Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of "Kaf Hachaim" (1939)
Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer, better known as the Kaf Hachaim (the name of the monumental halachic work which he authored), was born in Baghdad in 1870. In his youth he studied Torah under the Sephardic greats of the times, such as theBen Ish Chai.
In the beginning of the 20th century Rabbi Yaakov Chaim emigrated to the Land of Israel, and settled in Jerusalem. There he became renowned as a great kabbalist as well as a recognized halachic authority. He authored an eight-volume book on Jewish law, with a special focus on Jewish law and customs from a mystical viewpoint.
He passed away on the 9th of Sivan in Jerusalem and was buried on the Mount of Olives.
Daily Quote:
My feet lead me to the place my heart desires[Midrash Mechilta]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Naso, 4th Portion Numbers 5:11-6:27 with Rashi
• Chapter 5
11The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: יאוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
12Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: Should any man's wife go astray and deal treacherously with him, יבדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל:
Should any man’s wife go astray: What is written above [i.e., before] this subject? “Everyone’s holy things belong to him.” If you withhold the gifts of the kohanim, then-by your life!-you will have to come to him to bring him an unfaithful wife. - [Ber. 63a] איש איש כי תשטה אשתו: מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, אם אתה מעכב מתנות הכהן, חייך שתצטרך לבא אצלו להביא לו את הסוטה:
any man: Heb. אִישׁ אִישׁ, lit. a man, a man. [The double expression] teaches that she has been doubly unfaithful-against [the Lord, who is known as] the Man (אִישׁ) of War on high (Exod. 15:3), and against her husband (אִישָׁהּ), lit.,“her man”] below [in this world]. איש איש: ללמדך שמועלת בשתים, באיש מלחמה שלמעלה ואישה מלמטה:
Should any man’s wife go astray: Heb. תִשְׂטֶה. Our Sages teach (Tanchuma Naso 5): Adulterers do not commit adultery unless a spirit of folly (שְׁטוּת) enters them, as it is written [here],“should go astray” [תִשְׂטֶה, can also mean to become a שׁוֹטֶה, i.e., to become “foolish”], and it is written, “One who commits adultery with a woman is devoid of sense” (Prov. 6:32) (Tanchuma Naso 5). The simple meaning of the verse is: “Should [any man’s wife] goes astray.” She deviates from modest ways, thus arousing his suspicion, as in [the verse],“turn away שְׂטֵה from it and pass” (Prov. 4:15), [and]“Let your heart not veer off יֵשְׂטְ into her ways” (Prov. 7:25). כי תשטה אשתו: שנו רבותינו אין המנאפין נואפין עד שתכנס בהן רוח שטות, דכתיב כי תשטה, וכתוב בו נואף אשה חסר לב (משלי ו, לב). ופשוטו של מקרא כי תשטה - תט מדרכי צניעות ותחשד בעיניו, כמו שטה מעליו ועבור (שם ד, טו), אל ישט אל דרכיה לבך (שם ז, כה):
and deal treacherously with him: What is her treachery? ומעלה בו מעל: ומהו המעל, ושכב איש אותה:
13and a man lie with her carnally, but it was hidden from her husband's eyes, but she was secluded [with the suspected adulterer] and there was no witness against her, and she was not seized. יגוְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה:
A man lie with her: This excludes a minor and a non-human [such as an animal]. — [Sotah 26b] ושכב איש: פרט לקטן ומי שאינו איש:
with her carnally: Her intercourse disqualifies her, but her sister’s intercourse [with the husband] does not disqualify her [to her husband] (Yevamoth 95a), as in the account of two sisters who resembled each other. - [Tanchuma Naso 6] [See Levush, Nachalath Ya’akov] אתה שכבת זרע: שכיבתה פוסלת אותה, ואין שכיבת אחותה פוסלת אותה כמעשה בשתי אחיות שהיו דומות זו לזו:
but it was hidden from her husband’s eyes: This excludes a blind man (Sotah 27a, Sifrei Naso 1:40, Tanchuma 7). It follows that, if he saw [the adulterous act] and ignored it, the water [prescribed further in the section] will not test her. — [Sifrei Naso 1:40] ונעלם מעיני אישה: פרט לסומא הא אם היה ראוה ומעמעם [ומעלים] אין המים בודקין אותה:
but she was secluded: the amount [of time] it takes for one who is secluded [with a man] to be defiled by intercourse. - [Sifrei Naso 1:41, Sotah 2b, 4a] ונסתרה: שיעור שתראה לטומאת ביאה:
and there is no witness against her: But if there is even one witness against her who claims that she has been defiled, she does not drink [the water]. — [Sifrei Naso 1:41, Sotah 2b] עד אין בה: הא אם יש בה אפילו עד אחד שאמר נטמאת לא היתה שותה:
and there is no witness against her: to the defilement, but there were witnesses to the seclusion. — [Sotah 2b] ועד אין בה: לטומאה אבל יש עדים לסתירה:
seized: Heb. נִתְפָּשָׂה, raped, as in“seized her (וּתְפָשָׂהּ) and lay with her” (Deut. 22:28). - [Sifrei Naso 1:42] נתפשה: נאנסה, כמו ותפשה ושכב עמה (דברים כב, כח):
14But a spirit of jealousy had come upon him and he became jealous of his wife, and she was defiled, or, a spirit of jealousy had come upon him and he was jealous of his wife, and she was not defiled. ידוְעָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִוא נִטְמָאָה אוֹ עָבַר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא לֹא נִטְמָאָה:
had come upon him: before the seclusion. - [Sotah 3a] ועבר עליו: קודם לסתירה:
a spirit of jealousy… and he became jealous: Our Sages explain (Sotah 3a) as an expression of warning: he warned her, “Do not seclude yourself with such-and-such a man.” - [Sotah 5b] רוח קנאה וקנא: פירשו רבותינו לשון התראה, שמתרה בה אל תסתרי עם איש פלוני:
and she was defiled, or, a spirit… had come on him: That is to say, he warned her, but she disregarded his warning, and it is not known whether she was defiled or not. והיא נטמאה או עבר עליו וגו': כלומר הוא התרה בה ועברה על התראתו, ואין ידוע אם נטמאה אם לאו:
15Then the man shall bring his wife to the kohen and bring her offering for her, one tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall neither pour oil over it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a meal offering of jealousies, a meal offering of remembrance, recalling iniquity. טווְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְהֵבִיא אֶת קָרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵיפָה קֶמַח שְׂעֹרִים לֹא יִצֹק עָלָיו שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלָיו לְבֹנָה כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הוּא מִנְחַת זִכָּרוֹן מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן:
flour: [Ordinary flour,] that it should not be of fine flour. - [Sifrei Naso 1:48] קמח: שלא יהא מסלת:
barley: But not wheat; [since] she acted like an animal, her offering is [composed of] animal feed. - [Sotah 15b, Sifrei Naso 1:48] שערים: ולא חטים, היא עשתה מעשה בהמה וקרבנה מאכל בהמה:
He shall not pour oil over it: so that her offering should not be beautiful (Sotah 15a), for oil is called “light”-but she acted in darkness. - [Tanchuma Naso 3] לא יצק עליו שמן: שלא יהא קרבנה מהודר, שהשמן קרוי אור והיא עשתה בחשך:
nor put frankincense on it: For the matriarchs are [symbolically] known as frankincense, as it says,“to the hill of frankincense” (Songs, 4:6), yet she [the accused woman] deviated from their ways. - [Tanchuma Naso 3] ולא יתן עליו לבונה: שהאמהות נקראות לבונה, שנאמר אל גבעת הלבונה (שה"ש ד, ו), והיא פרשה מדרכיהן:
for it is a meal offering of jealousies: Heb. כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הוּא [The word הוּא, it is, means] this flour; [the word for flour,] קֶמַח, is masculine in gender. כי מנחת קנאת הוא: הקמח הזה, קמח לשון זכר:
a meal offering of jealousies: It arouses against her two jealousies [i.e., expressions of wrath]: the wrath of the Omnipresent and the wrath of her husband. - [Sifrei Naso 1:50] מנחת קנאת: מעוררת עליה שתי קנאות, קנאת המקום וקנאת הבעל:
16The kohen shall bring her forth and present her before the Lord. טזוְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְהֶעֱמִדָהּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה:
17The kohen shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and some earth from the Mishkan floor, the kohen shall take and put it into the water. יזוְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מַיִם קְדשִׁים בִּכְלִי חָרֶשׂ וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמָּיִם:
holy water: which had been sanctified in the washstand. Because the washstand was made from the copper of the “mirrors of the women who had gathered” (Exod. 38:8) [at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; see Rashi on that verse], whereas this one had abandoned their ways. They had intercourse with their husbands in Egypt “beneath the apple tree” (Song 8:5), whereas this one, who had corrupted herself with another [man]-let her be examined through it [the washstand]. - [Midrash Aggadah] מים קדשים: שקדשו בכיור, לפי שנעשה מנחשת מראות הצובאות, וזו פרשה מדרכיהן שהיו נבעלות לבעליהן במצרים תחת התפוח, וזו קלקלה לאחר, תבדק בו:
in an earthen vessel: She gave the adulterer to drink choice wine in valuable goblets; therefore, let her drink bitter water in a worthless clay vessel. — [Sotah 9a] בכלי חרש: היא השקתה את הנואף יין משובח בכוסות משובחים, לפיכך תשתה מים המרים במקדה בזויה של חרש:
18Then the kohen shall stand the woman up before the Lord and expose the [hair on the] head of the woman; he shall place into her hands the remembrance meal offering, which is a meal offering of jealousies, while the bitter curse bearing waters are in the kohen's hand. יחוְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן עַל כַּפֶּיהָ אֵת מִנְחַת הַזִּכָּרוֹן מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הִוא וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרְרִים:
Then the kohen shall set, etc.: Has it not already been said, “and present her before the Lord” (verse 16) ? However, they would move her around from place to place to tire her out so that she should become agitated and confess. — [Sotah 8a] והעמיד הכהן וגו': והלא כבר נאמר והעמידה לפני ה', אלא מסיעין היו אותה ממקום למקום כדי ליגעה ותטרף דעתה ותודה:
and expose: He unravels the plaits of her hair to humiliate her. From here [we derive] that a bared head is considered a disgrace for the daughters of Israel. — [Keth. 72a] ופרע: סותר את קליעת שערה כדי לבזותה, מכאן לבנות ישראל שגלוי הראש גנאי להן:
before the Lord: At the Nicanor Gate, the eastern gate of the [Temple] courtyard (Sotah 7a) the route by which everyone enters. לפני ה': בשער נקנור, הוא שער העזרה המזרחי, דרך כל הנכנסים:
he shall place into her hands: In order to weary her, [in the hope] that she will become agitated and confess, and the Explicit Name will not be erased in the water. - [Sotah 14a] ונתן על כפיה: ליגעה אולי תטרף דעתה ותודה, ולא ימחה שם המיוחד על המים:
the bitter: [They were called bitter] because of their effects, for they will prove bitter for her. — [Sifrei Naso 1:47] המרים: על שם סופן שהם מרים לה:
curse-bearing: [I.e.,] which eliminates her from the world; it is an expression like [the phrase]“a pricking (מַמְאִיר) briar” (Ezek. 28:24). But it is impossible to render it as“accursed water,” because it was holy, and Scripture does not write אִרוּרִים, but מְאָרְרִים, [meaning]“which cause others to be cursed.” Onkelos too does not translate it as לִיטַיָא,“cursed,” but מְלַטְטַיָּא, “that cause a curse,” [i.e.,] which reveal a curse on the body of this [woman]. המאררים: המחסרים אותה מן העולם, לשון סלון ממאיר (יחזקאל כח, כד). ולא יתכן לפרש מים ארורים, שהרי קדושים הן, ולא ארורים כתב הכתוב, אלא מאררים את אחרים. ואף אונקלוס לא תרגם ליטייא, אלא מלטטיא, שמראות קללה בגופה של זו:
19The kohen shall then place her under oath, and say to the woman, "If no man has lain with you and you have not gone astray to become defiled [to another] in place of your husband, then [you will] be absolved through these bitter waters which cause the curse. יטוְהִשְׁבִּיעַ אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אִם לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָךְ וְאִם לֹא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ הִנָּקִי מִמֵּי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה:
Place her under oath: What is the oath?"If no man has lain with you… [you will] be absolved (הִנָּקִי), but if he has lain [with you], may you suffocate (חֲנָקִי) ! From the negative, you imply the affirmative, but we are duty-bound to commence capital cases by presuming innocence. [Therefore, we do not commence with the affirmative, but only imply it from the negative.] - [Kid. 62a] והשביע אותה וגו': ומה היא השבועה אם לא שכב הנקי, הא אם שכב חנקי [לא תנקי], שמכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, אלא שמצוה לפתוח בדיני נפשות תחלה לזכות:
20But as for you, if you have gone astray [to another] instead of your husband and have become defiled, and another man besides your husband has lain with you..." כוְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ וְכִי נִטְמֵאת וַיִּתֵּן אִישׁ בָּךְ אֶת שְׁכָבְתּוֹ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי אִישֵׁךְ:
But if you have gone astray: כִּי שָׂטִית. [The word] כִּי is used in the sense of “if.” ואת כי שטית: כי משמש בלשון אם:
21The kohen shall now adjure the woman with the oath of the curse, and the kohen shall say to the woman, "May the Lord make you for a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord causes your thigh to rupture and your belly to swell. כאוְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה וְאָמַר הַכֹּהֵן לָאִשָּׁה יִתֵּן יְהוָֹה אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבֻעָה בְּתוֹךְ עַמֵּךְ בְּתֵת יְהוָֹה אֶת יְרֵכֵךְ נֹפֶלֶת וְאֶת בִּטְנֵךְ צָבָה:
with the oath of the curse: The oath which contains a curse. בשבועת האלה: שבועה של קללה:
May the Lord make you for a curse, etc.: so that everyone shall use your name in cursing [such as], “May it befall you as it befell so-and-so.” יתן ה' אותך לאלה: שיהיו הכל מקללין ביך יבואך כדרך שבא לפלונית:
and an oath: so that everyone will swear by you [such as], “If [I am] not [speaking the truth], may it happen to me as it happened to so-and-so.” Similarly, it says, “And you shall leave your name for an oath for My elect” (Isa. 65:15). [It is customary for] the righteous [to] swear by the calamities that befall the wicked. The same applies to blessings [as it says]: “shall be blessed with you” (Gen. 12:3);“With you, Israel will bless, saying” (Gen. 48:20). - [Sifrei Naso 1:73] ולשבועה: שיהיו הכל נשבעין ביך לא יארע לי כדרך שאירע לפלונית וכן הוא אומר והנחתם שמכם לשבועה לבחירי (ישעיה סה, טו), שהצדיקים נשבעים בפורענותן של רשעים, וכן לענין הברכה ונברכו וגו' (בראשית יב ג) בך יברך ישראל לאמר (בראשית מח כ):
your thigh: In the curse, the thigh precedes the belly, because she began the sin with it [the thigh]. — [Sotah 8b] את ירכך: בקללה הקדים ירך לבטן לפי שבה התחילה בעבירה תחלה:
swell: Heb. צָבָה. As Targum [Onkelos] renders: נְפִיחָא, swollen. צבה: כתרגומו נפוחה:
22For these curse bearing waters shall enter your innards, causing the belly to swell and the thigh to rupture," and the woman shall say, "Amen, amen." כבוּבָאוּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּמֵעַיִךְ לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן | אָמֵן:
causing the belly to swell: Heb. לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן, like לְהַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן, “to cause the belly to swell.” This is the function of the pathach with which the “lamed” is vocalized; similarly,“to to lead them (לַנְחֹתָם) on the way” (Exod. 13:21) and“to show you (לַרְאֹתְכֶם) the way in which to go” (Deut. 1:33). Similarly, [Scripture says in this verse] לַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ [which is equivalent to]: לְהַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ, “to cause the thigh to rupture,” for the water distends the belly and ruptures the thigh. לצבות בטן: כמו להצבות בטן, זהו שמוש פתח שהלמ"ד נקודה בו, וכן לנחותם הדרך (שמות יג, כא), לראותכם בדרך אשר תלכו בה (דברים א, לג), וכן לנפיל ירך להנפיל ירך, שהמים מצבים את הבטן ומפילים את הירך:
causing the belly to swell and the thigh to rupture: [This refers to] the belly and thigh of the adulterer, or perhaps only those of the adulteress? [However,] when Scripture says “causes your thigh to rupture and your belly to swell” (verse 21), those of the adulteress are stated [thus here it must refer to the adulterer]. — [Sotah 28a and Sifrei Naso 1:65] לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך: בטנו וירכו של בועל, או אינו אלא של נבעלת, כשהוא אומר את ירכך נופלת ואת בטנך צבה, הרי של נבעלת אמור:
Amen, amen: An acceptance of the oath: “amen” for the curse, “ amen” for the oath, “amen” whether from this man [whom her husband suspects], “amen” whether from another man, “amen” that I did not go astray while betrothed or married, while awaiting levirate marriage from my brother-in-law or after having married him. — [Sifrei Naso 1:66, Sotah 18a, b]. אמן אמן: קבלת שבועה, אמן על האלה אמן על השבועה, אמן אם מאיש זה, אמן אם מאיש אחר, אמן שלא סטיתי ארוסה ונשואה שומרת יבם וכנוסה:
23Then the kohen shall write these curses on a scroll and erase it in the bitter water. כגוְכָתַב אֶת הָאָלֹת הָאֵלֶּה הַכֹּהֵן בַּסֵּפֶר וּמָחָה אֶל מֵי הַמָּרִים:
24He shall then give the bitter, curse bearing waters to the woman to drink, and the curse bearing waters shall enter her to become bitter. כדוְהִשְׁקָה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶת מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרְרִים וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים לְמָרִים:
He shall then give… the woman to drink: This is not the sequence in which it was done, for first he [the kohen] would offer up her meal-offering. But Scripture informs you that when he makes her drink, it [the water] becomes bitter within her. Since it mentions [only] “belly” and “thigh,” how do I know that the rest of the body [is also affected]? [Because] Scripture states, “shall enter her”- [that is,] into all of her [body]. If so, why does Scripture [explicitly] mention “belly” and“thigh”? Since the transgression began through them, therefore the punishment begins with them. - [Sotah 19a, b, according to Rabbi Simeon] והשקה את האשה: אין זה סדר המעשה, שהרי בתחלה מקריב מנחתה, אלא הכתוב מבשרך שכשישקנה יבואו בה למרים. לפי שנאמר בטן וירך, מניין לשאר כל הגוף, תלמוד לומר ובאו בה בכולה, אם כן מה תלמוד לומר בטן וירך, לפי שהן התחילו בעבירה תחילה, לפיכך התחילה מהן הפורענות:
to become bitter: They will be harmful and bitter for her. למרים: להיות לה רעים ומרים:
25The kohen shall take the meal offering of jealousies from the woman's hand, wave the meal offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. כהוְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה אֵת מִנְחַת הַקְּנָאֹת וְהֵנִיף אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
wave: He moves it to and fro, up and down (Sifrei Naso 1:71). She, too, waves with him, for her hand is above the kohen’s hand. — [Sotah 19a] והניף: מוליך ומביא מעלה ומוריד, ואף היא מניפה עמו שידה למעלה מידו של כהן:
and bring it: This refers to placing it at the south-west corner of the altar, before קְמִיצָה, “scooping up a handful,” as is the case with other meal-offerings. - [Sotah 14b] והקריב אתה: זו היא הגשתה בקרן דרומית מערבית של מזבח קודם קמיצה כשאר מנחות:
26The kohen shall scoop out from the meal offering its reminder and burn it upon the altar, and then he shall give the woman the water to drink. כווְקָמַץ הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַמִּנְחָה אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶת הַמָּיִם:
its reminder: This is the handful, for through bringing it up in smoke, the meal-offering comes to the Most High as a memorial. — [Sifrei 1:72] אזכרתה: הוא הקומץ, שעל ידי הקטרתו המנחה באה לזכרון לגבוה:
27He shall make her drink the water, and it shall be that, if she had been defiled and was unfaithful to her husband, the curse bearing waters shall enter her to become bitter, and her belly will swell, and her thigh will rupture. The woman will be a curse among her people. כזוְהִשְׁקָהּ אֶת הַמַּיִם וְהָיְתָה אִם נִטְמְאָה וַתִּמְעֹל מַעַל בְּאִישָׁהּ וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים לְמָרִים וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ וְהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה לְאָלָה בְּקֶרֶב עַמָּהּ:
He shall make her drink the water: [The repetition of this statement is meant] to include that if she says, “I refuse to drink” after the scroll [in which God’s name is written] has been erased [by the water], they pour it into her, making her drink it against her will, unless [she admits and] says, “I have been defiled.” - [Sotah 19b] והשקה את המים: לרבות שאם אמרה איני שותה לאחר שנמחקה מגלה, מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה בעל כרחה, אלא אם כן אמרה טמאה אני:
her belly will swell: Although in reference to the curse, the thigh is mentioned first, the water tests [the body] only in the order it enters it [which is first the belly and then the thigh]. - [Sotah 9b] וצבתה בטנה וגו': אף על פי שבקללה הזכיר ירך תחילה, המים אין בודקין אלא דרך כניסתן בה:
The woman will be a curse: As I explained (verse 21), everyone will curse by her [name]. — [Sifrei Naso 1:73] והיתה האשה לאלה: כמו שפירשתי שהיו הכל אלין בה:
among her people: There is a difference between a person who is disgraced in a place where he is known and a person who is disgraced in a place where he is unknown. — [Sifrei Naso 1:64] בקרב עמה: הפרש יש בין אדם המתנוול במקום שניכר, לאדם המתנוול במקום שאינו ניכר:
28But if the woman had not become defiled and she is clean, she shall be exempted and bear seed. כחוְאִם לֹא נִטְמְאָה הָאִשָּׁה וּטְהֹרָה הִוא וְנִקְּתָה וְנִזְרֳעָה זָרַע:
But if the woman had not become defiled: During this seclusion, ואם לא נטמאה האשה: בסתירה זו:
and she is clean: regarding any other place, וטהרה היא: ממקום אחר:
she shall be exempted: from [the dire effects of] the curse-bearing water, and moreover, she “shall bear seed.” If she used to have painful births, she will now have easy births; if she used to give birth to dark-skinned babies, she will now give birth to fair ones. — [Sotah 26a] ונקתה: ממים המאררים, ולא עוד אלא ונזרעה זרע, אם היתה יולדת בצער תלד בריוח, אם היתה יולדת שחורים יולדת לבנים:
29This is the law of jealousies when a woman goes astray to someone other than her husband and is defiled, כטזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַקְּנָאֹת אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׂטֶה אִשָּׁה תַּחַת אִישָׁהּ וְנִטְמָאָה:
30or if a spirit of jealousy comes over a man, and he is jealous of his wife, and he presents the woman before the Lord, and the kohen shall do to her all of this law, לאוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲבֹר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וְעָשָׂה לָהּ הַכֹּהֵן אֵת כָּל הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת:
Or if a man: [The meaning here is] as in [the phrase]: “Or if it be known” (Exod. 21:36), that is to say, if he was a jealous man, then on account of this “he will present the woman [before the Lord].” או איש: כמו או נודע (שמות כא, לו), כלומר אם איש קנאי הוא, לכך והעמיד את האשה:
31the man shall be absolved of iniquity, and the woman shall bear her iniquity. לאוְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן וְהָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא תִּשָּׂא אֶת עֲוֹנָהּ:
The man shall be absolved of iniquity: If the water tested her, he should not become distressed and say, “I am responsible for her death.” [Rather,] he is exempt of any punishment (Midrash Aggadah, Num. Rabbah 9: 43). Another interpretation: Once he has made her drink, she becomes permitted to him, and he is free of any sin, for a woman under suspicion is forbidden to her husband. - [Num. Rabbah 9:43] ונקה האיש מעון: אם בדקוה המים אל ידאג לומר חבתי במיתתה, נקי הוא מן העונש. דבר אחר משישקנה תהיה אצלו בהיתר ונקה מעון, שהסוטה אסורה לבעלה:
Chapter 6
1The Lord spoke to Moses saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: A man or woman who sets himself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the Lord. בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַיהוָֹה:
who sets himself apart: Heb. כִּי יַפְלִא, sets himself apart. Why is the section dealing with the nazirite juxtaposed to the section of the adulterous woman? To tell us that whoever sees an adulteress in her disgrace should vow to abstain from wine, for it leads to adultery. — [Sotah 2a] כי יפלא: יפריש. למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה, לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין, שהוא מביא לידי ניאוף:
a nazirite vow: Heb. נָזִיר [The term] נְזִירָה everywhere [in Scripture] means only separation; here too [the nazirite] separates himself from wine. - [Sifrei Naso 1:87] נדר נזיר: אין נזירה בכל מקום אלא פרישה, אף כאן שפרש מן היין:
to abstain for the sake of the Lord: To separate himself from wine for the sake of Heaven. — [Ned. 9b, Sifrei Naso 1:84] להזיר לה': להבדיל עצמו מן היין לשם שמים:
3He shall abstain from new wine and aged wine; he shall not drink [even] vinegar made from new wine or aged wine, nor shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped, and he shall eat neither fresh grapes nor dried ones. גמִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה וְכָל מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל:
from new wine and aged wine: Heb. מִיַיִּן וְשֵׁכָר. As Targum [Onkelos] renders:“From new wine and aged wine,” for when wine has been aged, it intoxicates מְשַׁכֵּר. מיין ושכר: כתרגומו מחמר חדת ועתיק, שהיין משכר כשהוא ישן:
anything in which grapes have been steeped: Heb. מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים. [The word מִשְׁרַת is] an expression denoting steeping in water, or any other liquid. In the language of the Mishnah, there are many [such examples]: We may not steep (אֵין שׁוֹרִין) ink or dye [in water on the eve of Sabbath] (Shab. 17b); a nazirite who steeped (שֶׁשָּׁרָה) his bread in wine (Nazir 34b). וכל משרת: לשון צביעה במים וכל משקה, ובלשון משנה יש הרבה אין שורין דיו וסמנים (שבת יז ב), נזיר ששרה פתו ביין (נזיר לד ב):
4For the entire duration of his abstinence, he shall not eat any product of the grape vine, from seeds to skins. דכֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל:
seeds: Heb. חַרְצַנִּים. They are the kernels. - [Sifrei Naso 1:93] חרצנים: הם הגרעינין:
skins: Heb. זָג, the outer shells, for the seeds are inside, like the clapper in a bell (זוּג). זג: הם קליפות שמבחוץ, שהחרצנים בתוכן כענבל בזוג:
5All the days of his vow of abstinence, no razor shall pass over his head; until the completion of the term that he abstains for the sake of the Lord, it shall be sacred, and he shall allow the growth of the hair of his head to grow wild. הכָּל יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ עַד מְלֹאת הַיָּמִם אֲשֶׁר יַזִּיר לַיהוָֹה קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ:
it shall be sacred: [That is,] his hair; he must let the growth of the hair of his head flourish. קדוש יהיה: השער שלו, לגדל הפרע של שער ראשו:
growth: Heb. פֶּרַע. [The word] is vowelized with a small “pattach” [known as “segol”] because it is [a construct state and] attached to the phrase“the hair of his head.” [The meaning is:] A growth of hair, and the word פֶּרַע means to allow the hair to grow [wild]. Similarly [we find],“He shall not allow his head to grow freely (לֹא יִפְרָע)” (Lev. 21:10). Any growth [of hair] less than thirty days is not considered פֶּרַע. פרע: נקוד פתח קטן לפי שהוא דבוק לשער ראשו, פרע של שער. ופירושו של פרע, גדול של שער, וכן את ראשו לא יפרע (ויקרא כא, י), ואין קרוי פרע פחות משלושים יום:
6All the days that he abstains for The Lord, he shall not come into contact with the dead. וכָּל יְמֵי הַזִּירוֹ לַיהוָֹה עַל נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא:
7To his father, to his mother, to his brother, or to his sister, he shall not defile himself if they die, for the crown of his God is upon his head. זלְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא לָהֶם בְּמֹתָם כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹהָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ:
8For the entire duration of his abstinence, he is holy to the Lord. חכֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ קָדשׁ הוּא לַיהוָֹה:
For the entire duration of his abstinence, he is holy: This [refers to] the sanctification of the body, against contamination by [contact with] the dead. כל ימי נזרו קדוש הוא: זו קדושת הגוף מליטמא למתים:
9If someone in his presence dies unexpectedly or suddenly, and causes the nazirite head to become defiled, he shall shave off [the hair of] his head on the day of his purification; on the seventh day, he shall shave it off. טוְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו בְּפֶתַע פִּתְאֹם וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְגִלַּח רֹאשׁוֹ בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלְּחֶנּוּ:
unexpectedly: Heb. בְּפֶתַע. This is an unavoidable occurrence. בפתע: זה אונס:
suddenly: This refers to an unintentional [defilement] (Sifrei Naso 1:110). Some say that [the words] פֶּתַע פִּתְאֹם are a single phrase [denoting one idea, namely], “a sudden incident.” [Perhaps Rashi is alluding to Onkelos or to Menachem (Machbereth Menachem p.147). See Leket Bahir]. פתאם: זה שוגג. ויש אומרים פתע פתאום דבר אחד הוא, מקרה של פתאום:
If someone in his presence dies: In the tent in which he is located. - [Midrash Lekach Tov] וכי ימות מת עליו: באהל שהוא בו:
on the day of his purification: On the day he is to be sprinkled, or perhaps only on the eighth day, when he becomes completely clean? [Therefore] Scripture states, “on the seventh day.” But if on the seventh, I might think that [his head must be shaved] even if he was not sprinkled. So Scripture [also] states,“on the day of his purification.” - [Sifrei Naso 1:113] ביום טהרתו: ביום הזאתו, או אינו אלא בשמיני שהוא טהור לגמרי, תלמוד לומר ביום השביעי, אי שביעי יכול אפילו לא הזה, תלמוד לומר ביום טהרתו:
10And on the eighth day, he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the kohen, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. יוּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יָבִא שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶל הַכֹּהֵן אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves: This [is meant] to exclude the seventh [day], or perhaps it is meant to exclude only the ninth [day]? It [Scripture] designates a time for the sacrifices and it designates a time for those offering them. Just as it validates the eighth [day] and from the eighth [day] onwards for sacrifices, so those who offer the sacrifices may do so on the eighth [day] and from the eighth [day] onwards. - [Sifrei Naso 1:116] וביום השמיני יבא שתי תרים: להוציא את השביעי. או אינו אלא להוציא את התשיעי, קבע זמן לקרבין וקבע זמן למקריבין, מה קרבין הכשיר שמיני ומשמיני והלאה, אף מקריבין שמיני ומשמיני והלאה:
11The kohen shall prepare one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering and atone on his behalf for sinning by coming into contact with the dead, and he shall sanctify his head on that day. יאוְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא:
for sinning by coming into contact with the dead: Heb. מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ, lit., for sinning concerning the body, meaning that he did not take precautions against becoming defiled by the dead. Rabbi Eleazar Hakappar says: He afflicted himself [by abstaining] from wine, [thus, he sinned against his own body]. — [Nazir 19a, B.K. 91b, Ta’anith 11a, Sifrei Naso 1:18, and other places] מאשר חטא על הנפש: שלא נזהר מטומאת המת, רבי אלעזר הקפר אומר שציער עצמו מן היין:
and he shall sanctify his head: By beginning again the count of his naziriteship. - [Sifrei Naso 1:119] וקדש את ראשו: לחזור ולהתחיל מנין נזירותו:
12He shall consecrate to the Lord the period of his abstinence and bring a lamb in its first year as a guilt offering; the previous days shall be canceled because his naziriteship has been defiled. יבוְהִזִּיר לַיהוָֹה אֶת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ וְהֵבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים יִפְּלוּ כִּי טָמֵא נִזְרוֹ:
He shall consecrate to the Lord the period of his abstinence: He shall start counting his naziriteship again from the beginning. — [Sifrei Naso 1:119] והזיר לה' את ימי נזרו: יחזור וימנה נזירותו כבתחילה:
The previous days shall be canceled: They shall not count. — [Targum Onkelos] והימים הראשונים יפלו: לא יעלו מן המנין:
13This is the law of the nazirite: On the day his period of naziriteship is completed, he shall present himself at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. יגוְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר בְּיוֹם מְלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ יָבִיא אֹתוֹ אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
he shall present himself: Heb. יָבִיא אֹתוֹ, lit.,“he shall bring him,” i.e., he shall bring himself. This [word אֹתוֹ“himself”] is one of the three [cases of the word] אֶת which Rabbi Ishmael expounded in this way [as being reflexive]. Similarly,“thereby bringing upon themselves (אוֹתָם) to bear iniquity and guilt” (Lev. 22:16) - [“ אוֹתָם ” meaning] themselves. Similarly,“He buried him (אֹתוֹ) in the ravine” (Deut. 34:6) he [Moses] buried himself. — [Sifrei Naso 1:124] יביא אתו: יביא את עצמו, זה אחד משלשה אתים שהיה ר' ישמעאל דורש כן. כיוצא בו והשיאו אותם עון אשמה (ויקרא כב, טז), את עצמם, כיוצא בו ויקבור אותו בגיא (דברים לד, ו), הוא קבר את עצמו:
14He shall bring his offering to the Lord: one unblemished lamb in its first year as a burnt offering, one unblemished ewe lamb in its first year as a sin offering, and one unblemished ram as a peace offering, ידוְהִקְרִיב אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָֹה כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ תָמִים אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְכַבְשָׂה אַחַת בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ תְּמִימָה לְחַטָּאת וְאַיִל אֶחָד תָּמִים לִשְׁלָמִים:
15and a basket of unleavened cakes; loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, with their meal offerings and their libations. טווְסַל מַצּוֹת סֹלֶת חַלֹּת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם:
with their meal-offerings and libations: Of the burnt offerings and peace offerings [but not of the sin-offering]. Since they were included in the general rule [requiring libations] but were then singled out to be the subject of a new case, namely, that they required bread, [Scripture] returns them to the general rule [by stating that] they require libations, as is the universal law for all burnt offerings and peace offerings. - [See Sifrei Naso 1:127] ומנחתם ונסכיהם: של עולה ושלמים, לפי שהיו בכלל ויצאו לידון בדבר חדש שיטעינו לחם, החזירן לכללן שיטעינו נסכים כדין עולה ושלמים:
unleavened loaves and unleavened wafers: Ten of each kind. — [Men. 77b; Rambam , Mishnah Comm ., Men. 7:2; Mishneh Torah , Neziruth 8:1, Kesef Mishneh] חלות מצות ורקיקי מצות: עשר מכל מין:
16The kohen shall present it before the Lord, and perform the service of his sin offering and his burnt offering. טזוְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה וְעָשָׂה אֶת חַטָּאתוֹ וְאֶת עֹלָתוֹ:
17He shall make the ram as a peace offering to the Lord, along with the basket of unleavened cakes, and the kohen shall perform the service of its meal offering with its libation. יזוְאֶת הָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָֹה עַל סַל הַמַּצּוֹת וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת מִנְחָתוֹ וְאֶת נִסְכּוֹ:
a peace offering to the Lord, along with the basket of unleavened cakes: He slaughters the [ram of] the peace offering with the intention of sanctifying the bread. — [Men. 46b] זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות: ישחט את השלמים על מנת לקדש את הלחם:
Its meal offering with its libation: [I.e.,] the ram’s. את מנחתו ואת נסכו: של איל:
18The nazirite shall shave the head of his naziriteship at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and he shall take the hair of the head of his naziriteship and place it upon the fire which is under the peace offering. יחוְגִלַּח הַנָּזִיר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶת רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְלָקַח אֶת שְׂעַר רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְנָתַן עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּחַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים:
The nazirite shall shave…at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting: I might think that he should shave in the courtyard, but this would be degrading [for the courtyard]. Rather, “the nazirite shall shave” after the peace offering has been slaughtered, regarding which it is written, “and slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Lev. 3:2). - [Nazir 45a, Sifrei Naso 1: 128] וגלח הנזיר פתח אהל מועד: יכול יגלח בעזרה, הרי זה דרך בזיון. אלא וגלח הנזיר לאחר שחיטת השלמים שכתוב בהן ושחטו פתח אהל מועד (ויקרא ג, ב), ספרי:
which is under the peace offering: [I.e.,] under the pot in which he cooks it. For the nazirite’s peace offering was cooked in the courtyard, since the kohen had to take the foreleg after it had been cooked and wave it before the Lord. אשר תחת זבח השלמים: תחת הדוד שהוא מבשלן בו, לפי ששלמי נזיר היו מתבשלין בעזרה, שצריך ליטול הכהן הזרוע אחר שנתבשלה ולהניף לפני ה':
19The kohen shall then take the cooked foreleg of the ram, one unleavened loaf from the basket and one unleavened wafer, place [them] in the hands of the nazirite after he has shaven off his nazirite [head]. יטוְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַזְּרֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל וְחַלַּת מַצָּה אַחַת מִן הַסַּל וּרְקִיק מַצָּה אֶחָד וְנָתַן עַל כַּפֵּי הַנָּזִיר אַחַר הִתְגַּלְּחוֹ אֶת נִזְרוֹ:
the cooked foreleg: After it has been cooked. הזרוע בשלה: לאחר שנתבשלה:
20The kohen shall wave them as a waving before the Lord; it is consecrated to the kohen, along with the breast of the waving and the thigh of the uplifting. After this, the nazirite may drink wine. כוְהֵנִיף אוֹתָם הַכֹּהֵן | תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה קֹדֶשׁ הוּא לַכֹּהֵן עַל חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְעַל שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יָיִן:
it is consecrated to the kohen: The loaf, the wafer, and the foreleg are donations for the kohen. קדש הוא לכהן: החלה והרקיק והזרוע תרומה הן לכהן:
along with the breast of the waving, etc.: Besides the breast and thigh due him from all peace offerings, this foreleg is added to the nazirite peace offerings. [This is] because the nazirite peace offerings were included in the general rule, but were then singled out to determine something new-setting apart the foreleg. [Thus,] it was necessary to return them to the general rule so that they are subject to [the gifts of] the breast and the thigh as well. — [Sifrei Naso 1: 134] על חזה התנופה: מלבד חזה ושוק הראויים לו מכל שלמים מוסף על שלמי נזיר הזרוע הזה, לפי שהיו שלמי נזיר בכלל ויצאו לידון בדבר החדש להפרשת זרוע הוצרך להחזירן לכללן לידון אף בחזה ושוק:
21This is the law of a nazirite who makes a vow: his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship is in addition to what is within his means. According to the vow that he vows, so shall he do, in addition to the law of his naziriteship. כאזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָֹה עַל נִזְרוֹ מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה עַל תּוֹרַת נִזְרוֹ:
in addition to that which is within his means: [For example,] if he said,“I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I shall shave [my hair] with one hundred burnt offerings and with one hundred peace offerings” - according to the vow that he vows, so shall he do added to the law of his naziriteship. מלבד אשר תשיג ידו: שאם אמר הריני נזיר על מנת לגלח על מאה עולות ועל מאה שלמים כפי נדרו אשר ידור כן יעשה מוסף על תורת נזרו:
In addition to the law of his naziriteship: Heb. תּוֹרַת נִזְרוֹ means he may add to the law of his naziriteship but not omit anything. If he said, “I am hereby a nazirite five times over on condition that I shave with [only] these three animals,” I do not apply to him [the rule],“According to the vow that he vows, so shall he do.” - [Sifrei Naso 1:137] על תורת נזרו: יוסיף ולא יחסר, שאם אמר הריני נזיר חמש נזירות על מנת לגלח על שלש בהמות הללו, אין אני קורא בו כאשר ידור כן יעשה:
22The Lord spoke to Moses saying: כבוַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
23Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is how you shall bless the children of Israel, saying to them: כגדַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר כֹּה תְבָרֲכוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמוֹר לָהֶם:
saying to them: Heb. אָמוֹר. [The infinitive] as in זָכוֹר,“remembering” (Exod. 20:8), and שָׁמוֹר, “keeping” (Deut. 5:12); in French, disant. אמור להם: כמו זכור שמור, בלע"ז דישנ"ט (באמרכם):
saying to them: So that they can all hear- [Sifrei Naso 1:143] אמור להם: שיהיו כולם שומעים:
saying: The word אָמוֹר is written in its full form [i.e., with a “vav”], indicating that they should not bless them hastily or in a hurried manner, but with concentration and with wholeheartedness. - [Midrash Tanchuma Naso 10] אמור: מלא, לא תברכם בחפזון ובהלות, אלא בכוונה ובלב שלם:
24"May the Lord bless you and watch over you. כדיְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָֹה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ:
May [the Lord] bless you: that your possessions shall be blessed. - [Midrash Tanchuma Naso 10, Sifrei Naso 1:144] יברכך: שיתברכו נכסיך:
and watch over you: that no thieves shall attack you and steal your money. For when one gives his servant a gift, he cannot protect it from all other people, so if robbers come and take it from him, what benefit has he [the servant] from this gift? As for the Holy One, blessed be He, however, He is the One who [both] gives and protects (Midrash Tanchuma Naso 10). There are many expository interpretations in the Sifrei . וישמרך: שלא יבואו עליך שודדים ליטול ממונך, שהנותן מתנה לעבדו אינו יכול לשמרו מכל אדם, וכיון שבאים לסטים עליו ונוטלין אותה ממנו, מה הנאה יש לו במתנה זו, אבל הקב"ה הוא הנותן הוא השומר. והרבה מדרשים דרשו בו בספרי:
25May the Lord cause His countenance to shine to you and favor you. כהיָאֵר יְהוָֹה | פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ:
May the Lord cause His countenance to shine to you: May He show you a pleasant, radiant countenance. - [Midrash Tanchuma Naso 10, Sifrei Naso 1:144] יאר ה' פניו אליך: יראה לך פנים שוחקות, פנים צהובות:
and favor you: May He grant you favor - [Sifrei Naso 1:144] ויחנך: יתן לך חן:
26May the Lord raise His countenance toward you and grant you peace." כויִשָּׂא יְהוָֹה | פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם:
May the Lord raise His countenance toward you: by suppressing His wrath. - [Sifrei Naso 1:144,] ישא ה' פניו אליך: יכבוש כעסו:
27They shall bestow My Name upon the children of Israel, so that I will bless them. כזוְשָׂמוּ אֶת שְׁמִי עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי אֲבָרֲכֵם:
They shall bestow My Name: They shall bless them with the Explicit Name. - [Sifrei Naso 1:144, Num. Rabbah 11:4, 8] ושמו את שמי: יברכום בשם המפורש:
so that I will bless them: [I.e.,] the Israelites, and endorse the [blessing of the] kohanim. Another interpretation: “I will bless them”-that is, the kohanim. - [Chul. 49a] ואני אברכם: לישראל ואסכים עם הכהנים. דבר אחר ואני אברכם לכהנים:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 49 - 54
• Chapter 49
This psalm is a strong message and inspiration for all, rich and poor alike, rebuking man for transgressions which, owing to habit, he no longer considers sinful; yet, these sins incriminate man on the Day of Judgement. The psalm speaks specifically to the wealthy, who rely not on God but on their wealth.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a psalm.
2. Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all you inhabitants of the world;
3. sons of common folk and sons of nobility, rich and poor alike.
4. My mouth speaks wisdom, and the thoughts of my heart are understanding.
5. I incline my ear to the parable; I will unravel my riddle upon the harp.
6. Why am I afraid in times of trouble? [Because] the sins I trod upon surround me.
7. There are those who rely on their wealth, who boast of their great riches.
8. Yet a man cannot redeem his brother, nor pay his ransom to God.
9. The redemption of their soul is too costly, and forever unattainable.
10. Can one live forever, never to see the grave?
11. Though he sees that wise men die, that the fool and the senseless both perish, leaving their wealth to others-
12. [nevertheless,] in their inner thoughts their houses will last forever, their dwellings for generation after generation; they have proclaimed their names throughout the lands.
13. But man will not repose in glory; he is likened to the silenced animals.
14. This is their way-their folly remains with them, and their descendants approve of their talk, Selah.
15. Like sheep, they are destined for the grave; death shall be their shepherd, and the upright will dominate them at morning; their form will rot in the grave, away from its abode.
16. But God will redeem my soul from the hands of the grave, for He will take me, Selah.
17. Do not fear when a man grows rich, when the glory of his house is increased;
18. for when he dies he will take nothing, his glory will not descend after him.
19. For he [alone] praises himself in his lifetime; but [all] will praise you if you better yourself.
20. He will come to the generation of his forefathers; they shall not see light for all eternity.
21. Man [can live] in glory but does not understand; he is likened to the silenced animals.
Chapter 50
This psalm speaks of many ethics and morals. The psalmist rebukes those who fail to repent humbly and modestly. He also admonishes those who do not practice that which they study, and merely appear to be righteous; they sin and cause others to sin.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Almighty God, the Lord, spoke and called to the earth, from the rising of the sun to its setting.
2. Out of Zion, the place of perfect beauty, God appeared.
3. Our God will come and not be silent; a fire will consume before Him, His surroundings are furiously turbulent.
4. He will call to the heavens above, and to the earth, to avenge His people:
5. "Gather to Me My pious ones, those who made a covenant with me over a sacrifice.”
6. Then the heavens declared His righteousness, for God is Judge forever.
7. Listen, my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against you-I am God your God.
8. Not for [the lack of] your sacrifices will I rebuke you, nor for [the lack of] your burnt offerings which ought to be continually before Me.
9. I do not take oxen from your house, nor goats from your pens;
10. for every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle of a thousand mountains.
11. I know every bird of the mountains, and the crawling creatures of the field are in My possession.
12. Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and everything in it is mine.
13. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
14. Offer confession as a sacrifice to God, and fulfill your vows to the Most High,
15. and call to Me on the day of distress; I will free you, and you will honor Me.
16. But to the wicked, God said, "What does it help you to discuss My laws, and bear My covenant upon your lips?
17. For you hate discipline, and throw My words behind you.
18. When you see a thief you run with him, and your lot is with adulterers.
19. You sent forth your mouth for evil, and attach your tongue to deceit.
20. You sit down to talk against your brother; your mother's son you defame.
21. You have done these things and I kept silent, so you imagine that I am like you-[but] I will rebuke you and lay it clearly before your eyes.
22. Understand this now, you who forget God, lest I tear you apart and there be none to save you.
23. He who offers a sacrifice of confession honors Me; and to him who sets right his way, I will show the deliverance of God."
Chapter 51
This psalm speaks of when Nathan the prophet went to David's palace, and rebuked him for his sin with Bathsheba. David then secluded himself with God, offering awe-inspiring prayers and begging forgiveness. Every person should recite this psalm for his sins and transgressions.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David,
2. when Nathan the prophet came to him after he had gone to Bathsheba.
3. Be gracious to me, O God, in keeping with Your kindness; in accordance with Your abounding compassion, erase my transgressions.
4. Cleanse me thoroughly of my wrongdoing, and purify me of my sin.
5. For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
6. Against You alone have I sinned, and done that which is evil in Your eyes; [forgive me] so that You will be justified in Your verdict, vindicated in Your judgment.
7. Indeed, I was begotten in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
8. Indeed, You desire truth in the innermost parts; teach me the wisdom of concealed things.
9. Purge me with hyssop and I shall be pure; cleanse me and I shall be whiter than snow.
10. Let me hear [tidings of] joy and gladness; then the bones which You have shattered will rejoice.
11. Hide Your face from my sins, and erase all my trespasses.
12. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew within me an upright spirit.
13. Do not cast me out of Your presence, and do not take Your Spirit of Holiness away from me.
14. Restore to me the joy of Your deliverance, and uphold me with a spirit of magnanimity.
15. I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will return to You.
16. Save me from bloodguilt, O God, God of my deliverance; my tongue will sing Your righteousness.
17. My Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Your praise.
18. For You do not desire that I bring sacrifices, nor do You wish burnt offerings.
19. The offering [desirable] to God is a contrite spirit; a contrite and broken heart, God, You do not disdain.
20. In Your goodwill, bestow goodness upon Zion; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
21. Then will You desire sacrifices [offered in] righteousness, olah and other burnt offerings; then they will offer bullocks upon Your altar.
Chapter 52
David laments his suffering at the hands of Doeg, and speaks of Doeg's boasts about the evil he committed. David asks, "What does he think? Does he consider the doing of evil a mark of strength?" David also curses Doeg and those like him.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil by David,
2. when Doeg the Edomite came and informed Saul, saying to him, "David has come to the house of Achimelech.”
3. Why do you boast with evil, O mighty one? God's kindness is all day long.
4. Your tongue devises treachery; like a sharpened razor it works deceit.
5. You love evil more than good, falsehood more than speaking righteousness, Selah.
6. You love all devouring words, a deceitful tongue.
7. God will likewise shatter you forever; He will excise and pluck you from the tent, and uproot you from the land of the living forever.
8. The righteous will see it and be awed, and they will laugh at him:
9. "Here is the man who did not make God his stronghold, but trusted in his great wealth, and drew strength from his treachery.”
10. But I am like a fresh olive tree in the house of God; I trust in God's kindness forever and ever.
11. I will thank you forever for what You have done; I will hope in Your Name, for You are good to Your pious ones.
Chapter 53
This psalm speaks of when Titus pierced the curtain of the Holy of Holies with his sword, and thought he had killed "himself" (a euphemism for God).
1. For the Conductor, on the machalat,1 a mas-kil2 by David.
2. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" They have acted corruptly and committed abominable deeds; not one does good.
3. God looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any man of intelligence who searches for God.
4. But they all regressed together; they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
5. Indeed, the evildoers who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon God, will come to realize.
6. There they will be seized with fright, a fright such as never was; for God scatters the bones of those encamped against you. You shamed them, for God rejected them.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When God returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 54
A prayer to God asking that in His might He save all who hope for His kindness. Read, and you will discover an awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer that should be said by all in the appropriate time.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David,
2. when the Ziphites came and said to Saul, "Behold, David is hiding among us!”
3. O God, deliver me by Your Name, and vindicate me by Your might.
4. God, hear my prayer, listen to the words of my mouth.
5. For strangers have risen against me, and ruthless men have sought my soul; they are not mindful of God, Selah.
6. Behold, God is my helper; my Lord is with those who support my soul.
7. He will repay the evil of my watchful enemies; destroy them by Your truth.
8. With a free-will offering I will sacrifice to You; I will offer thanks to Your Name, O Lord, for it is good.
9. For He has saved me from every trouble, and my eye has seen [the downfall of] my enemy.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 2• Lessons in Tanya
• Wednesday, Sivan 9, 5775 · May 27, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 2
In his opening chapter the Alter Rebbe explained that the Divine life-force which brings all creatures into existence must constantly be present within them, in order to recreate and revivify them on an ongoing basis. Were this life-force to forsake any created being for even one brief moment, it would revert to a state of utter nothingness, as before the creation of the universe.
והנה מכאן תשובת המינים
From the foregoing, the answer to the heretics [may be deduced],
וגילוי שורש טעותם הכופרים בהשגחה פרטית ובאותות ומופתי התורה
and there is exposed the root of the error of those who are deemed heretics not because they deny that G‑d created the world, but because they deny individual Divine Providence and the signs and miracles recorded in the Torah.
Why do they deny this, when they readily admit that G‑d created the world? It is because:
שטועים בדמיונם הכוזב
They err in their false analogy, and the outcome would be quite different from what they imagine even if they were justified in their analogy,
שמדמין מעשה ה׳, עושה שמים וארץ, למעשה אנוש ותחבולותיו
in comparing the work of G‑d, the Creator of heaven and earth, to the work of man and his schemes.
כי כאשר יצא לצורף כלי, שוב אין הכלי צריך לידי הצורף
For, when a silversmith has completed a vessel, that vessel is no longer dependent upon the hands of the smith,
כי אף שידיו מסולקות הימנו, והולך לו בשוק, הכלי קיים בתבניתו וצלמו ממש, כאשר יצא מידי הצורף
and even when his hands are removed from it and he goes his way, the vessel remains in exactly the same image and form as when it left the hands of the smith.
כך מדמין הסכלים הללו מעשה שמים וארץ
In the same way do these fools conceive the creation of heaven and earth.
They imagine that heaven and earth, once created, no longer need their Creator. They therefore deny individual Divine Providence and the signs and miracles recorded in the Torah, inasmuch as these indicate that G‑d continues to be involved with creation, and from time to time chooses to change the course of nature through miraculous means.
אך טח מראות עיניהם ההבדל הגדול שבין מעשה אנוש ותחבולותיו, שהוא יש מיש
But their eyes are covered, so that they do not see the great difference between the work of man and his machinations, which consists of [making] one existent thing out of [another, already] existent thing,
רק שמשנה הצורה והתמונה, מתמונת חתיכת כסף לתמונת כלי
merely changing the form and appearance, e.g., from an ingot of silver to a vessel —
Man’s work merely consists of shaping a preexisting mass. Moreover, even the new appearance already existed in potentia, for the nature of physical matter such as silver is such, that it may be extended and bent and made to assume different shapes and forms.
Thus, in reality the craftsman did not change the matter at all. Hence, once he finishes shaping his artifact he can leave it to its own devices, secure in the knowledge that it does not need him any more.
The above-mentioned misguided thinkers fail to see the difference between the activities of the craftsman —
למעשה שמים וארץ, שהוא יש מאין
and the making of heaven and earth, which is creatio ex nihilo.
Before heaven and earth were created they simply did not exist; only after they were created did they come into being as existing entities. Their being is thus something utterly novel, something which previously had not existed at all.
In such a situation, the Alter Rebbe will soon conclude, the creative force which brings them into existence must constantly recreate them in order for them to exist. Were this force to withdraw for even the briefest moment, creation would revert to nothingness.
והוא פלא גדול יותר מקריעת ים סוף, על דרך משל
This — creatio ex nihilo — is [even] more wondrous than, for example, the splitting of the Red Sea.1
שהוליך ה׳ את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה
For then, G‑d drove back the sea by a strong east wind all the night, i.e., the G‑dly force that split the sea clothed itself in the wind,
ויבקעו המים, ונצבו כמו נד וכחומה
and the waters were split and not merely ceased their flow, but stood upright as a wall.
ואילו הפסיק ה׳ את הרוח, כרגע היו המים חוזרים ונגרים במורד כדרכם וטבעם
If G‑d had stopped the wind, the waters would have instantly flowed downward, as is their way and nature,
ולא קמו כחומה, בלי ספק
and undoubtedly they would not have stood upright like a wall,
אף שהטבע הזה במים גם כן נברא ומחודש יש מאין
even though this nature of water [to flow downward] is also newly created ex nihilo,
As the Rebbe points out, the Alter Rebbe means to say that not only is water itself a creation ex nihilo, but the nature of water to flow downward is also created ex nihilo.
When the mighty wind caused the water to stand like a wall, nothing was newly created ex nihilo, yesh me‘ayin; this was no more than a case of yesh miyesh: one existent state (the fluidity of water) was merely replaced by another existent state (its ability to remain upright).
Nevertheless, since the ability of water to stand rock-like is something novel, the force that is responsible for this novelty — even though this novelty involves no more than a progression from one yesh to another — must constantly cause it to come about; the moment it ceases to do so the novel event is arrested.
We thus see that the fluidity of water is not intrinsic to its essence. (By way of contrast, the fact that a created being occupies space, for example, is an essential characteristic that does not require separate creation ex nihilo.) In order for water to be fluid a distinct act of creation ex nihilo is required.
The Alter Rebbe makes this point by citing the contrasting case of a stone wall, which stands upright, independently of any external force.
שהרי חומת אבנים נצבת מעצמה בלי רוח, רק שטבע המים אינו כן
for a stone wall stands erect by itself without [the assistance of] the wind, but the nature of water is not so.
Since water by nature does not stand upright but flows downward, an additional degree of creation ex nihilo is called for if it is to do otherwise.
The above demonstrates that the Divine force that clothed itself in the wind did not have to create yesh me‘ayin, a newly existent being within creation: it merely had to change one yeshto another yesh, one form of existence to another — the natural property of fluidity to the natural property of standing erect. Nevertheless, even in such a situation, since a radical degree of change is involved, it is necessary for the power causing the change to effect the change unremittingly.
Surely, then, the Alter Rebbe soon concludes, with regard to the creation of the world, which comes into being absolutely ex nihilo, the activating force of the Creator must continuously be present in the created universe, providing it with life and existence. Indeed, were it not to be constantly present, the universe would revert to absolute nothingness.
Thus, even those who mistakenly compare G‑d’s creation to the works of man should also realize that an act that effects a radical change in a preexisting entity (e.g., causing water to assume the properties of a wall) requires that the activating force renew its effect continuously. This in itself should suffice to demonstrate that the activating force of the Creator must continuously revivify creation.
We thus see that not only is the analogy of the heretics false, for one cannot meaningfully compare G‑d’s creation and the works of man, but even according to their view, a situation which requires radical change in a created being necessitates the constant input of the animating force.
וכל שכן וקל וחומר בבריאת יש מאין, שהיא למעלה מהטבע והפלא ופלא יותר מקריעת ים סוף
How much more so is it in the creation of something out of nothing, which transcends nature, and is far more miraculous than the splitting of the Red Sea,
על אחת כמה וכמה שבהסתלקות כח הבורא מן הנברא, חס ושלום, ישוב הנברא לאין ואפס ממש
that surely with the withdrawal of the power of the Creator from the thing created, G‑d forbid, the created being would revert to naught and utter non-existence.
אלא צריך להיות כח הפועל בנפעל תמיד להחיותו ולקיימו
Rather,2 the activating force of the Creator must continuously be present in the thing created to give it life and existence.
והן הן בחינת אותיות הדבור מעשרה מאמרות שבהם נבראו
[Activating forces such as the above] are the selfsame letters of speech [that constitute] the Ten Utterances by which [all beings] were created.
This is why the above-quoted verse states, “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands in the heavens.” G‑d’s speech, which is the force that brings a created being into existence, must be present there forever, so as to give it life and existence.
--ועל זה נאמר: ואתה מחיה את כולם. אל תקרי מחיה אלא מהוה, דהיינו יש מאין
Concerning this Scripture says,3 “and You give life to them all.” I.e., G‑d provides the heavens and earth and all the creatures found within them, with life. Read not “give life,” but “bring into being,” i.e., ex nihilo.
It is written in Reishit Chochmah, as well as in the Shaloh (Shaar HaOtiot, pp. 48b, 70a),that although the verse uses the phrase “give life,” this does not mean that G‑d only provides created beings with life, in the way that the soul animates the already-existent body. Rather, the verse implies that this provision of life also serves to create them and to be responsible for their continued existence.
ואתה הן בחינת האותיות מאל״ף עד תי״ו
The word אתה (“You”) indicates all the letters from alef, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to tav, the final letter of the alphabet,
והה״א היא ה׳ מוצאות הפה, מקור האותיות
and the letter hei of the same word alludes to the five organs of verbal articulation,i.e., the larynx, palate, tongue, teeth and lips, which are the source of the letters.
This, then, is the meaning of the phrase, “and You (אתה) give life to them all.” The spiritual letters that emanate from the five supernal organs of verbal speech, provide life ex nihilo to the whole of the created universe.
ואף שאין לו דמות הגוף
Although He has no bodily likeness,4
How, then, can we speak of letters existing in the worlds above, and indeed add that it is through them that creation takes place ex nihilo?
הרי מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב: וידבר ה׳, ויאמר ה׳
yet Scripture itself explicitly applies [to Him anthropomorphic terms such as] “G‑d spoke” or “G‑d said,” thereby ascribing to Him letters and speech,
והיא בחינת התגלות הכ״ב אותיות עליונות לנביאים
and this — the meaning of “G‑d spoke” or “G‑d said” — is the revelation of the twenty-two supernal letters to the Prophets.
ומתלבשות בשכלם והשגתם במראה הנבואה
[These supernal letters] are enclothed in the intellect and comprehension which is to be found in their prophetic vision,
וגם במחשבתם ודיבורם, כמו שכתוב: רוח ה׳ דבר בי, ומלתו על לשוני
[and are enclothed] as well in their thought and speech, as it is written,5 “The spirit of G‑d spoke within me, and His word is upon my tongue,”
וכמו שאמר האריז״ל בשער הנבואה
as has been explained by the AriZal (in Shaar HaNevuah).
Clearly, there exist letters and speech above which are capable of being garbed in the thought and speech of the Prophets.
וכעין זה היא התלבשות האותיות בברואים, כדכתיב: בדבר ה׳ שמים נעשו, וברוח פיו כל צבאם
Similar to this is the investment of the letters in created things, as it is written,6“By the word of G‑d were the heavens made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host,”
רק שהיא על ידי השתלשלות רבות ועצומות
except that [the enclothing of the letters in created beings] comes about through numerous and powerful descents,
עד שיורדות לעשיה גופנית
until [the letters] reach the corporeal World of Asiyah, which contains corporeal beings,
מה שאין כן השגת הנביאים היא באצילות המתלבשת בעולם הבריאה
whereas the apprehension of the Prophets is in the World of Atzilut as it becomes clothed in the World of Beriah.
It is from this lofty level that the spirit of prophecy descends upon the Prophets.
In similar fashion, the supernal letters descend and are invested within created beings, providing them with life and creating them ex nihilo.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Shmot 14:21-22; 15:8. |
| 2. | Cf. Kuzari III, 11. |
| 3. | Nechemiah 9:6. |
| 4. | Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7-12. |
| 5. | II Shmuel 23:2. |
| 6. | Tehillim 33:6. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Wednesday, Sivan 9, 5775 · May 27, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 84
Offering Sacrifices in the Chosen Sanctuary
"And there, you shall do all that I command you..."—Deuteronomy 12:14.
We are commanded to only offer sacrifices in the Holy Temple.
Offering Sacrifices in the Chosen Sanctuary
Positive Commandment 84
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 84th mitzvah is that we are commanded to offer all sacrifices only in the Bais HaBechirah [the Temple].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you."
When [the Sages] wanted to prove that the prohibition against bringing sacrifices outside the Temple applies to all categories of offerings, they brought a proof from G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Be careful not to offer your burnt-offerings in just any place." The Sifri3 says, "This verse only speaks of burnt-offerings. What is the source to apply this law to all sacrifices? It is the verse,4 'Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you.' But one could still think that for a burnt-offering there is both a positive commandment and a prohibition, whereas for other sacrifices there is only a positive commandment! The Torah therefore says,5 'Only there shall you prepare ...' " as I will explain in the proper place6 when discussing the prohibition.
The meaning of [the Sifri's statement], "for a burnt-offering there is both a positive commandment and a prohibition," is that one who brings a burnt-offering outside the Temple breaks both a positive commandment and a prohibition. The prohibition is from the verse,7 "Be careful not to offer your burnt-offerings [in just any place]." And the positive commandment is from the verse,8 "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you," whereas he did not prepare his offering "there."
The meaning of[the Sifri's statement,] "Whereas for other sacrifices there is only a positive commandment," is that the person would transgress only the commandment, "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you." There [in the Sifri] it is explained that even other sacrifices come under the prohibition in addition to the positive commandment.
It is explained in the end of tractate Zevachim9 that all sacrifices which are offered outside [the Temple courtyard10] are covered by both the positive commandment and the prohibition and are punishable by kares.
Everything I have told you has therefore been explained, i.e. that the verse, "Only there shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you," is definitely a positive commandment.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:14.
2.Ibid., 12:13.
3.Parshas Re'eh.
4.Ibid., 12:14.
5.Ibid.
6.N89.
7.Deut. 12:13.
8.Ibid., 12:14.
9.119b.
10.Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 18:2.
Positive Commandment 85
Bringing Pledged Sacrifices from Outside Israel
"Only the holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take and go to the place"—Deuteronomy 12:26.
We are commanded to bring all sacrifices – Sin, Burnt, Guilt and Peace Offerings – to the Holy Temple, though the person and the animal are outside of Israel, and despite the long journey involved.
Bringing Pledged Sacrifices from Outside Israel
Positive Commandment 85
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 85th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring all [sacrifices] that we are obligated in — sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering and peace-offering — to the Temple, even from outside Eretz Yisrael. This means that even if we became obligated to bring them when we were outside Eretz Yisrael, we are commanded to bring them to the Temple and are obligated to offer them despite the lengthy distance.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "However, your offerings and pledges you must take and bring to the place [that G‑d shall choose]."
In the words of the Sifri: "The phrase, 'However, your offerings,' refers to offerings from outside Eretz Yisrael; 'you must take and bring,' teaches that one is obligated to take care of their being brought to the Temple." The conclusion there is that this applies to a person's obligatory sin-offering, guilt-offering, burnt-offering or peace-offering.3
FOOTNOTES
1.If not for this mitzvah, one might think that the sacrifice could be redeemed for money, and the money brought to Jerusalem, as is the case with ma'aser sheni. See P128.
2.Ibid., 12:26.
3.This excludes the b'chor (P89) and ma'aser (P88). See Kapach, note 90.
Negative Commandment 90
Slaughtering Sacrifices outside the Holy Temple
"...who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to G‑d . . . this shall be counted for that man as blood; he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off"—Leviticus 17:3.
It is forbidden to slaughter outside the Holy Temple any animal designated for sacrifice.
Slaughtering Sacrifices outside the Holy Temple
Negative Commandment 90
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 90th prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering any sacrifice outside [the courtyard of the Temple]. This prohibited action is called shochet bachutz.
In the beginning1 of tractate Kerisus, where all those who are punishable by kares are listed, the one who does the slaughtering and the one who does the offering2 [on the altar] are listed separately as two [commandments].
The3 punishment of kares for one who just slaughters an animal outside, even if he didn't bring it as an offering, is stated by Torah itself in G‑d's statement4 (exalted be He), "[Any member of the family of Israel] who slaughters an ox, sheep or goat, whether in the camp or outside the camp, and does not bring it into the Communion Tent to be offered as a sacrifice to G‑d, blood shall be counted for that man; he has spilled blood and shall be cut off (spiritually)." The actual prohibition for one who slaughters a sacrifice outside, however, is not written explicitly. It is derived from the principle,5 "Scripture gives a punishment only when there is a prohibition," in accordance with the principles we established in the Introduction to these commandments.6
In the words of the Talmud in tractate Zevachim,7 "One who does the slaughtering and the offering outside is guilty both for the slaughtering and the offering. The case of the offering is clear because both the punishment and the prohibition are written. The punishment is written in the verse,8 'If he does not bring it into the Communion Tent ... he shall be cut off,' and the prohibition is written in the verse9 "Be careful [hishomer] not to bring your burnt-offerings [in just any place that you may see fit]." This is in accordance with Rav Avin, as Rav Avin said in the name of Rav Laya,10 'Every case where the Torah writes hishomer (be careful), pen (lest) or al (do not) indicates a prohibition.' For slaughtering, however, the punishment is clearly written in the verse, 'If he does not bring it into the Communion Tent ... he shall be cut off.' But what is the source for the prohibition?"
After lengthy and wide-ranging discussion, the conclusion is given as follows: "It is written,11 'There shall you offer ... and there shall you prepare.' This creates a comparison between offering and preparing: just as offering has both a punishment and a prohibition, so too preparing has both a punishment and a prohibition." Their reference to, "There shall you offer ... and there shall you prepare," is to G‑d's statement12 (exalted be He), "There shall you offer your burnt-offerings," which refers to burning them on the fire [of the altar]. "There shall you prepare all [the offerings] I have commanded you," includes both the offering and the slaughtering, since He also commanded the slaughtering.
You should be aware that one who slaughters outside unintentionally is also required to bring a sin-offering. You should also be aware that one who offers sacrifices outside the place of the Temple courtyard even now [when there is no Temple] is punishable by kares. Our Sages say explicitly,13 "Rabbi Yochanan says, 'One who brings an offering even now is guilty.'" This is the final ruling, since the animal is actually fit to sacrifice, in accordance with our accepted principle,14 "Sacrifices may be brought even if the Temple is not built."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Chapter 1, Mishneh 1.
2.See N89.
3.The following discussion is based on the well-known principle that each prohibition must have two components stated: a) the actual prohibition, and b) the punishment for its violation.
4.Lev. 17:3-4.
5.See Yoma 81a; Sanhedrin 56b.
6.See immediately after the 14th Principle.
7.106a.
8.Lev. 17:3-4.
9.Deut. 12:13.
10.Kapach, 5731, note 54, suggests that this is short for "Ilai".
11.Deut. 12:14.
12.Ibid.
13.Zevachim 107b.
14.See Hilchos Ma'aseh HaKorbanos 19:15.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment of the Torah to relate the miracles and wonders wrought for our ancestors in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Remember this day, on which you left Egypt," just as [Exodus 20:8] states: "Remember the Sabbath day."
From where [is it derived that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled on] the night of the fifteenth? The Torah teaches [Exodus 13:8]: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: 'It is because of this...'"FS" [implying that the mitzvah is to be fulfilled] when matzah and maror are placed before you.
[The mitzvah applies] even though one does not have a son. Even great Sages are obligated to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. Whoever elaborates concerning the events which occurred and took place is worthy of praise.
Commentary Halacha
It is a positive commandment of the Torah -- Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 157), Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 21)
to relate -- Hilchot Kri'at Shema 1:3 mentions that it is a mitzvah to recall the Exodus from Egypt twice daily. The Rambam makes no further mention of that mitzvah in the Mishneh Torah, nor does he mention it in Sefer HaMitzvot. There is a basic difference between these two obligations. Throughout the year, a brief recollection is all that is required. On Pesach night, we must elaborate, relating the entire story of the Exodus.
the miracles and wonders wrought for our ancestors in Egypt on the night -- In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam states "the beginning of the night," implying that we should begin telling the story of the Exodus in the first portion of the night.
of the fifteenth of Nisan -- the night of the plague of the firstborn, when Pharaoh gave the Jews permission to leave Egypt.
as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Remember this day -- the fifteenth of Nisan
on which you left Egypt" -- implying that we are commanded to commemorate the day of the Exodus.
just as [Exodus 20:8] states: "Remember the Sabbath day." -- This addition is a quote from the Mechiltah and Shemot Rabbah. Nevertheless, the commentators have questioned its necessity. Some explain that the word זכור does not follow the grammatical form usually used for commandments, and hence the comparison with the Sabbath is valuable.
Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 21, explains that Shemot Rabbah states that the remembrance of the Sabbath is זכר למעשה בראשית, "a commemoration of the work of creation." The remembrance of the exodus, it continues, must also emphasize the wonders and miracles that God performed.
What is the common point between the Sabbath and the exodus? Both emphasize how God is above nature and, hence, can change nature according to His will.
This quality is also reflected in our service. At the very beginning of Hilchot Shabbat, the Rambam emphasizes how the observance of the Sabbath is connected with a positive mitzvah: rest. A Jew steps beyond his weekday activities and devotes his energies to spiritual activites bond with God.
Similarly, the recollection of the exodus from Egypt must take us beyond our everyday activities to the extent that as stated in Halachah 7:6 "He presents himself as if he, himself, is leaving the slavery of Egypt."
From where [is it derived that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled on] the night of the fifteenth? The Torah teaches [Exodus 13:8]: "And you shall tell your son on that day -- relating the story of the Exodus
saying: 'It is because of this...'"FS" -- The Mechiltah interprets this as a reference to matzah and maror. Thus, the verse is
[implying that the mitzvah] -- of relating the story of the exile
[is to be fulfilled] when matzah and maror are placed before you -- i.e., on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, when it is a mitzvah to eat matzah, as explained in Halachah 6:1.
[The mitzvah applies] even though one does not have a son -- This clause is necessary because from the expression "and you shall tell your son," one might imply that the mitzvah only applies to a person with children.
Even great Sages are obligated to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. -- to quote the Haggadah: "Even if we are all wise, all men of understanding, all Sages, all knowledgeable about the Torah, it is a mitzvah incumbent upon us to relate the Exodus from Egypt." Many commentaries explain that the story the Haggadah quotes concerning Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and the other Sages is brought to demonstrate and prove this point.
Whoever elaborates concerning the events which occurred and took place is worthy of praise -- Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) praises: "Whoever adds further statements and elaborates more on the greatness of what God did for us and the wickedness and violence with which the Egyptians treated us, and how God took His revenge upon them..."
Halacha 2
It is a mitzvah to inform one's sons even though they do not ask, as [Exodus 13:8] states: "You shall tell your son."
A father should teach his son according to the son's knowledge: How is this applied? If the son is young or foolish, he should tell him: "My son, in Egypt, we were all slaves like this maidservant or this slave. On this night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, redeemed us and took us out to freedom."
If the son is older and wise, he should inform him what happened to us in Egypt and the miracles wrought for us by Moses, our teacher; everything according to the son's knowledge.
Commentary Halacha
It is a mitzvah to inform one's sons even though they do not ask, as [Exodus 13:8] states: "You shall tell your son." -- Though Exodus 13:14states: "And it shall come to pass that your son will ask you:...," the verse quoted demonstrates that the father's explanations need not necessarily come in response to his son's questions (Mechiltah d'Rashbi).
A father should teach his son according to the son's knowledge --Commenting on this statement, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 473:6) relates that if a person's family is unable to understand the Haggadah in Hebrew, he should translate it into a language they do understand.
How is this applied? If the son is young or foolish, he should tell him: "My son, in Egypt, we were all slaves like this maidservant or this slave. On this night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, redeemed us and took us out to freedom." -- To this author's knowledge, this phraseology is the Rambam's original choice of words. He attempts to provide us with an easily applicable example of how to fulfill this mitzvah.
If the son is older and wise, he should inform him what happened to us in Egypt and the miracles wrought for us by Moses, our teacher -- The Haggadah (based on the Mechiltah) also explains that a wise son should be taught the halachot of Pesach.
everything according to the son's knowledge -- The latter phrase, a quote from Pesachim 116a, is interpreted differently by some other commentators. They maintain that the father teaches the son how to ask relevant questions, whose nature depends on the son's ability to understand. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (473:40,42) combines both these interpretations.
Halacha 3
He should make changes on this night so that the children will see and will [be motivated to] ask: "Why is this night different from all other nights?" until he replies to them: "This and this occurred; this and this took place."
What changes should be made? He should give them roasted seeds and nuts; the table should be taken away before they eat; matzot should be snatched from each other and the like.
When a person does not have a son, his wife should ask him. If he does not have a wife, [he and a colleague] should ask each other: "Why is this night different?" This applies even if they are all wise. A person who is alone should ask himself: "Why is this night different?"
Commentary Halacha
He -- the father or person conducting the seder
should make changes on this night so that the children will see -- have their curiosity piqued
and will -- thus, remain awake and
[be motivated to] ask: "Why is this night different from all other nights?" -- The question מה נשתנה and, similarly, three of the four questions asked by the children are mentioned in the Mishnah, Pesachim 116a.
until he replies to them: "This and this occurred; this and this took place." -- relating the story of the Exodus by reciting the Haggadah.
What changes should be made? He should give them roasted seeds and nuts -- Pesachim 109a notes that Rabbi Akiva would follow this practice.
the table should be taken away before they eat -- Pesachim 115b relates that one Pesach, Abaye was sitting before Rabbah, and the latter suddenly picked up the table as if he had finished eating. Abaye exclaimed: "We have not begun to eat and you have already picked up the table!" (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:6. See Halachah 8:2.)
matzot should be snatched from each other -- The Rambam's statements are quoted from Pesachim 109a. However, Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others interpret חוטפים מצות to mean that the matzot are eaten hurriedly. The Rambam's interpretation is the source for the custom of stealing matzah at the Seder.
and the like -- The custom of pouring the second cup of wine directly after reciting הא לחמה עניא is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:7) as another practice instituted to arouse curiosity.
When a person does not have a son, his wife should ask him. -- The Sages stressed that the Haggadah should be recited as a response to questions. We show greater interest in learning about a subject when questions have first been raised in our minds.
If he does not have a wife, [he and a colleague] should ask each other "Why is this night different?" This applies even if they are all wise -- as mentioned in the previous halachah.
A person who is alone should ask himself: "Why is this night different?" -- Since the question and answer approach is the most desirable way to recite the Haggadah, everyone must follow this pattern, even if he must ask himself the questions.
Halacha 4
One must begin [the narrative describing our ancestors'] base [roots] and conclude with [their] praise. What does this imply? One begins relating how originally, in the age of Terach, our ancestors denied [God's existence] and strayed after vanity, pursuing idol worship. One concludes with the true faith: how the Omnipresent has drawn us close to Him, separated us from the gentiles, and drawn us near to His Oneness.
Similarly, one begins by stating that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and [describing] all the evil done to us, and concludes with the miracles and wonders that were wrought upon us, and our freedom.
This [implies] that one should extrapolate [the passage beginning] from [Deuteronomy 26:5]: "An Aramean sought to destroy my ancestor..." until one concludes the entire passage. Whoever adds and extends his extrapolation of this passage is praiseworthy.
Commentary Halacha
One must begin [the narrative describing our ancestors'] base [roots] and conclude with [their] praise. -- This principle is taken from the Mishnah,Pesachim 116a. The commentaries offer several rationales in its explanation. Among them:
a) The contrast between our nation's humble roots and the majestic level they reached through the Exodus make us more conscious of God's great kindness (Tosefot Rid).
b) Mention of our roots prevents us from becoming overly haughty (Maharshah).
What does this imply? One begins relating how originally, in the age of Terach -- Abraham's father
our ancestors denied [God's existence] -- The Rambam is alluding to the passage "Originally, our ancestors were idol-worshipers."
and strayed after vanity, pursuing idol worship -- See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1-3.
One concludes with the true faith -- The redemption from Egypt representing the birth of the Jews as a nation and the beginning of their service of God as a people.
how the Omnipresent has drawn us close to Him, separated us from the gentiles, and drawn us near to His Oneness -- by giving us the Torah.
Similarly, one begins by stating that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and [describing] all the evil done to us -- The Rambam's statements are based on Pesachim 116a, which mentions a debate between Rav and Shmuel concerning the interpretation of "One must begin [the narrative describing our ancestors'] base [roots] and conclude with [their] praise."
Rav maintains that it is proper to begin from "Originally, our ancestors were worshipers of idols," placing the emphasis on our degrading spiritual roots. Shmuel (according to the Maggid Mishneh, Ravvah) maintains that we should begin from "We were slaves to Pharaoh, stressing the humble material origins from which our people stem. Customarily, we follow both opinions in our recitation of the Haggadah (Rav Yitzchak Alfasi), and hence the Rambam includes both opinions in this halachah.
There is, nonetheless, a certain difficulty with the Rambam's statements. All texts of the Haggadah begin with "We were slaves," and then relate the passage "Originally, our ancestors were idol worshipers." Here, the Rambam reverses that order. Perhaps he made this choice because the Talmud uses this order when mentioning these two opinions. Alternatively, chronologically, our ancestors' worship of idols preceded the Egyptian exile.
and concludes with the miracles and wonders that were wrought upon us, and our freedom -- relating the story of the Exodus.
This [implies] that one should extrapolate -- bringing other verses to explain and clarify the statements of this passage as found in the Haggadah.
[the passage beginning] from [Deuteronomy 26:5]: "An Aramean sought to destroy my ancestor..." -- This passage served as the statement of thanksgiving recited by the farmers bringing bikkurim (the first fruits) to the Temple. The Mishnah (Pesachim 116a) mentions that it was instituted as the basis of the Haggadah.
until one concludes the entire passage. -- i.e., until Deuteronomy 26:8.
Whoever adds and extends his extrapolation -- beyond the accepted text
of this passage is praiseworthy.
Halacha 5
Whoever does not mention these three matters on the night of the fifteenth has not fulfilled his obligation. They are: the Paschal sacrifice, matzah, and maror.
The Paschal sacrifice: [It is eaten] because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt as [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say: 'It is the Paschal sacrifice to God.'"FS"
The bitter herbs: [They are eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt.
The matzah: [It is eaten] because of the redemption. These statements are all referred to as the Haggadah.
Commentary Halacha
Whoever does not mention these three matters on the night of the fifteenth has not fulfilled his obligation -- to relate the story of the Exodus. The commentators question if a person who does not mention these three concepts is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah at all, or rather, is the intent that he has not fulfilled the mitzvah in a desirable manner?
They are: the Paschal sacrifice, matzah, and maror. -- From the verse quoted below: "And you shall say: 'It is the Paschal sacrifice to God,'"FS"Tosefot, Pesachim 116b, derives that the Paschal sacrifice must be among the things spoken about on Pesach. Since the Paschal sacrifice must be eaten "with matzot and bitter herbs," there is also an obligation to mention them.
the Paschal sacrifice: [It is eaten] because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt -- saving them from the plague of the slaying of the firstborn
as [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say: 'It is the Paschal sacrifice to God.'"FS"
The bitter herbs -- Here and in Halachah 8:4, the Rambam changes the order found in our text of the Mishnah and in the Haggadah (including even his own text of the Haggadah). Rabbenu Manoach maintains that this was the order found in the Rambam's text of the Mishnah.
[They are eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt. The matzah: [It is eaten] because of the redemption. These statements -- the questions asked in Halachah 3 and the explanations referred to in this and the previous halachah.
are all referred to as the Haggadah.
Halacha 6
In each and every generation, a person must present himself as if he, himself, has now left the slavery of Egypt, as [Deuteronomy 6:23] states: "He took us out from there." Regarding this manner, God commanded in the Torah: "Remember that you were a slave [Deuteronomy 5:15]" - i.e., as if you, yourself, were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed.
Commentary Halacha
In each and every generation, a person must present himself -- Pesachim116b explains that the mitzvah of relating the story of the Exodus cannot remain on the intellectual level alone. Rather, it must affect a person to the extent that he personally feels that he is leaving Egypt.
There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements. Pesachim (ibid.), the commonly accepted text of the Haggadah, and even the Rambam's own text of the Haggadah, read לראות (see himself), and not להראות (present himself) -- i.e., show others that he feels this way. Why does the Rambam alter the text here?
Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XII, notes that the following halachot emphasize how the obligation of recalling the Exodus applies, not only to the recitation of the Haggadah, but to all the practices performed on Pesach. Since we must recite the Haggadah to others, as implied by the question-and-answer approach required by Halachah 3, the manner in which a person performs all the other Passover practices must also demonstrate to others his personal experience of the Exodus.
as if he, himself, has now -- the words, "himself" and "now" are also additions to the Mishnah.
left the slavery of Egypt -- Here, also, the Rambam alters the text, adding the words "the slavery." Since the Rambam is addressing people who may never have seen the physical land of Egypt, it is not possible to demand that they feel as if they left that country, but rather, that they left backbreaking slavery as experienced by our people in Egypt.
as [Deuteronomy 6:23] states: "He took -- This and the verse quoted below were stated forty years after the redemption from Egypt, to the Jews who were prepared to enter Eretz Yisrael. They had not tasted Egyptian slavery.
us out from there." -- This verse is quoted by Ravvah, Pesachim 116b. However, the Mishnah (and our text of the Haggadah) derive this concept fromExodus 13:8: "And you shall tell your son...: 'It is because of this, that God acted for me...'"FS" Nevertheless, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah and the Haggadah do not include that verse.
Regarding this manner, God commanded in the Torah: "Remember that you were a slave [Deuteronomy 5:15]" -- It is necessary to quote this verse in addition to the one mentioned previously. The previous verse teaches us that the redemption from Egypt is a continuous activity, affecting us at present as well. This verse emphasizes that we are obligated to recognize and recall that fact.
i.e., as if you, yourself, -- even though physically, you did not experience this slavery.
were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed.
Halacha 7
Therefore, when a person feasts on this night, he must eat and drink while he is reclining in the manner of free men. Each and every one, both men and women, must drink four cups of wine on this night. [This number] should not be reduced. Even a poor person who is sustained by charity should not have fewer than four cups. The size of each of these cups should be a quarter [of a log].
Commentary Halacha
Therefore, when a person feasts on this night -- The meal served at the Seder should be festive. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 472:2, states that a person should set the table with the most attractive utensils he can afford.
he must eat and drink -- The Talmud mentions two practices as characteristic of freedom: reclining and drinking four cups of wine. The Rambam mentions the general principles applying to these obligations in this halachah, and explains each of the practices in particular in the following halachot.
while he is reclining -- on couches
in the manner of free men -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim10:1), the Rambam relates that this was the practice of "kings and great people."
The commentaries quote the Rambam's expression as a proof that reclining (הסיבה) is not merely a particular law, describing the manner in which the matzah and the four cups of wine must be eaten and drunk, but rather a unique requirement on its own. Therefore, as explained in the following halachah, it is praiseworthy for a person to eat the entire Seder meal while reclining.
each and every one -- Even a person who has difficulty drinking wine must observe this practice. Nedarim 49b relates that Rabbi Yehudah bar Illai would have to bind his sides from Pesach to Shavuot because of the aftereffects of the four cups of wine he drank at the Seder. Nevertheless, each year he fulfilled the mitzvah.
both men and women -- Generally, woman are not bound to fulfill any mitzvot that have a specific time limitation. However, an exception to this principle is made regarding the mitzvot associated with the Seder night. Since the women had a full share in the miracles of the Exodus - indeed, Sotah 11b states that the redemption came about because of their merit - they must participate fully in the commemoration of the Exodus (Pesachim 108b).
It is curious that the Rambam does not mention whether wine should be given to children below Bar-Mitzvah age. Many authorities maintain that it is unnecessary for the Rambam to mention this fact, for we can assume that the all-encompassing obligation to educate one's children in Torah practice applies in this regard as well. (See Shulchan Aruch 472:15 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav472:25)
Other commentaries, however, maintain that the omission is significant. They note that in Hilchot De'ot 4:12, the Rambam writes that wine is harmful to young children. Hence, they maintain, the Rabbis would not require a father to train his children in Torah practice at the expense of their health.
must drink four -- The Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 10:1 explains that these four cups of wine are associated with the four promises of redemption given to the Jews in Egypt (Exodus 6:6-7). Alternatively, it is suggested that they refer to:
the four cups mentioned in the narrative of Pharaoh's butler;the four exiles in which the Jews will suffer;the four cups of retribution God will force the gentiles to drink in the Messianic age; and,the four cups of consolation He will offer to the Jews after their redemption.
In Halachah 8:10, the Rambam also mentions a fifth cup of wine. See the commentary on that halachah.
cups of wine -- Most halachic authorities require that this wine have some alcoholic content. Hence, grape juice alone should not be used.
on this night. [This number] should not be reduced -- However, during certain portions of the Seder, it is possible to drink additional cups of wine.
even a poor person who is sustained by charity should not have fewer than four cups. -- Just as the Jewish community must supply him with his physical needs, they must also provide him with the necessities required to fulfill his halachic obligations.
The size of each of these cups -- i.e., the amount of liquid they must contain
should be a quarter [of a log] -- There is some controversy about the conversion of that figure into modern measure. The most commonly accepted figure is 3.35 fluid ounces. Some authorities require even larger cups.
Halacha 8
Even one of Israel's poor should not eat until he [can] recline. A woman need not recline. If she is an important woman, she must recline. [Even] a son in the presence of his father or an attendant in the presence of his master must recline. However, a student before his teacher should not recline unless his teacher grants him permission.
Reclining on one's right side is not considered reclining. Neither is reclining on one's back or forwards.
When must one recline? when eating the כזית of matzah and when drinking these four cups of wine. While eating and drinking at other times: if one reclines, it is praiseworthy; if not, there is no requirement.
Commentary Halacha
Even one of Israel's poor should not eat until he [can] recline. -- The word "even" is used to include people who one would presume would not be obligated. Tosefot, Pesachim 99b, explains that it obligates even a poor person who cannot afford a couch or pillows to lean on. He also must try to recline to the best of his ability - e.g., leaning on a colleague's side. See Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 472:3.
A woman need not recline. -- Rabbenu Manoach and other commentators explain that this refers only to a woman in the presence of her husband. TheSh'eltot d'Rav Achai (Tzav 77) states that it applies to all women, since women do not generally recline.
If she is an important woman, she must recline. -- The Ramah, Orach Chayim 472:4, and other Ashkenazic authorities write: "All our women are considered important. Nevertheless, it is not customary for them to recline."
[Even] a son in the presence of his father or an attendant in the presence of his master must recline. -- A son is obligated to honor his father, and thus it would not be respectful to recline in his presence. However, we may assume that the father foregoes his honor in this regard. This applies even if the father is also his tutor in Torah studies.
Though an attendant is bound to fulfill the duties required of him by his master, the obligations required of him by God take precedence.
However, a student before his teacher -- i.e., one who teaches him Torah
should not recline -- for a person's fear of his teacher must parallel his fear of God (Pesachim 22b).
unless his teacher grants him permission. -- Should he desire to do so, a teacher may forego the honor due him. In such an instance, a student must recline.
Reclining on one's right side is not considered reclining. -- This refers to a right-handed person. Since he must eat with his right hand, it would be uncomfortable for him to recline on that side (Rashbam, Pesachim 108a). Alternatively, this refers to all people for reclining in this manner is dangerous, lest the food go down the windpipe rather than the esophagus (Ramah 472:3).
Neither is reclining on one's back or forwards. -- Pesachim 108a explains that פרקדן is not considered as a desirable manner of reclining. Most commentaries explain that refers only to leaning on one's back. However, even leaning forward is not acceptable, since this is not a comfortable manner of eating and cannot be regarded as a symbol of freedom and liberation.
When must one recline? when eating the כזית of matzah -- At present, this obligation applies also to eating the korech (sandwich of matzah and maror) and the afikoman.
and when drinking these four cups of wine. -- for these were ordained particularly to celebrate the redemption from Egypt.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 472:7, writes that a person who ate matzah or drank from the four cups of wine without reclining is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation and must repeat the act.
The Ramah qualifies this law, explaining that since, in the Ashkenazic community, certain opinions do not require reclining at present, one need not drink another cup of wine if the third and fourth cups of wine were drunk without reclining. However, he suggests that a person repeat the eating of matzah and the drinking of the first two cups of wine if they were consumed without reclining. The Magen Avraham (and the subsequent authorities) declare that the drinking of the first cup should also not be repeated.
While eating and drinking at other times -- during the Seder meal
if one reclines, it is praiseworthy -- for, as mentioned in the previous halachah, reclining is one of the signs of freedom and liberation, and thus, has an importance of its own, independent of its connection to the eating of matzah and the drinking of the four cups of wine.
if not, there is no requirement. -- for, in particular, reclining was obligated only for those acts that were specifically instituted as symbols of our liberation. One should not recline while eating the maror, for it was ordained as a remembrance of our people's oppression and not of their liberation (Pesachim108a).
Halacha 9
These four cups [of wine] should be mixed with water so that drinking them will be pleasant. [The degree to which they are mixed] all depends on the wine and the preference of the person drinking. [Together,] these four [cups] should contain at least a quarter [of a log] of pure wine.
A person who drank these four cups from wine which was not mixed [with water] has fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups of wine, but has not fulfilled the obligation to do so in a manner expressive of freedom.
A person who drank these four cups of wine mixed [with water] at one time has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine in a manner expressive of freedom, but has not fulfilled the obligation of four cups of wine.
A person who drank the majority [of the cup] from each of these [four] cups has fulfilled his obligation.
Commentary Halacha
These four cups [of wine] should be mixed with water so that drinking them will be pleasant. -- In Talmudic times, the wines were very strong and had to be mixed with water before being drunk. At present, most commercially produced wines have already been diluted with water. Nevertheless, in many communities, it is customary to mix a small amount of water with the wine when pouring the cup, to fulfill the obligation of mixing the wine with water oneself.
[The degree to which they are mixed] all depends on -- the strength of
the wine and the preference of the person drinking. -- Nevertheless, the Sages placed some limits on the extent to which wine may be diluted.
[Together,] these four [cups] should contain at least a quarter
[of a log] of pure wine. -- i.e., the sum total of pure wine contained in all four cups must be at least a quarter of a log at least 3.35 fluid ounces, as explained above. A person may thus add three times this quantity of water to the wine to produce four cups, each containing a quarter of a log of mixed wine.
We may not dilute the wine any further. Shabbat 77a states: "Any wine that is less than a third of the quantity of the water [mixed in] is not considered wine."
This factor is significant at present, when the wines commercially produced are substantially diluted with water in the factories. Hence, when adding water to them at the table, one must take care not to exceed the above limits.
A person who drank these four cups from wine which was not mixed [with water] -- In Hilchot Mamrim 7:4, the Rambam writes that drinking wine in this manner is considered as an accidental occurrence, and no one, not even a glutton, will continue doing this.
has fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups of wine, but has not fulfilled the obligation to do so in a manner expressive of freedom. -- i.e., he has not fulfilled the mitzvah in its proper manner. However, as stated above, at present many commentaries do not require further dilution with water.
A person who drank these four cups of wine mixed [with water] at one time -- without waiting to drink them as prescribed in the Haggadah
has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine in a manner expressive of freedom, but has not fulfilled the obligation of four cups of wine. -- The Rabbis ordained that the cups be drunk in the prescribed order. (Note the following halachah.) A person who does not drink them in this order does not fulfill his obligation.
A person who drank the majority [of the cup] from each of these [four] cups has fulfilled his obligation. -- The Taz (472:7) explains that it is desirable for a person to drink the entire cup of wine if possible. Accordingly, the Magen Avraham suggests using smaller cups, so that it is easy to drink the entire contents. Some opinions maintain that even if a person is using a very large cup, he is obligated to drink the majority of the cup. However, the prevailing opinion (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 472:19) is that for the first three cups, it is sufficient to drink the majority of a quarter of a log (i.e., at least 1.68 fluid ounces of wine). For the final cup, one should drink an entire quarter of alog.
The source of the latter law is Pesachim 108a, which mentions a person who drinks wine from his cup and then gives to his children and the members of his household. The Talmud concludes that he fulfills his obligation if he drinks the majority of the cup. The Rambam quotes only the conclusion of this statement, for he maintains that all adult members of the household, both men and women, should be given their own cups of wine and he does not mention the obligation of giving wine to children. (See Halachah 7.)
Halacha 10
On each of these four cups, one recites a blessing of its own. In addition:
On the first cup, one recites the kiddush pertaining to the day;
On the second cup, one reads the Haggadah;
On the third cup, one recites the grace after meals;
On the fourth cup, one concludes the Hallel and recites the blessing for songs [of praise].
Between these cups, should one desire to drink, one may. Between the third and the fourth cup, one should not drink.
Commentary Halacha
On each of these four cups, one recites a blessing of its own -- i.e., one recites the blessing בורא פרי הגפן, blessing God for creating wine, before partaking of each cup of wine. Generally, when one continues drinking wine in one sitting, only one blessing is recited in the beginning. However, in this instance, since each of the four cups was ordained as a specific mitzvah, it requires a blessing of its own.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach quotes Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, as stating that after each of the four cups, his father also required the recitation of the blessing על הגפן (the blessing recited after drinking wine). Nevertheless, both Sephardic and Ashkenazic custom today is to recite על הגפן only once, at the end of the Seder (Ramah 474:1).
Also, -- each of the four cups is associated with another blessing(s).
on the first cup, one recites the kiddush pertaining to the day -- as on every Sabbath and festival, as stated in Halachah 8:1.
On the second cup, one reads the Haggadah -- and concludes with the blessing אשר גאלנו, which praises God for redeeming us, as stated in Halachah 8:5.
On the third cup, one recites the grace after meals -- which, throughout the year, should be recited over a cup of wine, as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Berachot 7:14 and as stated in Halachah 8:10 below.
On the fourth cup, one concludes the Hallel -- which is begun before partaking of the meal, as stated in Halachah 8:5.
and recites the blessing for songs [of praise]. -- i.e., the blessing יהללוך, generally recited after the Hallel, as stated in Halachah 8:10.
Between these cups, should one desire to drink, one may. -- However, theShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:3, recommends not drinking between the first and second cups. The Darchei Mosheh states that this is the accepted Ashkenazic custom. See also Mishnah Berurah 473:13-15.
No restrictions are placed on drinking between the second and third cups, since this is the time of the Seder meal.
Halacha 11
The charoset is a mitzvah ordained by the words of the Sages, to commemorate the clay with which [our forefathers] worked in Egypt. How is it made?
We take dates, dried figs, or raisins and the like, and crush them, add vinegar to them, and mix them with spices, as clay is mixed into straw. This is placed on the table on [the first two] nights of Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
The charoset is a mitzvah ordained by the words of the Sages -- This statement represents a change of opinion by the Rambam. Pesachim 10:3 states: "The charoset is not a mitzvah. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok declares: 'It is a mitzvah.'"FS" In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes:
According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok, who maintains that charoset is a mitzvah, one is obligated to recite a blessing "...who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us regarding the eating of charoset." This is not the halachah.
A change of opinion of this nature is not extremely uncommon. However, the question can be raised: why does the Rambam not require a blessing to be recited over the charoset? Among the answers given is that the charoset is considered secondary (טפל) to the substances which are dipped in it. Hence, we follow the principle of reciting a blessing upon the essential item (the maror or the matzah) and not on the charoset (Lechem Mishneh).
to commemorate the clay -- i.e., mortar. Pesachim 116a offers a second opinion: "to commemorate the apple trees" - i.e., the manner in which the Jewish women made themselves attractive to their husbands and convinced them to continue rearing children. They would then hide in the apple orchards and give birth to their children without difficulty (Rashbam).
with which [our forefathers] worked in Egypt -- making bricks.
How is it made? We take dates, dried figs, or raisins and the like and crush them -- The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (473:32) suggests using apples, nuts, or pomegranates and fruits used as metaphors for the Jewish people in the Bible.
add vinegar to them -- The Ramah (473:5) suggests using red wine to recall the Jewish blood spilled by the Egyptians.
and mix them with spices -- ginger or cinnamon (However, in certain communities, it is customary not to use these spices on Pesach). Pesachim(ibid.) quotes Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok as saying "the spice-merchants of Jerusalem would call out: 'Come and get spices for the mitzvah.'"FS"
as clay is mixed into straw -- to commemorate the making of bricks.
This is placed on the table -- according to our custom, on the Seder plate
on Pesach nights.
Halacha 12
According to the Torah, the eating of bitter herbs is not a mitzvah in its own right, but rather is dependent on the consumption of the Paschal sacrifice. It is one positive commandment to eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice together with matzah and bitter herbs. According to the words of the Sages, [it is a mitzvah] to eat the bitter herbs alone on this night even if there is no Paschal sacrifice.
Commentary Halacha
According to the Torah, the eating of bitter herbs is not a mitzvah in its own right -- In contrast to matzah, concerning which there is a separate commandment (Exodus 12:18): "On that evening, eat matzot," there is no specific Biblical commandment to eat bitter herbs alone.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik explains that, accordingly, when eating the maror together with the Paschal sacrifice, there is no obligation to eat a
כזית. That measure is required only according to the Sages, who established a separate mitzvah to eat maror. Therefore, as in all other cases where eating is required, one must consume a כזית. However, since there is no Torah mitzvah to eat maror, merely that one should use it to embellish the Paschal sacrifice, that measure is not required by the Torah.
[Perhaps, this thesis may be questioned on the basis of Halachah 8:6, which requires a separate blessing for maror when it is eaten alone. As in Halachah 8:2, a blessing would not be required on a measure less than a כזית.]
but rather is dependent on the consumption of the Paschal sacrifice -- asExodus 12:8 commands: "eat it together with matzot and bitter herbs." (See Halachah 8:6.)
It is one positive commandment to eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice together with matzah and bitter herbs. -- Just as the four species taken on Sukkot are one mitzvah, similarly, although the Paschal sacrifice should be eaten with these three elements, it is considered only one mitzvah.
Furthermore, in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 56), the Rambam explains that if it is impossible to obtain bitter herbs, it is still a mitzvah to partake of the Paschal sacrifice. However, there is no mitzvah to partake of bitter herbs alone. (See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:2.)
According to the words of the Sages, [it is a mitzvah] -- and thus, as mentioned in Halachah 8:8, we recite a blessing praising God for commanding us "concerning the eating of maror."
to eat the bitter herbs alone -- in contrast to our practice of eating them together with matzah (see Halachah 8:8), which is only a custom
on this night even if there is no Paschal sacrifice.
Halacha 13
The bitter herbs referred to by the Torah are Romaine lettuce, endives, horseradish, date ivy, wormwood. All of these five species of vegetable are called maror. If a person ate a כזית of any one of these [species] or of all five [species] combined, he has fulfilled his obligation.
This applies while they are still moist. One may fulfill one's obligation with their stem even if it is dry. One cannot fulfill one's obligation if they are boiled, pickled, or cooked.
Commentary Halacha
The bitter herbs referred to by the Torah are Romaine lettuce -- Pesachim39a explains that even though the leaves of this species are sweet, it is preferable to fulfill the mitzvah of bitter herbs with this species than with any other. Just as the Egyptian exile began in a favorable way and ended in bitter oppression, similarly the leaves of this plant are sweet, but its root bitter. Furthermore, its Aramaic name, חסא, also means compassion and alludes to God's mercy for our people. From a halachic perspective, it is easiest to consume the required measure of maror when using this species.
endives, horseradish, date ivy -- the precise English term for the latter species is a matter of question. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim2:6), the Rambam identifies it with the Arabic "Kretzanah."
wormwood -- an extremely bitter tasting herb.
All of these five species of vegetable are called maror. If a person ate aכזית -- As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1:1, there is a debate between the commentators if a כזית is considered as one third the size of a ביצה, or one half. Hence, in regard to questions of Torah law, the more stringent opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon.
Since the consumption of maror is a Rabbinic commandment, the more lenient view - in terms of modern measurements, between 16.6 and 24 grams, depending on different halachic opinions - may be relied upon.
of any one of these [species] or of all five [species] combined, he has fulfilled his obligation.
This applies while they -- their leaves
are still moist. One may fulfill one's obligation with their stem -- TheShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:5, excludes the use of roots. However, theMagen Avraham (473:11) maintains that the main root extending from them stem may also be used. Indeed, the most common custom in European communities where Romaine lettuce was difficult to obtain, was to use a horseradish root.
even if it is dry. One cannot fulfill one's obligation if they are boiled, --these three activities detract from the vegetable's bitter taste
pickled -- in vinegar; alternatively, left in water for more than a day. Many have the custom of using horseradish as maror, but soak it before the Seder to minimize its sharpness. Based on this halachah, it is preferable for them to use one of the less bitter species of bitter herbs than to follow this practice.
or cooked.
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 16
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
If he vows to bring a burnt-offering9 either from lambs or from rams and brings a pilgas,10 there is an unresolved doubt whether or not he fulfilled his obligation.11 Similarly, if one vowed to bring a burnt-offering12of fowl from either turtle-doves or ordinary doves13 and brought a fowl that began to sprout yellow feathers14 of both species, there is an unresolved doubt [whether or not he fulfilled his obligation].15
If one vowed to bring a black[-colored animal] and brought one that was white, [vowed to bring] a white one and brought a black one, [vowed] a male and brought a female or vowed a female and brought a male, he did not fulfill his obligation.16
Halacha 3
When one takes a vow without specifying [the type of animal he is bringing], he should bring from the developed animals in the species he vowed to bring. If in his place [of residence], people commonly identify one of [the type of sacrifices] with a specific species [of animals], he should bring [the type of animal brought by] the people of that locale.17
What is implied? If a person vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle," he should bring an ox.18 Should he say: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," if the practice of the people of that locale is to use the term "burnt-offering" without any description to refer even to a fowl offered as a burnt-offering, he may bring even one fowl, a turtle dove or an ordinary dove. If their practice is to use that term only when referring to a burnt-offering of cattle, he should bring an ox. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
A person who vowed to bring an ox, a ram, a lamb, a calf, or the like should not bring the frailest specimen of that species, because their value is minimal.19 Nor is he obligated to bring the nicest, stockiest specimen of which there is no better.20Instead, he should bring an average animal.21 If he brought a frail animal, he fulfilled his vow.22
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a person says: "This ox is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished. If he desires to bring two for the price he receives for it.25If he brings even one ram26 for the price it receives, he fulfills his vow.
If he says: "These two oxen are burnt-offerings," and they become blemished, should he desire, he may bring one with the money he receives for their sale.27"This ram is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished, if he desires he may bring a lamb with the money he receives for its sale. Similarly, if he vows a lamb and it becomes disqualified, he may bring a ram with the money he receives for its sale.
Halacha 7
If he says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering" and he set aside an ox and it was stolen, he may fulfill his obligation with a sheep.28 If he says: "I promise to bring this ox or its value as a burnt-offering," [his commitment] is established as binding.29 If [the ox] is disqualified, he may bring only an ox with the money he receives for its sale.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
If he designated one of [three animals as a sacrifice] and forgot [which one he designated] or his father told him "One of these animals was consecrated,"34 he should designate the largest one as consecrated35 and, afterwards, he fulfills his obligation [with its sacrifice]. Similarly, if one vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle and designated [an animal as a sacrifice to fulfill] his vow and [later] forgot whether he had designated an ox or a calf, he should bring an ox.36Similarly, if he designated a sheep and forgot what he designated,37 he should bring a ram. If he designated a goat and forgot what he designated,38 he should bring a grown goat. If he forgot the species from which he designated the burnt-offering, he should bring an ox, a ram, and a grown goat.39 If he was in doubt that perhaps he designated the burnt-offering from fowl, he should also add a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.40
Halacha 10
When a person vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering or a peace offering, specifying that it would be brought from cattle, but forgot what he designated to bring, he should bring an ox and a cow.41 Similarly, if he is unsure with regard to sheep, he should bring a ram and a ewe. If he is unsure with regard to goats, he must bring a he-goat and a she-goat.
If he forgot the species from which he designated the sacrifice, he should bring an ox, a cow, a ram, a ewe, a he-goat, and a she-goat.42 If he said: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering of fowl," he should bring a turtle-dove or an ordinary dove.43 If he designated one particular species in his vow and forgot which one, he should bring both a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
When a person says: "I promise to bring [an offering] worth a sela48to the altar," he should bring a sheep,49 for there is nothing offered on the altar worth [exactly] a sela except a sheep. If he specified [a particular entity], but forgot what he specified, he should bring a sela's worth of everything that is offered on the altar.50
Halacha 13
When a person says: "I promise to bring frankincense," he should not bring less than a handful.51 If one says: "I promise to bring wood," he should not bring less than two52 logs as thick as a leveling rod that are a cubit long.53 "I promise to bring a piece of wood," he should bring one long a cubit long. If he desires to bring the worth of the logs, he may.54
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
If a person states: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering from ordinary funds and its bread from the [second] tithe," he should bring its bread only from ordinary funds. [The rationale is that] he vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering and that offering comes only when accompanied by bread which is from ordinary property.65
Halacha 17
If he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving offering from money from the second tithes and its bread from ordinary property," he may bring [the sacrifice] as he vowed.66 If he brought it all from ordinary property, he fulfilled his obligation.67 Similarly, if he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from the second tithe," he may bring it [as vowed].68 He should not bring the bread from wheat that is the second tithe, but from [flour purchased with] money [for which] the second tithe was redeemed like the animal which was [purchased with] such money.
Even though he explicitly stated that he would bring the bread from [the money of] the second] tithe, he should not bring its libations from the money of the second tithe, for at all times, libations must be brought solely from ordinary funds, as explained.69 [The rationale is] that concerning [the libations],70[Numbers 15:4] states: "The one who offers them shall offer his sacrifice." Implied is that the sacrifice must be his without having any dimension that belongs to the Most High.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For he has not fulfilled his vow.
|
| 2. |
For it is as if the promise to bring the smaller animal included the possibility of bringing the larger one.
|
| 3. |
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
|
| 4. |
One that is more than one year and one month old (ibid.).
|
| 5. |
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
|
| 6. |
An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.).
|
| 7. |
An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).
|
| 8. |
An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.).
|
| 9. |
The laws to follow also apply with regard to a peace-offering. They do not apply with regard to a guilt-offering or a sin-offering, for those sacrifices may not be brought voluntarily.
|
| 10. |
A sheep that is between the age of one year and one year and one month. Thus it is no longer a lamb, but it is not yet considered as a ram (ibid.).
|
| 11. |
There is an unresolved doubt regarding the status of a pilgas. Hence, the person cannot be considered as having fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, since its status is unresolved, we are not definitely certain that he did not fulfill his obligation.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why is he not considered to have fulfilled his obligation if he vowed to bring a lamb. As stated in the previous halachah, if one vows to bring a small animal and instead, brings a large animal, he is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Thus in the case at hand, if a pilgas is considered a lamb, he will have fulfilled his obligation and if it is considered as a ram, he would have fulfilled his obligation, based on the principle stated in Halachah 1. The Kessef Mishneh answers that the animal's status is considered one of doubt, an intermediate state between the two. Hence it is not considered as acceptable as either type.
|
| 12. |
This law applies only with regard to burnt-offerings, for peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl.
|
| 13. |
Turtle doves may only be brought as sacrifices when they are small and under-developed. Ordinary doves, by contrast, may be brought as sacrifices only when they have developed and reached a mature state (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2).
|
| 14. |
An intermediate stage in which the fowl is unacceptable, because it is too mature for a turtle-dove and not mature enough for an ordinary dove (ibid.).
|
| 15. |
Since there is an unresolved doubt concerning a fowl that reached this state of development, a person who brings one such dove would certainly not fulfill his obligation. In this instance, however, since he brought one for each species, one might think that it is considered as if he fulfilled his vow. For if this is considered as a stage of development, he will have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable ordinary dove. And if it is not considered acceptable, he would have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable turtle dove. Nevertheless, since a priest is not permitted to offer such a fowl as an initial preference, he is not considered to have fulfilled his vow.
|
| 16. |
For he did not bring the animal that he vowed to bring as a sacrifice.
|
| 17. |
This follows a general principle stated by the Rambam, that with regard to the interpretation of the wording used in vows, everything is determined by local custom.
|
| 18. |
I.e., and not a calf.
|
| 19. |
As Malachi 1:14 asks rhetorically: "You bring the stolen and the lame and the sick and offer it as a sacrifice. Shall I accept it from you." See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:1.
|
| 20. |
Although ibid.:11 states: "One who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing," this is a desirable ethical standard, but not a halachic imperative.
|
| 21. |
Menachot 13:8 mentions prices to be paid for animals offered as sacrifices. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that the prices mentioned were the average prices for animals at that time.
|
| 22. |
As long as the animal is unblemished.
|
| 23. |
100 silver pieces.
|
| 24. |
The wine, meal, and oil brought together with the offering, as stated in Chapter 2.
|
| 25. |
In this instance, since the ox was consecrated as a burnt-offering and was no longer fit to be offered as such, the proceeds of its sale must be used for that purpose. It does not matter, however, which animal(s) is purchased for that purpose.
In the previous halachah, it was not acceptable for him to bring two oxen that have a combined worth of 100, for he made an explicit vow to bring one ox worth 100 and until he does so, he does not fulfill his obligation. In this halachah, once the consecrated animal is disqualified, there are no qualifications regarding which animals may be brought as burnt-offerings. See Menachot 108a.
|
| 26. |
I.e., the sacrifice he brings need not even be of the same species as the animal he originally designated for sacrifice.
|
| 27. |
The new point this clause is teaching is that even if two animals were originally consecrated, one may be brought with the proceeds of their sale.
|
| 28. |
For when taking the vow, he did not specify what animal he would bring. This applies provided people of this locale also refer to a sheep as a burnt-offering (see Halachah 3). Moreover, if he had pledged to bring that particular ox as a burnt-offering, he is not obligated to bring any sacrifice at all (Radbaz).
|
| 29. |
Even if the animal is disqualified, he is obligated to bring another one like it as a sacrifice.
|
| 30. |
For we assume that anyone who consecrates his property does so generously (Menachot 108b).
|
| 31. |
For it is also possible that this was his intent, since consecrating the middle one is still acting generously, because there is a smaller one.
|
| 32. |
The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as implying that once the second one becomes blemished, the holiness automatically falls on the third. This runs contrary to Rashi's approach (Menachot, loc. cit.) which requires the person to make a stipulation conditionally transferring the holiness that might have fallen on the middle ox.
|
| 33. |
For by saying "An ox," we assume he meant the choicest one (Menachot, loc. cit.). The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Meilah 7:7 appears to run contrary to this explanation.
|
| 34. |
And then his father died without informing him which one was consecrated (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.).
|
| 35. |
For we assume that he intended to offer the most choice one as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that this case is different from the one in the previous halachah where concern is also given to the middle one, because since he already designated the animal, we assume that he chose the best one.
|
| 36. |
For even if he originally designated a small animal as a sacrifice, we follow the principle stated in Halachah 1 that a person who vows to bring a small animal, but instead brings a large one fulfills his obligation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:6); see also Ra'avad].
|
| 37. |
Whether a ram or a lamb.
|
| 38. |
Whether a grown goat or a kid.
|
| 39. |
I.e., he must allow for the possibility that he designated any of the three types of animals that could be offered as burnt-offerings and he must offer a large animal from each species for the reason mentioned above.
|
| 40. |
He must bring both, because they are considered as two separate species and not as developed and underdeveloped specimens of the same species.
|
| 41. |
As stated above with regard to burnt-offerings, he is obligated to bring a developed specimen. Unlike a burnt-offering, these sacrifices may be brought from females as well as males. Hence, although bringing a large animal fulfills his obligation even if he originally vowed to bring a small one, he is still required to bring both a male or a female, for he is unsure of the gender of the animal he originally designated.
|
| 42. |
Peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl, so there is no need to bring doves.
|
| 43. |
Bringing either will enable him to fulfill his vow.
|
| 44. |
As stated in Halachah 13, when one brings frankincense, he must bring at least a handful.
|
| 45. |
Since he said: "For the altar," we assume he meant something that is only for the altar. As mentioned below, there are other entities which are also offered on the altar, but unlike frankincense, they are not offered on the altar in their entirety. (The hide of an animal offered as a burnt-offering and the feathers of a fowl offered as a burnt-offering are withheld. With regard to the wine, it is not consumed by the altar's pyre, put poured upon it. And with regard to an offering of flour, since there are types of meal-offerings which are given to the priests to eat, we assume that his intent was not to bring such an offering.)
|
| 46. |
Since the primary elements of the burnt-offering are burnt on the altar and the wine is poured over the altar, it is possible that this was his intent.
|
| 47. |
I.e., aside from the wine brought as part of the accompanying offering of flour (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 48. |
A large silver coin used in the Talmudic era.
|
| 49. |
As a burnt-offering. The Radbaz states that this word should be included in the statement of the person's promise.
|
| 50. |
In addition to the burnt-offering, this could include wine, frankincense, and flour.
|
| 51. |
Menachot 106b derives this concept from a comparison to the flour offered from a meal offering, just as there a handful is offered, so too, a handful of frankincense should be offered.
|
| 52. |
The Hebrew term is written in the plural. Hence at least two logs are required.
|
| 53. |
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3.
|
| 54. |
He would place the money in a container designated for that purpose and the priests would take the money and purchase the wood (Tosefta, Shekalim 3:3).
|
| 55. |
Kin'at Eliyahu questions how one takes a handful of oil.
|
| 56. |
As required of all the sacrifices (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).
|
| 57. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.
|
| 58. |
Although Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit., states that salt is not required for wine that is offered on the altar, that refers to wine offered as a libation accompanying other sacrifices. When, however, wine is offered alone, salt is required (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 59. |
None is given to the priests to partake of.
|
| 60. |
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which states: "There were two cavities in the southwest corner [of the Altar], resembling two thin nostrils.... The blood [which was poured onto the Altar] would run off through them and... [ultimately,] go out to the Kidron River."
|
| 61. |
It is not poured over the fire, because it would - at least partially - quench the fire and that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 62. |
As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'asaer Sheni, ch. 4, when a person lives far from Jerusalem and cannot easily take produce from the second tithe to the holy city, he should redeem it for money. That money must be used to purchase food which must be eaten in Jerusalem according to the strictures that apply to the second tithe.
|
| 63. |
Because of his vow.
|
| 64. |
And the second tithe is considered as holy, "consecrated unto God."
This is a general principle. The rationale is that since the person is obligated to bring the offering, it must be brought from resources that belong to him entirely (see the conclusion of Halachah 17).
|
| 65. |
I.e., the bread is considered as an integral part of that offering and not an additional element. Thus when he vows to bring a thanks-giving offering, that vow also requires him to bring bread. Hence the bread must come from ordinary property (Radbaz).
|
| 66. |
As stated below, if he specifies, he is allowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering using the money from the second tithes, for he will partake of the meat of that sacrifice in Jerusalem. What is unique here is the fact that the sacrifice will be from the second tithes and the bread from ordinary funds. Even so, the sacrifice is acceptable.
|
| 67. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:5; based on Menachot 81b), the Rambam writes that it is indeed more desirable for him to bring the sacrifice from ordinary funds.
|
| 68. |
In this instance as well, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it is desirable for him to bring everything from ordinary property.
|
| 69. |
Chapter 3, Halachah 13.
|
| 70. |
This refers not only to the wine libations, but to all vows for sacrifices.
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 17
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
When one says: "I promise to bring a meal offering [baked] on a flat frying-pan," and he brings one [baked] in a deep frying-pan4 or he promised to bring one [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brought one [baked] on a flat frying-pan, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation.5
If he said: "I will bring these6 [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brings them [baked] on a flat frying-pan or promised to bring it [baked] on a flat frying-pan and brought it [baked] in a deep frying-pan," [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.7Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person says: "I promise to bring two esronim in one vessel and he brings them in two vessels" or "...in two vessels" and he brings them in one vessel, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation. [The rationale8is that Deuteronomy 23:24] states: "As you vowed to G-d."9
Halacha 3
If he said: "I will bring these cakes in one vessel" and he brought them in two or [promised] to bring them in two and brought them in one, they are unacceptable.10If he did not specify what he would bring when he took the vow, but [merely] said: "I promise to bring two esronim and when he designated [the meal for the offering], he set [the flour] aside in two vessels and afterwards, brought it in one vessel, it is acceptable. For the verse states "as you vowed" and not "as you set aside."
Halacha 4
When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in two vessels," but he brought them in one, if after being told that he vowed to bring them in two vessel, he offered them in two, they are acceptable. If he brought them in one vessel, they are like two meal-offerings that became mixed together.13
Halacha 5
If one says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering," he should bring one of the five types of meal-offerings that can be either vowed or pledged.14 If he says: "I promise to bring meal-offerings," he should bring two15 of the five types of meal-offerings.16 If he says: "I promise to bring a type of meal-offerings," he should bring two17 meal-offerings of one type.18 If he says: "I promise to bring types of meal-offerings," he should bring two meal-offerings [coming] from two types.19 Similarly if he says: "...types of a meal-offering," he should bring two types of meal-offerings.20 If he specified that he would bring one type [of meal-offering] and forgot [which type he specified], he should bring all five types.21
Halacha 6
A private individual22 should not bring more than sixty esronim [of flour] in one vessel as a meal offering. If he vowed more than sixty, he should bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in a second vessel.23
[The rationale is that] no more than sixty [esronim of flour] can be mixed together [with oil as one].24 It is not an absolute requirement for [the flour and the oil] to be mixed together as we explained.25 Nevertheless, our Sages said:26"Whenever a [meal-offering] is fit to be mixed [with oil], it is not an absolute requirement for it to be mixed. Whenever it is not fit to be mixed [with oil],27mixing it is an absolute requirement."28
Halacha 7
If one says: "I promise to bring 121 esronim [as a meal offering]." He should bring 120 [esronim] in two vessels - 60 in each vessel - and one isaron in a third vessel.29
If he said: "I promise to bring an isaron," he should bring one isaron. "I promise to bring isaronim," he should bring two. If he specified [the number of esronim] he vowed and then forgot how many he specified, he should bring 60 esronimin one vessel.30 If he forgot how many esronim he specified and which type [of meal-offering] he specified, he should bring 60 esronim of each of the five types [of meal-offerings].
Halacha 8
If he specified his vow and forgot both how many esronim he vowed and the number of vessels in which he vowed to bring them, he should bring [the full range of] one to sixty esronim in sixty different vessels.31
What is implied? He should bring one isaron in the first vessel, two esronim in the second vessel, three in the third, until he brings 60 esronim in the last vessel. If he also forgot what type [of meal-offering] he designated, he should also brings [60 offerings] according to this pattern in 60 vessels of each type. Thus he will be bringing 1830 esronim from each type.
Halacha 9
When a person says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering of barley,"32"...a meal-offering of a half an isaron,"33 or "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense,"34 he is exempt, because he did not vow an entity that is sacrificed.
If he said: "I promise to bring a meal-offering35 of barley," "...of lentils,"36 "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense," or "...a meal-offering of a half anisaron," we ask him [what his intent was]. If he says: "I only took the vow because I thought it was permissible to offer such [sacrifices]. Had I known that one could only offer a complete isaron of fine [wheat] flour together with oil and frankincense, I would not have taken a vow," he is exempt. If, [however,] he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring an offering like those that are offered.
Halacha 10
If he vowed to bring an isaron and a half37 and he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he must bring two [esronim].38 If he said: "I promise to bring coarse flour"39 or "I promise to bring a half an isaron" without mentioning the term "meal-offering," he is exempt.40 It as if he never took a vow at all.
Similarly, if one said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread,"41or "...a sacrifice without its accompanying offerings,"42 he is exempt. If he said:43 "Were I to have known that such offerings are not sacrificed, I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring [an offering] like those that are offered.
Halacha 11
When a person says: "I promise to bring the bread of a thanksgiving-offering," He must bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread. [The rationale is that] it is known that the bread is never offered without the thanksgiving-offering and he mentioned merely the conclusion of the sacrifice.44 If he said: 'I promise to bring the bread to fulfill the obligation for so-and-so's thanksgiving offering," he should bring the bread for a thanksgiving offering together with the offering of his friend.
Halacha 12
A person may vow or pledge to bring wine independently.45 One should not vow to bring a log of wine or two lugim,46 for there are no libations that are [only] alog or two lugim.47 Nor should one vow five lugim, for five lugim are not fit for the libations of one animal or for those of two animals.48 One may, however, vow three, four, six, or more lugim,49 because they are fit for the wine libations for sacrificial animals.
Halacha 13
What is implied? If a person vows seven [lugim], they are considered as the libations for a sheep and for a ram.50 If he vowed eight, they are the libations for two rams; nine are the libations for an ox51 and a sheep or those of three sheep. If he vowed ten, they are the libations for an ox and a ram or two sheep and a ram. Similarly, all numbers [can be seen as such combinations].
Halacha 14
If he vowed to bring five lugim, we tell him: "Make it a complete six."52 [The rationale is that] he already established it as fit for a sacrifice.53If, by contrast, he vowed one log or two, he is exempt, for this amount or their components are not fit to be used as a libation.54
Less than a log of oil should not be vowed or pledged, for there is no meal-offering smaller than an isaron and it requires a log of oil.55
Halacha 15
When a person says: "I promise to bring wine," he should not bring less than three lugim.56 "I promise to bring oil," he should not bring less than a log.57 If he specified a given amount in his vow and forgot how many lugim of wine or oil he specified, he should bring 140 lugim. For there is no day on which there are more communal offerings sacrificed than on the first day of Sukkot that falls on the Sabbath. On that day, the accompanying offerings included 140 lugim of oil and an equal amount of wine as will be explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim.58
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
A range with an opening for one pot [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:9)].
|
| 2. |
I.e., one of the common ways to bake in the Talmudic period was to heat rafters and stones until they were glowing hot and place dough upon them. Afterwards, the stones and rafters were covered and thus the dough would bake (ibid.).
|
| 3. |
A pit covered with mud into which wood was placed and kindled. The dough was placed within and it was covered so that it would bake like an oven (ibid.). These are not acceptable, because the person took a vow that he would bring a meal offering cooked in an oven and these devices do not fit that description.
|
| 4. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to the difference between the two.
|
| 5. |
Because he did not bring the sacrifice he vowed to bring.
|
| 6. |
Pointing to cakes that he prepared to bake.
|
| 7. |
For he specified that the cakes be prepared in one way and they were not.
|
| 8. |
For all the above.
|
| 9. |
Implying that the vow must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
|
| 10. |
If he can take a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 4.
|
| 11. |
Because he did not fulfill his vow. It is, however, necessary to ask him and have him respond as the Rambam states. Otherwise, we assume that he is not bringing this offering in fulfillment of his vow, but rather as a separate sacrifice. In that instance, although he would not have fulfilled his vow, the sacrifice would be acceptable.
|
| 12. |
Since he offered them as he vowed, the fact that he originally brought them in two vessels is not significant.
|
| 13. |
In that instance, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:29, the law is that if one can take handfuls of each individually, they are acceptable. If not, they are not.
|
| 14. |
See Chapter 12, Halachah 4, for a description of these meal-offerings.
|
| 15. |
Since he used the plural, at least two offerings are required.
|
| 16. |
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the word "types" is a printing error, because even if he brought two of the same type of meal-offering, he fulfilled his obligation. The Radbaz, however, initially explains that the Rambam's wording could be interpreted as being precise. Since the person said two meal-offerings, we can assume that he meant of two different types. Otherwise, he would have just vowed to bring one large meal-offering. Nevertheless, ultimately, the Radbaz rejects this interpretation and states that the Rambam's intent is "even of two types," i.e., he may bring two offerings either of one type or of two types.
|
| 17. |
Here also, since he spoke of "meal-offerings," using the plural, he is required to bring two.
|
| 18. |
For he said "a type," limiting him to only one type.
|
| 19. |
Since he used the plural for both offerings and types, he should bring two offerings and they should be of two different types.
|
| 20. |
One offering from each type, as in the previous clause. Hebrew grammar occasionally allows for a singular term to be used in a plural sense. The Kessef Mishneh notes that this matter is debated by Menachot 105a and a ruling is not reached. Hence he questions how the Rambam can require him to bring a second offering: If it is not required, he will be bringing ordinary flour into the Temple Courtyard (which is forbidden). Hence he maintains that the person must make a stipulation when bringing this offering: "If I am obligated to bring it, this is to fulfill my vow. And if I am not obligated, it is a freewill offering."
|
| 21. |
For in this way, he will certainly fulfill his vow.
|
| 22. |
I.e., in contrast to the community at large. For there is no concept of a voluntary communal meal-offering and all the required communal meal-offerings have specific measures.
|
| 23. |
As indicated by the following halachah, it appears to be preferable that he bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in the other, rather than dividing the sum evenly between the two.
|
| 24. |
Even though oil is always mixed with the flour at a ratio of one log to every isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 7), nevertheless, if there is a very large quantity of flour, it will be difficult to get a proper mixture.
|
| 25. |
Chapter 13, Halachah 11.
|
| 26. |
Menachot 18b; 103b.
|
| 27. |
Because there is too large a quantity of flour.
|
| 28. |
As long as the meal and the oil could be mixed together, the fact that they were not mixed together is not significant, because there is nothing inherently lacking in the mixture. If, however, they could not be mixed together, there is an inherent difficulty with the mixture, therefore it is disqualified. Note the parallels to the declaration made with regard to the firsts fruits mentioned in Bava Batra82a.
|
| 29. |
I.e., he does not divide them into three equal portions.
|
| 30. |
For an individual meal-offering is never more than 60 esronim and if he had promised a lesser amount, bringing more will not disqualify his offering (Radbaz).
|
| 31. |
This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 3, if a person vowed to bring two esronim in two vessels and he brought them in one, the offering is unacceptable. By bringing the full range of vessels from one to sixty, the person will certainly have included the entire number he vowed to bring. Any extra are considered as voluntary offerings.
The Radbaz notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Menachot 13:2 and the opinion the Rambam quotes here is that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. The Sages, however, differ and maintain that it is sufficient to bring one meal offering of 60 esronim. The Radbaz questions why the Rambam chooses to follow Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, for it is a minority opinion. Moreover, he notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explicitly states that the halachah does not follow this view. The Radbaz explains that since the Talmud (Menachot 106a) tries to justify other teachings according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, we can assume that it is accepted as halachah.
|
| 32. |
Which is unacceptable, because as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all the meal-offerings are brought from wheat except the meal-offering of a sotah and the omer offering. Those are obligatory offerings and cannot be vowed by a person.
|
| 33. |
Which is also unacceptable, because a meal-offering may not be less than an isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 5).
|
| 34. |
Such an offering is also unacceptable, for oil and frankincense are absolute requirements (Chapter 12, Halachah 7).
|
| 35. |
The difference between this and the previous clause depends on the precise Hebrew term used. If he said minchat ("meal-offering of"), as in the first clause he is not obligated at all, for the grammatical structure of the term is that of an adjective and the emphasis is on the words that follow. If, however, he used the term minchah ("meal-offering"), we assume that the fundamental intent of his vow was to bring a meal-offering. Since the specifics he mentioned were unacceptable, we ask him to clarify his intent. The Ra'avad does not accept this distinction, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.
|
| 36. |
Which is also unacceptable. Although Menachot103a debates whether a person could possibly err and think that a meal-offering from lentils is acceptable, from the resolution of that passage, it appears that such an error is plausible.
|
| 37. |
Based on the conclusion of the clause and the explanations in the previous halachah, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this law applies only when the person said: "a meal-offering (minchah) of an isaron and a half."
|
| 38. |
For he obviously desired to bring more than one isaron.
|
| 39. |
As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all of the meal-offerings are brought from solet, "fine flour," and not kemach, "coarse flour." This he is vowing to bring an entity that is never offered.
|
| 40. |
The Ra'avad differs concerning this point and states that in this instance as well, he should be asked to clarify his intent, as mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 41. |
See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, which includes the bread as an integral part of the thanksgiving-offering.
|
| 42. |
See Chapter 2 which explains that every sacrifice is offered together with wine, meal, and oil.
|
| 43. |
I.e., as in the previous halachah, he is asked about his intent (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 44. |
We assume that this was intent when making the vow. The Radbaz explains that it is not even necessary to ask him to clarify his intent, since he mentioned the thanksgiving-offering when making his vow, we take for granted that this was what he meant to say.
|
| 45. |
See Chapter 14, Halachah 1; Chapter 16, Halachah 14.
|
| 46. |
See Halachah 14.
|
| 47. |
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the wine libations are 3, 4, or 6 log, depending on the animal offered.
|
| 48. |
For no two offerings will reach a total of five. See also Halachah 14.
|
| 49. |
For any number over six will be able to be broken up into multiples of 3,4, or 5, as stated in the following halachah [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 12:4)].
|
| 50. |
The libations for a sheep are three lugim and those for a ram are four. We assume that the person that the person desired to bring them both.
|
| 51. |
Six lugim.
|
| 52. |
Which are the libations for an ox.
|
| 53. |
Since libations of three and four lugim are brought, we assume that he did not want to make an empty statement. Hence, we ask him to increase the amount so that he will also be able to bring a valid offering. We do not reduce the amount, because there is an unresolved discussion inMenachot 104a if that is acceptable.
|
| 54. |
Based on the ruling in Halachah 9 with regard to a meal-offering of a half an isaron, the Radbaz states that if one says: "a wine libation of one log," he should be asked to clarify his intent.
|
| 55. |
See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 7.
|
| 56. |
See Halachah 12.
|
| 57. |
See the previous halachah.
|
| 58. |
See Chapter 10, Halachot 3, 14, for the details of the number and types of animals sacrificed on that day. The wine and oil brought as accompanying offerings for these sacrifices totaled 140lugim. We assume that a person would not vow or pledge a larger amount. The Radbaz clarifies that this ruling applies to a very wealthy person who can be assumed to have made a generous vow. A person of ordinary means, by contrast, should be required to pay the largest amount he could conceive of having pledged (see Hilchot Arachin 2:8-10).
|
Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 18
Halacha 1
There is a positive commandment to offer all of the sacrifices - whether sacrifices of animals or fowl or meal-offerings - in [God's] chosen house,1 as [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There you will perform everything that I command you." Similarly, it is a positive commandment for a person to take the effort to bring animal sacrifices2 that he is obligated to bring3 [and transport them] from the Diaspora to [God's] chosen house,4 as [ibid.:26] states: "[Only] your sacraments that you possess and your vows shall you bear... [to the place that God will choose]." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that [the verse] is speaking only about sacrificial animals from the Diaspora which he takes the effort to deal with until he brings them to [God's] chosen house.
Halacha 2
One who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard negates a positive commandment5 and violates a negative commandment,6 as [ibid. :13] states: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings in any place that you see." If he offered a sacrifice [in such a place] willfully, he is liable for karet,7 as [Leviticus 17:8-9]: "[Any man]...who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice, but did not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... he will be cut off from his people." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed8 sin-offering.
Halacha 3
Similarly, one who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard], even though he does not offer them as a sacrifice, [is liable].9 If he acted willfully, he is liable for karet, as [ibid:3-4]: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat... it will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood... He will be cut off." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
Halacha 4
Which source serves as a warning not to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]? [It is derived through] an association of verses. [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There will you offer your burnt-offerings" and it continues: "There you will perform everything that I command you." [We can conclude:] Just as [the Torah] warns explicitly against offering a sacrifice outside the Temple and one incurs punishment for this, as it is written: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings...," so too, it has warned with regard to the "performance" that is involved in slaughtering for which it is explicitly stated that one receives punishment. For the Torah does not prescribe punishment unless it has issued a warning.
Halacha 5
A person who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offers them [in such a place] is liable twice: once for slaughtering and once for offering.10
If he slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] in the Temple Courtyard and offered it outside, he is liable for offering it. If he slaughtered [such an animal] outside, but offered it inside, he is liable for slaughtering it.
Halacha 6
He is not liable unless he slaughtered sacrificial animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. If, however, he slaughtered an animal that was forbidden [to be offered on] the altar11 or one of the sin-offerings that was consigned to death12outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.13 [The rationale is that Leviticus 17:414] mentions "before the Sanctuary of God." Whenever [an animal] is not fit to be come to the Sanctuary of God, one is not liable [for its slaughter].
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving its body? An animal in the seven days following its birth,19 turtle-doves which have not reached the stage of development at which time [they are fit to be sacrificed],20 and an animal and its offspring; for if one slaughters one on a particular day, the other is not fit to be slaughtered until the morrow.21
Halacha 9
What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving the status of its owners? A sacrifice whose owners have not reached the appropriate stage of time to offer it.
What is implied? If a zav,22 a zavah,23 and a woman who gave birth24slaughtered [the animal designated for] their sin-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting,25 they are exempt. Similarly, if a person afflicted with tzara'at26 slaughtered his sin-offering and[/or] his guilt-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his counting,27 he is exempt, for the owners of these sacrifices are not yet fit for their atonement. Nevertheless, if these individuals slaughtered their burnt-offerings28outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting, they are liable. [The rationale is that] a burnt-offering is a present29 and it is the sin-offering and the guilt-offering which are the fundamental [factors leading to] atonement.
Similarly, when a nazirite slaughters his sin-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his nazirite vow, he is exempt.30 If he offered his burnt-offering or his peace-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. For the sin-offering is what prevents him [from completing his nazirite vow] and it is the fundamental dimension [of the conclusion of] his nazirite vow.
Halacha 10
When a person offers a conditional guilt-offering31 or sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt32 outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [The rationale is that] it was not definitely established that a prohibition [was violated].33 When a guilt-offering for one afflicted by tzara'at was slaughtered outside [the Temple Courtyard], but not for the desired intent, [the one who slaughters it] is liable. [The rationale is that] since [when such a sacrifice is] not [slaughtered] for the desired intent in [the Temple Courtyard], it is deemed appropriate and acceptable, as will be explained.34
Whenever one is exempt for slaughtering a sacrificial [animal] outside the [Temple Courtyard], one is also exempt for offering it there.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply if] one slaughters the two goats offered on Yom Kippur35 outside [the Temple Courtyard]. Before [the High Priest] recites the confessional over them,36 he is liable for both of them,37 since [they are both] fit to come before God for the confessional. After [the High Prist] recited the confessional, one is exempt for slaughtering [the goat] that is sent [to Azazel], because it is no longer fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].
Halacha 12
When one slaughters [animals designated as] peace-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the gates of the Temple building are opened, he is exempt, for a [necessary] deed is lacking. [Only] afterwards are they fit to be offered before God, as we explained.38
One who slaughters a Paschal sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard] - even during the other days of the year, whether for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice or for another purpose39 - is liable. [The rationale is that] during the remainder of the year, a Paschal sacrifice [that is offered] is considered as a peace-offering.40
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When one stole [an animal] and consecrated it and afterwards, slaughtered it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable.43 From which time was it considered in his property with regard to his being liable for karet for it? From the time he consecrated it.
[The above applies] provided he slaughtered it after [the owner] despaired of its return. [If he slaughtered it] before then, by contrast, the consecration is not effective.44
Halacha 15
If the entire body of the animal was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and its neck was inside and one slaughtered it, he is liable,45 as [Leviticus 17:3] states: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat in the camp or who will slaughter outside the camp... [and he has not brought it as an offering]." This applies whether the one who slaughters is standing in the Temple [Courtyard] and the animal's neck was inside, but the remainder of its body was outside or its body was inside and its neck was outside. He is liable unless the animal was entirely within the Temple [Courtyard], as [implied by ibid.:9]: "And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting."46 If, however, one slaughters on the roof the Temple Building, even though it is not fit for sacrifice at all,47 he is exempt.48
Halacha 16
Two people who held a knife and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] are exempt,49 for [the prooftexts] say "who will slaughter" "or who will slaughter"50 [implying] one and not two.51
When one slaughters a sacrificial animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] even though he had no intention of sacrificing this animal to God,52 he is liable.53This is [implied by the prooftext]: "It will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood."54 [One can infer that] even if [the person slaughtering] thinks of the blood [from the sacrificial animal] as blood that was shed55 and not as a sacrifice, he is liable.
Halacha 17
A person who slaughters [a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] at night is liable, since slaughtering an animal56 is acceptable at night. Similarly, if, at night, one offered as a sacrifice [an animal] he slaughtered at night outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for offering it as a sacrifice.57
If, however, one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] inside [the Temple Courtyard] at night and offered it as a sacrifice outside,58 he is exempt. [The rationale is that] he offered merely an unacceptable article,59 for there is no conception of acceptable slaughter in the Temple at night.60 Similarly, if one received [the blood of a sacrificial animal] with an ordinary vessel61 inside [the Temple Courtyard], but poured it [on an altar] outside, he is exempt.62
Halacha 18
Similarly, when a person performs melikah on a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.63 If he offered it [as a sacrifice there], he is exempt. If he performs melikah on a fowl inside [the Temple Courtyard], but offered it outside, he is liable for offering it.64
If one slaughtered [a fowl] in [the Temple Courtyard]65 and offered it outside, he is exempt, for he offered something that is not fit to be offered. If he slaughtered the fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offered it outside, he is liable twice,66 because slaughtering a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] is acceptable. It is comparable to performing melikah inside.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 84) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 440) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
|
| 2. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this excludes sacrifices from fowl, but this understanding is not accepted by all authorities.
|
| 3. |
Temurah 21a states that the firstborn offering is not included in this commandment.
|
| 4. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 453) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. The Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as an independent mitzvah.
|
| 5. |
The one stated in the previous halachah.
|
| 6. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 186) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. There are several historical dimensions to this prohibition. First of all, in the era between the destruction of the Sanctuary of Shiloh and the construction of the Temple, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on bemot (literally, "high-places"), i.e., individual altars. See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:3 which explain the transition between these periods. It is also relevant with regard to the sanctuary constructed by Chonio, the son of Shimon the just described in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14.
|
| 7. |
Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50,Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
|
| 8. |
This term is used to distinguish this sacrifice from the adjustable guilt offering. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.
|
| 9. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 439) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
|
| 10. |
This applies even if he performed both transgressions without realizing the prohibitions involved in the interim, for they are two separate transgressions that are not dependent on each other (Radbaz).
|
| 11. |
I.e., the animals mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 for a definition of this term.
|
| 13. |
It is, however, forbidden to do so.
|
| 14. |
The source for this prohibition, as stated in Halachah 3.
|
| 15. |
See the following halachah.
|
| 16. |
See Halachah 9.
|
| 17. |
It is, however, forbidden to do so.
|
| 18. |
The prohibition involves slaughtering sacrificial animals and since these animals are not fit to be sacrificed or their owners are not fit to sacrifice them, they are not considered sacrificial animals in the full sense.
|
| 19. |
See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:8 which states that it is a positive commandment to offer sacrificial animals after eight days of life, but not before.
|
| 20. |
See ibid.:2 which states that "Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue." Before this stage, they are not acceptable (ibid.:9).
|
| 21. |
See Hilchot Shechitah 12:1-2 which states that it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other.
|
| 22. |
A person with a physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure and obligates him to bring a set of sacrifices (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4; 2:1).
|
| 23. |
A woman who bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period. This renders her ritually impure and obligates her to bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3-4,6)
|
| 24. |
Who is ritually impure after giving birth and must bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3, 5).
|
| 25. |
As explained in the above sources, a zav and a zavah must wait seven "spotless days" after their condition ceases before bringing their sacrifices. A woman must wait 40 days after giving birth to a male and 80 days after giving birth to a female before bringing her sacrifices.
|
| 26. |
A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy that is a spiritual manifestation of the impurity resulting from improper speech (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at). Such a person must bring a set of sacrifices when emerging from ritual impurity (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4).
|
| 27. |
Such a person must also wait seven days after his condition ceases before bringing his sacrifices.
|
| 28. |
The sacrifices of all of these individuals include a burnt-offering and a sin-offering and the sacrifice of a person emerging from tzara'at also includes a guilt-offring.
|
| 29. |
To appease God and restore His favor.
|
| 30. |
See Hilchot Nizirut, ch. 8, for the details regarding the sacrifices a nazirite must bring upon completion of his nazirite vow. He may not bring these sacrifices beforehand.
|
| 31. |
See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices.
|
| 32. |
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:7 which describes the situations under which such sacrifices should be brought.
|
| 33. |
With regard to these sacrifices, it is possible that it will be discovered that the person definitely did sin. In such an instance, the sacrifice is not offered. If the sacrificial animal has not been slaughtered, it is left to pasture until it contracts a blemish. If it was slaughtered, its blood is poured down the drainage channel. Since there is a possibility of this taking place, the animal is not deemed a sacrificial animal in the full sense and one is not liable for slaughtering it or offering it.
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt since only its blood is offered on the altar, but not its body. Hence, there is room to free one from the obligations involved with a sacrificial animal. Nevertheless, he argues, a conditional guilt-offering is offered on the altar. Hence one should be liable for slaughtering and offering it outside the Temple. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh question the Ra'avad's objection, noting that the Rambam's ruling has its basis in Keritot 18a.
|
| 34. |
As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1, with the exception of a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice, whenever a sacrificial animal was slaughtered for the sake of an offering other the one for which it was intended, it is acceptable, but it does not fulfill the obligation of the owner (see alsoibid.:20). Since the sacrifice would be acceptable if it was offered in the Temple, the person is liable for slaughtering it outside.
|
| 35. |
The goat sent to Azazel and its pair whose blood is taken into the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.
|
| 36. |
More precisely, the confessional is recited only over the one sent to Azazel (ibid. 4:2).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the matter is dependent not only the confessional, but on the lottery in which the goats are designated for their respective purposes. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam's ruling is based on Zevachim113a. Although there are other interpretations of that passage, the Rambam has a foundation for his decision.
|
| 37. |
Or for either of them, were he to slaughter only one.
|
| 38. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the gates to the Temple building must be open for the slaughter of peace offerings to be acceptable.
|
| 39. |
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only during the remainder of the year. The rationale is that as explained below, during the remainder of the year, an animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering is not disqualified if it is not offered for the desired intent. On the day preceding Pesach, when the Paschal sacrifice is offered, it is unacceptable if it is not offered for the desired intent. Hence on that date, were someone to slaughter an animal designated for this purpose for the sake of another sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard, he would not be liable.
|
| 40. |
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:7. Since it is considered as a peace-offering, just as one is liable for slaughtering an animal designated as a peace-offering outside the Temple Courtyard, so too, he is liable for slaughtering such an animal.
|
| 41. |
Since the fetus it is carrying will later be offered as a sacrifice, it is forbidden to cause that sacrifice to be disqualified.
|
| 42. |
Neither the mother nor the fetus.
|
| 43. |
Even though the animal did not belong to him and hence, he had no right to consecrate it, our Sages considered it as his own so that he would be liable for karet. See Gittin 55b. The Kessef Mishneh raises questions on the Rambam's ruling based on that passage, but Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the Rambam's decision.
|
| 44. |
For then it is still considered as belonging to the owner. Hence, the thief's consecration is not effective. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:7 which speaks of the disqualification of a thief's offering. From Hilchot Geneivah 2:6, it appears that the thief must have also consecrated the animal after the owner's despair and not before. Otherwise, the consecration would not be effective.
|
| 45. |
Karet or lashes for slaughtering the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 46. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Zevachim 107b uses this prooftext to teach the following concept: that one who slaughters on the roof of the Temple Building is exempt. Hence he suggests that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and that the text should be amended to fit the Talmud's teaching. This conception is not, however, shared by all authorities.
|
| 47. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
|
| 48. |
For he did not slaughter the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
|
| 49. |
Note the contrast to Chapter 19, Halachah 12, with regard to offering an animal as a sacrifice.
|
| 50. |
The verses use a singular form.
|
| 51. |
The commentaries note that although the Rambam's ruling has a source in Zevachim 108a and in the Sifri, his process of exegesis is different than that used in those sources.
|
| 52. |
But instead was slaughtering it for mundane purposes.
|
| 53. |
In this as well, there is a contrast to offering an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
|
| 54. |
Here also, the Rambam's method of exegesis is different from that of his apparent source,Zevachim 108b. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:3), he cites the method of exegesis used by the Talmud.
|
| 55. |
Literally, "poured out."
|
| 56. |
I.e., an ordinary animal, not one designated as a sacrifice.
|
| 57. |
The Ra'avad maintains that the person is exempt in such a situation. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that there is a fundamental difference between slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and slaughtering it outside. When it is slaughtered inside the Temple Courtyard at night, it is disqualified as a sacrifice, because of it having been slaughtered at night and hence, it is not acceptable wherever it was offered. If, by contrast, it was slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard, it becomes placed in the category of animals slaughtered in such a place. Hence the time when it is offered is not significant. The Kessef Mishneh also justifies the Rambam's approach.
|
| 58. |
Even during the following day (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 59. |
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:6.
|
| 60. |
See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
|
| 61. |
This disqualifies the sacrifice, for as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, the blood of a sacrificial animal must be received in a sacred vessel.
|
| 62. |
For the animal was no longer acceptable as a sacrifice.
|
| 63. |
For the prooftext defining the prohibition (Leviticus 17:3) mentions slaughter, but not melikah(Zevachim 107a).
|
| 64. |
This is equivalent to slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and offering it outside.
|
| 65. |
Thus disqualifying it, for in the Temple Courtyard, a fowl should be killed through melikah not ritual slaughter.
|
| 66. |
Both for slaughtering and for offering.
|
• Wednesday, Sivan 9, 5775 · 27 May 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Nasso, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 49-54.
Tanya: (Thus, if for (p. 291)...world of Beriah. (p. 291).
The world is in need of a purified atmosphere. Purified air comes only through words of Torah. Words of Torah offer protection in general and for each individual in particular. The division of the Six Orders of Mishna for memorization is intended for "when you walk on the road."1 The Mishna or two recited from memory wherever one may be, in whatever sort of place he may be, will illuminate the bond between Israel and G-d. The letters MiSHNaH are the same as NeSHaMaH (soul).2 It is extremely difficult to find the words to express the tremendous benefit, with G-d's help, in the general and individual protection that constant repetition of Mishna will bring. And there are no words to describe the tremendous gratification one thereby gives the Creator, may He be blessed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Devarim 6:7.
2. See Sefer Hamaamarim 5700, p. 39. See Tevet 11.
Daily Thought:
Tuned In
There is a common misconception that the good things in life come from being in the right place at the right time. In truth, everything that is good comes from being on the right channel with the right reception.
This is what the sages call z’chut—sometimes translated as “merit.” What it really means is a kind of fine-tuning of the soul.
How do you fine-tune the soul? You have three knobs: What you do, what you say and what you think. Adjust them carefully for static-clean reception.[12 Tammuz 5732:8.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment