CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Today is: Thursday, Sivan 3, 5775 · May 21, 2015 - Omer: Day 47 - Hod sheb'Malchut
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Three Days of "Hagbalah" Begin
Today begin the three days of preparation for the festival of Shavuot known as the "Three Days of Hagbalah" (see today's "Today in Jewish History"); in the custom of certain communities, the mourning practices of the Omer period, such as not to hold weddings or get a haircut, are now suspended.
• Count "Forty-Eight Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the forty-eighth 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-eight days, which are six weeks and six 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: Yesod sheb'Malchut -- "Connection 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:
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Jews Prepare to Receive Torah (1313 BCE)
On Sivan 3, G-d instructed Moses to "set boundaries for the people around, saying, 'Beware of ascending the mountain or touching its edge...'" (Exodus 19:10-12) in preparation for the Giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai three days later. To this day, we mark the "Three Days of Hagbalah ('Boundaries')" leading to the Giving of the Torah on Sivan 6.
Links:
• Vespasian Captures Jericho (68 CE)
In his advance towards the destruction of Jerusalem, Rome Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus ("Vespasian") captures Jericho and massacres all its inhabitants.
Daily Quote:
And I will betroth you to Me forever[Hosea 2:21]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bamidbar, 5th Portion Numbers 3:14-3:39 with Rashi
• Chapter 3
14The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai desert, saying: ידוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי לֵאמֹר:
15Count the children of Levi according to their fathers' house according to their families. Count all males from the age of one month and upward. טופְּקֹד אֶת בְּנֵי לֵוִי לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה תִּפְקְדֵם:
From the age of one month and upward: When he is no longer in the category of [possible] premature birth, he is counted among those called, “keepers of the holy charge.” R. Judah the son of R. Shalom said: That tribe is accustomed to being counted from the womb, as it says, “whom she bore to Levi in Egypt” ; as she entered the gate of Egypt, she bore her [Jochebed], yet she [Jochebed] was counted as one of the seventy souls. For if you count their total, you find only sixty-nine, but she completed the number. [Mid. Tanchuma , Bamidbar 16] מבן חדש ומעלה: משיצא מכלל נפלים הוא נמנה ליקרא שומר משמרת הקדש. אמר ר' יהודה ברבי שלום למוד הוא אותו השבט להיות נמנה מן הבטן, שנאמר (במד' כו, כט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, עם כניסתה בפתח מצרים ילדה אותה. ונמנית בשבעים נפש, שכשאתה מונה חשבונם לא תמצאם אלא שבעים חסר אחת, והיא השלימה את המנין:
16So Moses counted them according to God's word, just as he was commanded. טזוַיִּפְקֹד אֹתָם משֶׁה עַל פִּי יְהוָֹה כַּאֲשֶׁר צֻוָּה:
according to God’s word: Moses said to the Holy One, blessed is He, “How can I enter their tents to know the number of their sucklings?” The Holy One, blessed is He, replied to him, “You do yours, and I will do Mine.” Moses went and stood at the entrance to the tent, and the Divine Presence preceded him. A heavenly voice then emanated from the tent, saying, “There are this many babies in this tent.” That is why it says, “according to God’s word.” [Num. Rabbah 3:9] על פי ה': אמר משה לפני הקב"ה היאך אני נכנס לבתי כלם ולתוך אהליהם לדעת מנין יונקיהם. אמר לו הקב"ה עשה אתה את שלך ואני אעשה את שלי. הלך משה ועמד על פתח האהל והשכינה מקדמת לפניו, ובת קול יוצאת מן האהל ואומרת כך וכך תינוקות יש באהל זה, לכך נאמר על פי ה':
17These were the names of Levi's sons: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. יזוַיִּהְיוּ אֵלֶּה בְנֵי לֵוִי בִּשְׁמֹתָם גֵּרְשׁוֹן וּקְהָת וּמְרָרִי:
18The names of the sons of Gershon according to their families were Libni and Shim'ei. יחוְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לִבְנִי וְשִׁמְעִי:
19And the sons of Kohath according to their families were Amram, Itzhar, Hebron, and Uziel. יטוּבְנֵי קְהָת לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם עַמְרָם וְיִצְהָר חֶבְרוֹן וְעֻזִּיאֵל:
20And the sons of Merari according to their families were Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of Levi according to their fathers' houses. כוּבְנֵי מְרָרִי לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם מַחְלִי וּמוּשִׁי אֵלֶּה הֵם מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַלֵּוִי לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם:
21For Gershon, the Libnite family and the Shim'eite family; these are the Gershonite families. כאלְגֵרְשׁוֹן מִשְׁפַּחַת הַלִּבְנִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַשִּׁמְעִי אֵלֶּה הֵם מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי:
For Gershon, the Libnite family: That is to say, from Gershon, those counted were the Libnite family and Shim’eite family; their numbers were so many and so many. לגרשון משפחת הלבני: כלומר לגרשון היו הפקודים משפחת הלבני ומשפחת השמעי פקודיהם כך וכך:
22Their sum was made according to the number of males from the age of one month and upward; the tally amounted to seven thousand, five hundred. כבפְּקֻדֵיהֶם בְּמִסְפַּר כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וָמָעְלָה פְּקֻדֵיהֶם שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
23The Gershonite families shall camp behind the Mishkan, to the west. כגמִשְׁפְּחֹת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי אַחֲרֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן יַחֲנוּ יָמָּה:
24The prince of the father's house of the Gershonites is Eliasaph the son of Lael. כדוּנְשִׂיא בֵית אָב לַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן לָאֵל:
25The charge of the sons of Gershon in the Tent of Meeting [included] the Mishkan, the Tent, its cover, and the screen for the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. כהוּמִשְׁמֶרֶת בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְהָאֹהֶל מִכְסֵהוּ וּמָסַךְ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
the Mishkan: The bottom curtains. המשכן: יריעות התחתונות:
the Tent: The curtains made of goats’ hair, which served as the roof. והאהל: יריעות עזים העשויות לגג:
its cover: Ram skins and tachash skins. מכסהו: עורות אילים ותחשים:
the screen for the entrance: This is the curtain. ומסך פתח: הוא הוילון:
26The hangings of the courtyard, the screen at the entrance to the courtyard, which is around the Mishkan and the altar, its ropes, as well as all the work involved. כווְקַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר וְאֶת מָסַךְ פֶּתַח הֶחָצֵר אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב וְאֵת מֵיתָרָיו לְכֹל עֲבֹדָתוֹ:
and its ropes: of the Mishkan and the tent, but not of the courtyard. ואת מיתריו: של משכן והאהל ולא של חצר:
27For Kohath, the Amramite family, the Izharite family, the Hebronite family, and the Uzielite family; these are the families of Kohath. כזוְלִקְהָת מִשְׁפַּחַת הָעַמְרָמִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַיִּצְהָרִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַחֶבְרֹנִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הָעָזִּיאֵלִי אֵלֶּה הֵם מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַקְּהָתִי:
28The number of all males from the age of one month and upward amounted to eight thousand six hundred, the keepers of the charge of the holy. כחבְּמִסְפַּר כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וָמָעְלָה שְׁמֹנַת אֲלָפִים וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ:
29The families of the sons of Kohath shall camp to the south side of the Mishkan. כטמִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי קְהָת יַחֲנוּ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁכָּן תֵּימָנָה:
The families of the sons of Kohath shall camp to the south: Near them was the division of Reuben, who camped to the south. Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor! This explains why Dathan, Abiram, and two hundred and fifty men were smitten with Korah and his congregation, for they were drawn into the dispute along with them. [Tanchuma, Bamidbar 12] משפחת בני קהת יחנו וגו' תימנה: וסמוכין להם דגל ראובן החונים תימנה, אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, לכך לקו מהם דתן ואבירם ומאתים וחמשים איש עם קרח ועדתו, שנמשכו עמהם במחלוקתם:
30The prince of the father's house of the Kohathite families is Elizaphan the son of Uziel. לוּנְשִׂיא בֵית אָב לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת הַקְּהָתִי אֱלִיצָפָן בֶּן עֻזִּיאֵל:
31Their charge [included] the ark, the table, the menorah, the altars, and the holy utensils with which they would minister, and the screen and all the work involved. לאוּמִשְׁמַרְתָּם הָאָרֹן וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהַמְּנֹרָה וְהַמִּזְבְּחֹת וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ בָּהֶם וְהַמָּסָךְ וְכֹל עֲבֹדָתוֹ:
the screen: This refers to the dividing curtain [at the entrance to the Holy of Holies], for it is also known as [a screen, as in the phrase] “the screening dividing curtain” (Ex. 40:21). והמסך: היא הפרכת, שאף היא קרויה פרכת המסך:
32The prince over all the princes of the Levites shall be Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen, the appointment of all the keepers of the charge of the Holy. לבוּנְשִׂיא נְשִׂיאֵי הַלֵּוִי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן פְּקֻדַּת שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ:
The prince over all the princes of the Levites: He was appointed over all of them. In what regard was he prince over them? “The appointment of all the keepers of the charge of the Holy” - they were all appointed by him. ונשיא נשיאי הלוי: ממונה על כלם. ועל מה היא נשיאותו, פקודת שומרי משמרת הקודש, על ידו היה פקודת כולם:
33For Merari, the Machlite family and the Mushite family; these are the families of Merari. לגלִמְרָרִי מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמַּחְלִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַמּוּשִׁי אֵלֶּה הֵם מִשְׁפְּחֹת מְרָרִי:
34Their tally according to the number of males from the age of one month and upward was six thousand two hundred. לדוּפְקֻדֵיהֶם בְּמִסְפַּר כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וָמָעְלָה שֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וּמָאתָיִם:
35The prince of the father's house of the Merarite families is Zuriel the son of Abihail; they shall camp on the north side of the Mishkan. להוּנְשִׂיא בֵית אָב לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת מְרָרִי צוּרִיאֵל בֶּן אֲבִיחָיִל עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁכָּן יַחֲנוּ צָפֹנָה:
36The appointment of the charge of the sons of Merari [included] the planks of the Mishkan, its bars, its pillars, and its sockets, all its utensils, and all the work involved. לווּפְקֻדַּת מִשְׁמֶרֶת בְּנֵי מְרָרִי קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּבְרִיחָיו וְעַמֻּדָיו וַאֲדָנָיו וְכָל כֵּלָיו וְכֹל עֲבֹדָתוֹ:
37Also the pillars of the surrounding courtyard, their sockets, their stakes, and their ropes. לזוְעַמֻּדֵי הֶחָצֵר סָבִיב וְאַדְנֵיהֶם וִיתֵדֹתָם וּמֵיתְרֵיהֶם:
38Camping in front of the Mishkan, in front of the Tent of Meeting to the east were Moses, Aaron and his sons, the keepers of the charge of the Sanctuary as a trust for the children of Israel; any outsider who approaches shall be put to death. לחוְהַחֹנִים לִפְנֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן קֵדְמָה לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד | מִזְרָחָה משֶׁה | וְאַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו שֹׁמְרִים מִשְׁמֶרֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת:
Moses, Aaron and his sons: Near them was the division of the camp of Judah, next to whom camped Issachar and Zebulun. It is good for the righteous, and it is good for his neighbor; because they were neighbors of Moses, who was engaged in Torah study, they became great Torah scholars, as it says, “Judah is my lawgiver” (Ps. 60:9). The descendants of Issachar were those “who had understanding of the times” (I Chron. 12:32)… the two hundred heads of the Sanhedrin,“and from Zebulun came those who wield the scribe’s quill” (Jud. 5:14). [Tanchuma 12] משה ואהרן ובניו: וסמוכין להם דגל מחנה יהודה, והחונים עליו יששכר וזבולן, טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, לפי שהיו שכניו של משה שהיה עוסק בתורה, נעשו גדולים בתורה, שנאמר (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי, ומבני יששכר יודעי בינה וגו' (דה"י א' יב לג) מאתים ראשי סנהדראות, ומזבולן מושכים בשבט סופר (שופטים ה יד):
39The sum of the male Levites according to their families, from the age of one month and upward, counted by Moses and Aaron according to the word of the Lord, was twenty two thousand. לטכָּל פְּקוּדֵי הַלְוִיִּם אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פִּי יְהוָֹה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה שְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף:
counted by Moses and Aaron: There are dots over the word וְאַהֲרֹן to show that he was not included in the sum of the Levites. [Bech. 4a] אשר פקד משה ואהרן: נקוד על ואהרן, לומר שלא היה במנין הלוים:
twenty-two thousand: But when you count them individually, you will find another three hundred: the descendants of Gershon were seven thousand, five hundred; the descendants of Kohath were eight thousand, six hundred, and the descendants of Merari, six thousand, two hundred. Why were they not included with the rest to redeem the firstborn, thus exempting the two hundred and seventy-three firstborns who were in excess [of the number of Levites] from redemption (see verses 46-48)? Our Sages in Tractate Bechorot (5a) answer that those three hundred Levites were firstborns, and it was enough that they exempt themselves from redemption. שנים ועשרים אלף: ובפרטן אתה מוצא שלש מאות יתרים, בני גרשון שבעת אלפים וחמש מאות, בני קהת שמונת אלפים ושש מאות, בני מררי ששת אלפים ומאתים, [הרי שנים ועשרים אלף ושלש מאות]. ולמה לא כללן עם השאר ויפדו את הבכורות, ולא יהיו זקוקים השלשה ושבעים ומאתים בכורות העודפים על המנין לפדיון, אמרו רבותינו במסכת בכורות (בכורות ה א) אותן שלש מאות לוים בכורות היו ודים שיפקיעו עצמם מן הפדיון:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 18 - 22
• Chapter 18
If one merits a public miracle, he should offer a song to God, including in his song all the miracles that have occurred since the day the world was created, as well as the good that God wrought for Israel at the giving of the Torah. And he should say: "He Who has performed these miracles, may He do with me likewise."
1. For the Conductor. By the servant of the Lord, by David, who chanted the words of this song to the Lord on the day the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.2. He said, "I love You, Lord, my strength.3. The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my rescuer. My God is my strength in Whom I take shelter, my shield, the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.4. With praises I call upon the Lord, and I am saved from my enemies.5. For the pangs of death surrounded me, and torrents of evil people terrified me.6. Pangs of the grave encompassed me; snares of death confronted me.7. In my distress I called upon the Lord, I cried out to my God; and from His Sanctuary He heard my voice, and my supplication before Him reached His ears.8. The earth trembled and quaked; the foundations of the mountains shook-they trembled when His wrath flared.9. Smoke rose in His nostrils, devouring fire blazed from His mouth, and burning coals flamed forth from Him.10. He inclined the heavens and descended, a thick cloud was beneath His feet.11. He rode on a cherub and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind.12. He made darkness His concealment, His surroundings His shelter-of the dense clouds with their dark waters.13. Out of the brightness before Him, His clouds passed over, with hailstones and fiery coals.14. The Lord thundered in heaven, the Most High gave forth His voice-hailstones and fiery coals.15. He sent forth His arrows and scattered them; many lightnings, and confounded them.16. The channels of water became visible, the foundations of the world were exposed-at Your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of Your nostrils.17. He sent from heaven and took me; He brought me out of surging waters.18. He rescued me from my fierce enemy, and from my foes when they had become too strong for me.19. They confronted me on the day of my misfortune, but the Lord was my support.20. He brought me into spaciousness; He delivered me because He desires me.21. The Lord rewar-ded me in accordance with my righteousness; He repaid me according to the cleanliness of my hands.22. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not transgressed against my God;23. for all His laws are before me, I have not removed His statutes from me.24. I was perfect with Him, and have guarded myself from sin.25. The Lord repaid me in accordance with my righteousness, according to the cleanliness of my hands before His eyes.26. With the kindhearted You act kindly, with the upright man You act uprightly.27. With the pure You act purely, but with the crooked You act cun- ningly.28. For the destitute nation You save, but haughty eyes You humble.29. Indeed, You light my lamp; the Lord, my God, illuminates my darkness.30. For with You I run against a troop; with my God I scale a wall.31. The way of God is perfect; the word of the Lord is pure; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.32. For who is God except the Lord, and who is a rock except our God!33. The God Who girds me with strength, and makes my path perfect.34. He makes my feet like deers', and stands me firmly on my high places.35. He trains my hands for battle, my arms to bend a bow of bronze.36. You have given me the shield of Your deliverance, Your right hand upheld me; Your humility made me great.37. You have widened my steps beneath me, and my knees have not faltered.38. I pursued my enemies and overtook them; I did not turn back until I destroyed them.39. I crushed them so that they were unable to rise; they are fallen beneath my feet.40. You have girded me with strength for battle; You have subdued my adversaries beneath me.41. You have made my enemies turn their backs to me, and my foes I cut down.42. They cried out, but there was none to deliver them; to the Lord, but He did not answer them.43. I ground them as the dust before the wind, I poured them out like the mud in the streets.44. You have rescued me from the quarrelsome ones of the people, You have made me the head of nations; a nation I did not know became subservient to me.45. As soon as they hear of me they obey me; strangers deny to me [their disloyalty].46. Strangers wither away, they are terrified in their strongholds.47. The Lord lives; blessed is my Rock; exalted is the God of my deliverance.48. You are the God Who executes retribution for me, and subjugates nations under me.49. Who rescues me from my enemies, Who exalts me above my adversaries, Who delivers me from the man of violence.50. Therefore I will laud You, Lord, among the nations, and sing to Your Name.51. He grants His king great salvations, and bestows kindness upon His anointed, to David and his descendants forever."
Chapter 19
To behold God's might one should look to the heavens, to the sun, and to the Torah, from which awesome miracles and wonders can be perceived--wonders that lead the creations to tell of God's glory.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.2. The heavens recount the glory of the Almighty; the sky proclaims His handiwork.3. Day to day speech streams forth; night to night expresses knowledge.4. There is no utterance, there are no words; their voice is inaudible.5. Their arc extends throughout the world; their message to the end of the earth. He set in them [the heavens] a tent for the sun,6. which is like a groom coming forth from his bridal canopy, like a strong man rejoicing to run the course.7. Its rising is at one end of the heavens, and its orbit encompasses the other ends; nothing is hidden from its heat.8. The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the simpleton.9. The precepts of the Lord are just, rejoicing the heart; the command of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes.10. The fear of the Lord is pure, abiding forever; the judgments of the Lord are true, they are all righteous together.11. They are more desirable than gold, than much fine gold; sweeter than honey or the drippings of honeycomb.12. Indeed, Your servant is scrupulous with them; in observing them there is abundant reward.13. Yet who can discern inadvertent wrongs? Purge me of hidden sins.14. Also hold back Your servant from willful sins; let them not prevail over me; then I will be unblemished and keep myself clean of gross transgression.15. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before You, Lord, my Strength and my Redeemer.
Chapter 20
If a loved one or relative is suffering-even in a distant place, where one is unable to help-offer this prayer on their behalf.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.2. May the Lord answer you on the day of distress; may the Name of the God of Jacob fortify you.3. May He send your help from the Sanctuary, and support you from Zion.4. May He remember all your offerings, and always accept favorably your sacrifices.5. May He grant you your heart's desire, and fulfill your every counsel.6. We will rejoice in your deliverance, and raise our banners in the name of our God; may the Lord fulfill all your wishes.7. Now I know that the Lord has delivered His anointed one, answering him from His holy heavens with the mighty saving power of His right hand.8. Some [rely] upon chariots and some upon horses, but we [rely upon and] invoke the Name of the Lord our God.9. They bend and fall, but we rise and stand firm.10. Lord, deliver us; may the King answer us on the day we call.
Chapter 21
One who is endowed with prosperity, and whose every desire is granted, ought not be ungrateful. He should praise and thank God, recognize Him as the cause of his prosperity, and trust in Him. For everything comes from the kindness of the One Above.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.2. The king rejoices in Your strength, Lord; how greatly he exults in Your deliverance!3. You have given him his heart's desire, and You have never withheld the utterance of his lips.4. You preceded him with blessings of good; You placed a crown of pure gold on his head.5. He asked of You life, You gave it to him-long life, forever and ever.6. His glory is great in Your deliverance; You have placed majesty and splendor upon him.7. For You make him a blessing forever; You gladden him with the joy of Your countenance.8. For the king trusts in the Lord, and in the kindness of the Most High-that he will not falter.9. Your hand will suffice for all Your enemies; Your right hand will find those who hate You.10. You will make them as a fiery furnace at the time of Your anger. May the Lord consume them in His wrath; let a fire devour them.11. Destroy their offspring from the earth, their descendants from mankind.12. For they intended evil against You, they devised evil plans which they cannot execute.13. For You will set them as a portion apart; with Your bowstring You will aim at their faces.14. Be exalted, O Lord, in Your strength; we will sing and chant the praise of Your might.
Chapter 22
Every person should pray in agony over the length of the exile, and our fall from prestige to lowliness. One should also take vows (for self-improvement) in his distress.
1. For the Conductor, on the ayelet hashachar, a psalm by David.2. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me! So far from saving me, from the words of my outcry?3. My God, I call out by day, and You do not answer; at night-but there is no respite for me.4. Yet You, Holy One, are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.5. In You our fathers trusted; they trusted and You saved them.6. They cried to You and were rescued; they trusted in You and were not shamed.7. And I am a worm and not a man; scorn of men, contempt of nations.8. All who see me mock me; they open their lips, they shake their heads.9. But one that casts [his burden] upon the Lord-He will save him; He will rescue him, for He desires him.10. For You took me out of the womb, and made me secure on my mother's breasts.11. I have been thrown upon You from birth; from my mother's womb You have been my God.12. Be not distant from me, for trouble is near, for there is none to help.13. Many bulls surround me, the mighty bulls of Bashan encircle me.14. They open their mouths against me, like a lion that ravages and roars.15. I am poured out like water, all my bones are disjointed; my heart has become like wax, melted within my innards.16. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my palate; You set me in the dust of death.17. For dogs surround me, a pack of evildoers enclose me; my hands and feet are like a lion's prey.18. I count all my limbs, while they watch and gloat over me.19. They divide my garments amongst them; they cast lots upon my clothing.20. But You, Lord, do not be distant; my Strength, hurry to my aid!21. Save my life from the sword, my soul from the grip of dogs.22. Save me from the lion's mouth, as You have answered me from the horns of wild beasts.23. I will recount [the praises of] Your Name to my brothers; I will extol You amidst the congregation.24. You that fear the Lord, praise Him! Glorify Him, all you progeny of Jacob! Stand in awe of Him, all you progeny of Israel!25. For He has not despised nor abhorred the entreaty of the poor, nor has He concealed His face from him; rather He heard when he cried to Him.26. My praise comes from You, in the great congregation; I will pay my vows before those that fear Him.27. Let the humble eat and be satisfied; let those who seek the Lord praise Him-may your hearts live forever!28. All the ends of the earth will remember and return to the Lord; all families of nations will bow down before You.29. For sovereignty is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations.30. All the fat ones of the earth will eat and bow down, all who descend to the dust shall kneel before Him, but He will not revive their soul.31. The progeny of those who serve Him will tell of the Lord to the latter generations.32. They will come and relate His righteousness-all that He has done-to a newborn nation.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 53
• Thursday, Sivan 3, 5775 · May 21, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 53
The Alter Rebbe now concludes what he began to elucidate (in ch. 51) concerning the statement of the Yenuka in the Zohar — that the light of the Shechinah which shines above the head of a person needs oil. The Yenuka concludes, “...and these are good deeds” — the oil is the performance of the mitzvot.
In chassidic literature, however, oil traditionally refers to wisdom. What is the connection between the performance of mitzvot — and wisdom, which is called oil?
The Alter Rebbe explains that the light of the Shechinah must garb itself in wisdom, which is oil. For (as previously explained) wisdom, or intellect, is the vessel and “garment” for the light of the Shechinah, which is — Chochmah as it is garbed in Torah.
Yet, in order to draw down the light of the Shechinah so that it will shine upon the divine soul of the Jew, more than oil is necessary; one must also have a wick. Oil is transformed into light through the medium of a wick. It is the wick, which itself is burned, which keeps the fire from being extinguished.
In spiritual terms the wick refers to the vivifying soul which provides the person with physical life. This wick is burned through Torah and mitzvot. Just as the physical wick burns and is annihilated by the fire, so do the garments of thought, speech and action of the vivifying soul become burned in the light of the Shechinah through the Torah and mitzvot which a Jew studies and performs.
It is for this reason that the oil must also consist of “good deeds,” mitzvot, which have their source in G‑d’s wisdom; Torah alone (even though it is itself wisdom) does not suffice. For only through the action required by the mitzvot will the light of the Shechinah be drawn down into the wick — the vivifying soul. This is accomplished when the vivifying soul is burned thoroughly in the light of the Shechinah which shines on one’s head.
וזה שאמר הינוקא, דנהורא עילאה דאדליק על רישיה, היא שכינתא, איצטריך למשחא
And this is what the Yenuka in Zohar, quoted in ch. 35, meant when he said that “the Supernal light that is kindled on his (the Jew’s) head, namely, the Shechinah,requires oil,”
פירוש: להתלבש בחכמה, הנקראת שמן משחת קדש, כמו שכתוב בזהר
that is, to be clothed in wisdom, which is called “the oil of the holy anointing”— and “holy” signifies Chochmah, or wisdom, as is explained in the Zohar,
Thus, the light of the Shechinah which is upon one’s head is in need of oil, i.e., it must be garbed in Chochmah, for that is the vessel for the light of the Shechinah. The Zohar then quotes the conclusion of the statement of the Yenuka:
ואינון עובדין טבין, הן תרי״ג מצות, הנמשכות מחכמתו יתברך
“and these are the good deeds,” namely, the 613 commandments, which derive from His wisdom.
Torah, which is itself oil, does not suffice; there must also be good deeds — the performance of the mitzvot, although they are only drawn down from wisdom.
כדי לאחוז אור השכינה בפתילה, היא נפש החיונית שבגוף, הנקראת פתילה על דרך משל, כי כמו שבנר הגשמי האור מאיר על ידי כליון ושריפת הפתילה הנהפכת לאש, כך אור השכינה שורה על נפש האלקית
Thereby the light of the Shechinah can cling to the wick, i.e., the vivifying soul in the body, which is metaphorically called a “wick”. For just as in the case of a material candle, the light shines by virtue of the annihilation and burning of the wick turning to fire, so does the light of the Shechinah rest on the divine soul, which is the candle (“The soul of man is the candle of the L‑rd”),
על ידי כליון נפש הבהמית והתהפכותה מחשוכא לנהורא וממרירו למתקא, בצדיקים
as a result of the annihilation of the animal soul and its transformation from darkness of kelipah to light of holiness, and from bitterness of kelipat nogah to sweetness of holiness, in the case of the righteous — for tzaddikim (as mentioned in ch. 10) are those who transform the essence of the animal soul, its intellect and emotion, from evil into goodness and holiness,
או לפחות על ידי כליון לבושיה, שהן מחשבה דבור ומעשה
or at least through the destruction of its garments, which are thought, speech and action — which previously were garments of the vivifying soul, which is a soul ofkelipah,
והתהפכותן מחשך הקליפות לאור ה׳ אין סוף ברוך הוא, המלובש ומיוחד במחשבה דבור ומעשה של תרי״ג מצות התורה, בבינונים
and their transformation from the darkness of the kelipot to the Divine light of the Ein Sof, which is clothed and united in the thought, speech and action of the 613 commandments of the Torah, in the case of the Beinonim.
Beinonim, as explained in ch. 12, do not transform the essence of the vivifying soul into goodness and holiness. Only the soul-garments of thought, speech and action are transformed to goodness through being utilized for the thought, speech and action of the Torah and themitzvot. In this sense the wick of the vivifying soul is annihilated, and is transformed into the light of holiness.
כי על ידי התהפכות נפש הבהמית, הבאה מקליפת נוגה, מחשוכא לנהורא וכו׳, נעשה בחינת העלאת מ״ן
For as a result of the transformation of the animal soul, originating from kelipat nogah, from the darkness of kelipot, to the light of holiness, and so forth, there is brought about the so-called “ascent of the feminine waters” — the spiritual awakening on the initiative of the recipient, which in turn causes an arousal Above,
להמשיך אור השכינה, היא בחינת גילוי אור אין סוף ברוך הוא, על נפשו האלקית שבמוחין שבראשו
to draw down the light of the Shechinah (not only like the oil of Chochmah and Torah which is but a vessel for receiving the light of the Shechinah, but actually drawing down the light of the Shechinah), i.e., revealed light of the Ein Sof, over one’s divine soulprincipally dwelling in the brain of the head.
This is why the Yenuka says, “The Supernal light that is kindled over one’s head requires oil,” for the light that is over one’s head and “intelligence” is in need of the oil of the “good deeds.”
ובזה יובן היטב מה שכתוב: כי ה׳ אלקיך אש אוכלה הוא
Thereby one may clearly understand the text,1 “For the L‑rd Your G‑d is a consuming fire,”
Just as fire can only catch on an object when that object is being consumed by it, so, too, regarding the light of the Shechinah. In order for G‑d to become “your G‑d,” illuminating the Jew’s soul, there must be consumption by fire — burning and annihilating the wick of the vivifying soul, so that this soul of kelipah be transformed into the fire of holiness.
וכמו שכתוב במקום אחר
as is explained elsewhere2 — that only when a Jew succeeds in nullifying himself to G‑d in a manner where he ceases to exist as an independent entity, and is consumed in the flames of G‑dliness, — only then will he draw down upon himself the light of the Shechinah.
נשלם חלק ראשון בעזרת ה׳ יתברך ויתעלה
CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST PART, WITH THE HELP OF G-D, MAY HE BE BLESSED AND EXALTED
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 4:24. |
| 2. | Note of the Rebbe: “This possibly refers to what appears in Likkutei Torah, beginning ofAcharei.” |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Thursday, Sivan 3, 5775 · May 21, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 60
Minimum Age for Animal Sacrifices
"It shall remain under its mother for seven days, and from the eighth day onwards, it shall be accepted as a sacrifice"—Leviticus 22:27.
When bringing an animal sacrifice, we are commanded to bring animals that are in the eighth day of their lives and onwards.
Minimum Age for Animal Sacrifices
Minimum Age for Animal Sacrifices
Positive Commandment 60
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 60th mitzvah is that we are commanded that every animal we sacrifice must be no less than eight days old. This is known as being m'chusar z'man b'gufo (itself lacking time).1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "It must remain with its mother for seven days; then, after the eighth day, it shall be acceptable as a sacrifice." This commandment is repeated in other words in the verse,3 "It shall be with its mother for seven days [; from the eighth day you may offer it to Me]."
This mitzvah covers all sacrifices, with all the various categories of individual and communal offerings.
The expression, "After the eighth day, it shall be acceptable," implies that beforehand it is not acceptable. This clearly indicates a prohibition against bringing the sacrifice before the proper time. But the prohibition is derived from a positive commandment (lav haba mik'lal aseh), and is therefore not punishable by lashes. Therefore, one who sacrifices an animal before the proper time does not receive lashes, as explained in the chapter Oso v'es b'no:4 "Omit [from the list of prohibitions punishable by lashes] m'chusar zman which Scripture expresses as a positive commandment."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in Sifra5 and in the end of tractate Zevachim.6
FOOTNOTES
1.This is in contrast with something which is m'chusar z'man b'balav (its owners lacking time), i.e. invalid because the owner has not yet completed the waiting period required for purification.
2.Lev. 22:27.
3.Ex. 22:29.
4.Chullin 80b.
5.Parshas Emor.
6.112b.
Negative Commandment 100
Sacrificing an Animal that has been Obtained through a Disrespectful Exchange
"You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog"—Deuteronomy 23:19.
It is forbidden to bring as a sacrifice an animal that was given to a harlot as payment for services or an animal acquired in exchange for a dog.
Sacrificing an Animal that has been Obtained through a Disrespectful Exchange
Negative Commandment 100
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 100th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering a prostitute's fee or price of a dog on the altar.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not bring a prostitute's fee2 or the price of a dog3 [to the Temple of G‑d]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the sixth chapter of tractate Temurah. One who offers either of them, although the sacrifice is invalid, receives lashes, as if [he sacrificed] a blemished animal.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 23:19.
2.I.e. an animal (or anything else fit for an offering, such as wine) which was used to pay a prostitute. See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 4:8ff.
3.I.e. an animal that was given, instead of money, as payment for a dog. Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 4:16.
Negative Commandment 98
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
"For you shall not cause to [go up in] smoke any leavening or any honey, [as] a fire offering to G‑d"—Leviticus 2:11.
It is forbidden to offer on the altar any honey or leavened item.
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
Negative Commandment 98
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 98th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering leaven or honey on the altar.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not burn any leaven or honey as a burnt-offering to G‑d." This prohibition is repeated in other words in the verse,2 "Do not make any meal offering that is sacrificed to G‑d out of leavened dough."
We explained in the Ninth Introductory Principle that one who offers leaven and honey receives one set of lashes, not two. This is because it is a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition], as we explained there; and we have also explained that one receives only one set of lashes for a lav she'b'klalus.3 An example of this is that one who offers honey is lashed once; one who offers leaven is lashed once; and so too one who offers leavened dough and honey together.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 2:11.
2.Ibid.
3.See also N94
Negative Commandment 98
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
"For you shall not cause to [go up in] smoke any leavening or any honey, [as] a fire offering to G‑d"—Leviticus 2:11.
It is forbidden to offer on the altar any honey or leavened item.
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
Negative Commandment 98
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 98th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering leaven or honey on the altar.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not burn any leaven or honey as a burnt-offering to G‑d." This prohibition is repeated in other words in the verse,2 "Do not make any meal offering that is sacrificed to G‑d out of leavened dough."
We explained in the Ninth Introductory Principle that one who offers leaven and honey receives one set of lashes, not two. This is because it is a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition], as we explained there; and we have also explained that one receives only one set of lashes for a lav she'b'klalus.3 An example of this is that one who offers honey is lashed once; one who offers leaven is lashed once; and so too one who offers leavened dough and honey together.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 2:11.
2.Ibid.
3.See also N94 __________________________________________________________
Positive Commandment 62
Offering Salt with Every Sacrifice
"With all your offerings you shall offer salt"—Leviticus 2:13.
We are commanded to offer a salt accompaniment together with every sacrifice.
Offering Salt with Every Sacrifice
Positive Commandment 62
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 62nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring salt with every offering.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You must salt every offering."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in Sifra and a number of passages in Menachos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 2:13.
Negative Commandment 99
Offering a Saltless Sacrifice
"Neither shall you omit salt, the covenant of your G‑d"—Leviticus 2:13.
It is forbidden to offer any sacrifice – whether animal or of meal – without an accompaniment of salt.
Offering a Saltless Sacrifice
Offering a Saltless Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 99
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 99th prohibition is that we are forbidden from bringing an offering without salt.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not leave out the salt of your G‑d's covenant [from your meal offerings]." This warning not to leave out the salt implies that it is prohibited to bring an unsalted offering. One who does bring an unsalted offering — whether an animal or a meal offering — is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the seventh chapter of Zevachim.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.Our print of the Talmud contains this discussion in tractate Menachos 20ff
• 1 Chapter: Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter One
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter One
Halacha 1
Anyone who intentionally eats an olive's size [כזית, or more] of chametz on Pesach from the beginning of the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan] until the conclusion of the day of the twenty-first [of Nisan] is liable for כרת, as [Exodus 12:15] states: "Whoever eats leaven... will have his soul cut off."
[Should one eat this amount of chametz] unintentionally, one is liable to bring a fixed sin offering [as atonement].
[The above applies] equally to one who eats chametz and one who converts it into a liquid and drinks it.
Commentary Halacha
Anyone who intentionally eats an olive's size -- Whenever the Torah uses the verb אכל (eat) in the context of a mitzvah or a prohibition, it refers to the consumption of at least a minimum amount, established by Eruvin 4b as the size of an olive.
It must be emphasized that the measure of a כזית (an olive's size) cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages and this is the subject of debate by the Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive as one third the size of an egg (כביצה, a more familiar Talmudic measure). In terms of modern measurements, this olive size would be between 16.6 and 24 grams, according to various Halachic opinions.
Tosefot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines a כזית(the size of an olive) as one half the size of an egg (between 25.6 and 36 grams according to the various opinions). With regard to the practical application of the law (halachah l'ma'aseh), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 486) advises that in all questions of Torah law, Tosefot's opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon.
[or more] -- Eating less than this amount of chametz is also forbidden by Torah law. However, there is no punishment for its consumption, nor need a sacrifice be brought as atonement (See Halachah 7).
of chametz -- any mixture made from grain or grain products that has come into contact with water and was allowed to become leavened. The following (and only the following) five species are referred to as grain: wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt.
on Pesach, from the beginning of the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan] until the conclusion of the day of the twenty-first [of Nisan] -- In the mitzvot mentioned above, the Rambam also mentions the prohibition against eating chametz from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan. However, the violation of that prohibition is not punishable by כרת.
is liable for כרת -- The prohibition against eating chametz on Pesach is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 197; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 19.
as [Exodus 12:15] states: "Whoever eats leaven... will have his soul cut off" -- Moed Kattan 28a relates that a person who violated a sin punishable by כרת would die before reaching the age of fifty.
In his commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6, the Rambam emphasizes that premature death does not represent the totality of the retribution these individuals will receive. In addition, "their souls will be cut off."
In Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1, the Rambam elaborates on the latter dimension:
The good that is hidden for the righteous is the life of the world to come... The retribution of the wicked is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die.This is the intent of the meaning of the term כרת in the Torah, as [Numbers 15:31] states: "That soul shall surely be cut off."
[Should one eat this amount of chametz] unintentionally -- בשוגג,
he is liable to bring a fixed sin offering -- The Rambam adds the word "fixed" to indicate that he is referring to the standard sin offering described inLeviticus 4:27-35, in contrast to the offering to atone for certain sins mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 5. (See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3.) The latter offering is not "fixed," but rather is adjustable according to the financial state of the person liable.
[as atonement] -- Keritot 2a states that a person who unintentionally commits a transgression for which one would be liable for כרת must bring a sin offering in atonement.
[The above applies] equally to one who eats chametz and one who converts it into a liquid and drinks it -- Though the Torah specifically mentions "eating," Chullin 120a equates drinking a liquid made from chametz and water with the former act. In his responsum (Vol. V, 1517), the Radbaz differentiates between mixing chametz with water (the instance in question here) and mixing chametz with other substances, as mentioned in Halachah 6. The punishment of כרת applies only when nothing else but chametz and water is contained in the mixture.
Halacha 2
On Pesach, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from chametz, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating.
A person who leaves chametz within his property on Pesach, even though he does not eat it, transgresses two prohibitions: [Exodus 13:7] states: "No leavening agent may be seen in all your territory" and [Exodus 12:19] states: "No leavening agent may be found in your homes."
[Though the prohibitions stated in these verses apply to שאור,] it is the same prohibition which forbids both חמץ (leaven) and שאור (a leavening agent).
Commentary Halacha
On Pesach -- As stated in Halachah 9, once chametz becomes forbidden on noon of the fourteenth of Nisan, we may not derive any benefit from it.
it is forbidden to derive any benefit from chametz -- for example, to sell it or use it for purposes other than eating.
as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (
לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] -- The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary onPesachim 21b.
eating. -- The Rambam's statements are somewhat problematic. Pesachim21b records the following disagreement between the Sages:
Chizkiyah states: What is the source from which we learn that it is forbidden to derive benefit from chametz? [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating.His decision is based on the fact that the Torah uses the expression לא יאכל. Had the Torah not written יאכל לא, we may presume that a prohibition against eating would be implied, but not a prohibition against deriving benefit.This contradicts the opinion of R. Abahu who states: Wherever the Torah states לא תאכל, לא יאכלor לא תאכלו, a prohibition against eating and deriving benefit is implied.
The Rambam's statements in this Halachah quote the opinion of Chizkiyah. However, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:15, he quotes the opinion of R. Abahu as accepted halachah.
The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that in the halachah at hand, there is no difference in law between Chizkiyah and R. Abahu. Therefore, although the Rambam generally accepts R. Abahu's opinion, in this instance he quotes Chizkiyah's statements because the manner in which the latter derives the concept is more explicit.
A person who leaves chametz within his property on Pesach, even though he does not eat it, transgresses two prohibitions: [Exodus 13:7] states: "No leavening agent may be seen in all your territory" -- This prohibition is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah: Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 200; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 20.
and [Exodus 12:19] states: "No leavening agent may be found in your homes" -- This prohibition is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah:Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 201; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 11.
[Though the prohibitions stated in these verses apply to
שאור,] -- S'or refers to leavening agents, notably yeast.
it is the same prohibition which forbids both
חמץ (leaven) and שאור (a leavening agent) -- Beitzah 7a explains that Exodus 13:7 mentions both chametz (leaven), and שעור (S'or, a leavening agent) in the same verse to emphasize that they are identical.
The Ra'avad comments that the equation between the prohibitions against chametz and S'or is not complete. Among the differences between them are: Once chametz is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it is no longer prohibited. In contrast, yeast is never fit to be eaten and is prohibited even in that state. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh do not accept his statements.
Halacha 3
[A violator] is not lashed for [transgressing the prohibitions] not to have [chametz] seen [in his possession] and not to have [chametz] found [in his possession] unless he purchased chametz on Pesach or [caused flour] to become leavened, and thus committed a deed.
However, if he possessed chametz before Pesach, and when Pesach came he did not destroy it and left it in his possession, even though he transgresses two prohibitions, according to the Torah, he is not lashed, for he did not perform a deed. [Nevertheless,] he is given "stripes for being rebellious."
Commentary Halacha
[A violator] is not lashed -- this is the punishment given for the active violation of any of the Torah's prohibitions that are not punishable by death.
for [transgressing the prohibitions] not to have [chametz] seen [in his possession] and not to have [chametz] found [in his possession] unless he purchased chametz on Pesach -- The Tzafnat Paneach emphasizes that this law applies only to chametz purchased from a gentile. However, once chametz belonging to a Jew becomes prohibited, that Jew no longer has the authority to sell it. Thus, the purchaser will never really become the legal owner of the chametz (See Rashi, Sukkah 35a; Tosefot, Chullin 4b).
The Or Sameach questions how a person can become liable even for chametz purchased from a gentile, but resolves the issue based on the commentary of Rabbenu Nissim (Avodah Zarah, Chapter 3).
or [caused flour] to become leavened, and thus committed a deed. -- TheMishneh LaMelech raises a significant question: A person is not liable for lashes for violating any prohibition which he can correct by fulfilling a positive commandment (לעשה לאו הניתק): For example, if a person violates the prohibition against taking both a mother bird and her eggs, he can free himself from the punishment of lashes by sending away the mother bird.
Tosefot (Pesachim 29b) states that the prohibition against chametz being seen in one's property falls into the above category, because one can correct the violation of this prohibition by fulfilling the positive commandment to destroy chametz. Thus, it appears that a person can never be held liable for lashes for this transgression.
Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, who explains that Tosefot's statements apply only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that chametz must be destroyed by burning. However, according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted by the Rambam, Halachah 3:11), who maintain that chametz can be destroyed by any means, not necessarily burning, the prohibition against possessing chametz is not considered a לאו הניתק לעשה.
What is the essential difference between these opinions: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah to destroy chametz revolves upon the article itself (חפצה); it is a mitzvah to destroy chametz. In contrast, the Sages maintain that the mitzvah centers on the person (גברה); he is commanded to remove all chametz from his possession.
According to Rabbi Yehudah, since the commandment revolves around the chametz itself, its destruction directly "corrects" the sin of its possession. In contrast, according to the Sages, the positive commandment of ridding one's house of chametz is merely a reinforcement of the prohibition against its possession, and the fulfillment of the positive commandment does not have the power to "correct" the violation of the prohibition.
However, if he possessed chametz before Pesach, and when Pesach came he did not destroy it, and left it in his possession -- However, should he remove it from his possession (by giving it to another person or declaring it ownerless), he is not liable even if he does not actually destroy the object.
even though he transgresses two prohibitions, according to the Torah, he is not lashed, for he did not perform a deed. -- Sh'vuot 21b states: "The transgression of any prohibition which does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashing."
[Nevertheless,] he is given stripes for being rebellious -- "Stripes for being rebellious (מכות מרדות)" is a punishment instituted by the Sages for violation of a Rabbinic prohibition. A person liable for lashing according to Torah law receives a uniform number of 39 lashes unless he is physically incapable of bearing that number. In contrast, the number of lashes given to a person liable for "stripes for being rebellious" is left to the discretion of the court.
Chullin 14b states that this punishment is also inflicted upon those who violate a Torah prohibition that is not punishable by lashing.
Halacha 4
It is prohibited to ever benefit from chametz [that a Jew] possessed during Pesach. This prohibition is a penalty instituted by the Sages. Since the person transgressed [the prohibitions against chametz] being found and being seen [in his possession], they prohibited its use.
[The above applies] even if he inadvertently left [the chametz in his possession during Pesach] or was forced to do so. [These stringencies were instituted] lest a person leave chametz in his possession during Pesach in order to benefit from it after Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
It is prohibited to ever benefit from chametz -- itself, in contrast to mixtures of chametz, as explained in Halachah 5.
[that a Jew] -- in contrast to a gentile (Pesachim 28a).
possessed during Pesach -- This prohibition applies to all Jews, not only to the owner of the chametz (Rabbenu Nissim, Pesachim 28). Thus, it is prohibited to buy chametz from a store owned by a Jew who did not observe the prohibition against possessing chametz on Pesach.
This prohibition is a penalty instituted by the Sages. -- Pesachim 29a mentions Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the prohibition stems from the Torah itself. However, this opinion is not accepted as halachah.
The Tzafnat Paneach explains that the debate between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon (who maintains that the Torah does not forbid benefiting from chametz after Pesach) revolves around an abstract concept. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that once Pesach comes, chametz itself becomes forbidden and, therefore, can never become permitted again. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the prohibition does not affect the essence of the chametz itself. Thus, we are forbidden to benefit from it during Pesach, but after Pesach there is no prohibition.
Since the person transgressed the [prohibitions against chametz] being found and being seen [in his possession], they prohibited its use -- TheMaggid Mishneh explains that the prohibition against using a Jew's chametz after Pesach applies even when the prohibitions against possessing chametz are not violated. See Halachah 4:5.
[The above applies] even if he inadvertently left [the chametz in his possession during Pesach] -- e.g., he forgot that he possessed it.
or was forced to do so -- The Nodah BiYhudah (Orach Chayim 20) gives an example of such a case. A thief stole chametz from a person before Pesach and returned it to him after the holiday. Even though the person had no opportunity to destroy it before Pesach, it is forbidden.
In that responsum, the Nodah BiYhudah also raises the following question: A person died on the fourteenth of Nisan without nullifying or selling his chametz. Are his heirs forbidden to benefit from that chametz or not? He maintains that although the Rambam would probably prohibit benefiting from this chametz, there are rationales on the basis of which its use may be permitted. [Other authorities (note Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Kuntres Acharon 435) do not accept this conclusion.]
[These stringencies were instituted] lest a person -- intentionally
leave chametz in his possession during Pesach in order to benefit from it after Pesach -- on the pretense that he had forgotten about its existence.
Halacha 5
If, on Pesach, even the slightest amount of chametz becomes mixed together with another substance, either of its kind or not of its kind, [the entire mixture] is forbidden.
Though it is forbidden to benefit from chametz which a Jew possessed on Pesach, if it became mixed with another substance, whether of its kind or not of its kind, it is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. [The Sages] only penalized and forbade [the use of] chametz itself. A mixture [containing chametz possessed on Pesach] is permitted to be eaten after Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
If, on Pesach, -- Rabbenu Asher and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol maintain that this principle does not apply until the holiday itself actually begins. Thus, even if chametz became mixed with other substances on the fourteenth of Nisan, after the time chametz is forbidden, the mixture is bound by the laws regarding the nullification of forbidden objects (ביטול איסורים) that apply throughout the entire year.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that a simple interpretation of the Rambam's statements leads to the conclusion that he accepts this opinion. Though others, among them the Maggid Mishneh, do not accept this view, it is accepted as Halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 447:2).
even the slightest amount of chametz becomes mixed together with another substance -- Ordinarily, it is permissible to use a mixture of a prohibited substance and a permitted substance provided that the permitted substance is present in a greater amount, to the extent that the prohibition is nullified (ביטול איסור).
either of its kind -- When the prohibited substance is of the same kind as the forbidden substance (e.g., improperly slaughtered meat mixed with properly slaughtered meat), all that is required to nullify the prohibition is that the permitted substance constitutes the majority of the mixture (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:1).
or not of its kind -- When the prohibited substance is of a different kind from the permitted (e.g., forbidden fats mixed with grain), the prohibition is ordinarily nullified if the taste of the forbidden article is not discernible, or the quantity of the permitted substance is at least 60 times as great as the forbidden article (ibid. 15:1, 6).
[the entire mixture] is forbidden -- The above principles do not apply with regard to chametz on Pesach. Even the slightest mixture of chametz may not be eaten, nor may benefit be derived from it. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot(15:9), the Rambam explains that this stringency is instituted because chametz is a דבר שיש לו מתירין (a substance which later will become permitted).
A דבר שיש לו מתירין which becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of its own kind is never permitted to be used because of the following rationale: Since its use in its entirety will later become permitted, there is no need to grant a leniency allowing it to be eaten when forbidden.
Similarly, with regard to chametz on Pesach: There is no prohibition against using a mixture of chametz after Pesach. Hence, there is no need to grant permission to eat such a mixture on Pesach itself, even though the quantity of the permitted substance far surpasses that of the chametz.
Furthermore, there is a stricter dimension to chametz than to any other דבר שיש לו מתירין. Generally, a דבר שיש לו מתירין is permitted if it becomes mixed with a substance of another kind to the extent that its taste can no longer be discerned. However, this leniency is not granted regarding mixtures of chametz. Since Exodus 12:20 states: "You must not eat any leaven," the severity of the prohibition obligates additional stringency.
Though it is forbidden to benefit from chametz which a Jew possessed on Pesach, if it became mixed with another substance, whether of its kind -- for example, a dough containing yeast mixed with flour.
or not of its kind -- for example, a mixture of flour with any other substance.
it is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. -- The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that this leniency applies whether the mixture occurred after Pesach or on the holiday itself. Nevertheless, the latter point should not be misinterpreted. Should such a mixture be discovered on Pesach, we are obligated to destroy it (Ramah, Orach Chayim 447:1). Nevertheless, if either intentionally or unintentionally, the mixture was not destroyed on the holiday itself, it may be used afterwards.
[The Sages] only penalized and forbade [the use of] chametz itself. A mixture [containing chametz possessed on Pesach] is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. -- Pesachim 30a explains that since the penalty is of Rabbinic origin, it was applied only to chametz itself and not to mixtures.
Halacha 6
One is liable for כרת only for eating chametz itself. However, a person who eats a mixture containing chametz--for example, Babylonian kotach, Median beer, or similar mixtures which contain chametz--[is punished by] lashes and is not liable for כרת [for this involves the transgression of a different commandment], as [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leaven."
When does the above apply? When the person consumed an olive size of chametz [while eating] from the mixture within the time it takes to eat three eggs or less. Then, he is obligated for lashes by the Torah. However, if he does not consume an olive size of chametz from the mixture in less time than it takes to eat three eggs, even though such eating is forbidden, he is not [punished by] lashing. Rather, he is given "stripes for being rebellious."
Commentary Halacha
One is only liable for כרת -- as stated in Halachah 1
for eating chametz itself. However, a person who eats a mixture containing chametz, for example, Babylonian kotach -- a mixture including sour milk, moldy bread crusts, and mineral salts (Pesachim 42a).
Median beer -- beer made of fermented barley, as our beer. Generally, the beer referred to in the Talmud was made from fermented dates (Rashi,Pesachim 42b).
or similar mixtures which contain chametz -- Pesachim 42a also emphasizes that a person transgresses the commandments against possessing chametz if he owns any of the above mixtures.
[is punished by] lashes and is not liable for
כרת [for this involves the transgression of a different commandment] -- different from eating chametz itself
as [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leaven." -- The Sefer HaMitzvot(negative commandment 198) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 12) consider this as one of the Torah's 613 commandments.
Nevertheless, this decision is a matter of debate among the commentators. The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) does not accept the Rambam's view, and explains that a person who consumes an olive size of chametz within the specific time period (פרס כדי אכילת) described below should be liable for כרת as described in Halachah 1. See also Halachah 4:8 and commentary.
The Maggid Mishneh supports the Ramban's view, noting that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:3, the Rambam himself explains that any person who eats a mixture containing an olive size of a forbidden food within this time period is liable, just as if he had eaten the forbidden food itself.
Based on the explanation of the Tur (Orach Chayim 442), the Drisha and thePri Chadash interpret the Rambam as referring to a mixture to which the chametz does not impart any flavor and is added only for consistency and color.
The Tzafnat Paneach offers a different interpretation, explaining that were chametz to be mixed with other foods, a person eating the mixture would be liable for כרת as the Ramban states. However, the Rambam is talking about an instance when flour was mixed with another substance and became leavened as part of the mixture, without ever becoming a distinct entity of its own. The Torah considers this as a different category of chametz and holds a person who eats it liable for a lesser punishment.
When does the above apply? When the person consumed an olive size --the minimum size of a prohibited substance for which one is liable for punishment, as explained in Halachah 1.
of chametz [while eating] from the mixture within the time it takes to eat three eggs or less -- This period (כדי אכילת פרס in Hebrew) is significant in halachah. Just as the Torah requires a specific quantity, the size of an olive, as regards many of the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating, it also specifies a limited period in which this amount of food must be consumed: אבילת פרס כדי.
This measure is also a point of Rabbinic controversy. The Rambam defines it as the time it takes to eat three eggs (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 14:8). Rashi (Pesachim 44a) takes a more lenient view, defining it as the amount of time it takes to eat four eggs. As regards this matter as well, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 612:4) advises that whenever a question of Torah law is involved, the more stringent opinion should be observed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view can be relied on.
In converting this figure to modern measures of time, there is also a difference of opinion. The shortest opinion limits this period to two minutes. The most commonly accepted view is four minutes and there are opinions of seven and eight minutes as well.
Then, he is obligated for lashes by the Torah -- as explained above.
However, if he does not consume an olive size of chametz from the mixture in less time than it takes to eat three eggs, even though eating it is forbidden -- for as explained in the previous halachah, chametz can never be nullified within a mixture. As the following halachah explains, eating less than an olive size of chametz is also prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless,
he is not [punished by] lashing. Rather, he is given "stripes for being rebellious" -- see Halachah 3.
Halacha 7
Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat [leaven]." Nevertheless, [a person who eats chametz] is not liable for כרת, nor must he bring a sacrifice for anything less than the specified measure, which is the size of an olive.
A person who intentionally violates the prohibition and eats less than an olive size of chametz is given "stripes for being rebellious."
Commentary Halacha
Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself -- The laws regarding mixtures of chametz were mentioned in the previous halachah.
on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah -- The commentaries cite the source for the Rambam's decision as Yoma 73b, which mentions Rabbi Yochanan's opinion that all the Torah's prohibitions against eating apply even when one consumes less than the size of an olive (חצי שיעור), that measure being significant only as regards punishment.
as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat [leaven]" -- The Kessef Mishnehquestions why the Rambam cites this verse. Yoma (ibid.) derives the prohibition against eating less than an olive size of prohibited substances from another source.
The Radbaz (Responsa, Vol. V, 143) explains that the prohibition against חצי שיעור exists only when eating the prohibited substance itself. In contrast, חצי שיעור of chametz is forbidden even when mixed with other substances, as explained in the previous halachah. He explains that since deriving benefit from chametz is forbidden according to Torah law, that prohibition also includes eating חצי שיעור in any form.
Nevertheless, [a person who eats chametz] is not liable for
כרת nor must he bring a sacrifice for anything less than the specified measure, which is the size of an olive -- as stated in Halachah 1.
A person who intentionally violates the prohibition and eats less than an olive size of chametz -- The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam begins the halachah by describing the prohibition against "even the slightest amount" of chametz, and concludes with the expression "less than the size of an olive."
is given "stripes for being rebellious" -- Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16 states that anyone who benefits from forbidden substances receives "stripes for being rebellious." A person who eats less than the size of an olive of chametz also benefits, and hence is liable for this punishment.
Halacha 8
It is forbidden to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] from noon onward--i.e., from the beginning of the seventh hour of the day. Any person who eats chametz during this time is punished by lashes according to Torah law, as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat any leaven with it "; i.e., together with the Paschal sacrifice.
Based on the oral tradition, we received the interpretation of that statement as: Do not eat any chametz during the time which is fit to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice, that being the afternoon--i.e., after midday.
Commentary Halacha
It is forbidden to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] from noon onwards -- The Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 199) and theSefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 485) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ramban and the Ra'avad take issue with this point, explaining that from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan until the beginning of the fifteenth at nightfall, there is a positive commandment to rid one's house of chametz, but no negative command forbidding the possession or eating of chametz.
i.e., from the beginning of the seventh hour of the day -- The intent of this expression is midday. However, in particular, the term needs elaboration: According to Torah law, a day begins at dawn (עלות השחר), the appearance of the first rays of sun, and ends when three stars appear (םיבכוכה תאצ, Berachot 2b). This period is divided into 12 and the resulting figure is referred to as one seasonal hour (שעה זמנית). [Other opinions consider the period to be divided into twelve as beginning at the appearance of the sun, נץ החמה, and ending at sunset.]
Thus, if dawn were at 5:09 AM and three stars appeared at 6:45 PM, each seasonal hour would be an hour and eight minutes, and the beginning of the seventh hour would be 11:57 AM.
Any person who eats chametz -- The Rambam explicitly states that lashes are never given for violating prohibitions against benefiting from forbidden articles (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:16). The Mishneh Lamelech (Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah 5:8) elaborates on this principle in detail.
during this time is punished by lashes according to Torah law -- as opposed to the punishment of כרת for eating chametz within Pesach, as described in Halachah 1.
as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat any leaven with it"; i.e., together with the Paschal sacrifice. Based on the oral tradition --Pesachim 5a
we received the interpretation of that statement as: Do not eat any chametz during the time which is fit to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice, that being the afternoon - i.e., after midday. -- The Paschal sacrifice could be offered from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan until sunset (Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:1).
The Paschal sacrifice should not be slaughtered before the daily afternoon sacrifice, which would never be offered before half an hour past midday. However, if, by mistake, the Pesach sacrifice was slaughtered before the afternoon sacrifice, but after midday, its offering may be completed, provided a person continues stirring its blood until the afternoon sacrifice is offered (ibid. 1:3).
Halacha 9
The Sages forbade the eating of chametz from the beginning of the sixth hour in order to prevent infringement upon a Torah commandment. Thus, from the beginning of the sixth hour, it is forbidden to eat or benefit from chametz, based on Rabbinic law. During the rest of the day, from the seventh hour on, eating chametz is forbidden because of the Torah law.
During the fifth hour of the day, we do not eat chametz, lest the day be cloudy and we err between the fifth and six hours. However, there is no prohibition against benefiting from chametz during the fifth hour.
Therefore, Terumah and the breads of the thanksgiving offering which are chametz are left in a tentative status because of their holiness. They are neither eaten nor burned until the beginning of the sixth hour. Then, the entire quantity [of chametz] is burned.
Commentary Halacha
The Sages forbade the eating of chametz from the beginning of the sixth hour in order to prevent infringement upon a Torah commandment -- This is one of the Rabbinic commandments instituted as a "fence" and safeguard to Torah law.
Thus, from the beginning of the sixth hour -- This is also a "seasonal hour." Thus, if as stated above, dawn of the fourteenth of Nisan is 5:09 AM and three stars appear at 6:45 PM, the beginning of the sixth hour is 10:49.
it is forbidden to eat or benefit from chametz based on Rabbinic law. During the rest of the day, from the seventh hour on, eating chametz is forbidden because of the Torah law -- as stated in the previous halachah.
During the fifth hour of the day, -- in the instance stated above from 9:41 until 10:49.
we do not eat chametz lest it be a cloudy day and we err between the fifth and six hours -- In his commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:4), the Rambam explains that it is possible that a person may err in his estimation of the time by an hour and thus, transgress the Rabbinic prohibition against possessing chametz at the sixth hour.
In a Responsa, the Rambam replies to the following question: The passage inPesachim which is the source for this halachah appears to imply that a person may make an error of over two hours. Indeed, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi states the matter as such in his halachot. If so, why did the Rambam alter the explanation of the law.
In a reply which reflects his overall purpose in the composition of the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam answers:
I mentioned a mistake of an hour which is a common error because my intention in composing this text is to bring the matters closer to our understanding or what is general practice.
However, there is no prohibition against benefiting from chametz during the fifth hour -- Since the restriction against benefiting from chametz during the sixth hour is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages did not feel it necessary to forbid benefiting from chametz for another hour because of the mere possibility of error.
Therefore, Terumah -- a portion of grain given to the priests
and the breads of the thanksgiving offering -- A thanksgiving offering involves 40 loaves, ten of which are leavened (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot9:17-18).
which are chametz are left in a tentative status because of their holiness. -- The Torah refers to Terumah as קדש (sanctified). Similarly, the breads of the thanksgiving offering have a sacrificial status. Therefore,
They are neither eaten -- for the Sages did not desire to relax their prohibition against eating chametz. Nevertheless, the priests were allowed to benefit from chametz during this period, and hence could feed Terumah to their animals.
nor burned -- for it is forbidden to destroy sacred articles unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, Pesachim 13b explains that thanksgiving offerings were not brought on the fourteenth of Nisan. [This law is also relevant at present. From the fourteenth of Nisan until the conclusion of Pesach, the "Psalm of Thanksgiving" is omitted from the morning service.]
until the beginning of the sixth hour. Then, the entire quantity [of chametz] is burned -- because of the Rabbinic prohibition mentioned above. As explained in Halachah 3:11, generally, chametz can be destroyed by other means as well. However, this halachah deals with bread brought as sacrifices; hence, it is proper that they be burned (Rabbenu Manoach).
Halacha 10
Thus, you have learned that it is permitted to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] until the end of the fourth hour. During the fifth hour, [chametz] is not eaten, but benefit may be derived from it. A person who eats chametz during the sixth hour is [punished by] "stripes for being rebellious." One who eats during the seventh hour is lashed.
Commentary Halacha
Thus, you have learned that it is permitted to eat chametz on the day of the fourteenth [of Nisan] until the end of the fourth hour -- as explained in the previous halachah.
During the fifth hour, [chametz] is not eaten, but benefit may be derived from it -- Thus, during this time, a person may sell his chametz to gentiles or feed it to his animals.
A person who eats chametz during the sixth hour is [punished by] "stripes for being rebellious." -- The punishment given for transgressing a Rabbinic commandment. The Lechem Mishneh notes that the Rambam does not prescribe a punishment for a person who breaks the Rabbinic decree against eating chametz during the fifth hour.
The Tzafnat Paneach (Responsum 83) also differentiates between the fifth and sixth hours, calling the former, a Rabbinic safeguard, and the latter, a Rabbinic prohibition.
One who eats -- With regard to the prohibition against benefiting from chametz, see commentary, Halachah 8.
during the seventh hour is lashed -- as explained in Halachah 8.
• 3 Chapters: Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5, Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6, Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
Even the slightest amount1 of a leavening agent and sweet entity2 is forbidden [as an offering] for the altar, as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "For no leavening agent or honey shall be kindled... [as a fire-offering]."3 One is liable only if he set them afire together with a sacrifice or for the sake of a sacrifice.4
Whether one sets afire these entities themselves or a mixture of them, he is liable for lashes for each one individually. If he set afire both of them at the same time, he is liable for only one set of lashes, because both of them are mentioned in the same prohibition.5
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
If one brought a leavening agent or a sweetener on the altar alone8 as kindling fuel, he is exempt, as [ibid:12] states: "They should not be brought to the altar as a pleasant fragrance." [Implied is that] they should not be brought as "a pleasant fragrance," i.e., as a sacrifice, but they may be brought as kindling fuel. Even if one set afire an entity that is not ordained to be set afire9 together with a leavening agent or with a sweetener, he is liable since it is part of a sacrifice.
Halacha 4
What is implied? When one causes [the following entities] to be consumed [by fire on the altar]:10the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,11 the meat of sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity,12 the remains of the meal offering,13what is left-over from the omer14 or from a sin-offering from fowl,15 the showbread,16 the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],17 the log of oil brought by a leper18 - if one were to cause an olive-sized portion of any one of these entities to be consumed on the altar or on its ramp with a leavening agent or a sweetener,19 he is liable for lashes. Even though none of these entities are fit to be consumed by fire on the altar, since they are called sacrifices, one is liable for them, as [indicated by the initial clause of the verse cited above]: "You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering to God."20
Halacha 5
Similarly, it is forbidden21 to offer on the altar22 any entity from all those listed that is not fit to be consumed by fire, e.g., the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, the remains of the meal offering, or the like. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when there is an entity from which a portion is designated to be consumed by fire, it is forbidden to have the remainder [of that entity]23 consumed by fire.
Halacha 6
A person who has the limbs of an impure24 animal consumed by fire on the altar is liable for lashes despite the fact that the prohibition against offering it is [merely] derived from a positive commandment.25 [This is derived as follows:] The Torah teaches us to partake of pure animals26 and to offer pure animals as sacrifices.27 One may conclude that an impure animal should not be eaten and should not be offered. Just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of an impure animal [although it is a prohibition] derived from a positive commandment as explained in the appropriate place,28 so too, he is liable for lashes for offering it.29 When, by contrast, one offers the limbs of a kosher wild beast,30 he violates a positive commandment, but he is not liable for lashes. What is the source that teaches that he violates a positive commandment? [Leviticus 1:2] states: "You shall offer your sacrifices from the domesticated animals: from cattle and flocks."31 From this, one can derive that one should not offer wild beasts as sacrifices. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.32
Halacha 7
When one steals or obtains an object through robbery and offers it as a sacrifice, it is invalid33 and the Holy One, blessed be He, hates it, as [Isaiah 61:8] states: "[I am God Who...] hates a burnt offering [obtained] through robbery." Needless to say, it is not accepted. If the owner despairs of its return, the sacrifice is acceptable.34[This applies] even35 if it is a sin-offering and thus the priests partake of its meat.
For the sake of the enhancement of the altar's [honor], it was decreed that if it became public knowledge that a sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not bring about atonement even if the owner despaired of its return, so that it will not be said that the altar consumes stolen property.36 Similar laws apply with regard to a burnt offering.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Meal offerings and wine libations may not be brought from tevel,40from chadashbefore the omer was offered,41 or from miduma.42 Needless to say,43 they may not be brought from orlah44or from mixed species in a vineyard,45 for that would be a mitzvah that comes as a result of a sin which God despises.46 If one brings such [an entity as a sacrifice], it is not sanctified to become fit to be offered as a sacrifice, but it is sanctified to be disqualified as are other consecrated entities that are disqualified.47
Halacha 10
As an initial preference, none of the meal offerings should be brought fromchadash before the two breads [are brought on Shavuot], for [Leviticus 23:17]48refers to them as "the first fruits unto God."49 If, however, [such a meal offering] was brought, it is acceptable.50 Wine libations may be brought from wine that was set aside51 on a festival.52
Halacha 11
It is a positive commandment to salt all the sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar,53 as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "On all of your sacrifices you shall offer salt."54 There are no entities that are offered on the altar without salt except the wine libations, the blood, and the wood. This matter was conveyed by the Oral Tradition, but there is no explicit verse to rely on.55
It is a mitzvah to salt the meat very thoroughly like one salts meat before roasting it, in which instance one turns over the limbs and salts it.56 If, however, one applies even the slightest amount of salt, even one grain, it is acceptable.
Halacha 12
If one offered a sacrifice without any salt at all, he is liable for lashes,57as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God."
Even though he receives lashes, the sacrifice is valid and is accepted [Above] with the exception of the meal offering. For salt is an absolute necessity when taking a fistful of the meal offering,58 as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God from your meal offering."
Halacha 13
The salt which is used to salt all of the sacrifices should be communal property like the wood. A private individual should not bring salt or wood for his sacrifice from his home.59
There are three places where salt is stored for the sacrificial service:60 in the Chamber of Salt,61 on the ramp [ascending to the altar], and on the top of the altar itself. In the Chamber of Salt, the hides of the sacrificial animals would be salted. On the ramp, the limbs would be salted and on the top of the altar, the fistful of meal [taken from the meal offering], the frankincense [from the Showbread], the meal offerings which are burnt, and a fowl brought as a burnt offering are salted.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For the prooftexts says "No...." Although setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion (as stated in Halachah 3), if one mixes a small amount of a leavening agent or a sweetener together with other substances the size of an olive, one is liable for setting the mixture on fire.
|
| 2. |
Divash, the term used by the prooftext and the Rambam, means "honey." Here it is interpreted in a broader sense applying to date honey, bee-honey, and sweet sap from other fruits.
|
| 3. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 98) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 117) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 4. |
If, however, he sets them afire for the sake of fuel, he is not liable as stated in Halachah 3.
|
| 5. |
Although one is liable for lashes for each individually, since both transgression are mentioned in the same verse, one is liable for only one set of lashes. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that he is liable for two sets of lashes. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the standard printed text ofMenachot 58b appears to follow the Ra'avad's understanding, but a more comprehensive understanding of the issue would favor the Rambam's view.
|
| 6. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:5) states that honey would greatly enhance the aroma of the incense offering. Nevertheless, it is forbidden by Divine decree.
|
| 7. |
On the Inner Altar where the incense offering is brought. If he would offer the incense on the Outer Altar, he would not be liable for lashes, because that is not the place of its where it is burnt (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 8. |
I.e., not together with a sacrifice.
|
| 9. |
As explained in the following halachah.
|
| 10. |
All of the entities the Rambam mentions are sacrifices or portions of sacrifices that were intended to be eaten and not offered on the altar.
|
| 11. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:1; 9:1, which outlines the portions of the sacrifices that were eaten.
|
| 12. |
Ibid. 10:1.
|
| 13. |
Ibid. 12:9.
|
| 14. |
Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.
|
| 15. |
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:7.
|
| 16. |
Ibid. 12:3.
|
| 17. |
Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:11.
|
| 18. |
Hilchot Mechusrei Kapprah 4:2-3.
|
| 19. |
From the exegesis of Leviticus 2:12, the Sifra and Menachot 57b derive that the altar's ramp is equivalent to the altar in this context.
|
| 20. |
The verse speaks about the two loaves offered on Shavuot and from them, inference is drawn to other sacrificial entities.
|
| 21. |
Although the Rambam considers this prohibition as Scriptural in origin, he does not consider it as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, Moreover, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that although this prohibition is derived from the exegesis of the verse cited above, since it is not explicitly stated in a verse, lashes are not given for its violation.
|
| 22. |
Here the prohibition applies only to the altar and not to the ramp.
|
| 23. |
Which was designated to be eaten and not consumed.
|
| 24. |
I.e., non-kosher. Conversely, in this context, "pure" means kosher.
|
| 25. |
And generally, lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated and not when a positive commandment is violated.
|
| 26. |
As stated in Deuteronomy 14:6; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1.
|
| 27. |
In the verse stated at the conclusion of this halachah.
|
| 28. |
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1-2. There the Rambam explains that "with regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: 'These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.' From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut." And he concludes "Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut." Thus although other non-kosher animals are not specifically mentioned in the prohibition, since they are included in the converse of the positive commandment, we conclude that the negative commandment applies to them as well.
|
| 29. |
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that just as one does not receive lashes for offering an animal with a blemish, so too, he does not receive lashes for offering an impure animal. His objection appears to be based on the principle that punishment is not given for transgressions that are derived by logical inference. Accordingly, since the obligation for lashes is explicit, even though it could be derived by logical inference, we should not make such a conclusion. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's perspective: these cannot be considered as prohibitions derived from logical inferences, because they are forbidden due to the positive commandment. Logic only expands the scope of the person's liability.
|
| 30. |
All sacrifices are brought from behemot, domesticated animals, or fowl, not from chayot, wild beasts.
|
| 31. |
The term tzon, translated here as "flocks," can be used in reference to both sheep and goats. This is the intent here.
|
| 32. |
This is a general principle, applicable in many different contexts. See Chapter 3, Halachah 8,Hilchot Ishut 1:8, et al.
|
| 33. |
The Radbaz quotes Bava Kama 66b which explains that this refers to an instance where a person steals an animal set aside as a sacrifice and offers it as that sacrifice. It reaches that conclusion for it is obvious that if the animal was not consecrated beforehand, its offering is not acceptable, for a person cannot consecrate an object that does not belong to him.
|
| 34. |
When it comes to questions of monetary law, the owner's despair of the object's return is not enough to cause it to be acquired by the thief (Hilchot Geneivah 5:2-3; Hilchot Gezeilah VAveidah2:1). Nevertheless, it is possible to say that according to Scriptural Law, the owner's despair is enough to effect the transfer of the property, further requirements are Rabbinic in origin and the Sages did not apply their decrees with regard to a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, with regard to questions of monetary law, a change of possession together with the owner's despair is sufficient to effect the transfer of the property (Hilchot Geneivah, loc. cit.). Similarly, in this instance, consecration of the animal is comparable to a change of possession (Lechem Mishneh, gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:14).
|
| 35. |
The Rambam's words imply that certainly the concept would apply if a burnt-offering was involved, but even when a sin-offering is involved, the principle is applied, implying that a sin-offering is a more severe issue than a burnt offering. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the word "even" should be omitted, implying that the two types of sacrifices are of equal standing.
(A similar concept applies with regard to the conclusion of the halachah: The Ma'aseh Rokeachsuggests amending the text to read: "How much more so does this apply with regard to a burnt-offering?!" I.e., according to the Rambam, the sin offering is considered more severe, while theMa'aseh Rokeach maintains that the burnt offering deserves more weight.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam uses "even" in reference to the first clause, even though the priests partake of such a sacrifice, it is unacceptable.
|
| 36. |
The Radbaz asks: How can our Sages rule that the sacrifice is unacceptable and require that the person bring another offering? Since according to Scriptural Law, he has fulfilled his obligation, bringing the second sacrifice is in fact transgressing, for he is slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Shechitah 2:1). The Radbaz answers that from this we see the power of the Sages: that if there is a significant reason - as in this instance - their decrees can nullify the validity of the first sacrifice. Hence, when the person brings the second sacrifice, he is bringing a sacrifice required of him, not an ordinary animal.
|
| 37. |
But not a sin-offering, for a sin-offering must be brought explicitly for the sake of the person receiving atonement (Radbaz).
|
| 38. |
I.e., he did not specify the reason for which it should be offered.
|
| 39. |
I.e., it is as if he had the animal sacrificed himself.
|
| 40. |
Produce from which the agricultural obligations of terumah and the tithes were not separated. SeeHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19-21.
|
| 41. |
This refers to produce from the five species of grain which is forbidden before the offering of the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan or the passage of that day. See ibid.:2-5.
|
| 42. |
A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which may be eaten only a priest. See ibid. 15:13;Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2. This is unacceptable, because the offerings must come from produce which is permitted to every Jew, not only a priest (Pesachim 48a).
|
| 43. |
The substances mentioned in the first clause, though forbidden at present, will ultimately be permitted, while those in this clause will never be permitted. Moreover, it is forbidden not only to partake of them, but also to benefit from them.
|
| 44. |
Produce that grows during the first three years of a tree's growth or replanting. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:9-10.
|
| 45. |
When a species of grain or vegetable is sown together with a vineyard, both plants become forbidden (ibid.:6-8).
|
| 46. |
This is a principle applicable in many other contexts as well. For example, Hilchot Lulav 8:1 speaks of being unable to fulfill that mitzvah with a stolen lulav.
|
| 47. |
I.e., once it is consecrated, it may never be used for ordinary purposes again, but must be destroyed like consecrated property that was disqualified.
|
| 48. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:6), the Rambam uses the previous verse in that Biblical passage as a prooftext.
|
| 49. |
Implied is that these breads should be the first offerings brought from the new flour. Although it is permitted to be used by an ordinary person beforehand, it should not be used for sacrifices before then.
|
| 50. |
Since it is permitted to be used by a private person, after the fact, it is acceptable (op. cit.).
|
| 51. |
I.e., was placed with one's merchandise and was not intended to be used for one's individual purposes. Such wine is forbidden to be used on festivals, but not on the Sabbath. See Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 1:17.
|
| 52. |
Although the Rabbis forbade the use of such wine for private use, it is fundamentally permitted. Hence using it for a libation is not considering as bringing a forbidden substance as an offering. The Radbaz states that the Sages never extended their prohibition to encompass sacrifices.
|
| 53. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 119) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 54. |
This commandment is mentioned many times in this text; among the references: Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1; 6:4, 21-22; 7:1-2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10; 6:3; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16.
|
| 55. |
Although Menachot 21a explains that this concept can be derived from a verse, apparently, the Rambam does not accept the exegesis mentioned there.
|
| 56. |
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:12.
|
| 57. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 118) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The question is raised: Why is he liable for lashes? Lashes are not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). In this instance, seemingly, the omission of salt does not involve a deed. In reply, it is explained that the offering of the sacrifice without salt is a deed and thus warrants lashes.
|
| 58. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16 where this concept is discussed. Salt is not placed on the entire meal offering, only on that fistful which is offered on the altar.
|
| 59. |
Although a private individual may donate wood for the altar (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9), he may not demand that this wood be used for his own sacrifice.
|
| 60. |
See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus.
|
| 61. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 where the chamber is mentioned.
|
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Just as it is a mitzvah for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of the highest quality,1 so too, the accompanying offerings2 must be unblemished and of the highest quality, as [Numbers 28:31 states]: "They3 shall be perfect for you, as should be their accompanying offerings." Implied is that the accompanying offerings should also be unblemished. He should not bring wine libations that have been affected by smoke,4 nor flour that is worm-infested.5 Nor should he mix the flour with oil that is foul-smelling or foul-tasting.6
Halacha 2
Similarly, the wood for the arrangement [of the altar] should only be of the highest quality. They should not be worm-infested.7 Any tree that is worm-infested when it is fresh is unacceptable for the altar.8 If it became worm-infested after it dried out, one should scrape away the place that became worm-infested. Wood that comes from [a building that was] torn down is invalid. One should use only new wood.9
Halacha 3
There is an unresolved doubt when one consecrates invalid wine, flour, oil, or wood to the altar: Are they considered like a blemished animal in which instance, he would be liable for lashes10 or do they not resemble a blemished animal? Hence, he is not liable for lashes. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.11
Halacha 4
Fine flour, wine, oil, frankincense, fowl, wood, and sacred utensils that became invalid or impure should not be redeemed, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 27:11-12]: "He shall cause it to stand [before the priest]" and "have it evaluated." Whatever can be caused to stand [before a priest] can be evaluated. These cannot be caused to stand [before a priest]. Therefore they are never redeemed.12
Halacha 5
When does the above apply? When they became13 invalidated or impure after they became sanctified in a sacred vessel, but before they have been sanctified in a sacred vessel, they may be redeemed if they become impure or invalid. Pure objects, by contrast, should not be redeemed even if they were not consecrated in a sacred utensil with the exception of the flour brought as a sin-offering. [Concerning which] it is said [Leviticus 5:6] "of his sin-offering" and [ibid.:13] "concerning his sin-offering," as will be explained.14 [From the juxtaposition of the verses, it is inferred that] one may bring a sin offering from the money of his sin-offering. Therefore before it was consecrated in a sacred utensil it is considered as consecrated for its monetary value and it can be redeemed even though it is ritually pure.
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply with regard to] the water for the libation of Sukkot17that became impure and then it was joined [to an acceptable mikveh],18 as will be explained with regard to [the Laws of] Purity.19If he purified it and then consecrated it, it may be used for a libation. If, however, it was consecrated and then became impure, since it was disqualified, it should remain disqualified.20
Halacha 7
When olives and grapes became impure, they should be crushed less than an egg-sized portion21 at a time.22 The liquids that emerge from them are acceptable for the accompanying offerings. For these liquids are considered as [distinct and] set aside in the foods and it is as if they are not from their body.23
Halacha 8
Our Sages established an additional safeguard with regard to consecrated objects: When seeds became impure, even if they are sown, [the produce] that grows from them is not acceptable for the accompanying offerings, for sowing produce is not effective [in restoring ritual purity] for consecrated entities.24
Similarly, with regard to wood and frankincense, even though they are inedible, they can become impure like foods with regard to the sacrifices.25 [In such an instance,] the wood and the frankincense become disqualified for the altar because of this impurity and they should not be offered.
Halacha 9
These are the types of wine that are invalid as [libations] for the altar: sweetened wine,26 smoked wine,27 wine cooked over fire or in the sun until its flavor was changed by the cooking. The types of wine [to be listed] should not be brought [as libations] as an initial preference, but if they were brought, they are acceptable. They include: wine was warmed in the sun,28 but its flavor did not change due to the cooking and similarly, raisin wine, wine from the vat that is less than 40 days old,29 wine from [grapes grown] on trellises, wine from a vineyard in an arid region or in a dungheap, wine from vines in which other produce was sown between them, or wine from a vineyard that was not tilled.30
Halacha 10
Wine that was left uncovered31 is not acceptable [as libations] for the altar. If one draped a vine over a fig tree, its wine is unacceptable for a libation, for its fragrance has changed and [Leviticus 23:37] states: "Sacrifice and libations," [equating the two]. Just as [the appearance of an animal offered as] a sacrifice may not have changed,32 the wine for libations may not have changed.
Halacha 11
When the majority of fine flour has become worm-ridden or the majority of the kernels of wheat have become worm-ridden33 and [flour] was made from them, it is unacceptable. If the majority of one kernel of wheat became worm-ridden, there is an unresolved doubt [with regard to its acceptability]. Whenever flour dust remains in the fine flour,34 it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
How is the matter checked? The treasurer inserts his hand into the fine flour. If dust clings to it as he removes it,35 it is unacceptable until he sifts it again.
Fine flour from wheat that grew in an arid land, a dungheap, in an orchard, on land that was not left fallow and tilled should not be brought as an initial preference,36 if it was brought, it is acceptable.
Halacha 13
When wheat kernels were collected from cattle feces and then sown in the ground, there is an unresolved doubt if their disgusting characteristic has departed because they were sown37 or they are still considered as disgusting. Therefore one should not bring meal offerings from [such flour] as an initial preference. If he brought, they are acceptable.
Halacha 14
These are the oils which are unacceptable: oil from olives soaked in water or of pickled38 or cooked olives, oil from olive dregs, or foul-smelling oil. All of these are unacceptable. In contrast, oil from olives that were planted in a dungheap, in an arid region, which had another crop sown between them, or oil that was produced from olives that have not ripened and are still immature39 should not be brought as an initial preference, but if it was brought, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
All of the meal offerings and libations40 are acceptable whether from [produce grown in] Eretz [Yisrael] or from [produce grown in] the Diaspora. They are acceptable from fresh grain41 or grain from the previous years, provided it is of optimum quality. The only exceptions are the omer offering42 and the two loaves [brought on Shavuot]. They must be brought from fresh grain and fromEretz Yisrael.43
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 1; Chapter 2, Halachah 8; Chapter 3, Halachah 11; Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
|
| 2. |
As will be explained, every sacrifice must be accompanied by a meal offering that is mixed with oil and a wine libation.
|
| 3. |
The offerings.
|
| 4. |
See Halachah 9.
|
| 5. |
See Halachah 11.
|
| 6. |
See Halachah 14.
|
| 7. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8 which explains that there was a special chamber set aside in the Women's Courtyard where the priests would check the wood to make sure it was not worm-infested.
|
| 8. |
Because then, it is impossible to scrape away the worm-infested portion in a desirable manner.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
|
| 10. |
As in Chapter 1, Halachah 2.
|
| 11. |
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:7).
|
| 12. |
As explained in Hilchot Arachin 5:9, blemished animals are the subject of the above verse. They can be "caused to stand before a priest." All of the above are inanimate objects that cannot be "caused to stand before a priest."
|
| 13. |
The fine flour, wine, and oil. Wood, fowl, and sacred utensils may never be redeemed.
|
| 14. |
Hilchot Shegagot 10:12. The verses and the latter source refer to an adjustable guilt offering. If a person was poor and therefore set aside a meal offering as required of one of his financial status and then became wealthy, he may sell the meal offering and use it to be an animal as is required of him in his new financial position.
|
| 15. |
The flour, wine, and oil that accompany a sacrifice.
|
| 16. |
The Radbaz states that this refers to offerings that became impure while on the top of the altar. If they became impure beforehand, they should not be brought there to be burnt.
|
| 17. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.
|
| 18. |
This is speaking about a situation in which the water that was taken for a libation before the Sabbath of the Sukkot and became impure on that Sabbath. We are forced to say this, for if we were speaking of an ordinary weekday, there would be no difficulty in going down to the Gichon Stream and getting new water. On the Sabbath, this is forbidden and the only alternative is restore the ritual purity of the water (Rashi, Meiri, Pesachim 34b).
|
| 19. |
Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 2:21 which explains that when a receptacle containing water has an ordinary sized opening and is submerged in a mikveh, the water can regain its status of ritual purity.
|
| 20. |
Even though the water regained its purity, it is no longer acceptable as an offering. This is a Rabbinic stringency (Pesachim, loc. cit.; see Halachah 8). Instead, water for the libation should be taken from the basin (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:10).
|
| 21. |
57 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 100 cc according to Chazon Ish.
|
| 22. |
The rationale is that as stated in Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:1, impure food will not cause other foods or liquids to contract ritual impurity unless the impure food is the size of an egg sized portion.
|
| 23. |
I.e., were the liquids to be of the body of the fruit, they would be considered impure like the fruit itself. It is, however, considered as if they are distinct entities (ibid. 1:2) and they do not have the possibility of becoming impure until they emerge from the fruit. Hence, if there is less than an egg-sized portion, the liquids will not become impure.
|
| 24. |
Even though it is acceptable with regard to terumah.
|
| 25. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:5) the Rambam writes that the only unfashioned wood which ever contracts ritual impurity is wood used for the altar.
|
| 26. |
Wine sweetened due to exposure to the sun; alternatively, wine to which a sweetener was added (see Hilchot Shabbat 29:14).
|
| 27. |
Wine stored in a utensil with a foul odor [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot8:6)].
|
| 28. |
This improves the flavor of the wine. See Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).
|
| 29. |
Grape juice that has not fermented.
|
| 30. |
All of these types of wine have an inferior flavor.
|
| 31. |
As explained in Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:6-8:10, when wine was left uncovered, it is forbidden because it is possible that a snake might have deposited venom in it. Hence, it is forbidden for the altar.
|
| 32. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
|
| 33. |
Even slightly worm-ridden.
|
| 34. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 5:14), the Rambam defines solet, translated as "fine flour," as the flour of substance that remains in the process of refinement and kemach, translated as "flour dust," as the dust that is cast off.
|
| 35. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2).
|
| 36. |
All of these types of flour are of inferior quality (ibid.).
|
| 37. |
And the grain growing from them is an entirely new entity. Were they not to have been sown, flour made from them would not be acceptable.
|
| 38. |
In vinegar or in brine.
|
| 39. |
As explained above, fruit grown under these conditions is of inferior quality.
|
| 40. |
Both individual and communal offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot8:1)].
|
| 41. |
Grown in the present year.
|
| 42. |
The offering of barley brought on the second day of Pesach.
|
| 43. |
These concepts are evident from Leviticus 23:10 and, 16-17. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim7:5-6; 8:2.
|
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
Not every entity that is not unacceptable may be brought [as a sacrifice] as an initial preference.1
What is implied? If one is obligated to bring a burnt offering, one should not bring a weak and unattractive sheep and [justify oneself saying]: "It does not have a blemish." Concerning this, can be applied [the words of censure,Malachi 1:14]: "Cursed be the deceiver... [who sacrifices a blemished animal to God]." Instead, anyone who brings a sacrifice should bring from the highest quality.2
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
All virgin wood5 is acceptable for the altar. They would not bring wood from olive trees or grape vines [in consideration of] the settlement of Eretz [Yisrael].6They would frequently use boughs of fig trees that grow in forests of unsettled areas,7 those of nut trees, and those of fast-burning8 trees. The logs that Moses made [for the altar in the Sanctuary] were a cubit long and a cubit wide.9Their thickness was like that of the leveling rod for an overflowing se'ah. In future generations,10 [logs] of the same measurements were used.
Halacha 4
What would they do when sowing wheat for meal offerings and accompanying offerings?11 They would leave half a field fallow in the first year12 and sow the other half.13 In the second year, he should leave the portion he sowed in the first year fallow and he should sow the second half seventy days before Peach.14 If the field had not been tilled, he should plow it twice and then sow it. He should choose the kernels of wheat carefully15 and then he should strike them16 and tread on them17 until their shells are removed.
Halacha 5
All of the wheat used for the meal offerings must receive 300 blows and be tread on 500 times. He should give [the kernels] one blow and then tread on them twice; give them two blows and tread on them three times. Thus they will have received three blows and will have been tread on five times. He should then repeat the pattern until he completes all 300 blows and 500 treadings so that much of the shells will have been removed. As a stringency, extending and drawing back his arm is considered as one blow. After this process, he should grind and sift the flour very thoroughly.
Halacha 6
Wine [should be made by] bringing grapes from vines growing at foot level from vineyards that were tilled twice a year.18 He should crush the grapes and collect [their juice] in small jugs. They should not be stored individually or in pairs, but instead in groups of three.19 The jug should not be filled to its rim in order that its fragrance will be perceived.20 He should not bring [libations] from the wine near the rim, because of the specks resembling flour21 that rise to the surface of the wine, nor from the bottom, because of the dregs. Instead, he should take from the middle third and from its middle portion.
Halacha 7
A treasurer would sit [and watch] as the wine flowed from a hole on the side of a jug [of wine]. If he sees dregs flow out, he stops [the flow of wine] and does not complete the purchase.
Halacha 8
There are nine categories of oil, depending on the process in which they were prepared. What is implied? When one picks olives at the top of an olive tree, selects them one by one,24 crushes them and puts them into a basket, the oil that flows from them is considered in the first category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them],25 the oil which flows from them is of the second category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time,26 the oil which flows from them is of the third category.
When he picked olives in a mixture,27 brought them to the roof, selected them one by one, crushed them, and placed them into a basket, the oil which flows from them is of the fourth category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them], the oil which flows from them is of the fifth category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time, the oil which flows from them is of the sixth category.
When he picks olives28 and loads them in the vat until they begin to decompose, he then takes them up [to the roof], dries them, and places them in a basket.29 The oil which flows from them is of the seventh category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them], the oil which flows from them is of the eighth category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time, the oil which flows from them is of the ninth category.
Halacha 9
Even though they are all acceptable [to be brought] with the meal offerings,30there is nothing that surpasses the first category.31 Afterwards, the second and the fourth are of equal quality.32 After them, the third, fifth, and seventh are of equal quality.33 After them, the sixth and the eighth are of equal quality.34 There is nothing inferior to the ninth.35
Halacha 10
Only the first, fourth, and seventh categories are acceptable for the Menorah, for [Exodus 27:20] states: "crushed for the light," i.e., for the Menorah,36 only that which flows after [the olives] are crushed alone37 are acceptable. They are all acceptable for meal offerings.38
Halacha 11
Since all of these categories of oil are acceptable, why were they listed as separate categories? So that one would know the superior category that nothing surpasses, those which are equal, and those which are inferior. In this way, one who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing.39 For it is written in the Torah [Genesis 4:4]: "And Evel brought from his chosen flocks and from the superior ones and God turned to Evel and his offering."
The same applies to everything given for the sake of the Almighty who is good. It should be of the most attractive and highest quality. If one builds a house of prayer, it should be more attractive than his own dwelling. If he feeds a hungry person, he should feed him from the best and most tasty foods of his table. If he clothes one who is naked, he should clothe him with his attractive garments. If he consecrates something, he should consecrate the best of his possession. And so [Leviticus 3:16] states: "All of the superior quality should be given to God."40
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This chapter focuses on one fundamental concept: that ideally the entities used for the sacrifices should be of the highest quality.
|
| 2. |
As evident from Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:4, here, the Rambam is focusing on the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, not on the letter of the law.
|
| 3. |
Because of their fat (Rav Yosef Corchus).
|
| 4. |
All of the names mentioned here are regions or cities in Eretz Yisrael. Each respective was renown for the quality of the particular item associated with it.
|
| 5. |
I.e., wood that has not been used for any other purpose first.
|
| 6. |
Oil and wine are considered basic necessities and hence, the trees and vines from which they derive should not be cut down for use as fuel for the altar. The Radbaz explains that olive trees and grape vines also frequently have knots and produce smoke that is undesirable.
|
| 7. |
Which do not produce edible fruit [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid)]. This atoned for the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge which was a fig tree [Rashi (Yoma 58a)].
|
| 8. |
Our translation is based on Rashi's Commentary to Tamid 29b. Literally, the words would be translated as "oily trees."
|
| 9. |
For this was the size of the pyre.
|
| 10. |
Even though the size of the altar as a whole was increased.
|
| 11. |
I.e., the practice to be described delineates the optimum manner of preparing flour for the meal offerings. Flour which was prepared in another manner may also be acceptable.
|
| 12. |
Leaving the field fallow improved the quality of the grain it produces.
|
| 13. |
Plowing it each time [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2)].
|
| 14. |
Although this falls on 5 Shvat which is in the midst of winter. "the sun already has the power to shine upon it" (Rashi, Menachot 85a) and improve its growth.
|
| 15. |
To remove any other seeds and to select the highest quality wheat (Radbaz).
|
| 16. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:5) the Rambam interprets this as striking the wheat powerfully with one's hand so that the dust will be removed from them.
|
| 17. |
Crushing them with his feet to crack the shells (ibid.).
|
| 18. |
This is also the optimum manner to prepare wine. Wine prepared in other means is also acceptable.
|
| 19. |
The Radbaz explains that the more barrels are stored together, the less each one is exposed to air. Hence, there is less deterioration in the flavor of the wine.
|
| 20. |
If the jug is filled to the brim, the vapors from the wine will have no chance to rise. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:6).
|
| 21. |
In that source, the Rambam explains that in the wines that he is familiar with, this phenomenon takes place only in the superior wines. He supposes that in Eretz Yisrael, this phenomenon would occur only with the inferior wines.
|
| 22. |
Until then, the fermentation process will not be complete. The Radbaz writes that although the Rambam's wording does not imply this, from the beginning of the fortieth day onward, the wine is acceptable.
|
| 23. |
Once its flavor has begun to spoil, however, it is unacceptable. See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
|
| 24. |
Apparently, the Rambam is speaking about a situation when the majority of the crop are not ready to be picked and the ones he selects are those of the highest quality.
|
| 25. |
I.e., one of the techniques of pressing olives was to put them under pressure from a heavy beam. This would squeeze out more oil from them,.
|
| 26. |
Readjusting the beam will apply greater pressure and squeeze out more oil.
|
| 27. |
Without separated the good from the bad. This is speaking about the stage when most of the olives are ready for picking. Thus the ones he picks are not necessarily the most choice.
|
| 28. |
These are olives which grew late and never ripened sufficiently.
|
| 29. |
Although they were crushed and thus dregs will be produced, they were not, however, pressed with a beam, which would produce more dregs.
|
| 30. |
Menachot 86b states that the Torah allowed the inferior types of oil to be used, so that the price of superior oil would not rise and thus be prohibitively expensive for the people at large.
|
| 31. |
For the olives are superior and they are not pressed, so that few dregs will be included.
|
| 32. |
The second category uses superior olives, but they are pressed, so that they will have dregs. The fourth uses inferior olives, but they are not pressed, so there will be no dregs.
|
| 33. |
Even though the olives of the third category will have been pressed twice, because they are of a superior quality, they are equal to those of a lower quality that were pressed less. Similarly, those of the seventh category, though pressed only once are of inferior quality to those of the fifth category.
|
| 34. |
Even though those of the sixth category have been pressed twice, they are of a higher quality than those of the eighth.
|
| 35. |
For they are both of a lower category and have been pressed twice.
|
| 36. |
"The light."
|
| 37. |
I.e., excluding oil produced by pressing.
|
| 38. |
Even though the Rambam mentioned this point in the previous halachah, he mentions it again here to emphasize that this concept is also derived from the exegesis of the verse. It is necessary that the oil flow from crushing only "for the light," and not for the meal offerings.
|
| 39. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:3-4.
|
| 40. |
See also Hilchot Terumah 5:1 which states that the finest grain should be separated as terumah
|
Hayom Yom:
• Thursday, Sivan 3, 5775 · 05/21/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Nasso, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 18-22.
Tanya: Ch. 53. At the time (p. 277)..the Esoteric Discipline) p.279).
Haircutting during the Three Days of Preparation, before Erev Shavuot, was displeasing to my father.
Whoever ponders the approach of Tosafot in his comment beginning "Torah etc..." (Shabbat 89a) will understand that the festival of Shavuot is an auspicious time Above. On that day G-d confounds the "supernal accuser" of Israel, similar to His confounding the accuser during Shofar-sounding on Rosh Hashana and on the holy day of the Fast of Yom Kippur.
Daily Thought:
Words of the Other
If you have spoken to another and your words did not help, it is proof you did not speak with him but with yourself. Your words may be the words you wanted to say, the words you believe, but they are not the words he needed to hear. If you would speak to him and speak his words, then certainly he would hear.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment