Today's Laws & Customs
• Isru Chag
The day following a festival is called Isru Chag ("tied to the festival"). Tachnun(confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted through the 12th of Sivan.
On Isru Chag, It is customary to hold a kinus Torah, a public gathering in which Torah thoughts are shared and discussed.
Today in Jewish History:
• Rabbi Escapes Crusaders (1147)
Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir Tam, known as the "Rabbenu Tam," was one of Rashi's illustrious grandsons. During the Second Crusade, on the second day of the holiday of Shavuot, the Crusaders entered his hometown of Rameru, and pillaged and massacred many Jews.
They broke into Rabbenu Tam's house, plundered all his wealth, and seriously wounded Rabbenu Tam. On the next day, the 8th of Sivan, Rabbenu Tam escaped Rameru and the clutches of the Crusaders.
Two years later he completed his famous treatise on Jewish ritual and ethics,Sefer Hayashar.
Links:
Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir, the Rabbenu Tam
The Crusades
Daily Quote:
If I soar to the heavens, there You are[Psalms 139:8]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Naso, 3rd Portion Numbers 5:1-5:10 with Rashi
• Chapter 5
1The Lord spoke to Moses saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Command the children of Israel to banish from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'ath or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead. בצַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה כָּל צָרוּעַ וְכָל זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ:
Command the children of Israel: This section was said on the day the Mishkan was erected, and eight sections were said on that day, as it is stated in Tractate Gittin , in the chapter entitled: HaNizakin (60a, b). צו את בני ישראל וגו': פרשה זו נאמרה ביום שהוקם המשכן, ושמנה פרשיות נאמרו בו ביום, כדאיתא במסכת גיטין בפרק הניזקין (ס א):
to banish from the camp: At the time of their encampment, there were three camps: within the hangings [of the courtyard of the Mishkan] was the camp of the Shechinah . The encampment of the Levites surrounding it-as described in the portion of Bamidbar Sinai (1:50)-was the Levite Camp; from there until the edge of the camp of the divisions, on all four sides, was the Israelite camp. Anyone afflicted with tzara’ath was expelled from all [three] of them. One with a discharge was allowed into the Israelite camp, but banned from the [other] two. And one defiled by a dead body was permitted even into the Levite [camp], and is banished only from the [camp] of the Shechinah . Our Sages derived all this from the verses [as appears] in Tractate Pesachim (67a, b). וישלחו מן המחנה: שלש מחנות היו שם בשעת חנייתן, תוך הקלעים היא מחנה שכינה, חניית הלוים סביב כמו שמפורש בפרשת במדבר סיני היא מחנה לויה, ומשם ועד סוף מחנה הדגלים לכל ארבע הרוחות היא מחנה ישראל. הצרוע נשתלח חוץ לכולן, הזב מותר במחנה ישראל ומשולח מן השתים, וטמא לנפש מותר אף בשל לויה ואינו משולח אלא משל שכינה, וכל זה דרשו רבותינו מן המקראות במסכת פסחים (סז):
who are unclean through [contact with] the dead: Targum [Onkelos renders:] דִמְסָאָב לִטְמֵי נַפְשָׁא דֶאנָשָׁא I believe that it [the word טְמֵי] is Aramaic for human bones. There are many such examples in Gen. Rabbah (78:1; see 10:3, 28:3), such as:“Hadrian, שְׁחִיק טַמְיָא,” [meaning] may his bones be ground [to dust]. [Since only one reference reads שְׁחִיק טַמְיָא, while the others שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת, I believe that Rashi means that there are many places in Gen. Rabbah where these two expressions, both referring to Hadrian, are interchangeable.] טמא לנפש: דמסאב לטמי נפשא דאנשא. אומר אני שהוא לשון עצמות אדם בלשון ארמי, והרבה יש בב"ר אדריינוס שחיק טמיא, שחיק עצמות:
3Both male and female you shall banish; you shall send them outside the camp, and they not defile their camps, in which I dwell among them. גמִזָּכָר עַד נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה תְּשַׁלְּחוּם וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי שֹׁכֵן בְּתוֹכָם:
4The children of Israel did so: they sent them outside the camp; as the Lord had spoken to Moses, so did the children of Israel do. דוַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיְשַׁלְּחוּ אוֹתָם אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
5The Lord then spoke to Moses saying: הוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
6Tell the children of Israel: When a man or woman commits any of the sins against man to act treacherously against God, and that person is [found] guilty, ודַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכָּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּיהוָֹה וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא:
to act treacherously against God: [Scripture] repeats the section [dealing with] a thief who swears falsely, which is stated in parshath Vayikra : “… and acts treacherously against God by falsely denying to his fellow…” (Lev. 5:21). It is repeated here because two new matters are introduced. The first is that it is written: “they shall confess,” which teaches us that he [the thief] is not required to pay a fifth and [bring] a guilt [offering] when incriminated by two witnesses, until he admits to the deed himself, and the second [matter] is that what is stolen from a proselyte must be given to the kohanim. - [Sifrei Naso 1:13] למעל מעל בה': הרי חזר וכתב כאן פרשת גוזל ונשבע על שקר, היא האמורה בפרשת ויקרא (ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה' וכחש בעמיתו וגו', ונשנית כאן בשביל שני דברים שנתחדשו בה האחד, שכתב והתודו, לימד שאינו חייב חומש ואשם על פי עדים עד שיודה בדבר. והשני על גזל הגר שהוא נתון לכהנים:
7they shall confess the sin they committed, and make restitution for the principal amount of his guilt, add its fifth to it, and give it to the one against whom he was guilty. זוְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ:
for the principal amount of his guilt: This is the principal amount on which he has sworn [falsely]. — [B.K. 110a] את אשמו בראשו: הוא הקרן שנשבע עליו:
to the one against whom he was guilty: The one to whom he is liable. — [Keth. 19a] [I.e., if the payee owes this amount to a third party, the thief must pay the third party.] לאשר אשם לו: למי שנתחייב לו:
8But if the man has no kinsman to whom to make restitution, the debt which is restored to the Lord, [is to be given] to the kohen. [This is] besides the atonement ram through which expiation is made for him. חוְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָֹה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ עָלָיו:
But if the man has no kinsman: For the claimant who made him swear has died, and has left no heirs. ואם אין לאיש גואל: שמת התובע שהשביעו, ואין לו יורשים:
to whom to make restitution: when this one decided to confess his sin. Our Sages say: Is there any man in Israel who has no kinsman-either a son, a daughter, a brother, or some other relative from his father’s family-all the way back to our father Jacob? Rather, this is [referring to] a proselyte who died, leaving no heirs. — [Sifrei Naso 1:23, B.K. 109a, Sanh. 68b] [since a proselyte is judged as a newborn, without relationship to those born prior to his conversion.] להשיב האשם אליו: כשנמלך זה להתודות על עונו. ואמרו רבותינו וכי יש לך אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים או בן או אח או שאר בשר הקרוב ממשפחת אביו למעלה עד יעקב, אלא זה הגר שמת ואין לו יורשים:
the debt which is restored: Heb. הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב. The [“debt” (הָאָשָׁם) refers to the] principal and [“which is restored” (הַמּוּשָׁב) refers to] the fifth. — [B.K. 110a] האשם המושב: זה הקרן והחומש:
to the Lord,[is to be given] to the kohen: God assumes ownership and gives it over to the kohen [on duty] in that watch. — [B.K. 109b] לה' לכהן: קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן שבאותו משמר:
besides the atonement ram: mentioned in [parshath] Vayikra (Lev. 5:25), which he is required to bring. מלבד איל הכפורים: האמור בויקרא (ויקרא ה כה) שהוא צריך להביא:
9Every offering of all the children of Israel's holy things which is brought to the kohen, shall be his. טוְכָל תְּרוּמָה לְכָל קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה:
Every offering: Heb. תְּרוּמָה. Rabbi Ishmael said: Is the terumah brought to the kohen ? Does he not go around the granaries seeking it? So what does the clause “brought to the kohen” mean? These are the first fruits, of which it is stated, “you shall bring to the House of the Lord, your God” (Exod. 23:19), but I do not know what to do with them. Therefore, Scripture states: “to the kohen , [it] shall be his.” Scripture teaches us regarding the first fruits, that they are to be given to the kohen . — [Sifrei Naso 1:30]. וכל תרומה וגו': אמר רבי ישמעאל וכי תרומה מקריבין לכהן, והלא הוא המחזר אחריה לבית הגרנות. ומה תלמוד לומר אשר יקריבו לכהן, אלו הבכורים, שנאמר בהם תביא בית ה' אלהיך, (שמות כג, יט). ואיני יודע מה יעשה בהם, תלמוד לומר לכהן לו יהיה, בא הכתוב ולמד על הבכורים שיהיו ניתנין לכהן:
10Everyone's holy things shall belong to him; whatever a man gives to the kohen shall be his. יוְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה:
A man’s holy things belong to him: Since the kohen’s and the Levite’s gifts are [explicitly] stated, one might think that they can come and appropriate them forcefully. Therefore, Scripture states: “Everyone’s holy things belong to him,” which informs us that their benefit [to give them to whichever kohen it pleases him] belongs to the owner. They [the Sages] deduced many other expository explanations from it [this clause] in the Sifrei (Naso 1:31-34). An Aggadic interpretation: “Everyone’s holy things belong to him” [means,] if one withholds his tithes and does not give them [to the kohen or Levite], those tithes shall be his, for eventually his field will produce only a tenth of its usual yield. — [See Midrash Tanchuma , R’eh 10, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana p. 96a, Tos. Ta’anith 9a. See also Tanchuma Buber, vol. 1, p. 126, \'a75, fn. 6. Apparently, Rashi and the Tosafists had a variant reading of one of these midrashim, which attributes this idea to our verse.] ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו: לפי שנאמרו מתנות כהונה ולויה יכול יבואו ויטלום בזרוע, תלמוד לומר ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, מגיד שטובת הנאתן לבעלים, ועוד מדרשים הרבה דרשו בו בספרי. ומדרש אגדה ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, מי שמעכב מעשרותיו ואינו נותנן, לו יהיו המעשרות, סוף שאין שדהו עושה אלא אחד מעשרה שהיתה למודה לעשות:
whatever a man gives to the kohen: The gifts to which he is entitled. איש אשר יתן לכהן: מתנות הראויות לו:
shall be his: [He shall have] much wealth. — [Ber. 63a] \b 12\b0 לו יהיה: ממון הרבה:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 44 - 48
• Chapter 44
The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1
2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.
3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.
4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.
5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.
6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.
7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.
8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.
9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.
10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;
11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;
12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;
13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;
14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;
15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;
16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me
17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-
18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.
19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.
20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-
21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?
22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.
23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!
25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?
26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.
27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.
Chapter 45
The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"
1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.
2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”
3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.
5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.
6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.
7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.
8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.
9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.
10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.
11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.
12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.
13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.
14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.
15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.
16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.
17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.
18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.
Chapter 46
This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.
2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.
3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;
4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.
5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.
6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.
7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.
8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.
10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.
11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.
12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
Chapter 47
Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.
3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.
4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.
5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.
6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.
7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.
8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.
9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.
10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.
Chapter 48
The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.
3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.
4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.
5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].
6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.
7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;
8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.
9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.
10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.
11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.
13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.
14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.
15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 1• Lessons in Tanya
• Tuesday, Sivan 8, 5775 · May 26, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 1
ואף שלא הוזכר שם אבן בעשרה מאמרות שבתורה
Now, although the name אבן (“stone”) is not mentioned in the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah, — how, then, can we say that letters of the Ten Utterances are enclothed within a stone?
אף על פי כן נמשך חיות לאבן על ידי צירופים וחילופי אותיות
nevertheless, life-force flows to the stone from the Ten Utterances by means of combinations and substitutions of their letters,
whereby an alef, for example, may take the place of a hei, since both letters are articulated by the same organ of speech, and so on,
המתגלגלות ברל״א שערים פנים ואחור, כמו שכתוב בספר יצירה
which are transposed in the “two hundred and thirty-one gates,” either in direct or reverse order,1 as is explained in Sefer Yetzirah,2
עד שמשתלשל מעשרה מאמרות ונמשך מהן צירוף שם אבן
so that ultimately the combination of letters [that forms] the name אבן descends from the Ten Utterances, and is derived from them,
והוא חיותו של האבן
and this combination of letters is the life-force of the stone.
וכן בכל הנבראים שבעולם
And so it is with all created things in the world.
The Holy Tongue, the Hebrew of the Torah, was the language used in creation. Thus, all created things are directly affected by their Hebrew names, as well as by the component letters of their names. In this, the Holy Tongue is unlike other, arbitrary languages, the meaning of whose words is the result of mere concensus.
השמות שנקראים בהם בלשון הקודש הן הן אותיות הדבור המשתלשלות ממדרגה למדרגה מעשרה מאמרות שבתורה
The names [of all creatures] in the Holy Tongue are the very letters of speech which descend, degree by degree, from the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah,
להחיותו על ידי חילופים ותמורות האותיות ברל״א שערים, עד שמגיעות ומתלבשות באותו נברא
by means of substitutions and transpositions of letters through the “two hundred and thirty-one gates,” until they reach a particular created thing and become invested in it, thereby giving it life.
לפי שאין פרטי הנבראים יכולים לקבל חיותן מעשרה מאמרות עצמן שבתורה
This descent is necessary because individual creatures, unlike the more pervasive beings such as the heavens, earth, sun and moon, cannot receive their life-force directly from the actual Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah,
שהחיות הנמשך מהן עצמן גדול מאד מבחינת הנבראים פרטיים
for the life-force issuing directly from them is far greater than the capacity of the individual creatures; i.e., it is far too intense to serve as their life-force.
ואין כח בהם לקבל החיות אלא על ידי שיורד החיות ומשתלשל ממדרגה למדרגה פחותה ממנה, על ידי חילופים ותמורות האותיות
They can receive the life-force only when it descends and is progressively diminished, degree by degree, by means of substitutions and transpositions of the letters,
וגימטריאות, שהן חשבון האותיות
and by means of gematriot, their numerical values,
The life-force may be so muted that it reaches a created being not even through a transposition of letters, but merely through their numerical equivalent.
עד שיוכל להתצמצם ולהתלבש ולהתהוות ממנו נברא פרטי
until [the life-force] can be condensed and enclothed, and a particular creature can be brought forth from it.
וזה שמו אשר יקראו לו בלשון הקדש, הוא כלי לחיות המצומצם באותיות שם זה
And the name by which [the creature] is called in the Holy Tongue is a vessel for the life-force condensed into the letters of that name
שנשתלשל מעשרה מאמרות שבתורה, שיש בהם כח וחיות לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו לעולם
which has descended from the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah, that have the power and vitality to create a being ex nihilo and give it life forever.
דאורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא כולא חד
Why does it have the power to do so? — For3 “the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one.” Just as G‑d has the ability to create ex nihilo, so too do the Ten Utterances of the Torah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Note of the Rebbe: “Enumerated in detail in Sefer HaPardes, Shaar HaTziruf, ch. 5.” The twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet in two-lettered combinations yield a total of 462 combinations. Of these, half are the exact reverse of the other half, e.g., alef-bet, bet-alef. Hence, there are 231 two-lettered combinations in direct order and the same number in reverse order. |
| 2. | Ch. 2:4-5. |
| 3. | Cf. Zohar I, 24a; II, 60a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Tuesday, Sivan 8, 5775 · May 26, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 124
Baking the Remainder of a Meal Offering as Leaven
"It shall not be baked leavened. It is their portion; I have given it to them of My fire offerings "—Leviticus 6:10.
It is forbidden to bake the remainder of the Meal Offerings [i.e., the part of the offering not offered on the altar, to which the priests are entitled] as leaven.
Baking the Remainder of a Meal Offering as Leaven
Negative Commandment 124
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 124th prohibition is that we are forbidden from baking the leftover part of the meal-offerings [remaining after the handful is burned on the altar] as chametz.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "It shall not be baked as chametz. I have given this to them as their portion of My fire-offerings." It is as if the verse says that their portion [i.e. that of the kohanim] — which is the leftover part of the meal-offering — may not be baked as chametz.
One who does bake it as chametz is punished by lashes, as the Mishneh2 explains, "One is punished for baking it."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 5th chapter of tractate Menachos.3
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 6:10.
2.Menachos 5:2.
3.Ibid., 55a.
Positive Commandment 88
Consumption of the Meal Offerings
"And the remainder of it, Aaron and his sons shall eat as unleavened bread"—Leviticus 6:9.
The kohanim (priests) are commanded to eat the remainder (i.e. the part that has not been offered on the altar) of the meal offerings.
This mitzvah is restricted to male kohanim.
Consumption of the Meal Offerings
Positive Commandment 88
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 88th mitzvah is that kohanim are commanded to eat the leftover parts of the meal-offerings.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Aaron and his descendants shall then eat the rest of [the meal-offering]. It must be eaten as matzah."
In the words of the Sifra: "The verse 'It must be eaten as matzah' constitutes a positive commandment. This is similar to the verse,2 '[When brothers live together and one of them dies childless...] her husband's brother must cohabit with her,' which also constitutes a positive commandment." This means that eating the leftover portion of the meal-offerings is an obligation and not just a statement giving permission, just like the commandment of cohabiting with a yevamah.3
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the relevant place — tractate Menachos.4
Scripture itself states that this commandment is exclusively for male [kohanim], as seen from the verse,5 "Every male among Aaron's descendants may eat it."
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 6:9.
2.Deut. 25:5.
3.See P216.
4.72b.
5.Lev. 6:11.
Positive Commandment 83
Fulfilling Sacrificial Obligations
"You shall inquire after His dwelling and come there. And there you shall bring your burnt offerings"—Deuteronomy 12:5-6.
We are commanded to satisfy all our pledges on the first festival – of the three biblical festivals: Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot – following the undertaking of the pledge.
This includes all pledged sacrifices, monies, as well as the various mandatory gifts for the poor.
Fulfilling Sacrificial Obligations
Positive Commandment 83
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 83rd mitzvah is that we are commanded to fulfill all our responsibilities1 on the next of the three festivals.2 In this way not a single festival will pass by without our having offered every sacrifice which was promised.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "You shall seek His presence and you shall go there, and there you must bring your burnt-offerings..."
The idea conveyed by this commandment is that at the time that you go to the Temple — i.e. each of the three festivals — you must bring every offering in which you are obligated. In the words of the Sifri: "Why was the phrase 'you shall go there...you must bring...' written? To make it obligatory to bring [your offering] on the next festival." It also says there, "One transgresses the prohibition 'do not be late'4 only when all the year's festivals have passed." This means that if all three festivals have passed and one still did not bring the offering, one has transgressed a prohibition; but if only one festival has passed, one violates only the positive commandment.
In tractate Rosh Hashanah,5 "Rava said, 'Once one festival has passed, one violates the positive commandment.' " The Talmud6 also says: "What is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Meir [who says that there is also a prohibition, even if only one festival has passed]? It is the phrase, 'you shall go there; and there you must bring' — when you come, you must bring [and if you do not, you transgress the prohibition]. But the Sages say that this phrase is only for the positive commandment."7 It is therefore clearly explained that the phrase "there you must bring" constitutes a positive commandment.
This commandment dictates that one must fulfill all one's obligations on each festival, and includes everything the person donates to G‑d. All sacrifices, damim,8 erachin,9 charamim,10 objects donated to the Temple fund, leket, shikchah, and pe'ah11 are identical as far as this law is concerned. It is a positive commandment to bring all of them on the very next festival, as explained in tractate Rosh Hashanah.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. promises to bring sacrifices, agricultural gifts, etc. See Kapach 5731, note 71.
2.I.e. Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos.
3.Deut. 12:5-6.
4.See N155 below.
5.6a.
6.Ibid., 4b.
7.Therefore, according to the Sages, once one festival has passed, the positive commandment is violated. Once the third festival has passed, the prohibition is also violated.
8.Such as saying, "I will give the value (damim) of this."
9.See P114-117.
10.See P145.
11.See P120-122.
Negative Commandment 155
Delaying the Fulfillment of a Pledge
"When you vow a vow to G‑d, your G‑d, do not be late in paying it"—Deuteronomy 23:22
It is forbidden to postpone the fulfillment of a sacrificial pledge. One has not transgressed this prohibition until three festivals have passed after the pledge was made.
Delaying the Fulfillment of a Pledge
Negative Commandment 155
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 155th prohibition is that we are forbidden from delaying nedarim,1 nedavos,2 or any other sacrifices which we are obligated to bring.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "When you make a pledge to G‑d your L‑rd, do not be late in paying it."
The Oral Tradition teaches us that one does not transgress this prohibition until three festivals have passed.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the beginning of tractate Rosh Hashanah.4
FOOTNOTES
1.A promise made that "I will bring a sacrifice."
2.A promise made that "This animal will be a sacrifice."
3.Deut. 23:22.
4.4b. See P83 above.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment of the Torah to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan], as [Exodus 12:18] states: "In the evening, you shall eat matzot." This applies in every place and at every time. Eating [matzah] is not dependent on the Paschal sacrifice. Rather, it is a mitzvah in its own right. The mitzvah may be fulfilled throughout the entire night.
Throughout the other days of the festival, eating matzah is left to one's choice: If one desires, one may eat matzah. If one desires, one may eat rice, millet, roasted seeds, or fruit. Nevertheless, on the night of the fifteenth alone, [eating matzah] is an obligation. Once one eats the size of an olive, he has fulfilled his obligation.
Commentary Halacha
in order that one will approach eating matzah with appetite. However, one may eat some fruit or vegetables -- or other similar foods that do not satiate one's appetite
but should not fill up on them -- for then, one will not eat the matzah with relish.
The Sages of the former generations would starve themselves on Pesach eve -- Pesachim 108a relates that Rav Sheshet would fast the entire day even though he was not a firstborn.
so that they would eat matzah with appetite, and thus hold the mitzvot as dear. In contrast -- greater leniency applies on the eve of Sabbaths or other festivals -- The Rambam's statements require some explanation: InHilchot Yom Tov 6:16, the Rambam states:
It is proper for a person not to dine on the day before a festival from the time of Minchah onward, as on the day before the Sabbath.
The latter phrase is a reference to Hilchot Shabbat 30:4, which states:
A person may eat and drink [on Friday] until nightfall. Nevertheless, as part of the honor given to the Shabbat, a person should refrain from scheduling a meal from the time of Minchah onward.
Thus, on the day before the Sabbath and other festivals, a person should not schedule an important meal. However, he may partake of a casual meal and continue eating. On Pesach, even the latter is forbidden.
one may continue eating until darkness. -- at which time one is required to cease eating. However, a person who desires to continue eating may cover his food with a cloth, recite Kiddush, and return to his meal, as explained in Hilchot Shabbat 29:12.
Halacha 2
A person who swallows matzah [without chewing it] fulfills his obligation. A person who swallows maror [without chewing it] does not fulfill his obligation. A person who swallows matzah and maror together fulfills the obligation of matzah, but not that of maror, for the maror is secondary to the matzah. If he wrapped them in fibers or the like and swallowed them, he does not even fulfill the obligation of matzah.
Commentary Halacha
A person who swallows matzah -- gulping it down, without chewing or tasting it
fulfills his obligation -- for as long as the matzah touches his throat and is ingested, it has been eaten. Nevertheless, it is not desirable to fulfill one's obligation in this manner (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 475).
A person who swallows maror -- in the same manner
does not fulfill his obligation -- The Rashbam, Pesachim 115b explains that the maror was instituted to recall the bitterness with which the Egyptians afflicted our ancestors. Therefore, a person who does not taste that bitterness does not fulfill his obligation.
Alternatively, certain texts of the Mishneh Torah (and Pesachim, ibid.) read "A person who swallows maror fulfills his obligation." The proponents of this text maintain that it is impossible to swallow a piece of maror the size of an olive without feeling some bitterness. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (475:3) quotes the former text.
A person who swallows matzah and maror together fulfills the obligation of matzah -- as above. There is an added undesirable factor in eating matzah in this manner. Preferably, no other substances should be eaten with the matzah, so that only its taste will be sensed. (Indeed, were he to chew both the matzah and the maror, he would not fulfill his obligation (See Pesachim 115a). To insure that nothing negate the taste of the matzah, in many communities it is customary not to dip the matzah in salt when eating it at the seder).
but not that of maror, for the maror is secondary to the matzah. -- The Ra'avad raises a question, noting that the latter phrase is not an explanation why one does not fulfill the mitzvah of maror.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's intention is to explain why the person fulfills the mitzvah of matzah. One might argue that the maror, like the fibers mentioned in the following clause, would prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah. Therefore, the Rambam explains that "the maror is secondary..."
It must be noted that according to the second version of the text mentioned above, the passage reads with no difficulty whatsoever.
If he wrapped them in fibers or the like and swallowed them -- the matzah, maror, and fibers
he does not even fulfill the obligation of matzah -- for unlike the maror, the fibers are considered as an interruption between the person's digestive system and the matzah. The fibers are placed in this category because they are not food in their own right. (A similar concept is stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 3:5.) In contrast, all other foods are considered secondary to the matzah and, hence not an interruption (Pri Chadash).
Halacha 3
A person who eats matzah without the intention [to fulfill the mitzvah] - e.g., gentiles or thieves force him to eat - fulfills his obligation.
A person who ate a כזית matzah in delirium, while possessed by an epileptic fit, and afterwards recovered, is obligated to eat another [כזית]. The consumption of [the first כזית] took place while he was free from the obligation to perform any mitzvot.
Commentary Halacha
A person who eats matzah without the intention [to fulfill the mitzvah] --This halachah touches on a question left unresolved by the Talmud (seePesachim 114b), and which has become a source of debate and discussion among the Rabbis in subsequent generations. Does a person who performs the deed of a mitzvah, without the intention to carry out God's command, fulfill his obligation, or not?
e.g., gentiles or thieves force him to eat -- The source for the Rambam's statements is Rosh HaShanah 28a, which states that when "Persians force a person to eat matzah, he fulfills his obligation."
fulfills his obligation -- It appears that the Rambam does not require a person to have the intention to fulfill a mitzvah, for in this instance the only reason the person ate the matzah was the coercion of the gentiles. Nevertheless, the commentaries qualify the Rambam's statements, based onHilchot Shofar 2:4:
A person who occupies himself with blowing shofar to learn does not fulfill his obligation... one does not fulfill his obligation until both the person hearing [the shofar] and the one sounding it intend to fulfill the obligation.
In resolution, the Maggid Mishneh states that to fulfill his obligation, the person being forced to eat the matzah must know that today is Pesach, that he is obligated to eat matzah, and that it is matzah which he is eating. Rabbenu Nissim, the Kessef Mishneh, and Rabbenu Manoach follow a different line of reasoning. They differentiate between eating matzah and hearing a shofar. In the former case, a person's body benefits from the activity regardless of his intention. To support this thesis, they draw a parallel to the following passage from Keritot 19b.
Generally, the Torah frees a person from liability if he commits a transgression while being only מתעסק (performing a deed without any thought). However, a person who eats forbidden foods or engages in forbidden sexual relations in this manner is liable, because he derived pleasure from his activities.
Similarly, in the present context, since the person derived physical satisfaction from eating the matzah, even though he was forced to do so, the action is attributed to him. In contrast, since his body did not benefit from hearing the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation until he hears the shofar blown in the proper manner.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 475:4) quotes the Maggid Mishneh'sopinion as regards halachah l'ma'aseh, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the Kessef Mishneh. (It must be noted that the Pri Chadash and other commentaries do not accept this decision). In Orach Chayim 589:8, the Shulchan Aruch quotes the Rambam's decision concerning blowing the shofar, stating that a מתעסק does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerning kriat shema (Orach Chayim60) and lulav and etrog (Orach Chayim 651).
A person who ate a
כזית matzah in delirium, while possessed by an epileptic fit, and afterwards recovered -- This does not imply that he was necessarily healed of epilepsy entirely, but rather that the seizure was concluded and he was able to return to normal functioning.
is obligated to eat another [ כזית] -- to fulfill the mitzvah because
the consumption of [the first כזית] took place while he was free from the obligation to perform any mitzvot -- because he was not in control of himself. Thus, his actions in that state do not obligate him for any transgressions he violates, nor does he receive full credit for any mitzvot he performs.
Halacha 4
A person does not fulfill the obligation of eating matzah unless he partakes [of matzah made] from one of the five species [of grain], as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat chametz upon it... eat matzot for seven days."
[From the verse's association of chametz and matzah, we may derive:] substances which can become leavened may be eaten as matzah to fulfill one's obligation. In contrast, other substances - e.g., rice, millet, and kitniyot - cannot be used to fulfill the obligation of matzah, for they can never become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
A person does not fulfill the obligation of eating matzah unless he partakes [of matzah made] from one of the five species -- wheat, rye, barley, oats, and spelt, as stated in Halachah 5:1.
[of grain] -- The Ramah (Orach Chayim 453:1) states that it is customary to use matzot made from wheat.
as [Deuteronomy 16:3] -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Challah 1:2), the Rambam cites two verses while explaining this principle: Exodus 12:18, "in the evening, you shall eat matzot" and the verse cited here. Similarly, certain manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah contain both verses. The fact that the mitzvah to eat matzah is derived from the verse in Exodus and not the verse in Deuteronomy tends to support the text which quotes both verses. However,Pesachim 35a, the source for the exegesis of this verse, only mentions one verse.
states: "Do not eat chametz upon it... eat matzot for seven days." From the verse's association of chametz and matzah, [we may derive:] substances which can become leavened -- that would become leavened if left unattended for the required period.
may be eaten as matzah to fulfill one's obligation -- as evident from the following halachah, the actual dough used to make the matzah need not have the potential to become leavened. However, the species of grain used as flour must be fit to become leavened. (See Lechem Mishneh, Halachah 5.)
In contrast, other substances - e.g. rice, millet, and kitniyot - cannot be used to fulfill the obligation of matzah, for they can never become leavened -- rather they spoil, as stated in Halachah 5:1.
Halacha 5
A person who makes dough from wheat and rice: if it has the taste of grain, one may fulfill his obligation with it. Dough made as food for dogs: if the shepherds also eat from it, one may fulfill his obligation with it. If the shepherds do not eat from it, one cannot fulfill his obligation by eating it, for it is not watched for the sake of eating matzah.
Matzah that was kneaded with fruit juice, one may fulfill one's obligation with it on Pesach. However, [the dough] should not be kneaded with wine, oil, honey, or milk, because of the requirement for poor man's bread, as explained above. A person who kneaded [dough with one of these liquids] does not fulfill his obligation.
One cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah made from thin bran or coarse bran. However, one may knead flour together with its bran and make it into a loaf and fulfill one's obligation with it. Similarly, a loaf made with very fine flour is permitted, and a person may fulfill his obligation with it. We do not say: this is not poor man's bread.
Commentary Halacha
A person who makes dough from wheat and rice -- combining the two species in one matzah
if it has the taste of grain -- Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:5), the Ramban and Rabbenu Asher maintain that as long as the matzah tastes of grain, one may fulfill one's requirement even though the amount of wheat flour is not sufficient to produce a כזית (size of an olive) of wheat flour in כדי אכילת פרס (a quantity equivalent in volume to three eggs according to the Rambam, two eggs according to other authorities; see the commentary on Halachah 1:6).
They explain that when mixed with wheat, rice takes on the taste of the wheat to the point that its own flavor is not noticeable at all. Hence, there is no limit to the quantity of wheat required. In contrast, other kitniyot do not "accept" the flavor of wheat so easily (nor does rice "accept" the flavor of the other four species of grain). Hence, if they are mixed with wheat, there has to be a sufficient quantity of wheat (a כזית within פרס כדי אכילת) for one to fulfill his obligation.
The Ra'avad and the Rashbah do not accept the principle explained by the Ramban, and require a כזית in פרס כדי אכילת even when a dough is made of rice and wheat. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 453:2) quotes the Rambam's words exactly. The commentaries infer that this implies acceptance of the Ramban's view. The later authorities quote the Ra'avad's opinion and suggest adhering to it, though theoretically, they find the Ramban's view more acceptable.
one may fulfill his obligation with it -- as if it were made of wheat alone.
Dough made as food for dogs -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Challah1:8), the Rambam describes this as coarse bread mixed together with bran.
if the shepherds also eat from it -- and thus, it is also considered human food
one may fulfill his obligation with it. If the shepherds do not eat from it --and use it merely to feed the animals, it is not forbidden. Were it to be chametz, it would not be permitted to be used for that purpose since no benefit may be derived from chametz during Pesach. Nevertheless,
one cannot fulfill his obligation -- to eat matzah the first night of Pesach
by eating it, for it is not watched for the sake of eating matzah -- as explained in Halachah 5:9, the matzah used to fulfill the mitzvah must be "watched" so that it does not become chametz. Furthermore, every stage of its preparation should be carried out with the intent that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah. Since this dough was made to be used only as food for dogs, surely this intent was lacking.
Matzah that was kneaded with fruit juice -- Fruit juice itself will not cause flour to become leavened, as stated in Halachah 5:2; nevertheless,
one may fulfill one's obligation with it on Pesach -- because the species of grain can become leavened. As mentioned above, it is Ashkenazic custom not to use such matzah on Pesach unless the person is incapable of eating ordinary matzah.
However, [the dough] should not be kneaded with wine, oil, honey, or milk, because of the requirement for poor man's bread, as explained above -- in Halachah 5:20. There is a slight difficulty with this statement. The halachah cited states that only water should be used for the matzah. The Radbaz (Vol. III, Responsum 1074) states that only the four liquids mentioned here may not be used, for only they change the taste of the matzah appreciably. However, the Ra'avad and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim462:1) forbid the use of matzah made with any liquid other than water for use at the seder.
A person who kneaded [dough with one of these liquids] does not fulfill his obligation -- Pesachim 36a relates that Rabbi Yehoshua told his sons to make him matzah kneaded with milk throughout Pesach, except on the first night.
One cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah made from thin bran or coarse -- as mentioned above, there is a debate among the Rabbis which Hebrew term is appropriate to which type of bran.
bran -- It is abnormal to make bread from bran alone. Therefore, Challah need not be separated from such a loaf, nor may it be used for the mitzvah of matzah. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 454:1.
However, one may knead flour together with its bran and make it into a loaf and fulfill one's obligation with it -- for then, the flour is considered of primary importance.
Similarly, a loaf made with very fine flour -- Pesachim 36b states "even if it is like King Solomon's matzah."
Halacha 6
[One may fulfill his obligation] with matzah baked in either an oven or a roasting pot. This applies whether the dough was stuck to the roasting pot and then the [pot] was heated, or whether the [pot] was heated and then the [dough] stuck to it. Even if the dough was baked in the ground, one may fulfill his obligation with it.
Similarly, even if the matzah was not thoroughly baked, one may fulfill his obligation with it, provided strands of dough will not extend from it when broken. A person may fulfill his obligation with a cake [of matzah] soaked [in other substances], so long as it has not dissolved. However, a person cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah that has been cooked, for it does not have the taste of bread.
Commentary Halacha
[One may fulfill his obligation] with matzah baked in either an oven -- as is usually done
or a roasting pot -- as is occasionally the case. The dough is prepared as if for baking in an oven, and then placed in a roasting pot or frying pan. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Challah 1:6), the Rambam explains that even when bread is baked in this fashion, one is obligated to separate Challah. Hence, such a loaf is also considered as bread with regard to matzah.
This applies whether the dough was stuck to the roasting pot and then the [pot] was heated -- The Rambam uses the word הרתיח, which is generally translated as "boiled." However, in this instance, all commentators agree that no water can be used.
or whether the [pot] was heated, and then the [dough] stuck to it. -- In the latter instance, the Ra'avad agrees with the principle that such matzah is considered as bread and is able to be used for the mitzvah of matzah. However, he objects to this manner of preparation out of fear that perhaps the dough will become chametz. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 461:2) suggests adhering to his opinion.
Even if the dough was baked in the ground, one may fulfill his obligation with it -- Berachot 38a describes the process of baking bread in a pit in the ground and states that one may use it as matzah for the seder.
Similarly, even if the matzah was not thoroughly baked -- Within the context of this law, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 461:3) counsels against removing dough prematurely from the oven and then returning it. During the time it is outside the oven, it can become chametz.
one may fulfill his obligation with it, provided strands of dough will not extend from it when broken. --
פורסה usually means sliced. Our translation follows Rabbenu Manoach's commentary and Rashi, Pesachim 37a.
A person -- This law is relevant to a person who is old or sick and cannot eat the required amount (כזית) of matzah in the normal manner, as mentioned in Halachah 10. Nevertheless, its application is not solely restricted to these persons. None of the commentaries has placed any restrictions against healthy people fulfilling their obligation in this manner. (As mentioned in Halachah 5:5, some Ashkenazi authorities forbid soaking matzah in water after it has been baked.)
may fulfill his obligation with a cake [of matzah] -- which after being baked, has been
soaked -- As mentioned in Halachah 5:5, once matzah has been baked thoroughly, it will not become chametz even when exposed to water.
[in other substances] -- In his commentary on Pesachim 41a, the source for this law, Rashi allows one to soak matzah in cooked foods with a taste of their own. Similarly, Rabbenu Manoach mentions matzah dipped in wine. Nevertheless, the Ra'avad and others maintain that other foods would nullify the taste of matzah, and they permit soaking the matzah only in water. They draw support from the Rambam's statements in Halachah 10 and maintain that he also accepts this restriction.
The Magen Avraham and the other Ashkenazic authorities favor the latter opinion. However, they do maintain that a sick person who could not eat a sufficient quantity of matzah soaked in water may soak his matzah in wine.
so long as it has not dissolved -- at which point it would no longer be considered as bread, and the HaMotzi blessing would no longer be recited over it.
However, a person cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah that has been cooked -- even if cooked in water alone,
for it does not have the taste - or the form
of bread.
Halacha 7
A person cannot fulfill his obligation by eating matzah which is forbidden to him; for example, a person who ate [matzah made from] tevel, [matzah made from] the first tithe from which terumat [ma'aser] had not been separated, or [matzah] that was stolen.
This is the governing principle: All [matzah] upon which the grace after meals is recited may be used to fulfill one's obligation. If the grace after meals may not be recited upon it, it may not be used to fulfill one's obligation.
Commentary Halacha
A person cannot fulfill his obligation by eating matzah which is forbidden to him; for example, a person who ate [matzah made from] tevel -- produce from Eretz Yisrael from which the agricultural requirements -- separation of theterumah (a portion given to priests), ma'aser rishon (the first tithe), and ma'aser sheni (the second tithe) -- have not been fulfilled.
[matzah made from] the first tithe from which terumat [ma'aser] had not been separated -- After receiving the tithe from the Israelites, the Levites were obligated to separate a second tithe, as commanded in Numbers 18:26.
or [matzah] that was stolen -- The Jerusalem Talmud, Challah 1:9, states:
Matzah that was stolen: one may not recite a blessing upon it. Rav Oshiah states: This is derived from Psalms 10:3: "The greedy's blessing revolts God."However, one might think this is true only in the beginning; ultimately (i.e., after eating the matzah), he is obligated to pay him money (and thus the matzah itself is no longer the property of the original owner.)Rabbi Yochanan states: "A mitzvah is not a sin." Rabbi Yossi states: "A sin is not a mitzvah." Rabbi Illa said: "Only when the mitzvot are performed as prescribed are they mitzvot."
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 454:4) quotes the Rambam's statements exactly. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva Eiger maintains that since the stolen object no longer belongs to the original owners once it has been eaten, one may fulfill the mitzvah of matzah in this manner. All authorities agree that a person who stole grain or flour can fulfill his obligation with matzah made from it.
Rabbenu Manoach maintains that this instance is not dependent on the general rulings governing mitzvot performed with forbidden objects. Rather, Pesachim38a draws an analogy between the mitzvot of matzah and Challah. Since there is an explicit teaching requiring a person to own the dough he uses for Challah, it thus follows that the matzah he uses must also be his undisputed property.
This is the governing principle: All [matzah] upon which the grace after meals is recited -- even though there are certain halachic difficulties regarding eating it, as explained in Hilchot Berachot 1:20.
may be used to fulfill one's obligation -- to eat matzah on Pesach.
If the grace after meals may not be recited upon it, it may not be used to fulfill one's obligation -- In Hilchot Berachot 1:19, the Rambam states: "Anyone who eats a forbidden food, whether intentionally or unintentionally, does not recite a blessing over it." This includes even foods prohibited by Rabbinic law alone.
Halacha 8
The priests may fulfill their obligation with [matzot made from] Challah orterumah even though it is matzah which is not suited to be eaten by all people. Similarly, a person may fulfill his obligation with matzah [made] from ma'aser sheni [if he is] in Jerusalem. However, one may not fulfill his obligation with matzah made from bikkurim even [if he is] in Jerusalem.
[The difference is] because there is no permissible way of eating bikkurim in all [Jewish] settlements. [In contrast,] ma'aser sheni can be redeemed and eaten in all [Jewish] settlements. [Our Sages interpreted Exodus 12:20,] which states: "Eat matzot in all of your settlements," [to imply that] only matzah that is fit to be eaten in all settlements may be used to fulfill one's obligation.
Commentary Halacha
The priests -- and their households
may fulfill their obligation with [matzot made from] Challah -- Numbers 15:20 commands that a portion of every dough be separated and given to the priests. This portion of dough is called Challah and is governed by all the rules pertaining to Terumah.
or terumah -- Numbers 15:19, 18:12 commands that before tithes are given to the Levites, a certain portion of the grain should be separated and given to the priests. This portion, referred to as terumah, may be eaten only by the priests and their households.
even though it is matzah which is not suited to be eaten by all people --Thus, Israelites cannot fulfill their obligation by eating such matzah. Pesachim35b states that matzot whose consumption involves any prohibition may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah. (See the previous halachah.)
Similarly, a person may fulfill his obligation with matzah
[made] from ma'aser sheni -- Deuteronomy 14:22-23 commands: "Take a [second] tithe of all the crops... You must eat this before God, your Lord, in the place that He will choose (Jerusalem)."
[if he is] in Jerusalem -- but not outside the holy city. It must be noted that certain Talmudic Sages do not accept this principle. The Rambam's statements follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whose statements are generally accepted as halachah.
However, one -- a priest, for only the priests are allowed to partake of thebikkurim,
may not fulfill his obligation with matzah made from bikkurim -- Numbers 18:13 requires that the first fruits be given to the priests. Deuteronomy 26:2-10 explains more details of that obligation, among them that the first fruits must be taken to Jerusalem and given to the priests in the Temple.
even [if he is] in Jerusalem - and the wheat from which he made matzah had been properly given to him as bikkurim.
[The difference is] because there is no permissible way of
eating bikkurim in all [Jewish] settlements -- rather, they may be eaten only by the priests within the limits of Jerusalem.
[In contrast,] ma'aser sheni can be redeemed and eaten in all [Jewish] settlements -- Deuteronomy 14:24-26 states:
If the journey is too great for you... you may redeem this tithe in silver... which you can bring to the place God, your Lord, will choose. You may spend the money on anything you desire [to eat]...
Thus the actual produce separated as ma'aser sheni need not be taken to Jerusalem, but may be eaten elsewhere.
[Our Sages -- Pesachim 36a
interpreted Exodus 12:20,] which states: "Eat matzot in all of your settlements," [to imply that] only matzah that is fit to be eaten in all settlements may be used to fulfill one's obligation. -- Thus, bikkurim are excluded, but not ma'aser sheni.
Halacha 9
Loaves from the thanksgiving offering and cakes from the Nazirite offering, which an individual made for his personal use, may not be used to fulfill one's obligation, [as can be implied] from the statement [Exodus 12:17]: "And you shall watch the matzot." Matzah which is watched with the sole intention [that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah] of matzah may be used to fulfill one's obligation. However, this matzah is also watched with the intention of [being used for a] sacrifice. Those that were made to be sold in the marketplace, [the baker] has the intention that if they are not sold, he will eat them. Therefore, while he was making them he [also] watched for the sake of matzah.
Commentary Halacha
Loaves from the thanksgiving offering -- as explained in Leviticus 7:12 and commentaries, the thanksgiving offering was accompanied by forty loaves of bread. Thirty were matzah, and thus were kosher for use on Pesach.
and cakes from the Nazirite offering -- Numbers 6:15 specifies that a Nazirite must bring a basket of matzot as part of the sacrifices associated with the completion of his vow.
which an individual made for his personal use -- i.e., to offer as a sacrifice.
may not be used to fulfill one's obligation -- to eat matzah on Pesach night.
[as can be implied] from the statement [Exodus 12:17]: "And you shall watch the matzot." -- Halachah 5:9 states that this verse teaches that matzah must be prepared with the intention that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah. Pesachim 38b extends the scope of that requirement, stating:
Matzah which is watched with the sole intention [that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah] of matzah may be used to fulfill one's obligation. However, this matzah -- from the thanksgiving or Nazirite offerings
is also watched with the intention of [being used for a] sacrifice -- Hence, it may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.
Those -- matzot made for the thanksgiving or Nazirite offerings
that were made to be sold in the marketplace -- for others to use
[the baker] has the intention that if they are not sold, he will eat them. Therefore, while he was making them -- implicit in his intention was that
he [also] watched for the sake of matzah. -- Therefore, they may be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.
Rabbenu Manoach and other commentators note that the matzot for these sacrifices would have to be prepared before the thirteenth of Nisan. (A thanksgiving sacrifice could not be brought on the fourteenth, because of the ten breads that were chametz.) From this, he draws support for the practice of preparing matzot before Pesach, even though the common custom in his day was to bake them on the afternoon of the fourteenth. The need to find support for this practice may seem strange for members of many communities today whose matzot may be prepared in the heart of winter.
Halacha 10
All are obligated to [fulfill the mitzvah to] eat matzah, even women and slaves. A minor [old enough to eat bread] should be trained in [the fulfillment of] mitzvot and be given an olive's size of matzah to eat. [For] a sick or elderly person who cannot eat, we can soak a cake [of matzah] in water and feed it to him, provided it does not dissolve.
Commentary Halacha
All are obligated to [fulfill the mitzvah to] eat matzah -- As mentioned above, the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 10) notes that even though the Torah restricted an uncircumcised person or someone who is impure from bringing a Paschal sacrifice, they must partake of matzah on Pesach night.
even women and slaves -- Though these individuals are usually relieved of the observance of mitzvot limited to a specific time, Pesachim 43b makes an exception in this case. Deuteronomy 16:3 states: "Do not eat chametz upon it... eat matzot for seven days," establishing an analogy between the two mitzvot. Since women are obligated to fulfill the prohibition against eating chametz (for they are liable for the observance of all the Torah's prohibitions), they must also fulfill the positive commandment of eating matzah.
A minor old enough to eat bread] should be trained in [the fulfillment of] mitzvot -- From the Rambam's phraseology, we learn that the mitzvah of training one's children to fulfill mitzvot is incumbent upon the parents. Neither the Torah nor the Sages placed any responsibilities on the children themselves. Rather, the parents are charged with teaching their children to follow the Torah's guidelines (Kessef Mishneh).
and be given an olive's size of matzah -- the same measure given an adult.
to eat. [For] a sick or elderly person who cannot eat -- a full כזית of matzah in any other fashion,
we can soak a cake [of matzah] in water and feed it to him, provided it does not dissolve. -- See Halachah 6 and commentary.
Halacha 11
It is a Rabbinic ordinance that nothing at all is eaten after the matzah, not even roasted seeds, nuts, or the like. Rather, even though one ate matzah and afterwards, ate other foods, fruit, and the like, one returns and eats a second olive's size of matzah at the end [of the meal] and ceases [eating].
Commentary Halacha
It is a Rabbinic ordinance that nothing at all is eaten after the matzah --As explained in Halachah 8:9, the Rambam is referring to the afikoman, which was instituted in place of the Paschal sacrifice.
not even roasted seeds, nuts, or the like -- The Mishnah (Pesachim 119b) states: "No afikoman is served after the Paschal sacrifice." In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines afikoman as "fruits served as dessert after the meal, such as roasted seeds, figs, raisins, almonds, and the like."
Rather, even though one ate matzah -- to begin one's meal and to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah
and afterwards ate other foods, fruit, and the like -- in the course of the meal
one returns and eats a second olive's size of matzah at the end [of the meal] -- as the afikoman
and ceases [eating]. -- so that the taste of the matzah will remain in one's mouth. See Halachah 8:9.
Halacha 12
The Sages forbade a person from eating matzah on Pesach eve, in order for there to be a distinction between [partaking of it as food] and eating it on the evening [of the fifteen as a mitzvah.] Whoever eats matzah on Pesach eve is given "stripes for rebellion" until his soul expires.
Similarly, it is forbidden to eat on Pesach evening from slightly before the time of Minchah, in order that one will approach eating matzah with appetite. However, one may eat some fruit or vegetables, but should not fill up on them.
The Sages of the former generations would starve themselves on Pesach eve so that they would eat matzah with appetite, and thus hold the mitzvot as dear. In contrast, on the eve of Sabbaths or other festivals, one may continue eating until darkness.
Commentary Halacha
The Sages forbade a person from eating matzah -- This applies only to matzah that is fit to be used at the Seder. However, matzah that is made with wine, oil, or honey may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah, and hence may be eaten at this time. (As mentioned above, such matzah is generally not eaten in the Ashkenazic community.)
on Pesach eve -- the fourteenth of Nisan. Some authorities explain that this prohibition only applies from midday, the time when chametz becomes forbidden. However, the Rambam appears to consider the prohibition as applying during the entire day (Maggid Mishneh).
in order for there to be a distinction between [partaking of it as food] and eating it on the evening [of the fifteen as a mitzvah.] -- The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 10:1) states that a person who eats matzah on the day before Pesach can be compared to a man who has relations with his betrothed in her father's house before the wedding.
Whoever eats matzah on Pesach eve is given "stripes of rebellion" --
מכת מרדות, the punishment given those who break a Rabbinic commandment. The Jerusalem Talmud (ibid.) explains that such a punishment is given to a man who acts immodestly with his betrothed. Hence, it is appropriate that a person who eats matzah on Pesach eve be given a similar penalty.
until his soul expires -- This phrase has provoked much controversy among the commentators. The Tashbaytz (Vol. II, Responsum 51) states:
This is a wondrous statement... If the intention is that after he eats, he should be beaten... a Rabbinic prohibition will be punished more severely than a Torah prohibition... for such a penalty is not found with regard to a Torah prohibition.
Indeed, some commentaries advise striking this phrase from the text, maintaining that it was a later addition which was not made by the Rambam himself. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Manoach justifies this phrase, explaining that it refers to a situation where a person obstinately refuses to accept the prohibition. As long as he does not promise to obey the Sages' decree, the authorities must continue administering punishment.
Similarly, it is forbidden to eat -- a meal with matzah (even matzah kneaded with wine, which is not included in the prohibition mentioned above)
on Pesach evening from slightly before the time of Minchah -- The Sages defined this time as nine hours after the beginning of the day. (The time of Minchah is nine and a half hours after the beginning of the day.)
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to prepare all of the meal-offerings1 according to the commandments prescribed by the Torah.
Halacha 2
How was the chavitin offering of the High Priest prepared? He would bring an entire isaron and sanctify it2 and then divide it in half3 with the half isaronmeasure in the Temple. [This was necessary,] because even though it was offered in half [portions],4 it was not sanctified in half portions. Three lugim of oil are brought with it, as [Leviticus 6:13] states: "You shall prepare it with oil," i.e., [an amount of] oil equivalent to the accompanying offering for a lamb5 should be added to it.6 The flour should be mixed with the oil and then scalded7 with boiling [liquid].
Each half isaron should be kneaded into six loaves. Thus there are a total of twelve loaves.8
Halacha 3
[These loaves] were prepared one by one.
How were they prepared? The three lugim of oil would be divided [into twelve] using the measure of a revi'it [of a log] that existed in the Temple,9a revi'it for each loaf. The loaf would be baked some and then fried on the flat frying-pan with the remainder of its oil.10 It should not be cooked very much,11 for [Leviticus 6:14] uses the term tufinei which implies something between cooked and lightly cooked.12
Halacha 4
Afterwards, each loaf should be divided into two13 by approximation,14so that half can be offered in the morning and half in the evening.15 He should take the halves and fold each one of them in half and then divide [the loaves at] the folds so that each flat cake will be folded in half. He then offers the halves with half of a handful of frankincense in the morning and the remaining half with half a handful of frankincense in the evening.16
Halacha 5
How is a meal-offering of fine flour prepared? One brings an isaron19 - or several isaronot or [many,] according to his vow20 - of fine flour and the oil appropriate for it.21 The flour should be measured in the isaron measure22 of the Temple. Oil should be placed in23 a container24 and the flour poured upon it and then other oil should be poured over the flour and the flour mixed in it. Afterwards, it is placed in a sacred vessel and oil is poured into it. The total of the oil placed first, that mixed with the flour, and that poured upon it is a log for a isaron. Frankincense is placed upon it.25
Halacha 6
How are a meal-offering [cooked in] a flat frying-pan and one [cooked in] a deep frying pan prepared? Oil should be placed in a container and the flour poured upon it and then other oil should be poured over the flour and the flour mixed in it. Afterwards, it should be kneaded with warm water26 and baked in a flat frying-pan or a deep frying-pan as he vowed. It is broken into pieces27 and placed in a sacred vessel and the remainder of the oil is poured upon it. [Then] its frankincense is placed [upon it].
Halacha 7
What is the difference between a flat frying-pan and a deep frying pan? A deep frying-pan has an edge28 and the dough cooked in it is soft,29 because since it has an edge, [the dough] does not drip off. The flat frying-pan does not have an edge. The dough cooked in it is firm so that it will not drip off to either side.
Halacha 8
How is a meal-offering baked in an oven prepared? If it is of loaves, one should mix the flour with oil,30 knead it with warm water, and bake it. [Afterwards,] it is broken into pieces, placed in a sacred utensil, and its frankincense is placed upon it. Oil is not poured over it, as [indicated by Leviticus 2:4]: "loaves ofmatzah mixed with oil."31
If it is of wafers, one should need the flour with warm water and smear the wafers with oil, as [ibid.] states "wafers of matzah smeared with oil." It appears to me that they should be smeared after they are baked.32
Halacha 9
How are they smeared? One brings a log of oil for every isaron and smears them and then smears them again until all of the oil in the log is finished.
Halacha 10
All of these four types of baked33 meal-offerings, when they are baked, they are baked when dividing [each] isaron into ten loaves.34 If, however, one added or subtracted loaves, it is acceptable.35
How are they36 broken into pieces? Each loaf should be folded into two and then the double fold into four37 and then [the folds] should be separated. If the meal-offering was brought by males of the priestly family,38 they should not be separated and broken off. All of the pieces should be the size of an olive.39 If, however, one made them larger or smaller, [the offering] is acceptable.
Halacha 11
If one did not mix [the oil into the meal],40 fold [the loaves], bring [the meal-offering to the corner of the altar],41 or smear the wafers [with oil],42 [the offerings] are acceptable.43 All of these matters were mentioned only as a mitzvah,44 for it is a mitzvah [to bring the meal-offerings] in this manner.
Halacha 12
What is the order in which the meal-offering is brought? A person should bring flour from his home in a container of silver, gold, or another type of metal, a container that is fit [to be sanctified] as a sacred vessel.45
If it is a meal-offering of flour, he should place it in a sacred utensil and consecrate it46 in the sacred utensil.47 If it is one of the meal-offerings that are baked48 it should be baked there in the Temple and broken into pieces as we explained.49 The pieces should be placed into a sacred utensil and its oil and frankincense placed upon it. It should then be brought to a priest50 who brings it to the altar. He approaches the southwest corner of the altar with it. That is sufficient.51
He then moves all of its frankincense to one side52 and gathers a handful from the place where the majority of its oil has collected, as [Leviticus 2:2] states: "[He shall take a full handful] from its flour and from its oil." He places the handful in a sacred vessel and consecrates it in the sacred vessel.53 If a handful [from a meal-offering] was divided into two vessels, it is not consecrated. [Instead,] he should go back and consecrate it [in a single vessel].54
He should gather all of its frankincense and place it on the handful of flour in the vessel and take it up to the altar. He should salt it55 and place it on the pyre with a sacred utensil.56 If the meal-offering is brought by [male] priests, he does not take a handful. Instead, he salts the entire offering and tosses everything on the pyre.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
A handful should not be less than two olive-sized portions.64 [Bringing every] portion of the handful is an absolute requirement in [bringing] the entire handful.65 [Bringing both] the handful [of flour] and the frankincense are absolute requirements for [bringing] either of them.66 [Bringing both] the flour and the oil are absolute requirements for [bringing] either of them.67 [Bringing] even a portion of the oil is an absolute requirement in [bringing] the entire quantity.68 Less than a log [of oil] should not [be brought] for every isaron of flour, as we explained.69
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 2. |
By placing it in the isaron measure found in the Temple Courtyard (see Chapter 2, Halachah 8). Once it was sanctified, it could not be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Hence all the stages of its preparation had to be completed within the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz). Indeed, one of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard was the Chamber of the Makers of the Chavitin (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17).
|
| 3. |
Because half was sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon.
|
| 4. |
See Halachah 4.
|
| 5. |
See Chapter 2, Halachot 4, 7.
|
| 6. |
Menachot 51a explains that since the chavitin is cooked on a flat frying pan, it is obvious that oil should be added to it like the other meal offerings cooked on such a frying pan (see Halachah 7). Hence by saying that the chavitin is prepared in oil, the verse implies that additional oil is added. The need for three lugin is then derived from a textual association of the terms used.
|
| 7. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:6) the Rambam defines the term cholait, the verb translated as "scalded" here as: "pouring boiling water over the flour."
|
| 8. |
Menachot 15a derives this point from a comparison to the showbread which also comprised twelve loaves.
|
| 9. |
I.e., when the quantity of three lugim is divided in twelve (an equal portion for each loaf), we arrive at the figure of a revi'it (a fourth of a log). There was a measure of this size in the Temple. Hence the oil would be poured into this measure for each loaf to provide it with the desired amount of oil.
|
| 10. |
Thus there were three phases in the cooking process of these loaves. First, the flour was scalded as mentioned in the previous halachah. Then the loaf was made and then baked. Afterwards [see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3)], the oil was boiled and the loaf fried in it. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 19, which describes all these different stages of the cooking process. The same term, murbechet, is use to describe both that offering and the chavitinoffering.
|
| 11. |
I.e., he should only bake it slightly (Kessef Mishneh). This interpretation is also borne out by Chapter 9, Halachah 19.
|
| 12. |
Afterwards, it is fried to complete the cooking process (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 13. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the cakes should not be divided. Thus instead of offering twelve half-cakes as the Rambam maintains, he maintains that six full cakes should be offered in the morning and six in the afternoon.
|
| 14. |
I.e., although half should be offered in the morning and half in the afternoon, an exact division is not required. The division is made by hand and not with a utensil. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's position, noting that the concept of dividing the cakes by hand and not with a utensil is stated in Menachot 87b.
|
| 15. |
I.e., in the late afternoon.
|
| 16. |
Further details concerning the bringing of this offering are mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim3:18-22.
|
| 17. |
Both an ordinary priest and a High Priest bring a meal-offering prepared in the same way to mark their initiation into office (Chapter 12, Halachah 4).
|
| 18. |
For the meal-offering of a priest is never eaten (Chapter 12, Halachah 9).
|
| 19. |
But no less than an isaron (ibid.:5).
|
| 20. |
One may bring as many isaronot as he desires, even 1000 (or more).
|
| 21. |
A log of oil for every isaron of flour, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 7.
|
| 22. |
Even if the offering contained many isaronot, it is measured out, isaron by isaron (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 23. |
As stated in Menachot 6:3, oil is added to all of the meal-offerings offered other than those which are baked in the oven three times: it is placed in the container before the flour, it is mixed into the flour and then it is poured over the mixture of flour and oil. This sequence is not explicitly stated with regard to the offering of fine flour. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains the process through which it is derived that the above concepts apply to this meal-offering as well.
|
| 24. |
I.e., a trough where the oil and flour are mixed. Both the Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh state that, from the Rambam's wording, it appears that this trough was not a sacred utensil. They question that conclusion, for once the flour had been put in a sacred utensil, it does not appear appropriate to place it in an ordinary utensil again. Indeed, they explain that perhaps the second utensil was also sacred.
|
| 25. |
A handful of frankincense for every offering regardless of its size (Chapter 12, Halachah 7).
|
| 26. |
Care was taken so that they do not leaven (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 27. |
As required by Leviticus 2:6.
|
| 28. |
Menachot 63b notes that Leviticus 7:9 states of such an offering being cooked "in a deep frying-pan," while the others are describes as being cooked "on a flat frying-pan." Implied is that the deep frying-pan had an edge large enough to contain liquids.
|
| 29. |
And thin like the dough of pancakes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:8)].
|
| 30. |
Oil is not, however, placed in the container before the flour is (Menachot 6:3).
|
| 31. |
I.e., only "mixed with oil." No other oil is used in preparing them.
|
| 32. |
The Radbaz supports this supposition, explaining that if the wafers were smeared before they were baked, they would not absorb the oil.
|
| 33. |
I.e., those fried in a deep frying pan and a flat frying-pan or the two types baked in an oven. Excluded is only the flour offering which is presented without being baked or cooked.
|
| 34. |
Menachot 76a derives this from a comparison to the thanksgiving offering. See Chapter 9, Halachot 17-18.
|
| 35. |
For even a thanksgiving offering is acceptable if its loaves are less than the required number (ibid.:22).
|
| 36. |
These four types of meal-offerings. Again, a flour offering is excluded.
|
| 37. |
Menachot, loc. cit., explains the rationale, stating that Leviticus 2:6 mentions "breaking them (i.e., into two) into pieces" (i.e., that the two are divided again).
|
| 38. |
For their meal-offerings are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre. Meal-offerings brought by females of the priestly family are broken into pieces.
|
| 39. |
For making them any smaller would make them appear insignificant.
|
| 40. |
Note, however, Chapter 17, Halachah 6, which states that the offering must not be so large that it could not be mixed with its oil.
|
| 41. |
As required by Chapter 12, Halachah 6.
|
| 42. |
Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:8 rules that if the required amount of oil is not added to a meal offering, it is not acceptable. Nevertheless, after the fact, the oil does not have to be applied to the offering in the manner detailed above.
|
| 43. |
Menachot 3:2, the source for this halachah, mentions the above concepts and adds that the offerings are acceptable if salt and oil were not placed upon them. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the intent is not that the offering is acceptable without salt and oil, but that they need not be added to the offering by a priest.
|
| 44. |
I.e., as the optimum manner to perform the mitzvah.
|
| 45. |
As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:18, a sacred utensil may not be made of wood, bone, stone, or glass, only of metal.
|
| 46. |
Placing it in the sacred vessel with the intent to consecrate it brings about its consecration. See Chapter 2, Halachah 9, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20.
|
| 47. |
As described in Halachah 5.
|
| 48. |
Or fried, i.e., any of the other types of meal offerings.
|
| 49. |
See Halachot 6-10.
|
| 50. |
I.e., up until this point, the services could have been performed by a non-priest. From this stage onward, they must be performed by a priest. See Chapter 12, Halachah 23.
|
| 51. |
I.e., he touches the altar's corner with the utensil. He does not have to have the flour itself touch the corner (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 52. |
So that it will not be mixed with the flour taken in the handful (Sotah 14b).
|
| 53. |
Although the handful of flour was consecrated together with the other flour, it should be consecrated again now that it has become a separate entity. Sotah, loc. cit., draws a comparison to the blood from a sacrificial animal which is consecrated together with the entire animal at the time of its slaughter and is consecrated again when collected in a sacred utensil.
|
| 54. |
Although placing the handful of flour in two utensils is unacceptable, it does not disqualify it.
|
| 55. |
As required by Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:23.
|
| 56. |
I.e., he should empty the flour from the sacred vessel over the pyre.
|
| 57. |
We have mentioned flour, because taking a full handful - but only a handful, not more and not less - of flour can be easily pictured. In truth, however, an exact handful must also be taken from those meal offerings that were already baked and that is much harder to picture.
|
| 58. |
On the basis of Menachot 11a and Yoma 47b, many commentaries maintain that the handful is taken only with the priest's three middle fingers. The pinky and the thumb are not included. Therefore it is considered as one of the difficult services in the Temple. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:2; see also Yoma 1:5), however, the Rambam rejects this understanding and maintains that all of the priest's fingers should be used in taking the handful.
|
| 59. |
The Ra'avad (in his gloss to the Sifra) states that he should cup his hand and then insert his fingers into the flour until his palm is covered. He then closes his fingers over his palm.
|
| 60. |
I.e., closing his fingers over themselves and not over the palm of his hand and thus collected only a small amount of flour (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 61. |
Instead of from the middle (Radbaz). There are also other interpretations to these concepts.
|
| 62. |
Menachot 11a and Yoma 47b question whether these two ways to take a handful are acceptable and does not reach a conclusion. Therefore the Rambam rules that as an initial preference, one should not take a handful in this manner, but if one does so, it is acceptable after the fact.
|
| 63. |
And thus the handful was overflowing.
|
| 64. |
In modern measure, approximately 28 cc according to Shiurei Torah.
|
| 65. |
For Leviticus 2:2 states that "a full handful" must be offered. Thus if one cannot bring a portion of the handful, it is disqualified and should not be brought at all (Menachot 27a).
|
| 66. |
I.e., the offering should not be brought unless both are included.
|
| 67. |
Both are necessary because Leviticus 2:2 mentions the "full handful of flour" and "all of its frankincense." This emphasis is repeated in Leviticus 6:8, indicating that it is an absolute requirement.
|
| 68. |
I.e., if one does not bring the entire amount, one should not bring the offering at all.
|
| 69. |
Halachah 5; Chapter 12, Halachah 7.
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
A person may vow or pledge1 to bring a burnt-offering, a peace-offering, or any of the five types of meal-offerings2 that may be brought as vows or as pledges.3And he may vow or pledge [to bring] a meal offering from one of the three types of meal-offerings that serve as the accompanying offerings, as we explained.4One may pledge or vow wine as an independent offering,5 frankincense as an independent offering,6 oil as an independent offering,7 or wood for the arrangement [of wood on the altar], for that is like a sacrifice,8 as [Nechemiah 13:31] states: "for the sacrifice of wood."
Halacha 2
Two people may pledge or vow one sacrifice, a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, even one turtle-dove and large ordinary dove in partnership. A meal-offering, by contrast, may not be brought in partnership. These matters were conveyed by the Oral Tradition.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
What is meant by a vow and what is meant by a pledge? When one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," "I promise to bring a peace-offering," "I promise to bring a meal-offering," or "I promise to bring the value of this animal11 as a burnt-offering" or "...as a peace-offering," this is considered a vow.12 If, however, he said: "This animal..." or "The value of this animal is [designated as] a burnt-offering,"13 or "...a peace-offering," or "This isaron [of flour] as a meal-offering," this is a pledge.14
Halacha 5
What is the difference between vows and pledges? If a person took a vow and separated a sacrifice and then it was lost or stolen, he is obligated to replace it15 until he offers the sacrifice he vowed.16 If a person made a pledge and said: "This [animal] is a sacrifice," he is not obligated to replace it if it died or was stolen.17
Halacha 6
When one says: "I promise to bring the value of this ox as a burnt-offering" or "I promise to bring the value of this house as a sacrifice," if the ox dies and the house falls, he is obligated to pay.18 If one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that I am not obligated to replace it," he is not obligated to replace it.19
Halacha 7
We already explained20 that one who constructs a temple to offer sacrifices within outside the Temple is not considered as [having built] a temple to a false divinity. If one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering to sacrifice in the Temple [in Jerusalem]," and he brings it in [such] a temple, does not fulfill his vow.21 If he vowed to offer it in such a temple and he offers it in the Temple [in Jerusalem], he fulfills his vow.22 If he offers in such a temple, he fulfills his vow. He is like someone who vowed to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that he is not obligated to replace it.23 He is liable for karet for offering [the sacrifice] outside [the Temple Courtyard].
Similarly, if one takes a vow saying that he is a nazirite on the condition that he shave24 in such a temple, he fulfills his obligation if he shaves there. He is considered as one who vowed to abstain from wine and he did so abstain. This is not considered as a nazirite vow.
Halacha 8
A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may be brought only for a sin.25 They may not be brought because of a pledge or a vow. [Hence,] if one26 says: "I promise to bring a sin-offering" or "...a guilt-offering," his statements are of no consequence. [Similarly,] if he said: "This animal is [designated as] a sin-offering" or "...a guilt-offering," his statements are of no consequence.
If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and he said: "This [animal] is for my sin-offering" or "...for my guilt-offering" or "This money is for my sin-offering" or "...my guilt-offering," his statements are binding.
Halacha 9
When a person says: "I promise to bring the sacrifices of this person afflicted bytzara'at" or "...this women who gave birth," if the afflicted person or the women are poor, the one who took the vow should bring the sacrifices of a poor person.27 If they were wealthy, the person who took the vow must bring the sacrifice of a wealthy person even though he is poor.
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply when] one says: "I promise to bring the sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offering of so-and-so." If that person agrees, he may allow him to bring those sacrifices for him and he receives atonement thereby. If he agreed at the time [the sacrificial animals] were set aside, but reneged and did not agree at the time they were offered,28 with regard to a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, they should be sacrificed and he receives atonement through them even if he does not consent at this time, because he agreed at the time [the sacrificial animals] were set aside. With regard to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,29 by contrast, he does not receive atonement unless he consented from the beginning until the end.
Halacha 11
One who says: "I promise to bring vows like the vows of the wicked who take upon themselves nazirite vows, sacrifices, and oaths," he is obligated in all [of his statements].30 If he says: "...as the vows of the upright," he is not obligated in anything.31 If he says: "as the pledges of the upright," his vow is binding32with regard to nazirite vows and sacrifices.33 All terms used to refer to sacrifices are considered as sacrifices.34
Halacha 12
Neither one who takes a vow or one who makes a pledge is liable unless his statements match his intent.35
What is implied? If one had the intent of saying: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," but he said "...a peace-offering" or he had the intent of saying: "I promise to bring a peace-offering," but he said "...a burnt-offering," his words are of no substance. If, [however,] he intended to take a vow to bring a burnt-offering and said: "a sacrifice," or he intended to say devotion offerings36 and he said: "consecrated property," his statements are binding, for a burnt-offering is a sacrifice, and something designated as devotion offerings is consecrated. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
With regard to vows and pledges, it is not necessary for him to make any verbal statements. He is obligated even if he made a firm resolve in his heart without saying anything. What is implied? If one made a resolve in his heart that an animal should be designated as a burnt-offering or that he should bring a burnt-offering, he is obligated. [This is derived from Exodus 35:5]: "All those generous of heart shall bring it." Generosity in the heart [alone is sufficient to] establish an obligation to bring. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations involving vows and pledges for the consecration [of sacrifices].
Halacha 13
With regard to vows and pledges and other commitments that a person makes that obligated him, endowment obligations, pledges for worth,37 tithes.38 and the presents to the poor,39 it is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin to bring everything on the festival of immediate proximity,40 as [Deuteronomy 12:5-6] states: "And you shall come there and you shall bring your burnt-offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes,... your vows, your pledges..."], as if to say: When you come [to Jerusalem] to celebrate a festival bring there everything that you are obligated and satisfy every obligation upon you.
If the festival arrived and he did not bring [the gifts in which he is obligated], he has negated the observance of a positive commandment. If three festivals pass without him bringing the sacrifices he vowed or pledged to bring or without giving the endowment obligations, devotion offerings, and pledges for worth, he violates a negative commandment,41 as [ibid. 23:22] states: "Do not delay in paying it." He does not violate the negative commandment until all of the three pilgrimage festivals of the year pass. Lashes are not given for the violation of this negative commandment, because it does not involve a deed.42
Halacha 14
If one consecrated an animal [to be offered] on the altar and [after] two festivals passed [without it being offered], it became blemished and it was redeemed for another animal, the person does not violate the negative commandment until three festivals pass without the second [animal being sacrificed].43
Halacha 15
Despite the fact that three festivals passed, no [animal consecrated as] a sacrifice is disqualified. Instead, [such animals should be] sacrificed and they are acceptable. Each and every day that passes after the three pilgrimage festivals involves a violation of [the above] prohibition. The [Jewish] court is commanded to apply physical coercion to the person46 immediately until he offers his sacrifices on the first festival that presents itself.47
Halacha 16
Even though [Leviticus 1:3] states that [a burnt-offering must be sacrificed] "willfully," he may be compelled until he says: "I desire."48 Whether he vowed [to bring a sacrifice] and did not set it aside or set aside, but did not offer it, he may be compelled until he sacrifices it.
Halacha 17
[The court] seizes collateral from all of those obligated to bring burnt-offerings or peace-offerings [to compel them to offer them]. Even though [the sacrifice] will not bring him atonement unless he desires to offer it, as [implied by] the term "willfully," he is compelled until he says: "I desire."49 Collateral is not seized from those obligated to bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, by contrast. [The rationale is that] since [the failure to bring these sacrifices] prevents [the people] from receiving atonement,50 we are not concerned that they will be sinful and delay [bringing] their sacrifices. [The only] exception is the sin-offering brought by a nazirite. Since [the failure to bring] it does not prevent him from drinking wine,51 he is compelled [to bring the offering], lest he delay it.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Halachah 4 for the distinction between the two terms.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 4.
|
| 3. |
With regard to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, see Halachah 8.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, 4.
|
| 5. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 14; Chapter 17, Halachah 12.
|
| 6. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 13.
|
| 7. |
See Chapter 16, Halachah 14.
|
| 8. |
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9-10.
|
| 9. |
Before bringing it.
|
| 10. |
This is not considered as bringing an offering in partnership.
|
| 11. |
Even though he mentions a specific animal, since his promise focuses on the animal's value and not the animal itself, it is considered as a vow and not a pledge. Moreover, he made a promise incumbent on himself - that he bring the value of the animal as a sacrifice - and did not designate the animal's worth itself. See also Halachah 6.
|
| 12. |
The obligation is on him; he has made a commitment to bring the sacrifice.
|
| 13. |
I.e., pledging that the animal would be sold and the money received be designated for the purchase of a sacrifice.
|
| 14. |
I.e., the animal or its worth is designated as a sacrifice.
|
| 15. |
For the obligation is incumbent on him and it was not fulfilled.
|
| 16. |
Moreover, the sacrifice must be offered in an acceptable manner. If it was disqualified, he is still obligated to fulfill his vow.
|
| 17. |
Because he personally is under no further responsibility. He fulfilled his obligation by designating the animal.
|
| 18. |
As stated in Halachah 4, this is considered a vow. The rationale is that he said: elai, "I promise to bring." That expression indicated his willingness to accept responsibility.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 5:5), the Rambam states that he is obligated to pay only the value of the dead ox, not its value when it was alive.
|
| 19. |
Since he made an explicit stipulation freeing himself of responsibility, he is not considered as liable.
|
| 20. |
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14 and the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot13:10) which refers to the temple constructed in Alexandria by Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just.
|
| 21. |
The Mishnah (Menachot 13:10) states merely "a burnt offering," omitting the words "to sacrifice in the Temple." The commentaries question why the Rambam felt it necessary to add them.
|
| 22. |
Since he promised to bring a burnt-offering, it is necessary that it be brought to Jerusalem. The fact that he added that he would bring it elsewhere is not significant.
|
| 23. |
I.e., according to the Rambam, the animal set aside is considered as designated as a burnt-offering and the person is liable for offering a sacrifice outside the Temple. Nevertheless, he is considered to have fulfilled his vow for the reason stated by the Rambam.
|
| 24. |
As is done at the conclusion of one's nazirite vow.
|
| 25. |
Thus when Leviticus 5:1 introduces the obligation to bring a sin-offering, it states: "If a person will sin...."
|
| 26. |
I.e., one who is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.
|
| 27. |
The types of sacrifices these individuals are obligated to bring vary dependent on the person's financial standing, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Accordingly, one might think that regardless of the financial status of the person who pledged to bring the sacrifice, the type of sacrifice to be brought is determined by the financial status of the person who is obligated to offer it. Nevertheless, as stated in Arachin 13a (and quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 5:11), this is not the case. If a wealthy person vows to bring the sacrifices of a poor person afflicted by tzara'at, he must bring the sacrifices of a wealthy man. Hence, we are forced to say that here the Rambam is speaking of a poor person who took such a vow.
|
| 28. |
Rashi (Arachin 21a) interprets the passage as referring to an instance where the person obligated to bring the sacrifice did not know it was being offered on his behalf. If he did know, however, he must consent. The Rambam differs and maintains that since he gave his consent originally and the atonement associated with these sacrifices is achieved immediately, it is not necessary that he consent at the time the sacrifice was offered (Rav Yosef Corcus; see Halachah 17).
|
| 29. |
Since the atonement associated with these sacrifices is more encompassing, it requires not only his initial consent, but also continuous willful activity (ibid.).
|
| 30. |
The Rambam is referring to the wording of the Mishnah (Nedarim 1:1). The intent of the Mishnah is that the wicked make vows hastily and moreover, obligate themselves for vows which constitute a commitment incumbent on their person that they will not necessarily be able to fulfill. As the Rambam writes in Hilchot Nedarim 13:25 and in his commentary to the above mishnah, it is preferable not to take vows, for it is possible one will not be able to fulfill them. See also ibid. 1:25.
|
| 31. |
For the upright do not take vows for the reason stated in the previous note (ibid.:26).
|
| 32. |
For the upright do make pledges, for a pledge involves the sanctification of an article at hand and if the upright wish to take such action, there is nothing preventing them from fulfilling their vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that the upright would bring their sacrificial animals to the Temple Mount and only then, pledge to bring them. In this way, there would be no question of them keeping their word.
|
| 33. |
The Rambam does not mention oaths, because the upright try to avoid taking oaths entirely.
|
| 34. |
See Hilchot Nizirut 1:16 which states:
|
| 35. |
This is a general principle applying with regard to oaths (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:10-12) and vows (Hilchot Nedarim 2:2).
In the continuation of the halachah, the Rambam describes a situation in which one is liable for a sacrifice he intended to give even though he does not say anything. That, however, is not a contradiction to the statements here, because here, the person's statements contradict his intent.
|
| 36. |
Which is consecrated to the Temple treasury.
|
| 37. |
Both of these terms refer to commitments to make donations to the Temple treasury. See Hilchot Arachin, ch. 1, for a more complete description.
|
| 38. |
I.e. the tithes (including the second tithe and the tithe for the poor) separated from one's crops (see Hilchot Ma'aser and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni). Also, implied are the tithe offerings. See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 4.
|
| 39. |
Leket, pe'ah, ollelot, etc., as described in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim.
|
| 40. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 83) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 438) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 41. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 155) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 574) count this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 42. |
As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, lashes are only given for the violation of a prohibition that involves a deed.
|
| 43. |
For the calculation begins anew with the consecration of the second animal.
|
| 44. |
Rosh HaShanah 6b explains that since a woman is not obligated to bring a burnt-offering (olat re'i'ah) for the pilgrimage festival, one might think that the entire concept of a pilgrimage festival - and hence, this commandment - does not apply to her. This supposition is, however, negated, for she is obligated in bringing the peace-offering of rejoicing (shalmei simchah) that are sacrificed on festivals.
|
| 45. |
The prohibition is not to delay paying one's vow. Since the heir did not make the vow himself, he does not violate this prohibition if he does not carry out the vow at the appropriate time. He is, however, to bring the sacrifice. See Rosh HaShanah 6b.
|
| 46. |
As Ketubot 86a-b explains, the court is obligated to compel every individual to observe every positive commandment incumbent upon him, even if it requires beating him to the point of death.
|
| 47. |
The Rambam's wording appears to imply that if the court sees the person acting indolently with regard to the sacrifice, it is obligated to subject him to compulsion even if the first festival has not passed. This point is not, however, accepted by all authorities (Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 48. |
In Hilchot Gerushin 2:20, the Rambam explains why acting under compulsion in such circumstances can be considered willful activity. [For there also, a bill of divorce must be written with the husband's consent and yet he can be compelled to consent.]
The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above - or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface.
|
| 49. |
As stated in Hilchot Arachin 3:14:
|
| 50. |
Burnt-offerings also feature in bringing atonement for the failure to fulfill positive commandments. Nevertheless, in that instance the atonement is achieved through the person's repentance and the offering is considered merely as a present. In contrast, a sin-offering is required to bring about the atonement itself.
|
| 51. |
See Hilchot Nazirut 8:10.
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
When a person says: "The offspring of this [animal]1 is [consecrated] as a burnt-offering2 and it is [consecrated] as a peace-offering,"3 his words are binding. [Should he say:] "It is [consecrated] as a peace-offering and its offspring as a burnt-offering," if that was his intent, his words are binding.4
If, after he made a resolve in his heart and expressed verbally that [the offspring] should be a peace-offering, he retracted and said: "Its offspring is a burnt-offering," even though he retracted immediately,5 the offspring are [designated] as peace-offerings. For one cannot retract [pledges of] consecration even when one does so immediately.6
Halacha 2
When one says: "The right forefoot of this animal is a burnt-offering," or "The leg of this animal is a burnt offering," it should be sold to those obligated to bring burnt-offerings.7 The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary funds with the exception of the worth of that limb.8 [The above applies] provided the person obligated to bring a burnt-offering who purchased [the animal] vowed [to bring] a burnt-offering for a specific price.9
If one says: "The heart [of this animal]..." or "The head of this [animal] is a burnt-offering," the entire animal is a burnt-offering, for he consecrated an organ upon which [the animal's] life depends. If one consecrated a limb from a fowl, there is an unresolved doubt whether or not the entire fowl becomes consecrated.10
Halacha 3
When one says: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering and half is a peace-offering," it is consecrated, but it should not be offered.11 Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying physical blemish and then be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a burnt offering and half, a peace-offering.12
If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering13 and he said: "Half of this animal is a sin-offering and half is a burnt-offering," or "...a peace-offering," or he said: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering..." or "...a peace-offering and half is a sin-offering," [the animal] should be left to die, as will be explained with regard to the sin-offerings that are left to die.14
Halacha 4
When one of the partners who owned half an animal consecrated his portion and then purchased the other half and consecrated it, it is consecrated and offered on the altar. Even though originally, when he consecrated half of it, it was unacceptable,15 the fact that it was originally unacceptable does not cause it to be unacceptable forever.16 Even though originally only its worth was consecrated,17 since it is a live animal, [we follow the principle:]18 "Living animals are never permanently disqualified." Since it is [ultimately] fit to be sacrificed, it should be sacrificed. [Moreover,] if one sought to transfer its holiness to another animal,19 the transfer is binding.
Halacha 5
[Whether] one says: "The worth of this animal is a burnt-offering,"20 or "This animal is a burnt-offering," if it is fit to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering,21its body itself is consecrated and it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.22 If it is not fit [to be sacrificed], it should be sold23 and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.
Halacha 6
If a person said with regard to an impure animal24 or another similar animal that is forbidden [to be offered] as a sacrifice that can never be consecrated: "Behold this is consecrated as a burnt-offering,"25 his words are of no consequence.26 As we explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach,27if he says: "These are [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," they should be sold and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.28
Halacha 7
If a person said:29 "The worth of this cow30 is [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated for the sake of a peace-offering," or he said: "The worth of this cow is [consecrated] for the sake of a peace-offering31 for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," his words are binding.32 [Thus] if he [comes to] offer [a sacrifice from] the proceeds of its sale within 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed. If he offers it after 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed.
Halacha 8
If a person possessed a pregnant animal33 and said: "Should it give birth to a male, it is a burnt-offering. Should it give birth to a female, it is a peace-offering," if the animal gives birth to a male, it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. If it gives birth to a female, it should be sacrificed as a peace-offering. If it gives birth to a male and a female, the male should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the female, as a peace-offering.
If it gives birth to two males, one should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering34 and the other sold for the sake of a burnt-offering,35 but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money.36If it gives birth to two females, one should be sacrificed as a peace-offering and the other sold for the sake of a peace-offering, but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money. If it gave birth to a tumtum37 or anandrogynus,38 they are not consecrated and they are like ordinary animals,39as we explained.40 When a person consecrates a fetus that has a disqualifying blemish or the like41 while it is in its mother's womb, it is consecrated.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This is speaking about an animal that is not consecrated. If an animal that is consecrated becomes pregnant, its status is automatically transferred to its offspring [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:1)].
|
| 2. |
In which instance, the offspring should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.
|
| 3. |
In the discussion to follow, it is important to note that burnt-offerings are only male. Peace-offerings can be both male and female. Sin-offerings may also be female (Chapter 1, Halachot 8-11). Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 4:2, the offspring of a sin-offering is not sacrificed, but instead, set aside to die. Hence the Rambam speaks only of the offspring of peace-offerings.
|
| 4. |
The difference between the first clause and the second clause is that the first clause speaks about the offspring first. Consecrating the offspring certainly does not determine the mother's status. In the second clause, by contrast, the person consecrated the mother first. Now consecrating the mother determines the status of the offspring, for the offspring is considered as "the thigh of its mother." Hence ordinarily if an animal is consecrated as a peace-offering, its offspring also has that status and should be offered as such a sacrifice (Hilchot Temurah 4:1). Nevertheless, in this instance, if the person originally had the intent of consecrating the offspring as a burnt-offering, the offspring is given that status, because it was never meant to be a peace-offering. The person could only make one statement at a time and the fact that he chose to speak about the mother first does not affect the offspring's status.
|
| 5. |
The phrase translated as "immediately," toch kedai dibbur, has a very specific halachic meaning: "Within the time it takes to say Shalom Elecha, Rebbi" ("Greetings my master"; Hilchot Sh'vuot2:17).
|
| 6. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:3), the Rambam explains that generally if one seeks to retract his statements immediately, the retraction is effective. There are, however, several instances marriage and divorce, the acceptance of a false divinity, blasphemy, the consecration of sacrifices, and the transfer of holiness from one animal to another where retraction is not possible.
Nevertheless, the Rambam's perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) takes issue with him and argues that one may retract the consecration of an animal. Other sages, however, support the Rambam's position.
|
| 7. |
So that it will be sacrificed for that purpose and hence, the portion of the animal consecrated as a burnt-offering will have been offered as such.
|
| 8. |
For that limb was consecrated.
|
| 9. |
There is a difficulty because the person bringing the burnt-offering will be bringing a sacrifice that does not belong to him entirely. The Jerusalem Talmud (Temurah 1:5) resolves this difficulty, explaining that we are speaking of an instance where the person vowed to spend a specific amount to bring a burnt-offering. Since the animal is worth that amount, he has fulfilled his vow.
|
| 10. |
This concept is debated without resolution by our Sages in Temurah 11b. The argument centers on the fact that the concept that one can consecrate a limb from an animal as a sacrifice was derived from the exegesis of a verse (Leviticus 27:9). Now that verse is referring to an animal sacrifice and hence, our Sages question whether the concept applies to all sacrifices or only those involving animals.
|
| 11. |
Because there is no way that one animal can be offered for two purposes.
|
| 12. |
For in this way, his vow will be kept to the fullest extent of his capacity.
|
| 13. |
Here he must be obligated, because as stated above, a sin-offering may not be brought on one's own initiative.
|
| 14. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 regarding what is done with the animal. There the Rambam speaks about an animal separated as a sin-offering that was lost and discovered after its owner had brought another sin-offering in its stead. Since this animal was consecrated for a specific purpose and cannot be sacrificed for that purpose, it cannot be used for any other purpose and is hence caused to die. Similarly, in the instance at hand, since the animal cannot be sacrificed for the purpose for which it was consecrated, it is caused to die.
|
| 15. |
For half an animal cannot be sacrificed.
|
| 16. |
This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:24.
|
| 17. |
Since only its worth was consecrated (for originally, it could not be sacrificed), there is more reason to think that it would not become acceptable afterwards.
|
| 18. |
Zevachim 59a. This is also a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23; Hilchot Shegagot3:8, et al.
|
| 19. |
Violating the prohibition of temurah.
|
| 20. |
And thus from his statements, there is room to say that it could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an offering rather than it having to be sacrificed itself.
|
| 21. |
It is male and unblemished.
|
| 22. |
For any animal that is consecrated and fit to be offered as a sacrifice should be offered (Radbaz).
|
| 23. |
The Kessef Mishneh elaborates, proving that here also, the Rambam's intent is that it should be left to pasture until it becomes blemished and then sold.
|
| 24. |
I.e., an animal from a non-kosher species.
|
| 25. |
Or any other type of sacrifice.
|
| 26. |
The animal is not consecrated at all. Not only is it considered as ordinary property, the person who took the vow is under no obligation and need not sell the animal and purchase a sacrifice with the proceeds.
We have punctuated the Rambam's words in this manner so that there is a direct correlation between the law stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 and the one stated here. Others maintain that the source refers to the first clause. In Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (see below), the Rambam speaks of consecrating an animal "for the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," no holiness is attached to it at all (see the gloss of the Ra'avad there). Similarly, in this instance, since he wished to designate the animals as a sacrifice, his words are of no consequence at all.
|
| 27. |
The commentaries explain that this reference is to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 where the Rambam states:
Similarly, in the case at hand, since a sacrifice cannot be brought from such animals, they should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase the appropriate sacrifice.
|
| 28. |
For we assume that he made his promise in a manner that it would be of consequence (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
The Rambam is referring to a difference of opinion among our Sages, Nedarim 29a, whether or not the consecration of the value (but not the physical substance) of an object for a limited time expires if nothing is done within that time. As will be stated, his ruling is that it does expire.
|
| 30. |
The Rambam is speaking of a situation where the cow's worth was consecrated, because all authorities agree that if the physical substance of the cow was consecrated, it would have to be redeemed for the first consecration to be nullified (ibid.).
|
| 31. |
This point is added, because it possesses an added dimension of severity beyond the first instance. For a cow may not be offered as a burnt-offering, but it may be offered as a peace-offering. Thus it is fit to be sacrificed for the sake of the offering.
|
| 32. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and maintains that the animal must be redeemed for the initial consecration to be nullified. The issue is debated by the subsequent commentaries.
|
| 33. |
In his gloss to Hilchot Nedarim 12:10, the Lechem Mishneh states that this applies only when the animal is pregnant and thus the fetus exists. If, however, the animal is not pregnant, the person's words are not binding.
|
| 34. |
The Radbaz states that the animal of higher quality should be offered as the sacrifice.
|
| 35. |
For the person's initial vow encompassed both of them.
|
| 36. |
Since he is only obligated to bring one sacrifice, he is allowed to sell the second animal and use the proceeds for whatever purpose he desires.
|
| 37. |
An animal whose gender cannot be determined, because it is masked by a piece of flesh.
|
| 38. |
An animal that has both male and female organs.
|
| 39. |
I.e., they are not consecrated at all and they may be used for ordinary purposes. Since the person specified that he was consecrating the offspring as a sacrifice and these animals are unfit for sacrifice, his words are of no consequence whatsoever.
|
| 40. |
Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 (cited above). See the second interpretation given in the notes to Halachah 6.
|
| 41. |
I.e., animals that are of a type able to be sacrificed, but disqualified for a particular reason. SeeHilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, op. cit.
|
• Today's Hayom Yom• Tuesday, Sivan 8, 5775 · May 26, 2015
Torah lessons: Chumash: Nasso, Shishi.
Tehillim: 44-48.
Tanya: Ch. 2. from the (p. 289)...water is not so. (p. 291).
The physical universe is a mixture. It is a meeting-place where G-d meets together (as it were) with man, the select of all creatures; yet it is also ginat egoz,1 "a garden of nuts," the word egoz having the numerical equivalent ofcheit, "sin." G-d gives man the capacity to choose freely, that man may choose for himself a path in life.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1. Shir HaShirim 6:11. Ginat ("garden") is similar to ginunya, "meeting-place.
Daily Thought:
Elevation
The entire cosmos, the ancients explained, climbs ever upward.
The elements move upward to grow as living flora.
Flora rise upward, consumed by creatures that swim, run, fly, love and fear.
Those mobile, loving and fearing fauna may too be elevated into the realm of a conscious being that acts with enlightened mindfulness—a human being
And this human being, to where can it rise?
To the ultimate fulfillment of intellect and yet higher, to a place that existed before Mind was born, a place without constriction or borders.
And where is that place?
It is the act of doing good for the sake of good alone.[Igrot Kodesh, vol. 7, p. 376; ibid., vol. 11, p. 421. Night of Simchat Torah 5723:6]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment