12; Temurah, loc. cit.): "A fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother."
|
| 49. |
For in that instance, the animal was brought into being by two factors, one of which is associated with a source forbidden as a sacrifice (the mother) and another (the father) which was not (ibid.).
|
| 50. |
For a chick is an entirely new entity that was not directly associated with the forbidden animal (ibid. 31a).
|
| 51. |
As mentioned in the previous halachot. I.e., just as the offspring is the product of the forbidden animal, the flour is the product of the grain. See Avodah Zarah 46b-47a.
|
| 52. |
In this instance, it is not even remotely connected to the forbidden entity. See Temurah, loc. cit.
|
| 53. |
Similarly, an animal brought by a gentile to sacrifice as a burnt offering is acceptable (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2).
|
| 54. |
King Saul gave this explanation to the prophet Samuel after failing to destroy the herds of the Amalekites. Although that excuse was rejected, it was rejected only because God had explicitly stated that the Amalekites' herds must be destroyed. Had there not been such a command, presumably they - and by extension, animals belonging to any other gentile nation - would have been acceptable.
|
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses.3 It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh.4 Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent5 or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present.6 If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 3
When sport was made with an animal and it was trained to gore until it killed a person, it is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar, because it is considered as having been compelled against its will.7
An animal is not disqualified because it had relations with a person or because it was sodomized unless the male who sodomized it was nine years old.8Whether it was sodomized by a Jew, a gentile,9 or a servant, since it was sodomized by a human, it is disqualified. If a human was the recipient of sex from an animal, [the animal] is not disqualified unless the female with whom it had relations was three years old10 or the male with whom it had relations was nine years old.11
Halacha 4
When is an animal or a fowl disqualified because it was set aside for pagan worship?12 When the priests perform a deed with it, e.g., they shear it or work with it for the sake of pagan worship. With words alone, by contrast, it is not considered as set aside for pagan worship, for an entity cannot be consecrated to a false deity.13
Halacha 5
An animal that had relations with a person or that was sodomized becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] for the altar whether it belongs to the person with whom it shared relations or it belongs to a colleague14 and regardless of whether those relations were carried out under compulsion or voluntarily, whether they were willful or inadvertent, or whether they were performed before [the animal was] consecrated or afterwards.15
When, by contrast, an animal is set aside for pagan worship, it becomes disqualified if it belonged to the person who set it aside and he set it aside for pagan worship before he consecrated it as a sacrifice. If, however, one set aside an animal belonging to a colleague16 or [even] his own animal after he consecrated it as a sacrifice,17it is permitted [to be offered as a sacrifice].18[The rationale is that] a person cannot set aside an entity that does not belong to him [for pagan worship].19
Halacha 6
[When an animal] has been worshipped as a false deity, it is forbidden [as a sacrifice] whether one served his own animal or one belonging to a colleague,20whether he acted under compulsion or voluntarily, willfullly or inadvertently, whether he did so before the animal was consecrated or afterwards. [In the latter instance,] it should be left to pasture until it becomes permanently blemished and then it should be redeemed, as we stated.21
When an animal is worshipped, it and everything upon it22 are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. For it is forbidden to benefit from all coverings of entities worshipped as false deities.23 If, however, [an animal has merely been] set aside for pagan worship, it is forbidden, but the entities on it are permitted [as sacrifices for the altar].24
Halacha 7
When a person bows down to a mountain, although he may benefit from it,25 its stones are forbidden to [be used as part of] the altar.26 Similarly, when one bows down to a flowing stream in his land,27 its water is invalid28 for use as a libation.29
[Even though] an asherah30 has been nullified,31 one should not bring logs from it for the arrangement of wood on the altar.32 Similarly, when one bows down to an animal, just as it is disqualified [as a sacrifice] for the altar, its wool is disqualified for use in the priestly garments,33 its horns are disqualified for use as trumpets,34 its thighs are disqualified for use as flutes,35 and its intestines as strands [for the lyres].36 Everything is unacceptable.37
Halacha 8
Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it.38
What is meant by a present given to a harlot?39 When one tells a harlot, "This entity is given to you as your wages."40 This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man41 as an ervah42or by a negative commandment.43 If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest.44 Similarly, if a person's wife is a niddah,45 a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.46
Halacha 9
If a man married one of the women forbidden to him because of a negative commandment,47 whatever he gives her for the sake of intimate relations is considered as "the present [of a harlot]"48 and is forbidden [to be offered as a sacrifice]. A present given [by a male to] a male [for the purpose of intimacy] is forbidden [as a sacrifice].49 If a woman gives a present to a male for the purpose of intimacy, [it is not considered] "a present [of a harlot]" and is permitted [as a sacrifice].50
Halacha 10
When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an article for you. In return for it, have your [Canaanite] maidservant spend the night with my Jewish bondsman," it is considered "a present [of a harlot]."51 [The above applies] provided [the Jewish bondsman] does not have a wife and children. If, however, he does have a wife and children, he is permitted [to engage in intimacy] with a Canaanite maidservant, as will be explained.52 This also applies if one tells a harlot:53"Here is an article for you. In return for it, engage in relations with so-and-so who is Jewish." [The present is considered as] "a present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 11
If a person made an agreement to give a harlot one lamb and [instead,] he gave her many - even if he gave her 1000 - they are considered as "presents [to a harlot]"54 and are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
If he gave her a present and did not engage in relations with her, but told her: "Let this be in your possession until I engage in relations with you," it becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] when he engages in relations with her.55 If she had it sacrificed before he engaged in relations with her, it is acceptable56 and if she was obligated to bring a sacrifice, she has discharged her obligation, provided when he gave it to he told her: "When you accept my [proposition], you acquire it from the present time."57 If he did not tell her so, [it is not acceptable] because she cannot bring an article that does not belong to her58 as a sacrifice.
Halacha 12
If she took the initiative and consecrated it [for a sacrifice] before he entered relations with her and afterwards, he engaged in relations with her [before it was sacrificed], there is an unresolved doubt59 whether it is considered "the present [of a harlot"] - because he engaged in relations with her before it was sacrificed - or whether it is not considered as such, since she consecrated it before relations.60 Hence, it should not be sacrificed,61 but if it is sacrificed, it is acceptable.62
Halacha 13
If he engaged in relations with her, but did not give her anything, and then afterwards - even many years afterwards - he gave it to her, it is considered "the present [of a harlot"].
When does the above apply?63 With regard to a gentile woman64 whom he told: "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb," for she does not have to draw it into her domain [to acquire it]65 or with regard to a Jewish woman when the lamb was left in her courtyard and he told her: "If I do not give you money on this day, [the lamb] is yours."66 If, however, he told her : "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb" without any further explanation and then engaged in relations and sent her the lamb afterwards, it is permissible [to be sacrificed; it is not considered] "the present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 14
Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money67 and she bought a sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
If he gave her grain and she had it made into fine flour; [he gave her] olives and she had oil made from them; [he gave her] grapes, and she had wine made from them, they are acceptable, because their form has changed.68
If he gave her a consecrated animal as her present, it does not become forbidden to the altar.69 Even if he designated her as one of those to eat from his Paschal sacrifice70 or his festive offering71 as a present, the consecrated animals are not disqualified, for the Temple already acquired them at the time they were consecrated.72 Similarly, if he gave her an entity that did not belong to him, he did not disqualify it, for a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be forbidden unless the owner despairs of its recovery.73
If, however, he gave her doves, even though they are consecrated, they can be considered as "a present to a harlot." This concept was conveyed as part of the Oral Tradition.74
Halacha 16
What is meant by "an exchange for a dog"?75 A person tells a colleague: "Take this lamb in exchange for this dog." Similarly, if he exchanged a dog for several animals or fowl, they are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 17
When two partners divided [their goods], one took ten lambs and one took nine lambs and a dog, [the lambs] that are with the dog are permitted [as sacrifices], but [there are restrictions with regard to] the ten given in exchange for them. If the value of one of them is equivalent to the value of the dog or greater, it should be set aside and it [alone] is considered as "the exchange [for a dog]." The remainder are permitted [as sacrifices]. If the value of each of them is less than the value of the dog, they are all forbidden.76
Halacha 18
If [the entity given in] exchange [for the dog] underwent a change, for example, he exchanged a dog for wheat and ground it into flour, it is permitted.77
The present [given] to a dog78 and an exchange given for a harlot79are permitted. "A present to a harlot" and "the exchange for a dog" are permitted to be given to the Temple, for they undergo a change.80 The actual substance of a present [to a harlot] should not be used as beaten metal for the Temple, as [implied by Deuteronomy 23:19]: "For every vow," [which is interpreted81] as including sheet metal.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Rambam does not mention an animal that had relations with a person, for that is not possible with regard to a fowl.
|
| 2. |
The Rambam mentioned this concept in the previous chapter. In this chapter, he outlines the details of these restrictions. The point of this halachah is that the restrictions apply to a fowl as well as to an animal.
|
| 3. |
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:16; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:1.
|
| 4. |
Even if slaughtered according to Jewish Law (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:22; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9).
|
| 5. |
In matters of financial law, the testimony of one witness is of consequence only that it can require an oath to be taken.
|
| 6. |
Similarly, the testimony of a person regarding his own property is of no consequence.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam mentions two other instances where this law applies: the animal was consecrated before being brought to court or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile.
|
| 7. |
See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:5 which explains that such an animal is not executed, becauseExodus 21:28 requires such a punishment: "When an ox gores...," i.e., that it does so on its own initiative, and not when it was prompted to gore.
See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 3, Halachah 5, where he states that such an animal should be forbidden to the altar under all circumstances just like a sodomized animal is.
|
| 8. |
For relations with a male are not significant until that age (Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 1:16; et al).
|
| 9. |
See Hilchot Melachim 9:5-6 which states that although a gentile is liable to be executed for engaging in sexual relations with an animal, the animal itself is not executed. Nevertheless, involvement in the transgression disqualifies it as a sacrifice.
|
| 10. |
See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:8, et al, where it is explained that until a girl is three years old, sexual relations with her are not significant.
|
| 11. |
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on the latter point, noting that the ages the Rambam mentions are relevant with regard to the punishment of execution by stoning. Nevertheless, he argues that since the animal is disqualified from being offered as a sacrifice, because it becomes offensive to offer it after it engaged in forbidden relations, that concept would seemingly apply regardless of the age of the human with whom it engaged in those relations. Moreover, since the animal derived pleasure, the sexual activity should be considered significant. The Kessef Mishnehjustifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what is significant here is the halachic definition of sexual relations, not the pleasure the animal experiences. Since halachicly, the act is not considered as sex, the animal is not forbidden.
|
| 12. |
The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
|
| 13. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that if one designated an animal as a false deity, that is sufficient to cause the animal to become repugnant and forbidden as a sacrifice, even if a deed is not performed. The Radbaz brings support for the Ra'avad's ruling from Isaiah 30:22which when speaking about making the covering of idol's impure uses the expression: "Tell it: 'Be gone,'" implying that "telling it," i.e., speaking is sufficient to cause an article to be considered as an idol.
The difference between the Rambam's view and that of the Ra'avad results from a variation in the text of Temurah 29a. According to the Rambam, the passage is speaking about an animal dedicated to the service of a false deity, while according to the Ra'avad, it refers to an animal intended to be worshiped as a false deity. (The standard printed text supports the Rambam's version, although Rashi mentions the other version as well.). The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice only when it is forbidden to benefit from it. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, whether an animal is designated to be worshipped or as a sacrifice to a false deity, it does not become forbidden until a deed is performed. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the prohibition against benefiting from the animal is different from the prohibition against offering the animal as a sacrifice. More stringent rules apply in the latter context.
|
| 14. |
The Radbaz states that in an instance where two witnesses did not observe the transgression (as stated in Halachah 2), the person who engaged in relations with the animal is not at all liable to its owner financially, for he is not prohibited against benefiting from the animal.
|
| 15. |
In contrast to an animal which kills which is not disqualified if it was goaded into killing (see Halachah 3), an animal that engaged in relations with a human is disqualified in all instances. Since the act causes it to be considered loathsome, the circumstances under which the act was performed are of no consequence.
|
| 16. |
This applies even (as stated in the previous halachah), he performed a deed indicating that the animal was set aside for pagan worship (Radbaz).
|
| 17. |
For once he consecrated it as a sacrifice, it is as if it no longer belongs to him.
|
| 18. |
Since a transgression has not been performed with it as of yet, it is not considered as loathsome (Radbaz).
|
| 19. |
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim (and in many other sources) a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
|
| 20. |
The Ra'avad quotes Avodah Zarah 54a which states that the above restriction applies only when one performs a deed with the article he worshipped. From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, it is apparent that he maintains that the principle that a person cannot cause property that does not belong to him to be forbidden to be used applies even if he actually worships the article as a false deity and even when he performs a deed. The Rambam here is speaking about causing the article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to the altar and for that, a deed is not necessary.
|
| 21. |
Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Since the animal was consecrated, it cannot be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed and it cannot be redeemed until it is blemished.
|
| 22. |
Any garments or ornaments used to adorn the false deity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Teumrah 6:1), the Rambam explains the reason for this restriction is that the ornaments were worshipped together with the false deity.
|
| 23. |
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:7.
|
| 24. |
Since they have not been worshipped, one is permitted to benefit from them and they may even be used as sacrifices [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
|
| 25. |
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 which states that "Any article that was not touched by human hands or made by man will is permitted to be used even though it was worshipped as a false deity."
|
| 26. |
Or any other part of the Temple building (Radbaz). As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16, the altar was made with whole stones, both large and small over which is poured a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead. In the above instance, since the stones were taken from a mountain that was worshipped, it is inappropriate for them to be used for the altar.
|
| 27. |
Implied is that if the water is not his own, it may be used even as a libation even though it was worshipped (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Radbaz notes that no such leniency is granted with regard to the stones mentioned in the previous clauae. He differentiates between the two as follows: The water of a spring is constantly flowing. Thus the water that was worshipped is not the same water that will be used for the libation. The stones of the mountain, by contrast, were worshipped themselves. Hence even though they are not a person's private property, they may not be used for the Temple.
|
| 28. |
In this instance as well, an ordinary person is permitted to use the water, but it is inappropriate to be used for the altar.
|
| 29. |
I.e., the water libation offered during the Sukkot holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-10.
|
| 30. |
A tree that is worshipped. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:3, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim8:3; et al.
|
| 31. |
In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8, the Rambam writes that once a gentile nullifies the connection of a worshipped entity to paganism, it is permitted to benefit from it. The subsequent halachot in that chapter describe the process of nullification. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that although it is permitted to benefit from the article afterwards, the fact that it was once worshipped - or served as an accessory to an article worshipped - prevents it from being offered as a sacrifice.
|
| 32. |
Similarly, the branches of a palm tree that was worshipped should not be used as a lulav (Hilchot Lulav 8:1).
|
| 33. |
See the conclusion of the tractate of Kinnim which mentions how a sacrificial animal can be used for these purposes.
There the Mishnah states that the wool is unacceptable for use as techelet. The Kessef Mishnehnotes that although in Chapter 3, Halachah 14, the Rambam ruled that even though wheat was worshipped, the flour made from it is not disqualified for use as a meal offering, because it underwent a change. In this and the other instances mentioned below, although the color and the form of the article may have undergone a change, that change does not alter its fundamental nature and it is still disqualified for the altar and its service.
Such wool is also disqualified for use in tzitzit or for any other purpose associated with a mitzvah. See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:8).
|
| 34. |
I.e., as shofarot that are sounded together with the trumpets (Hilchot Taaniot 1:4).
|
| 35. |
Among the instruments sounded in the Temple service were flutes (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:4-6). Apparently, the thighs of sacrificial animals were hollowed out and converted into such instruments.
|
| 36. |
Which were also employed in the Temple service (ibid.).
|
| 37. |
Because it was an integral part of an entity that was worshipped.
|
| 38. |
This general principle summarizes the concepts mentioned in the previous halachot. The Rambam now goes on to discuss other reasons why animals were forbidden as sacrifices.
|
| 39. |
Which is forbidden to be used as a sacrifice as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
|
| 40. |
I.e., in exchange for intimacy.
|
| 41. |
The Rambam is explaining that here the emphasis is on the halachic meaning of the term zonah("harlot") and not its popular meaning. The point is not that the present is forbidden because it was given in exchange for intimacy, but that it was given in exchange for intimacy with a woman who meets the halachic definitions of that term. That definition is given in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1: "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah7 used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess (thus excluding a gentile woman or maidservant) [or] a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable" (excluding the prohibited relations the Rambam mentions).
|
| 42. |
Incestuous and adulterous sexual relations for which one is liable for karet (Hilchot Ishut 1:5). These forbidden relationships are mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18.
|
| 43. |
The nine forbidden relationships mentioned in Hilchot Isut 1:7.
|
| 44. |
I.e., although he is engaging in intimacy out of lust and in exchange for payment, the woman is not termed a harlot, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:2 states: "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone... she is not deemed as a zonah... for she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]."
|
| 45. |
I.e., she has experienced menstrual bleeding and has not purified herself afterwards.
|
| 46. |
For such relationships are also punishable by karet (see Hilchot Issurei Biah 4:1). Nevertheless, the fact that a woman is in the niddah state does not prevent the consecration of a woman from taking effect.
|
| 47. |
The consecration of such a woman is binding and she is considered as his wife (Hilchot Ishut4:14).
|
| 48. |
Because he is forbidden to marry her and thus the present meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 49. |
See Temurah 29b.
|
| 50. |
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that although in a strict halachic sense, there is no prohibition against offering such an article as a sacrifice, it is an abomination unto God and should not be offered.
|
| 51. |
There are two points expressed by this halachah: a) that, as stated above, a Canaanite maidservant is considered as a harlot;
b) that even though the present is not being given by the person engaging in the intimate relations, the present is still forbidden as a sacrifice.
|
| 52. |
Hilchot Avadim 3:3-4.
|
| 53. |
I.e., one might think that the law applies only with regard to a bondsman and his master, for the master has authority over the bondsman and has certain responsibilities toward him, but not with regard to two free men who are not associated in this manner (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 54. |
And not an ordinary gift (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). This applies even when he does not explicitly say that he gave them to her because of the relations they shared (Radbaz).
|
| 55. |
Because it was given to her in exchange for relations. It is not significant whether it was given before the relations or afterwards.
|
| 56. |
Because they had not engaged in relations yet. We do not say that since it was designated as "a present for a harlot," it is forbidden as a sacrifice (Radbaz).
|
| 57. |
Thus she was the legal owner at the time it was sacrificed.
|
| 58. |
If he did not make such a stipulation, he remains the legal owner of the animal. It is in the woman's possession as security, but she is not its owner.
|
| 59. |
Temurah 29b considers this question and does not reach a conclusion.
|
| 60. |
And from the time an entity is consecrated, it is considered as having been given to the Temple. Hence, it could be considered as if it already had been sacrificed.
|
| 61. |
Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.
|
| 62. |
As evident from Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:20, this is the ruling whenever there is a question whether an substance offered as a sacrifice is acceptable.
|
| 63. |
The principle under which this halachah operates is that for a "present to a harlot" to be forbidden as a sacrifice, it must be acquired by the woman at the time of relations even though it does not come into her full possession until afterwards.(Temurah 29a).
|
| 64. |
I.e., if the gentile woman later desires to offer this animal as a sacrifice, it is not accepted from her. Although we do accept animals brought by gentiles as burnt offerings, the animals must be acceptable.
|
| 65. |
According to Scriptural Law, an exchange is completed when an exchange is made. Hence, at the time the two engaged in relations, the lamb became the woman's property. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that movable property is not transferred to the legal domain of the recipient until he acquires it through meshichah, physically drawing it into his possession (Hilchot Mechirah 3:1). Our Sages, however, did not impose this decree with regard to gentiles and transactions with them follow the original guidelines of Scriptural Law (see (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14). Hence a gentile harlot became the legal owner of the lamb directly after the relations. Hence it is considered as "the present of a harlot." The fact that it was not given to her until years afterwards is not significant.
|
| 66. |
Because a person's courtyard can acquire an article on his or her behalf when it is placed within (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:8). Hence, while the women is holding the lamb in lieu of the money, it is considered to have entered her possession.
|
| 67. |
Or other entities.
|
| 68. |
The finished product is considered as different from the raw material from which it is made.
|
| 69. |
For a consecrated article is not considered as his personal property. Hence, it is not his to give her (Temurah 30b).
|
| 70. |
To partake of a Paschal sacrifice, one must designated to partake of it from the outset.
|
| 71. |
This refers to the festive offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to accompany the Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:11.
|
| 72. |
Although the owner retains the right to give others to partake of the offerings, they are not considered as his private property. Instead, he is giving them the right to partake of consecrated property, not his own possessions.
|
| 73. |
For at that point - since the owner has despaired of its return and it has departed from the possession of the thief - the harlot becomes its legal owner (see Hilchot Geneivah 5:3). Accordingly, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.
|
| 74. |
I.e., the Rambam understands Temurah 30b as deriving this law from the exegesis of a verse. According to logic, we would apply the principle: A person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be become forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding the interpretation of the above passage. He maintains that it is speaking about ordinary doves. Nevertheless, since blemished doves are acceptable as sacrifices (Chapter 3, Halachah 1), one might think that a present to a harlot is also acceptable. Therefore, the Torah must teach us that this is not the case. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh favor the Ra'avad's understanding of the passage.
|
| 75. |
Which is forbidden for the altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
|
| 76. |
For a certain portion of each one is being given in exchange for the dog.
|
| 77. |
For the article being offered is not considered as the article exchanged.
|
| 78. |
I.e., a person sodomized a dog and separated a lamb as a fee.
|
| 79. |
I.e., a person gave a colleague a lamb in exchange for a maidservant that was a harlot.
|
| 80. |
I.e., the articles donated to the Temple treasury are sold and the money used for improvements. Thus the distasteful article itself is not becoming part of the Temple.
|
| 81. |
See Temurah 30a.
|
• Wednesday, Sivan 2, 5775 · 20 May 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Bamidbar, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 10-17.
Tanya: As (this wisdom) (p. 273)...is termed "Shechinah" (p. 277).
Ana B'choach at Kabalat Shabbat (p. 131) is said in an undertone.
Ufros aleinu... at Kabalat Shabbat (p. 138) is said standing.
In the year 5589 (1829) the Shabbat of Parshat Bamidbar was on 5 Sivan. Before the kindling of the Shabbat candles, the Tzemach Tzedek delivered the maamar, S'u et rosh...avotam.1 Following the commentary of Ibn Ezra, he interpreted the word S'u in the sense of elevation, as in "Ki tisa et rosh,"2 (lit. "When you take up the head.") The implication is that through avoda of the radiance of the soul within the body, an elevation is effected in the head (rosh) and essence of the soul as it is Above.3 In this vein he then explained a number of Torah-verses and statements in Zohar and Midrash.
At noon on Shabbat the Rebbe delivered the maamar V'eirastich and its elaboration as printed in Likutei Torah. The next day, the first day of Shavuot, he delivered the maamar Us'fartem and its elaboration as printed in Likutei Torah. During the festival meal of the second day of Shavuot, the Rebbe delivered the maamar V'hachachma mei'ayin timatzei which is the second elaboration on the subject of tisp'ru chamishim yomprinted in Likutei Torah.
FOOTNOTES
1. Bamidbar 1:2.
2. Sh'mot 30:12.
3. "Above" refers to the soul before its descent into the material world and the body, and to that element of the soul that always remains "Above," not descending into the body. In general "Above" refers to the planes "higher" than the physical universe.
Daily Thought:
Defining Your World
We are not passive observers of this universe, but rather partners in its creation. We are the ones who assign each thing its meaning, who bring definition and resolution to an otherwise ambiguous world.
In fact, we are legal witnesses who determine a matter of life or death: For each thing we hold, each event that enters our life, our word declares whether it breathes with G‑dly life or simply idles itself into oblivion.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment