Today in Jewish History:
• Spanish Expulsion Decree Rescinded (1967)
The Spanish cabinet approved a bill which granted religious freedom to Spain's Jews as well as other religious minorities. Since 1492 it had been officially forbidden to practice Judaism in Spain -- though this law had not been enforced for many years before its official abolishment.
Link:
The Inquisition
Daily Quote:
A thing is good -- in its time[Proverbs 15;23]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 6th Portion Numbers 10:35-11:29 with Rashi
• Chapter 10
35So it was, whenever the ark set out, Moses would say, Arise, O Lord, may Your enemies be scattered and may those who hate You flee from You. להוַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה קוּמָה | יְהֹוָה וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ:
So it was, whenever the ark set out: He made marks for it [this passage], before it and after it, as if to indicate that this is not its proper place [in Scripture]. So why was it written here? To make a break between one punishment and the next… as it is stated in [chapter 16 of Talmud Shabbath , commencing with the words] “All the Sacred Scriptures.” ויהי בנסע הארן: עשה לו סמניות מלפניו ומלאחריו, לומר שאין זה מקומו. ולמה נכתב כאן, כדי להפסיק בין פורענות לפורענות וכו' כדאיתא בכל כתבי הקדש (שבת קטז א):
Rise, O Lord: Because He had preceded them by a distance of three days travel, Moses says, Stop and wait for us do not move on any further. [I found this] in the Midrash Tanchuma, Vayyakhel. קומה ה': לפי שהיה מקדים לפניהם מהלך שלשת ימים, היה משה אומר עמוד והמתן לנו ואל תתרחק יותר במדרש תנחומא בויקהל:
May Your enemies be scattered: Those [enemies] who are assembled [for battle]. - [from Sifrei] ויפוצו אויביך: המכונסין:
Those who hate You: Those who hate Israel, for anyone who hates Israel hates the One Who spoke and the world came into being, as it says, “Those who hate you have raised their heads” (Ps. 83:3). Who are they? Those who“plot deviously against Your nation” (ibid. 4). - [from Sifrei] וינסו משנאיך: אלו הרודפים:
36And when it came to rest he would say, Repose O Lord, among the myriads of thousands of Israel. לווּבְנֻחֹה יֹאמַר שׁוּבָה יְהֹוָה רִבֲבוֹת אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Repose, O Lord: Menachem renders [the word שׁוּבָה] as an expression of rest. Similarly,“In rest (בְשׁוּבָה) and tranquility you shall be saved” (Isa. 30:15). שובה ה': מנחם תרגמו לשון מרגוע וכן (ישעיה ל, טו) בשובה ונחת תושעון:
The myriads of thousands of Israel: This teaches us that the Divine Presence does not rest on Israel if they number fewer than twenty-two thousand. רבבות אלפי ישראל: מגיד שאין השכינה שורה בישראל פחותים משני אלפים ושתי רבבות:
Chapter 11
1The people were looking to complain, and it was evil in the ears of the Lord. The Lord heard and His anger flared, and a fire from the Lord burned among them, consuming the extremes of the camp. אוַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְהֹוָה וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהֹוָה וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ וַתִּבְעַר בָּם אֵשׁ יְהֹוָה וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה:
The people were looking to complain: Heb. הָעָם. [The word] הָעָם, the people, is used only in reference to the wicked. Similarly it says,“What shall I do about this people (הָעָם) ?” (Exod. 17:4), and it says,“this evil people (הָעָם)” (Jer. 13:10). But when they are virtuous, they are called עַמִּי, My people, as it says,“Send forth My people (עַמִּי) ” (Exod. 8:16);“My people (עַמִּי), what have I done to you?” (Mic. 6: 3). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:1] ויהי העם כמתאננים: אין העם אלא רשעים. וכן הוא אומר (שמות יז, ד) מה אעשה לעם הזה, ואומר (ירמיה יג, י) העם הרע הזה. וכשהם כשרים קרואים עמי, שנאמר (שמות ה, א) שלח את עמי, עמי מה עשיתי לך (מיכה ו ג):
were looking to complain: [The term] מִתְאוֹנְנִים denotes a pretext. They were seeking a pretext to turn away from the Omnipresent. Similarly, it says regarding Samson,“that he sought a pretext (תֹאֲנָה)” (Jud. 14:4) כמתאננים: אין מתאוננים אלא לשון עלילה מבקשים עלילה האיך לפרוש מאחרי המקום וכן הוא אומר בשמשון (שופטים יד ד) כי תואנה הוא מבקש:
evil in the ears of the Lord: A pretext that was evil in God’s ears, for they intended that it should reach His ears and provoke Him (Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:1). They said, Woe is to us! How weary we have become on this journey! For three days we have not rested from the fatigue of walking. — [Midrash Aggadah] רע באזני ה': תואנה שהיא רעה באזני ה' שמתכוונים שתבא באזניו ויקניט. אמרו אוי לנו כמה לבטנו בדרך הזה שלשה ימים, שלא נחנו מענוי הדרך:
His anger flared: [He said,] I meant it for your own good-that you should be able to enter the Land immediately. — [Midrash Aggadah] ויחר אפו: אני הייתי מתכוין לטובתכם שתכנסו לארץ מיד:
the extremes of the camp: Heb. בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה. Those untouchable because of their baseness-these were the mixed multitude (See Exod. 12:36). R. Simeon ben Menassia says, The most distinguished (קְצִינִים) among them and the prominent ones. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:1] בקצה המחנה: במוקצין שבהם לשפלות, אלו ערב רב. רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר בקצינים שבהם ובגדולים:
2The people cried out to Moses; Moses prayed to the Lord, and the fire died down. בוַיִּצְעַק הָעָם אֶל משֶׁה וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה וַתִּשְׁקַע הָאֵשׁ:
The people cried out to Moses: This can be compared to a mortal king who became angry with his son. That son went to his father’s close friend and said to him, Go and ask [forgiveness] on my behalf from Father. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:2] ויצעק העם אל משה: משל למלך בשר ודם שכעס על בנו והלך הבן אצל אוהבו של אביו ואמר לו צא ובקש עלי מאבא:
and the fire died down: It sank in its place into the earth, for had it turned along one of the sides [of the camp], it would have gradually rolled along that entire side [and caused more destruction]. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:2] ותשקע האש: שקעה במקומה בארץ שאילו חזרה לאחת הרוחות היתה מקפלת והולכת כל אותו הרוח:
3He named that place Tab'erah, for the fire of the Lord had burned among them there. גוַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא תַּבְעֵרָה כִּי בָעֲרָה בָם אֵשׁ יְהֹוָה:
4But the multitude among them began to have strong cravings. Then even the children of Israel once again began to cry, and they said, "Who will feed us meat? דוְהָאסַפְסֻף אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבּוֹ הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ גַּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר:
But the multitude: Heb. וְהָאסַפְסֻף, lit., the gathering. These were the mixed multitude, which had attached themselves to Israel when they left Egypt (see Exod. 12:36). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:4, Midrash Aggadah] והאספסף: אלו ערב רב שנאספו אליהם בצאתם ממצרים:
[The children of Israel] once again…: The children of Israel also wept again together with them. — [Midrash Aggadah] וישבו: גם בני ישראל ויבכו עמהם:
Who will feed us meat?: Did they not have meat? Does it not say, “Also a great mixed multitude went up with them, and flocks and cattle” (Exod. 12:38)? You might argue that they had already eaten them. But when they were about to enter the Land, is it not written that, “the children of Reuben had much cattle” (Num. 32:1)? The answer is that they were seeking a pretext. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:4] מי יאכלנו בשר: וכי לא היה להם בשר, והלא כבר נאמר (שמות יב, לח) וגם ערב רב עלה אתם וצאן ובקר וגו'. ואם תאמר אכלום, והלא בכניסתם לארץ נאמר (במדבר לב, א) ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן וגו', אלא שמבקשים עלילה:
5We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge, the cucumbers, the watermelons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. הזָכַרְנוּ אֶת הַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם חִנָּם אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים וְאֶת הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת הַבְּצָלִים וְאֶת הַשּׁוּמִים:
which we ate in Egypt free of charge: If you say that the Egyptians gave them fish free of charge, does it not already say, “Straw shall not be given to you” (Exod. 5:18)? Now if straw was not given free of charge, was fish given to them free of charge? So what does “free of charge” mean? Free from [the burden of] precepts. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:5] אשר נאכל במצרים חנם: אם תאמר שמצריים נותנים להם דגים חנם, והלא כבר נאמר (שמות ה, יח) ותבן לא ינתן לכם, אם תבן לא היו נותנין להם חנם, דגים היו נותנין להם חנם, ומהו אומר חנם, חנם מן המצות:
the cucumbers: R. Simeon says: Why did the manna change into everything except these? Because they are harmful for nursing mothers. We tell a [nursing] woman, “Do not eat any garlic or onion, for the baby’s sake. This can be compared to a king [who gave his son over to a teacher. He sat down and ordered him and said to him, ”See that he does not eat any harmful food and does not drink any harmful drink. Because of this, the son complained about his father, saying,“Not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat,”] as it is written in the Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:5). את הקשאים: אמר ר' שמעון מפני מה המן משתנה לכל דבר חוץ מאלו, מפני שהן קשים למניקות, אומרים לאשה אל תאכלי שום ובצל מפני התינוק. משל למלך וכו', כדאיתא בספרי:
the cucumbers: Heb. הַקִּשֻׁאִים. In old French, cocombres. הקשאים: הם קוקומברי"ש בלע"ז [מלפפונים]:
watermelons: Heb. אֲבַטִּחִים. In old French, bodekes. אבטחים: בורק"ש [אבטיחים]:
leeks: Heb. הֶחָצִיר, leeks, [In old French], porels. Targum [Onkelos] renders, “the cucumbers etc.” החציר: כרישין פוריל"ש [כרשים] ותרגומו ית בוציניא וכו':
6But now, our bodies are dried out, for there is nothing at all; we have nothing but manna to look at." ווְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ:
we have nothing but manna to look at: Manna in the morning, manna in the evening. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:5] אל המן עינינו: מן בשחר מן בערב:
7Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance was like the appearance of crystal. זוְהַמָּן כִּזְרַע גַּד הוּא וְעֵינוֹ כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח:
Now the manna was like coriander seed: The one who said this [verse] did not say that. The Israelites said, “We have nothing but manna to look at,” whereas the Holy One, blessed is He, inscribed in the Torah, “the manna was like coriander seed…” as if to say,“See, all you who inhabit the world, what my children are complaining about-the manna is excellent in so many ways!” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:1] והמן כזרע גד: מי שאמר זה לא אמר זה, ישראל אומרים בלתי אל המן עינינו, והקב"ה הכתיב בתורה והמן כזרע גד וגו', כלומר ראו באי עולם על מה מתלוננים בני, והמן כך וכך הוא חשוב:
like coriander seed: Heb. כִּזְרַע גַּד הוּא, round like coriander, seed of coliandre [in French]. — [Yoma 75a] כזרע גד: עגול כגידא זרע אליינדר"א [כוסבר]:
crystal: Heb. בְּדֹלַח, the name of a precious stone, [in French,] cristal. הבדלח: שם אבן טובה קריסט"ל [בדולח]:
8The people walked about and gathered it. Then they ground it in a mill or crushed it in a mortar, cooked it in a pot and made it into cakes. It had a taste like the taste of oil cake. חשָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן:
walked about: [The expression] שַׁיִט denotes nothing but taking a stroll; [in old French,] esbaneyr, [walking] without exertion. שטו: אין שייט אלא לשון טיול אישבני"ר [טיול להנאה] בלא עמל:
ground it in a mill: [The manna] did not actually enter the mill, the pot, or the mortar, but its taste changed to [that of] ground, crushed, or cooked food. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8] וטחנו ברחים וגו': לא ירד בריחים ולא בקדירה ולא במדוכה אלא משתנה היה טעמו לנטחנין ולנדוכין ולמבושלין:
in a pot: Heb. בַּפָּרוּר, a pot. בפרור: קדרה:
oil cakes: Heb. לְשֶׁד הַשָּׁמֶן, the moisture of oil. This is how Donash (Teshuvoth Donash p. 14) explains it. Similar to this is:“ My freshness (לְשַׁדִּי) was transformed as in the droughts of summer” (Ps. 32: 4), in which the“lamed” [of לְשַׁדִּי] is part of the root, [meaning]“My freshness (לְשַׁדִּי) was transformed as in the droughts of summer.” [First edition of Rashi reads: and he (Donash) compares to this… (See Yosef Hallel).] Our Sages (Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:8), however, explained it as a term meaning“breasts” (שָׁדַיִם), but what have breasts to do with oil? It is impossible to say that לְשֶׁד הַשָּׁמֶן is related to the expression וַיִשְׁמַן יְשֻׁרוּן, “Jeshurun grew fat” (Deut. 32:15) [and thus, the meaning would be “the taste of a fat breast”], for if that were the case, the“mem” [in the word הַשָּׁמֶן] would be vowelized with a minor “kamatz” [known as “tzeireh”], and the accent would be at the end of the word, under the“mem,” [reading הַשָּׁמֶן]. Now, however, that the “mem” is vowelized with a minor “pathach” [known as “segol”] and the accent is under the “shin,” it means “oil.” The “shin” is vowelized with a major“kamatz” הַשָּׁמֶן and not with a minor“pathach” הַשֶּׁמֶן because it is the last word in a verse. Another interpretation: לְשַׁד is an acronym standing for לִישׁ שֶׁמֶן דְּבַשׁ, kneaded with oil and honey, like a dough kneaded with oil and coated with honey. The rendering of Onkelos who renders: דְּלִישׁ בְּמִשְׁחָא, kneaded with oil , which leans toward the interpretation offered by Donash, since dough kneaded with oil contains the moisture of oil. לשד השמן: לחלוח של שמן, כך פירשו דונש. ודומה לו (תהלים לב, ד) נהפך לשדי בחרבוני קיץ. והלמ"ד יסוד, נהפך לחלוחי בחרבוני קיץ. ורבותינו פרשוהו לשון שדים, אך אין ענין שדים אצל שמן. ואי אפשר לומר לשד השמן לשון (דברים לב, טו) וישמן ישורון, שאם כן היה המ"ם נקוד קמ"ץ קטן וטעמו למטה תחת המ"ם, עכשיו שהמ"ם נקוד פת"ח קטן והטעם תחת השי"ן, לשון שמן הוא, והשי"ן הנקודה בקמץ גדול ואינה נקודה בפתח קטן מפני שהוא סוף פסוק. דבר אחר לשד לשון נוטריקון ליש שמן דבש, כעיסה הנלושה בשמן וקטופה בדבש. ותרגום של אונקלס דמתרגם דליש במשחא, נוטה לפתרונו של דונש, שהעיסה הנלושה בשמן לחלוחית שמן יש בה:
9When the dew descended on the camp at night, the manna would descend upon it. טוּבְרֶדֶת הַטַּל עַל הַמַּחֲנֶה לָיְלָה יֵרֵד הַמָּן עָלָיו:
10Moses heard the people weeping with their families,each one at the entrance to his tent. The Lord became very angry, and Moses considered it evil. יוַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה אֶת הָעָם בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו אִישׁ לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ וַיִּחַר אַף יְהֹוָה מְאֹד וּבְעֵינֵי משֶׁה רָע:
weeping with their families: Families gathered in groups weeping so as to publicize their grievance. Our Sages say that the meaning is:“concerning family matters,” that is, because intermarriage among family members was forbidden to them. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:10, Yoma 75a] בכה למשפחותיו: משפחות משפחות נאספים ובוכים לפרסם תרעומתן בגלוי. ורבותינו אמרו למשפחותיו על עסקי משפחות, על עריות הנאסרות להם:
11Moses said to the Lord, "Why have You treated Your servant so badly? Why have I not found favor in Your eyes that You place the burden of this entire people upon me? יאוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ וְלָמָּה לֹא מָצָתִי חסר א' חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ לָשׂוּם אֶת מַשָּׂא כָּל הָעָם הַזֶּה עָלָי:
12Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that You say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom as the nurse carries the suckling,' to the Land You promised their forefathers? יבהֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי אֵת כָּל הָעָם הַזֶּה אִם אָנֹכִי יְלִדְתִּיהוּ כִּי תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָיו:
that You say to me: Heb. כִּי תֹאמַר אֵלַי, that You say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom.’ When did He tell him this? “Go, lead the people” (Exod. 32:34), and it says, “He commanded them concerning the children of Israel” (ibid. 6:13)-even if they stone you or insult you. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:10] כי תאמר אלי: שאתה אומר אלי שאהו בחיקך. והיכן אמר לו כן, לך נחה את העם (שמות לב לד), ואומר (שמות ו יג) ויצום אל בני ישראל, על מנת שיהיו סוקלים אתכם ומחרפים אתכם:
to the Land You promised their forefathers: You tell me to carry them in my bosom. [This phrase is connected to that clause, not to “as the nurse carries the suckling,” which immediately precedes this phrase.] על האדמה אשר נשבעת לאבותיו: אתה אומר לי לשאתם בחיקי:
13Where can I get meat to give all these people? For they are crying on me, saying, 'Give us meat to eat.' יגמֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר לָתֵת לְכָל הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר תְּנָה לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה:
14Alone I cannot carry this entire people for it is too hard for me. ידלֹא אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי לָשֵׂאת אֶת כָּל הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי כָבֵד מִמֶּנִּי:
15If this is the way You treat me, please kill me if I have found favor in Your eyes, so that I not see my misfortune." טווְאִם כָּכָה | אַתְּ עֹשֶׂה לִּי הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג אִם מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְאַל אֶרְאֶה בְּרָעָתִי:
If this is the way You treat me: Moses’ strength became weak like a woman’s when God showed him the punishment He was going to bring upon them. Because of this, he said to Him, “Kill me first….” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:14] ואם ככה את עשה לי: תשש כחו של משה כנקבה כשהראוהו הקב"ה הפורענות שהוא עתיד להביא עליהם על זאת. אמר לפניו, אם כן הרגני תחלה:
so that I not see my misfortune: Scripture should have written, “their misfortune,” [or “Your misfortune,” according to Divrei David] but it euphemizes. This is one of the scribal emendations in the Torah, [such as writers make] for the purpose of modifying and adjusting the text. — [Midrash Tanchuma Beshallach 16; Mechilta Beshallach, parashah 6] ואל אראה ברעתי: ברעתם היה לו לכתוב, אלא שכינה הכתוב. וזה אחד מתקוני סופרים בתורה לכינוי ולתקון הלשון:
16Then the Lord said to Moses, "Assemble for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the people's elders and officers, and you shall take them to the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with You. טזוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ כִּי הֵם זִקְנֵי הָעָם וְשֹׁטְרָיו וְלָקַחְתָּ אֹתָם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ:
Assemble for Me: This is a response to your complaint, that you said, “Alone I cannot….” Where were the first group of elders? Had they not sat with them [with Moses and Aaron] even in Egypt, as it says, “Go and gather the elders of Israel” (Exod. 3:16) ? But they died in the fire at Tab’erah (verses 1-3). They deserved this already at Sinai, as it is written, “They perceived God” (Exod. 24:11), behaving irrevently, like someone munching his bread while speaking to the king, and this is the meaning of “they ate and drank” (ibid.). However, God did not want to give cause for mourning at the giving of the Torah, so he punished them here. — [Midrash Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 16] אספה לי: הרי תשובה לתלונתך שאמרת לא אוכל אנכי לבדי. והזקנים הראשונים היכן היו, והלא אף במצרים ישבו עמהם, שנאמר (שמות ג, טז) לך ואספת את זקני ישראל, אלא באש תבערה מתו. וראוים היו לכך מסיני, דכתיב (שמות כד) ויחזו את הא-להים, שנהגו קלות ראש, כנושך פתו ומדבר בפני המלך. וזהו (שם) ויאכלו וישתו, ולא רצה הקב"ה ליתן אבלות במתן תורה ופרע להם כאן:
whom you know to be…: Those whom you know, that they were appointed as officers over them in Egypt [to oversee] the rigorous labor, and they had mercy on them, and were beaten on their account, as it says, “the officers of the children of Israel were beaten” (Exod. 5:14). Now they shall be chosen in their greatness, just as they had suffered in their [Israel’s] distress. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42: 16] אשר ידעת כי הם וגו': אותם שאתה מכיר שנתמנו עליהם שוטרים במצרים בעבודת פרך והיו מרחמים עליהם ומוכים על ידם, שנאמר (שמות ה, יד) ויכו שוטרי בני ישראל, עתה יתמנו בגדולתן כדרך שנצטערו בצרתן:
and you shall take them: Take them with words: “How fortunate you are that you have been appointed leaders over the children of the Omnipresent!” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:16] ולקחת אותם: קחם בדברים, אשריכם שנתמניתם פרנסים על בניו של מקום:
and they shall stand there with you: so that the Israelites should see and treat them with esteem and honor, saying,"How beloved are these who have entered with Moses to hear the speech from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed is He. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:16] והתיצבו שם עמך: כדי שיראו ישראל וינהגו בהם גדולה וכבוד ויאמרו חביבין אלה שנכנסו עם משה לשמוע דבור מפי הקב"ה:
17I will come down and speak with you there, and I will increase the spirit that is upon you and bestow it upon them. Then they will bear the burden of the people with you so that you need not bear it alone. יזוְיָרַדְתִּי וְדִבַּרְתִּי עִמְּךָ שָׁם וְאָצַלְתִּי מִן הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיךָ וְשַׂמְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתְּךָ בְּמַשָּׂא הָעָם וְלֹא תִשָּׂא אַתָּה לְבַדֶּךָ:
I will come down: This is one of the ten descents [of the Shechinah] recorded in the Torah. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:17] וירדתי: זו אחת מעשר ירידות הכתובות בתורה:
and speak with you: But not with them. - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:17] ודברתי עמך: ולא עמהם:
and I will increase: Heb. וְאָצַלְתִּי, as the Targum renders it: וַאִרַבֵּי, and I will increase, as in“But against the nobles of (אֲצִילֵי) the children of Israel” (Exod. 24:11). ואצלתי: כתרגומו וארבי, כמו (שמות כד, יא) ואל אצילי בני ישראל:
and bestow it upon them: What did Moses resemble at that time? A candle placed upon a candelabrum; everyone lights from it, yet its brightness is not diminished. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:17, Midrash Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 12] ושמתי עליהם: למה משה דומה באותה שעה, לנר שמונח על גבי מנורה והכל מדליקין הימנו, ואין אורו חסר כלום:
Then they will bear… with you: Stipulate with them that they take upon themselves the burden of My children, who are troublesome and recalcitrant. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:16] ונשאו אתך: התנה עמהם על מנת שיקבלו עליהם טורח בני, שהם טרחנים וסרבנים:
so that you need not bear it alone: This is an answer to what you said,“Alone I cannot carry…” (verse 14). - [See Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:17] ולא תשא אתה לבדך: הרי תשובה למה שאמרת לא אוכל אנכי לבדי:
18And to the people, you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat, because you have cried in the ears of the Lord saying, "Who will feed us meat, for we had it better in Egypt." [Therefore,] the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat. יחוְאֶל הָעָם תֹּאמַר הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לְמָחָר וַאֲכַלְתֶּם בָּשָׂר כִּי בְּכִיתֶם בְּאָזְנֵי יְהֹוָה לֵאמֹר מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר כִּי טוֹב לָנוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם וְנָתַן יְהֹוָה לָכֶם בָּשָׂר וַאֲכַלְתֶּם:
Prepare yourselves: Heb. הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ, prepare yourselves for punishment. Similarly, it says, “and prepare them for the day of slaughter” (Jer. 12:3). - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:18] התקדשו: הזמינו עצמכם לפורענות, וכן הוא אומר (ירמיה יב, ג) והקדישם ליום הרגה:
19You shall eat it not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, and not twenty days. יטלֹא יוֹם אֶחָד תֹּאכְלוּן וְלֹא יוֹמָיִם וְלֹא | חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים וְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים וְלֹא עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם:
20But even for a full month until it comes out your nose and nauseates you. Because you have despised the Lord Who is among you, and you cried before Him, saying, "Why did we ever leave Egypt?"'" כעַד | חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים עַד אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מֵאַפְּכֶם וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְזָרָא יַעַן כִּי מְאַסְתֶּם אֶת יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וַתִּבְכּוּ לְפָנָיו לֵאמֹר לָמָּה זֶּה יָצָאנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם:
But even for a full month: This [concerned] the [comparatively] virtuous ones, who languish on their beds and later their soul departs. But concerning the wicked ones it says, “the meat was still between their teeth [… when the anger of the Lord flared…]” (verse 33). This is how it is taught in the Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:20), but in the Mechilta (Beshallach, Vayassa 3:13) the opposite is taught: the wicked ate and suffered [as a result] for thirty days, whereas [concerning] the virtuous-“the meat was still between their teeth” [thus, they did not suffer prolonged agony]. עד חדש ימים: זו בכשרים שמתמצין על מטותיהן ואחר כך נשמתן יוצאה, וברשעים הוא אומר הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, כך היא שנויה בספרי, אבל במכילתא שנויה חילוף הרשעים אוכלין ומצטערין שלושים יום והכשרים הבשר עודנו בין שניהם:
until it comes out of your nose: As Targum renders: “You will be sickened by it”; it will seem to you as if you gorged on it until it is discharged by way of the nose. עד אשר יצא מאפכם: כתרגומו דתקוצון ביה, יהא דומה לכם כאילו אכלתם ממנו יותר מדאי עד שיוצא ונגעל לחוץ דרך האף:
and nauseates you: Heb. וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְזָרָא You will cast it away from you more readily than you welcomed it [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:20]. In the words of R. Moshe Hadarshan (the preacher) I noted that there is a language in which a sword is called זָרָא, [meaning that this meat will be the cause of their death]. והיה לכם לזרא: שתהיו מרחקין אותו יותר ממה שקרבתם. ובדברי רבי משה הדרשן ראיתי שיש לשון שקורין לחרב זרא:
the Lord Who is among you: Had I not established My Presence among you, you would not have had the arrogance to engage in all these matters. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:20] את ה' אשר בקרבכם: אם לא שנטעתי שכינתי ביניכם, לא גבה לבבכם ליכנס לכל הדברים הללו:
21Moses said, "Six hundred thousand people on foot are the people in whose midst I am, and You say, 'I will give them meat, and they will eat it for a full month'? כאוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ בָּשָׂר אֶתֵּן לָהֶם וְאָכְלוּ חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים:
Six hundred thousand people on foot: He was not concerned with mentioning the additional three thousand (above 1:46). R. Moshe Hadarshan, however, explains that only those [six hundred thousand] who left Egypt wept. שש מאות אלף רגלי: לא חש למנות את הפרט שלשת אלפים היתרים. ור' משה הדרשן פירש שלא בכו אלא אותן שיצאו ממצרים:
22If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them, would it suffice for them? If all the fish of the sea were gathered for them, would it suffice for them?" כבהֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם וּמָצָא לָהֶם אִם אֶת כָּל דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם וּמָצָא לָהֶם:
If sheep and cattle were slaughtered: This is one of the four cases in which R. Akiva expounded, and R. Simeon expounded differently. R. Akiva says,“Six hundred thousand people on foot, and You have said that I will give them meat, and they will eat it for a full month?” The entire verse is expounded literally. The clause, וּמָצָא לָהֶם means, “Would it suffice for them?” This is similar to [the clause,]“and he has sufficient means (וּמָצָא) for redeeming it” (Lev. 25:26). Which [case] is worse? This one, or [when Moses said] “Listen now, you rebels” (20:10)? [Obviously, this one.] However, since [in this case] he [Moses] did not say it in public, Scripture spares him, and refrains from punishing him. But that of Meribah was in public, so Scripture does not spare him. R. Simeon says, God forbid! This never entered the mind of that righteous man. Would the one about whom it says, “he is trusted throughout My house” (12:7) suggest that the Omnipresent cannot provide for us sufficiently? Rather, this is what he meant: “Six hundred thousand… on foot… and You say, 'I will give them meat for a full month’? Then You will kill such a great nation? Will sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them so that they should then be killed, and this meal will satisfy for them forever [i.e., it will be their last]? Is this a credit for you? Do we tell a donkey, 'Eat this measure of barley, and then we will cut off your head’?” God answered him, “If I do not give them, they will say that My power is limited. Would the fact that God’s power appears limited to them please you? Let them and a hundred like them perish, as long as My power is not limited before them for even one moment! ”- [Tosefta Sotah 6:4] הצאן ובקר ישחט: זה אחד מארבעה דברים שהיה רבי עקיבא דורש ואין רבי שמעון דורש כמותו. רבי עקיבא אומר שש מאות אלף רגלי, ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים, הצאן ובקר וגו', הכל כמשמעו, מי יספיק להם, כענין שנאמר (ויקרא כה, כו) ומצא כדי גאולתו. ואיזו קשה, זו או (במדבר כ, י) שמעו נא המורים, אלא לפי שלא אמר ברבים חיסך לו הכתוב ולא נפרע ממנו, וזו של מריבה היתה בגלוי, לפיכך לא חיסך לו הכתוב. רבי שמעון אומר חס ושלום לא עלתה על דעתו של אותו צדיק כך, מי שכתוב בו (במדבר יב, ז) בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, יאמר אין המקום מספיק לנו, אלא כך אמר שש מאות אלף רגלי וגו' ואתה אמרת בשר אתן לחדש ימים, ואחר כך תהרוג אומה גדולה כזו, הצאן ובקר ישחט להם כדי שיהרגו, ותהא אכילה זו מספקתן עד עולם, וכי שבחך הוא זה, אומרים לו לחמור טול כור שעורים ונחתוך ראשך. השיבו הקב"ה ואם לא אתן יאמרו שקצרה ידי, הטוב בעינך שיד ה' תקצר בעיניהם, יאבדו הם ומאה כיוצא בהם ואל תהי ידי קצרה לפניהם אפילו שעה אחת:
23Then the Lord said to Moses, "Is My power limited? Now you will see if My word comes true for you or not!" כגוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה הֲיַד יְהֹוָה תִּקְצָר עַתָּה תִרְאֶה הֲיִקְרְךָ דְבָרִי אִם לֹא:
Now you will see if my word comes true for you or not: Rabban Gamliel, the son of R. Judah the prince, says: [Moses said,] It is impossible to settle their argument. Since they seek only a pretext, you cannot satisfy them, and in the end, they will find fault with you. If you give them beef they will say, “We asked for mutton.” And if you give them mutton, they will say, “We asked for beef,” [or,] “ We asked for venison or fowl,” [or,] “We asked for fish and locusts.” He [God] replied to him, “If so, they will claim that My power is limited.” He [Moses] said to him, “I will go and appease them.” He said to him, “Now you will see if My word comes true for you”-that they will not listen to you. Moses went to appease them. He said to them, “Is there a limit to God’s power? Behold, He struck the rock and water flowed; surely, He can provide bread!” (Ps. 78:20) They said, This is [an attempt at] compromise-He Has no power to fulfill our wishes. This is the meaning of, “Moses went out and told the people.” Since they did not listen to him, “he assembled seventy men…” - [Tosefta Sotah 6:4 and Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:21] עתה תראה היקרך דברי: רבן גמליאל בנו של רבי יהודה הנשיא אומר אי אפשר לעמוד על התפל, מאחר שאינן מבקשים אלא עלילה לא תספיק להם, סופן לדון אחריך, אם אתה נותן להם בשר בהמה גסה, יאמרו דקה בקשנו, ואם אתה נותן להם דקה, יאמרו גסה בקשנו, חיה ועוף בקשנו, דגים וחגבים בקשנו, אמר לו אם כן יאמרו שקצרה ידי. אמר לפניו הריני הולך ומפייסן. אמר לו עתה תראה היקרך דברי, שלא ישמעו לך. הלך משה לפייסן אמר להם היד ה' תקצר, (תהלים עח, כ) הן הכה צור ויזובו מים וגו' הגם לחם יוכל תת, אמרו פשרה היא זו, אין בו כח למלאות שאלתנו. וזהו שנאמר ויצא משה וידבר אל העם, כיון שלא שמעו לו ויאסף שבעים איש וגו':
24Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said, and he assembled seventy men of the elders of the people, and stood them around the Tent. כדוַיֵּצֵא משֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל הָעָם אֵת דִּבְרֵי יְהֹוָה וַיֶּאֱסֹף שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי הָעָם וַיַּעֲמֵד אֹתָם סְבִיבֹת הָאֹהֶל:
25The Lord descended in a cloud and spoke to him, and He increased some of the spirit that was on him and bestowed it on the seventy elders. And when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did not continue. כהוַיֵּרֶד יְהֹוָה | בֶּעָנָן וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו וַיָּאצֶל מִן הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וַיִּתֵּן עַל שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ הַזְּקֵנִים וַיְהִי כְּנוֹחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הָרוּחַ וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ וְלֹא יָסָפוּ:
but they did not continue: They prophesied on that day only-Thus it is stated in Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:21). The Targum renders “and they did not cease” [meaning] that their prophetic powers remained. ולא יספו: לא נתנבאו אלא אותו היום לבדו, כך מפורש בספרי, ואונקלוס תרגם ולא פסקין, שלא פסקה נבואה מהם:
26Now two men remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the second was Medad, and the spirit rested upon them. They were among those written, but they did not go out to the tent, but prophesied in the camp. כווַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים | בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד | אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים וְלֹא יָצְאוּ הָאֹהֱלָה וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה:
Now two men remained: From the ones who were chosen. They said, “We are unworthy of this greatness.” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:21] וישארו שני אנשים: מאותן שנבחרו. אמרו אין אנו כדאין לגדולה זו:
They were among those written: Among those chosen for the Sanhedrin. All of them were written down, mentioned specifically by name, but [the number was chosen] by lot, because the number [of elders] for twelve tribes came to six for each tribe, except for two tribes who would receive only five each. Moses said, “No tribe will listen to me to deduct one elder from its tribe.” What did he do? He took seventy-two slips and wrote on seventy [of them, the word] ‘elder’ and two of them he left blank. He then chose six men from each tribe, totaling seventy-two. He said to them, “Draw your slips from the urn. Whoever picked [one inscribed with] ‘elder’ was [already] sanctified. Whoever picked a blank slip, he said to him,”The Omnipresent does not want you." - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:21, Sanh. 17a] והמה בכתבים: במבוררים שבהם לסנהדרין, ונכתבו כולם נקובים בשמות, וע"י גורל, לפי שהחשבון עולה לי"ב שבטים, ששה ששה לכל שבט ושבט חוץ משני שבטים שאין מגיע אליהם אלא חמשה חמשה. אמר משה, אין שבט שומע לי לפחות משבטו זקן אחד. מה עשה, נטל שבעים ושנים פתקין וכתב על שבעים זקן, ועל שנים חלק וברר מכל שבט ושבט ששה, והיו שבעים ושנים. אמר להם טלו פתקיכם מתוך קלפי, מי שעלה בידו זקן, נתקדש, ומי שעלה בידו חלק אמר לו המקום לא חפץ בך:
27The lad ran and told Moses, saying, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp!" כזוַיָּרָץ הַנַּעַר וַיַּגֵּד לְמשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה:
The lad ran: Some say this was Moses’ son, Gershom. — [Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 12] וירץ הנער: יש אומרים גרשום בן משה היה:
28Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' servant from his youth, answered and said, Moses, my master, imprison them!" כחוַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מְשָׁרֵת משֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנִי משֶׁה כְּלָאֵם:
imprison them: Heb. כְּלָאֵם. Impose upon them communal responsibilities and they will be finished (כָּלִים) [as prophets] by themselves (Sanh. 17a). Another interpretation: Imprison them (בֵּית הַכֶּלֶא) (Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:21, Targum Onkelos), for they were prophesying that Moses would die and Joshua would take them into the Land of Israel. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:21, Sanh. 17a] כלאם: הטל עליהם צרכי צבור והם כלים מאליהם. דבר אחר תנם אל בית הכלא, לפי שהיו מתנבאים משה מת ויהושע מכניס את ישראל לארץ:
29Moses said to him, "Are you zealous for my sake? If only all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would bestow His spirit upon them!" כטוַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ משֶׁה הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל עַם יְהֹוָה נְבִיאִים כִּי יִתֵּן יְהֹוָה אֶת רוּחוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם:
Are you zealous for my sake?: Are you a zealous for me? Are you being zealous for what I should be zealous? The word לִי means בִּשְׁבִילִי,“for my sake.” The term קִנְאָה is used to denote a person who takes a matter to heart, whether to avenge or to help; in old French, enportement; holding the bulk of the burden. המקנא אתה לי: הקנאי אתה לי הקנאתי אתה מקנא:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 88 - 89
• Chapter 88
The psalmist weeps and laments bitterly over the maladies and suffering Israel endures in exile, which he describes in detail.
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach, for the Conductor, upon the machalat le'anot; 1 a maskil2 for Heiman the Ezrachite.
2. O Lord, God of my deliverance, by day I cried out [to You], by night I [offer my prayer] before You.
3. Let my prayer come before You; turn Your ear to my supplication.
4. For my soul is sated with affliction, and my life has reached the grave.
5. I was reckoned with those who go down to the pit, I was like a man without strength.
6. [I am regarded] among the dead who are free, like corpses lying in the grave, of whom You are not yet mindful, who are yet cut off by Your hand.
7. You have put me into the lowest pit, into the darkest places, into the depths.
8. Your wrath has weighed heavily upon me, and all the waves [of Your fury] have constantly afflicted me.
9. You have estranged my friends from me, You have made me abhorrent to them; I am imprisoned and unable to leave.
10. My eye is afflicted because of distress; I call to You, O Lord, every day; I have stretched out my hands [in prayer] to You.
11. Do You perform wonders for the deceased? Do the dead stand to offer You praise? Selah.
12. Is Your kindness recounted in the grave, your faithfulness in the place of perdition?
13. Are Your wondrous deeds known in the darkness [of the grave], or Your righteousness in the land of oblivion?
14. But, I, to You, O Lord, I cry; each morning my prayer comes before You.
15. Why, O Lord, do You forsake my soul? Why do You conceal Your countenance from Me?
16. From my youth I have been afflicted and approaching death, yet I have borne the fear of You which is firmly established within me.
17. Your furies have passed over me; Your terrors have cut me down.
18. They have engulfed me like water all day long, they all together surrounded me.
19. You have estranged from me beloved and friend; I have been rejected by my intimates.
Chapter 89
This psalm speaks of the kingship of the House of David, the psalmist lamenting its fall from power for many years, and God's abandonment and spurning of us.
1. A maskil1 by Eitan the Ezrachite.
2. I will sing of the Lord's kindness forever; to all generations I will make known Your faithfulness with my mouth.
3. For I have said, "The world is built with kindness; there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness.”
4. I have made a covenant with My chosen one; I have sworn to David, My servant:
5. "I will establish Your descendants forever; I will build your throne for all generations," Selah.
6. Then the heavens will extol Your wonders, O Lord; Your faithfulness, too, in the congregation of the holy ones.
7. Indeed, who in heaven can be compared to the Lord, who among the supernal beings can be likened to the Lord!
8. The Almighty is revered in the great assembly of the holy ones, awe-inspiring to all who surround Him.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, who is mighty like You, O God! Your faithfulness surrounds You.
10. You rule the vastness of the sea; when its waves surge, You still them.
11. You crushed Rahav (Egypt) like a corpse; with Your powerful arm You scattered Your enemies.
12. Yours are the heavens, the earth is also Yours; the world and all therein-You established them.
13. The north and the south-You created them; Tabor and Hermon sing of [the greatness] of Your Name.
14. Yours is the arm which has the might; strengthen Your hand, raise high Your right hand.
15. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; kindness and truth go before Your countenance.
16. Fortunate is the people who know the sound of the shofar; Lord, they walk in the light of Your countenance.
17. They rejoice in Your Name all day, and they are exalted through Your righteousness.
18. Indeed, You are the splendor of their might, and in Your goodwill our glory is exalted.
19. For our protectors turn to the Lord, and our king to the Holy One of Israel.
20. Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones and said: "I have granted aid to [David] the mighty one; I have exalted the one chosen from among the people.
21. I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil.
22. It is he whom My hand shall be prepared [to assist]; My arm, too, shall strengthen him.
23. The enemy shall not prevail over him, nor shall the iniquitous person afflict him.
24. And I will crush his adversaries before him, and will strike down those who hate him.
25. Indeed, My faithfulness and My kindness shall be with him, and through My Name his glory shall be exalted.
26. I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers.
27. He will call out to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, the strength of my deliverance.’
28. I will also make him [My] firstborn, supreme over the kings of the earth.
29. I will maintain My kindness for him forever; My covenant shall remain true to him.
30. And I will bestow [kingship] upon his seed forever, and his throne will endure as long as the heavens last.
31. If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My ordinances;
32. if they profane My statutes and do not observe My commandments,
33. then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their misdeeds with plagues.
34. Yet I shall not take away My kindness from him, nor betray My faithfulness.
35. I will not abrogate My covenant, nor change that which has issued from My lips.
36. One thing I have sworn by My holiness-I will not cause disappointment to David.
37. His seed will endure forever and his throne will be [resplendent] as the sun before Me.
38. Like the moon, it shall be established forever; [the moon] is a faithful witness in the sky for all time.”
39. Yet You have forsaken and abhorred; You became enraged at Your anointed.
40. You annulled the covenant with Your servant; You have profaned his crown [by casting it] to the ground.
41. You shattered all his fences; You turned all his strongholds into ruin.
42. All wayfarers despoiled him; he has become a disgrace to his neighbors.
43. You have uplifted the right hand of his adversaries; You have made all his enemies rejoice.
44. You also turned back the blade of his sword, and did not sustain him in battle.
45. You put an end to his splendor, and toppled his throne to the ground.
46. You have cut short the days of his youth; You have enclothed him with long-lasting shame.
47. How long, O Lord, will You conceal Yourself-forever? [How long] will Your fury blaze like fire?
48. O remember how short is my life span! Why have You created all children of man for naught?
49. What man can live and not see death, can save his soul forever from the grave?
50. Where are Your former deeds of kindness, my Lord, which You swore to David in Your faithfulness?
51. Remember, my Lord, the disgrace of Your servants, that I bear in my bosom from all the many nations;
52. that Your enemies have disgraced, O Lord, that they have disgraced the footsteps of Your anointed.
53. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 6• Lessons in Tanya
•Friday, Sivan 18, 5775 · June 5, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, end of Chapter 6
ולכן הוצרך הכתוב להזהיר: וידעת היום והשבות אל לבבך וגו׳
This is why it was necessary for the Torah to warn, “Know this day and take it unto your heart” [that “in the heavens above and upon the earth below there is none other],”
שלא תעלה על דעתך שהשמים וכל צבאם והארץ ומלואה הם דבר נפרד בפני עצמו
so that it should not enter your mind that the heavens and all their host, and the earth and all it contains, are separate entities in themselves, i.e., distinct and apart from their Creator and the Provider of their life,
והקדוש ברוך הוא ממלא כל העולם כהתלבשות הנשמה בגוף
and that the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the whole world in the same way as the soul is invested in the body,
ומשפיע כח הצומח בארץ
and that He causes the flow of the “vegetative force” into the earth, this being the life-force revealed within the earth,
וכח התנועה בגלגלים, ומניעם ומנהיגם כרצונו
and the power of motion into the celestial spheres, and moves them and directs them according to His Will,
כמו שהנשמה מניעה את הגוף ומנהיגתו כרצונה
just as the soul moves the body and directs it according to its will.
Though the body is a totally separate and different entity from the soul, the soul is nevertheless able to direct it according to its will, because it provides it with life. One might mistakenly believe that G‑d animates and conducts the world in a similar manner, and conceive of the world as being separate from Him, just as the body is separate from the soul. Anticipating this, the verse therefore points out that the relation between the soul and the body is entirely unlike the relation between G‑d, and His creation and vivification of created beings.
אך באמת אין המשל דומה לנמשל כלל
In truth, however, the analogy of soul and body bears no similarity whatsoever to the object of comparison — G‑dliness and the world,
כי הנשמה והגוף הם באמת נפרדים זה מזה בשרשם
since the soul and the body are actually separate from each other at their sources.
כי אין התהוות שורש הגוף ועצמותו מנשמתו, אלא מטפות אביו ואמו
The source of the body and its essence comes into being not from the soul,1 but from the seed of one’s father and mother;
וגם אחרי כן, אין גידולו מנשמתו לבדה, אלא על ידי אכילת ושתיית אמו כל תשעה חדשים
and even afterwards — after its creation — its growth is not from the soul alone, but through the mother’s eating and drinking throughout the nine months [of gestation],
ואחר כך, על ידי אכילתו ושתייתו בעצמו
and subsequently, through his own eating and drinking.
The body is thus a truly separate entity from the soul, inasmuch as the soul only provides it with life.
מה שאין כן השמים והארץ, שכל עצמותם ומהותם נתהוה מאין ואפס המוחלט
This is not so, however, in the case of heaven and earth, for their very being and essence was brought into existence from naught and absolute nothingness,
Before creation there was no space at all (as it were) for the existence of created beings, by virtue of the Divine Ayin which is ultimately responsible for creation.
רק בדבר ה׳ ורוח פיו
solely through the “word of G‑d” and the “breath of His mouth.”
וגם עדיין נצב דבר ה׳ לעולם, ושופע בהם תמיד בכל רגע
And now, too, the word of G‑d still stands forever in all created things, and flows into them continuously at every instant,
ומהוה אותם תמיד מאין ליש, כהתהוות האור מהשמש תוך גוף כדור השמש עצמו, דרך משל
constantly creating them anew from nothing, just as for example, the coming into existence of the light from the sun within the very globe of the sun.
It has already been explained that the light of the sun as it is found within the sun-globe does not possess true existence, for it is completely nullified within the sun. Only after it leaves the sun-globe can it be said to possess independent existence. Created beings likewise are always wholly nullified in relation to their source, since they are constantly found within it, i.e., within the Divine life-force that creates them.
ואם כן הם בטלים באמת במציאות לגמרי לגבי דבר ה׳ ורוח פיו יתברך, המיוחדים במהותו ועצמותו יתברך
Hence, in reality they — created beings — are completely nullified out of existence in relation to the “word of G‑d” and the “breath of His mouth,” which are unified with His Essence and Being,
כמו שיתבאר לקמן
as this union will be explained later,
Thus, created beings are completely nullified to the “word of G‑d” and the “breath of His mouth,” as well as to G‑d Himself,
כביטול אור השמש בשמש
just as the light of the sun is nullified in the sun.
Why, then, are created beings unaware of this, considering themselves instead as possessing independent and true existence? The Alter Rebbe answers this by saying:
רק שהן הן גבורותיו, במדת הגבורה והצמצום, להסתיר ולהעלים החיות השופע בהם
Yet these are His restraining powers, to hide and conceal, through the attribute of Gevurah and tzimtzum, the life-force that flows into them,
שיהיו נראים השמים והארץ וכל צבאם כאילו הם דבר בפני עצמו
so that heaven and earth and all their host should appear as if they were independently existing entities.
The effect of tzimtzum is to conceal from created beings the source of existence continuously found within them. This is why they are able to think of themselves as possessing independent existence.
אך אין הצמצום וההסתר אלא לתחתונים
However, the tzimtzum and concealment is only for the lower [worlds],
אבל לגבי הקב״ה, כולא קמיה כלא ממש חשיבי, כאור השמש בשמש
but in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He,2 “Everything before Him is considered as actually naught,” like the light of the sun within the sun.
ואין מדת הגבורה מסתרת חס ושלום לפניו יתברך
The attribute of Gevurah does not, heaven forfend, conceal for Him,
כי איננה דבר בפני עצמו, אלא ה׳ הוא האלקים
for it is not an independent entity; rather, Havayah is Elokim.
The concealment resulting from the Divine Name Elokim and the attribute of Gevurah are one with the Divine Name Havayah, the attribute of Chesed and revelation. Thus, from the Divine perspective there is no concealment, for “an entity cannot conceal its own self.”
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | The following question was asked of the Rebbe: What does the Alter Rebbe add by saying that [“the soul and the body are actually separate from each other at their sources” inasmuch as] “the source of the body and its essence comes into being not from the soul, but from the seed of one’s father and mother,” after having already stated that the soul merely animates the body but does not bring it into existence? The Rebbe replied: As stated explicitly in the beginning of ch. 3, here, too, the intent of the Alter Rebbe is to demonstrate that the created being is naught and absolute nothingness in comparison to the “breath of His mouth” which is found within it. This is because the “breath of His mouth” derives from the Divine Name Havayah, while the concealment of the created being derives from the Name Elokim. Since Havayah and Elokim are truly One, the concealment is not a true concealment: Elokim does not conceal Havayah. However, it has just been stated here that the life of the body — the soul — derives from the Name Havayah, and the body itself derives from the Name Elokim. This being so, why is the body considered to be secondary and subordinate to the soul; why is it not considered to be totally nullified in relation to it (since the soul — the life of the body — derives from the Name Havayah)? The answer to this lies in the fact that the body and soul are separate from each other not only in their manifest existence, but also in their sources. For the creation of the body’s source and the essence of its being — the level of the Name Elokim within the body — does not derive from the soul (and the level of Havayah of his soul), but from the seed of the father and mother. These particularized levels of Havayah and Elokim (as found in soul and body) are indeed not truly one (although the general aspects of Havayah and Elokim are one), except in a “secondary” and “subordinate” manner, as it were. The same applies to the sun’s shield, or sheath, each part of it being subordinate to the entire sun. However, the shield actually obscures only those rays that shine through each individual portion of it, and likewise, only with those particular rays is it unified. |
| 2. | Zohar I, 134a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Friday, Sivan 18, 5775 · June 5, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 91
Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
"But that which remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:17.
We are commanded to burn sacrificial meat that remains after the deadline for its consumption has passed.
Included in this mitzvah is also the commandment to burn sacrificial meat that is Pigul.
Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
Positive Commandment 91
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 91st mitzvah is that we are commanded to burn nosar.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "What is left over from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned in fire."
Regarding the Pascal lamb, G‑d A‑lmighty said,3 "Do not leave any of it over until morning. Anything that is left over until morning must be burned in fire." The Mechilta4 says explicitly, "This verse comes to add a positive commandment to the prohibition."
In many places in tractates Pesachim,5 and Makkos6 and elsewhere,7 our Sages say explicitly that the prohibition of nosar is a lav shenitak l'aseh, and one is therefore not punished by lashes for transgressing it.8 The aseh [positive commandment] is, as we said, "Anything that is left over until morning must be burned in fire."
The law of pigul is identical to that of nosar, as will be explained in the Prohibitions.9 This is because pigul is referred to [in Scripture10] as nosar.
The details of this mitzvah as well have been explained in tractate Pesachim11 and in the end of Temurah.12
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. sacrificial meat which was not consumed within the designated time and thereby became invalid.
2.Lev. 7:17.
3.Ex. 12:10.
4.Our version of the Mechilta does not contain this passage. It may be found in Mechilta D'Rashbi, chapter 12.
5.84a.
6.4b, 16a.
7.Sanhedrin 63a; Shavuos 3b; Chullin 82b, 91a, 141b; Temurah 4b.
8.See N120. This point is discussed here to demonstrate that the burning is counted as a positive commandment.
9.N132. One is therefore also obligated to burn pigul.
10.Lev. 7:18.
11.27b.
12.34a.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
The term "the frond of the date palm" employed by the Torah refers to the branches of a date palm as they sprout, before their leaves separate and spread out in various directions. Rather, they should appear as a scepter. This is called a lulav.
Commentary Halacha 1
The term "the frond of the date palm" employed by the Torah - Leviticus 23:40.
refers to the branches of a date palm - The Tzafenat Paneach questions whether or not the tree from which the lulav is taken must actually produce dates.
as they sprout, before their leaves separate - Thus, if the leaves spread out and were later bound together by human activity, it is not acceptable (Ramah,Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 645:2).
and spread out in various directions. - Periodically, the date palm sprouts forth new branches. Initially they are closed, and as time passes they spread out to a fanlike shape. The Torah requires that they be used for the lulav while they are still in their initial state.
This obligation is derived from the fact that the Torah spells the word כפת, without a ו, implying that the date branch should appear to be a single entity (Sukkah 32a).
There is a homiletic aspect to using the lulav while its leaves are closed. Vayikra Rabbah 30:12 emphasizes how the mitzvah of lulav and etrog expresses the unity and oneness which pervade the Jewish people. Not only is this unity expressed by the combination of the four species into a single mitzvah, it is reflected in each of the species themselves. Thus, the lulav is used while its leaves are together as one, before they separate into distinct entities.
Rather, they should appear as a scepter. - Here, too, our Sages have emphasized the homiletic lesson to be derived from this shape. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are days of judgement. The lulav can be considered as the Jews' scepter of victory, acknowledging that they have prevailed (Medrash Tanchumah, Emor).
This is called a lulav.
Halacha 2
The "fruit of the beautiful tree" mentioned in the Torah is the etrog.
The "boughs of covered trees" mentioned in the Torah refer to the [species of] myrtle whose leaves surround its branch; i.e., there will be three or more leaves in each ring. However, if there are two leaves on one level, with a third leaf slightly higher than them, that is not considered to be "covered." Rather, it is called a wild myrtle.
Commentary Halacha 2
The "fruit of the beautiful tree" mentioned in the Torah - Leviticus, ibid.
is the etrog. - Sukkah 35a explains that this term is used to refer to the etrog because of a unique quality possessed by this fruit. The taste of the tree itself resembles the taste of the fruit. Alternatively, the word הדר can be interpreted to mean "which dwells," and thus refer to the etrog, which can grow on the tree for an entire year.
The "boughs of covered trees" mentioned in the Torah - Leviticus, ibid.
refer to the [species of] myrtle whose leaves surround its branch; - thus, covering the branch
i.e., there will be three or more leaves in each ring - on the same level.
Our translation follows the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh, who requires that the three leaves be on the same level over the entire length of the myrtle. However, other opinions interpret the Rambam's words to mean that a myrtle may be used if the leaves of merely one ring are on the same level. The Kessef Mishneh (and similarly, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 646:5) maintain that a myrtle is kosher if the leaves grow properly over three handbreadths (its minimum size), or at least the majority of that distance.
However, if there are two leaves on one level, with a third leaf slightly higher than them, that is not considered to be "covered." - but rather from a different species of tree. Hence, it can never be used in the lulav (Or Sameach).
Rather, it is called a wild myrtle - since its leaves do not grow in the normal pattern.
Halacha 3
The term "willows of the brook" mentioned by the Torah does not include just any plant that grows by a brook, but rather a particular species, which is called the "willows of the brook."
Its leaf is extended as a brook, its edge is smooth, and its stem is red. It is called a willow. The majority of this species grow near brooks. Therefore, it is called the "willows of the brook." Even if this species grew in the desert or on a mountain, it would be kosher.
Commentary Halacha 3
The term "willows of the brook" mentioned by the Torah - Leviticus, ibid.
does not include just any plant that grows by a brook, but rather a particular species, which is called the "willows of the brook." - That species is defined as follows:
Its leaf is extended as a brook - i.e., it comes to a point, rather than being rounded (Sukkah 33b).
This characteristic is also quoted as an explanation of the name "willows of the brook" (Rabbenu Asher).
its edge is smooth - rather than jagged (Sukkah ibid.).
and its stem is red. It is called a willow. The majority of this species grow near brooks. Therefore, it is called the "willows of the brook." - However, the use of that name is not meant to be exclusive...
Even if this species grew in the desert or on a mountain, it would be kosher - for the fulfillment of this mitzvah.
Halacha 4
There is another species which resembles the willow. However, its leaf is rounded, its edge resembles a saw, and its stem is not red. This is called atzaftzefah. It is unfit [to be used for the mitzvah].
There is another type of willow, whose leaf does not have a smooth edge, but it is not like a saw. Rather, it has tiny juttings, like the edge of a small sickle. It is kosher.
All the above definitions were explained according to the oral tradition transmitted by Moses, our teacher.
Commentary Halacha 4
There is another species which resembles the willow. However, its leaf is rounded, its edge resembles a saw - i.e., its edge is very jagged, with large protrusions
and its stem is not red - but white (Sukkah 34a).
This is called a tzaftzefah. It is unfit [to be used for the mitzvah] - for it is not considered to be merely a different type of willow, but rather another species entirely.
There is another type of willow, whose leaf - is also extended
does not have a smooth edge, but it is not like a saw. Rather, it has tiny juttings, like the edge of a small sickle. It is kosher. - The Mishnah Berurah647:6 mentions that willows are frequently picked by young children who are not learned and may mistake a non-kosher species for a kosher one. Hence, the purchaser should carefully examine the willows before purchasing them.
All the above definitions were explained according to the oral tradition transmitted by Moses, our teacher. - Indeed, in his introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam uses the definitions of the four species as examples of how the oral tradition is explained in the Talmud:
The explanations which we have received from Moses are not contested at all. Throughout all the ages, from Moses' time until the present, we have not heard of a dispute started by a Sage whether... the expression "a fruit from a beautiful tree" refers to the etrog. Nor have we heard of a dispute that the "covered tree" refers to the myrtle...Concerning these and the like, it has been said: "The entire Torah, [both the mitzvot] in general, and all their particulars were given to Moses on Mount Sinai." Though the tradition was received and there is no dispute about it, one can also derive these definitions through the accepted processes of exegesis.Thus, when the Talmud debates and discusses a concept and offers a suggestion...that perhaps, "the fruit of the beautiful tree" is a pomegranate...[and does not resolve the matter] until they bring proof from the exegesis of the verse..., one should not conclude that the matter was left in doubt until this point of exegesis was discovered.Rather, from the time of Joshua onward, we saw that the etrog was the species taken with the lulav and there is no debate about that. They were merely investigating how they could find support from the Torah for the interpretation that had been transmitted.
Halacha 5
These four species are considered to be one mitzvah, and each one is required for its performance. All of them [together] are called the mitzvah of lulav. One may not diminish them or add to them. If one of the species cannot be found, a similar species may not be substituted for it.
Commentary Halacha 5
These four species are considered to be one mitzvah - In contrast to putting on the head tefillin and the arm tefillin, which are considered to be two mitzvot. Here, taking all four species is considered to be a single mitzvah...
and - therefore,...
each one - of the species...
is required for its performance - and only then is the mitzvah performed. Nevertheless, as explained in Halachah 6, the species need not be bound together; it is sufficient to take them one after the other.
This statement is taken from the Mishnah, Menachot 3:6, which includes the four species of the lulav in a long list of mitzvot in which all the particular elements that make up the mitzvah are required for its performance to be acceptable.
All of them [together] are called the mitzvah of lulav. - Since the lulav is the tallest of all the species, the entire mitzvah is referred to by this name (Sukkah37b).
One may not diminish them - doing so violates the commandment בל תגרע (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids diminishing the Torah's commandments.
or add to them. - doing so violates the commandment תוסיף בל (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids adding to the Torah's commandments.
If one of the species cannot be found, a similar species - e.g., a tzaftzefahfor the willow, or a lemon for the etrog
may not be substituted for it. - Rather, the mitzvah cannot be fulfilled at all. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:12) recommends taking the species that are available, as a remembrance of the mitzvah. However, in such circumstances, a blessing should not be recited.
Halacha 6
The most desirable way of performing the mitzvah is to bind the lulav, myrtle, and willow together, thus making a single, unified entity from the three of them.
Before one takes them to perform the mitzvah, he should recite the blessing on the mitzvah of taking the lulav, for all the others are dependent upon it.
Afterwards, he takes this bound entity in his right hand and the etrog in his left hand. He must take them as they grow - i.e., their roots below towards the earth, and their heads upward towards the sky.
If a person did not bind them together, but rather took them one by one, he has fulfilled his obligation, provided he possesses all four species. However, if he has only one species or he is lacking one species, he should not take them until he acquires the remaining species.
Commentary Halacha 6
The most desirable way of performing the mitzvah is to bind the lulav, myrtle, and willow together, thus making a single, unified entity from the three of them. - Sukkah 11b explains that binding the three species together is considered more attractive than taking them each individually. Thus, taking the species in this manner conforms to the general directive requiring us to perform the mitzvot in the most esthetically appealing manner possible.
Sukkah 34b mentions an exegetic teaching that explains why the etrog is not bound together with the other species.
Before one takes them to perform the mitzvah, he should recite the blessing - for the blessings should always be recited before the performance of the mitzvot.
on the mitzvah of taking the lulav - Our translation follows the commentary of the Kessef Mishneh, who notes that in Hilchot Berachot 11:15, the Rambam states that if one recites the blessing before taking the lulav in his hand, he should conclude the blessing ...v'tzivanu litol lulav. The blessing should be concluded ...v'tzivanu al netilat lulav only if one has already taken the lulav in his hands.
for all the others are dependent upon it. - As mentioned in the previous halachah and commentary, since the lulav is the tallest of all the species, its name is used to refer to the entire mitzvah.
Afterwards, he takes this bound entity in his right hand and the etrog in his left hand. - Since three of the four species are bound together, they are held in the hand which the Torah considers of greater prominence (Sukkah37b).
He must take them as they grow - Sukkah 45b derives this concept fromExodus 26:15, which states: "upright beams of acacia wood." Implied is that all mitzvot fulfilled with agricultural products must be performed while they are in an upright position. (See also Halachah 9.)
i.e., their roots below towards the earth, and their heads upward towards the sky. - Even though the etrog hangs from the tree with the pitamdownwards, its "upright" position is when the pitam faces upward (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 651:12).
If a person did not bind them together, but rather took them one by one, he has fulfilled his obligation, provided he possesses all four species. -Sukkah 11b states that it is a mitzvah to bind the three species together, but one may fulfill the mitzvah even when one has not done so.
This law is accepted as halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:12). The preference of the Rabbis for binding the species together is so great that if one has not bound them together before the beginning of the festival, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:1) recommends binding them together with a loop on the holiday rather than taking each one individually.
However, if he has only one species or he is lacking one species, he should not take them until he acquires the remaining species. - as explained in the previous halachah.
Halacha 7
How many does one take of each of them? One lulav, one etrog, two willow branches, and three myrtle branches. If one would like to add more myrtle branches so that the bundle will be larger, he may. Indeed, it is considered to be an adornment of the mitzvah. However, it is forbidden to add to or reduce the numbers of the other species. If one adds to or reduces their number, it is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha 7
How many does one take of each of them? One lulav - Sukkah 34b derives this concept from the fact that Leviticus 23:40 writes כפת without a ו, implying a single entity, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1.
one etrog - because the above verse mentions "a fruit (singular) from the beautiful tree" (Sukkah, ibid.).
two willow branches - because the above verse states "willows of the brook," using the plural, and thus two are required (ibid.)
and three myrtle branches. - The above verse uses three words ענף עץ עבות, each word implying the addition of another branch (Rashi, Sukkah, ibid.).
If one would like to add more myrtle - Some editions of the Mishneh Torahalso add "and willow." However, most of the manuscripts and texts of theMishneh Torah omit that phrase. Furthermore, in one of his responsa, the Rambam states that since the Talmud mentions adding only myrtles, it is improper to add any of the other species.
branches so that the bundle will be larger, he may. Indeed, it is considered to be an adornment of the mitzvah. - The latter statement can be understood to be an explanation of the former. In contrast to the other species, the myrtle is considered an adornment of the mitzvah. Since the extra myrtle branches are viewed as adornments, they are not considered to be an intervening substance separating the person from the mitzvah. (See the commentary on Halachah 11.) Nor is including them considered to be adding to the mitzvah (and thus, a violation of בל תוסיף). (See also Rabbenu Nissim and the Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 535.)
There are some authorities who allow additional myrtle branches to be included even though they do not meet the requirement of having all three leaves on the same level. However, others do not accept this leniency (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:15).
However, it is forbidden to add to or reduce the numbers of the other species. - because they are not considered to be "adornments."
If one adds to or reduces their number, it is not acceptable. - The Ra'avad objects to this statement, arguing that the adding to the numbers of the other species does not nullify the performance of the mitzvah. Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, writes that, based on Sanhedrin 88b, the Rambam amended his own manuscript copy of the Mishneh Torah to state "it does not nullify it" (Birkat Avraham 31).
Halacha 8
What is the required length of each of these species? The lulav may not be less than four handbreadths. [Beyond that,] regardless of its length, it is kosher. Its length is measured only from its shidrah and not from the tips of the leaves.
The myrtle and the willow may not be less than three handbreadths. [Beyond that,] regardless of their length, they are kosher. Even if each branch has only three fresh leaves on it, they are kosher, provided the leaves are at the top of the branch.
If one has bound [the other species together with] the lulav, the shidrah of the lulav must extend beyond the myrtle and the willow a handbreadth or more.
The minimum size of an etrog is the size of an egg. [Beyond that,] regardless of its size, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 8
What is the required length of each of these species? - The Mishnah Berurah 650:8 states that if the species are smaller than the minimum limits established, they may not be used throughout the festival. Though certain leniencies are granted after the first day, they do not apply regarding this matter.
The lulav may not be less than four handbreadths. - The Mishnah (Sukkah3:1) describes the length of the lulav as "three handbreadths [and more], so that it can be shaken," implying that, like the other species, it should be three handbreadths in length. However, since all three handbreadths of the lulav must be shaken (see the following two halachot) an additional handbreadth was required for the person to hold the lulav in his hand (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah).
[Rashi and most other commentaries based on Sukkah 32b consider the handbreadth of the lulav that extends beyond the myrtle and the willow as the addition included "so that it can be shaken." From the latter clauses of this halachah, it appears that the Rambam may have also adopted this interpretation.]
A handbreadth is 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish. In his commentary on the above Mishnah, the Rambam emphasizes that the measure refers to three full handbreadths, each four fingerbreadths in length. This is necessary to negate the opinion of certain authorities (see the Ra'avad), who state that here the intent is three "small" handbreadths, so that the total length is only 10 fingerbreadths.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 650:1) accepts the Ra'avad's opinion. Nevertheless, the Ramah suggests following the Rambam's view if possible.
[Beyond that,] regardless of its length, it is kosher. - Menachot 42a states that a lulav has a minimum length, but no maximum length.
Its length is measured only from its shidrah - i.e., what is measured is its center stem from its base until the portion which separates into two twin leaves that cling to each other.
and not from the tips of the leaves. - i.e., its full length.
The myrtle and the willow may not be less than three handbreadths. [Beyond that,] regardless of their length, they are kosher. - The latter principle is derived from the laws of the lulav.
Even if each branch has only three fresh leaves on it, they are kosher, provided the leaves are at the top of the branch. - Sukkah 33a states:
If most of [the myrtle's] leaves dried out, but three fresh leaves remain, it is kosher.Rav Chisda said: "Provided they are at the top of each branch."
The Rambam maintains that the same principles can also be applied to the willow.
[Note the commentary on Halachah 8:5, which mentions certain relevant principles. Indeed, in general, this clause appears to be more closely related to the principles mentioned in the following chapter, where the Rambam mentions the characteristics that disqualify the various species, rather than in this chapter, where he relates the fundamental requirements of each one. Based onSukkah 34a, which relates that myrtles which are not dry (a factor still common in many Diaspora communities today) are very difficult to find, we can interpret this as an almost parenthetical expression teaching that freshness is not among the fundamental requirements for a myrtle.]
If one has bound [the other species together with] the lulav, the shidrah of the lulav must extend beyond the myrtle and the willow a handbreadth or more. - The Rambam maintains that regardless of the length of the myrtles and the willows, the shidrah of the lulav must extend beyond them an additional handbreadth, so that it can be shaken. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:2) does not require adherence to the Rambam's view. Nevertheless, it is accepted without question by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 650:2.
The minimum size of an etrog is the size of an egg. - 57.6 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah; in this context, 100 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.
[Beyond that,] regardless of its size, it is kosher. - Sukkah 36b relates that Rabbi Akiva came to synagogue with an etrog so large he had to sling it over his shoulder. (This is not out of the question, because, as mentioned above, an etrog is capable of remaining on its tree for an entire year and can attain quite a large size.)
Halacha 9
Once a person lifts up these four species - whether he lifts them up together or one after the other - whether in his right hand or in his left hand - he has fulfilled his obligation. [This applies] only when he lifts them up as they grow. However, if he does not lift them up as they grow, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
The fulfillment of the mitzvah as the law [requires is as follows]: One should lift up the three species as they are bound together in one's right hand and the etrog in one's left hand. Then, one should pass them back and forth, up and down, and shake the lulav three times in each direction.
Commentary Halacha 9
Once a person lifts up these four species - whether he lifts them up together - as described in Halachah 6.
or one after the other - lifting up each of the four species individually. However, a person must have all four species before him when he fulfills the mitzvah.
whether in his right hand or in his left hand - Although, in Halachah 6, the Rambam suggested holding the lulav together with the myrtle and willows together in his right hand and the etrog in his left, this is the most desirable way of fulfilling the mitzvah. However, even if a person does not lift up the species in this manner...
he has fulfilled his obligation. - Rabbenu Chanan'el does not accept this decision. He interprets Sukkah 42a, "If he lifted it up in an opposite manner, he did not fulfill his obligation," as referring to such a circumstance. Nevertheless, the Rambam (and similarly, most halachic authorities, including the Ramah,Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:3) interpret that statement as referring to lifting them up opposite to their natural pattern of growth.
This applies] only when he lifts them up as they grow. - See Halachah 6 and the commentary on it.
However, if he does not lift them up as they grow, he has not fulfilled his obligation. - For this reason, it is customary in many communities to hold the etrog upside down before reciting the blessing, and then to turn it right side up after the blessing has been recited.
The fulfillment of the mitzvah as the law [requires is as follows]: One should lift up the three species as they are bound together in one's right hand and the etrog in one's left hand. - holding the etrog together with the lulav (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:11).
In the Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Karo quotes the following story from the Recanti. The latter dreamed that he saw a particular pious individual writing God's name with a space separating the last ה from the first three letters. He could not comprehend the dream at all until the next day, when he saw that individual holding his etrog separate from his lulav (Mishnah Berurah 651:21).
Then, one should pass them back and forth, up and down - The Ari suggests that one should face the east and pass the lulav back and forth in the following order; first to the south; then to the north, then east, up, down, and to the west (Mishnah Berurah 651:20). Sukkah 37b relates that shaking the lulav in all directions prevents unfavorable winds.
When shaking the lulav downward, one should not turn it upside down, for this is opposite its natural pattern of growth. (See Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:9.)
Halacha 10
What does the above entail? One passes the lulav forward and shakes the top of the lulav three times, brings it back and shakes the top of the lulav three times. One follows this same pattern when lifting it up and down.
At what point [in prayer] does one pass the lulav back and forth? During the reading of the Hallel, at the first and final recitation of the verse [Psalms 118:1, 118:29]: Hodu Lado-nai ki tov... and at the verse [Psalms 118:25]: Ana Ado-nai hoshi'ah na.
It is acceptable to take the lulav throughout the entire day. However, it is not taken at night.
Commentary Halacha 10
What does the above entail? One passes the lulav forward - once in each direction
and shakes the top of the lulav three times - while the lulav is extended outward in that particular direction.
brings it back - to one's chest
and shakes the top of the lulav three times. - while holding the lulav close to oneself.
The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:9) explains that passing the lulav back and forth is itself considered to be shaking it. Hence, rather than shake the lulav three times while it is extended, one must shake it as one extends it and brings it back, and repeat that process a total of three times in each direction.
One follows this same pattern when lifting it up and down. - Thus, one will have shaken the lulav a total of 36 times.
At what point [in prayer] - Rabbenu Manoach states that the lulav was also passed back and forth and shaken at the time the blessing is recited. This is our custom at present.
does one pass the lulav back and forth? During the reading of the Hallel -which is recited in its entirety on each day of the Sukkot festival.
at the first and final recitation of the verse [Psalms 118:1, 118:29]: Hodu Lado-nai ki tov... - Tosafot, Sukkah 37b explains the derivation of this practice as follows: 1 Chronicles 16:33 states: "Then all the trees of the forest will rejoice." The following verse (ibid. 34) states "Hodu Lado-nai...," and the subsequent verse: "Let them say Hoshi'eynu...."
The rejoicing of the trees - the shaking of the lulav - is thus associated with the verse "Hodu..." and the verse "Ana Ado-nai hoshi'ah na."
and at the verse [Psalms 118:25]: Ana Ado-nai hoshi'ah na. - It is customary to repeat this verse when reciting the Hallel. The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 651:8) relates that the lulav is passed back and forth both times the verse is recited.
It is acceptable to take the lulav throughout the entire day. - However, one should not delay the performance of the mitzvah unnecessarily. Indeed, theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 652:2) forbids eating before fulfilling the mitzvah.
However, it is not taken at night. - Megillah 20b derives this concept fromLeviticus 23:40: "On the first day take...." We may infer: "the lulav is to be taken by day, and not by night."
Halacha 11
If one wraps a cord of silver or gold around [the three species] as they are bound together, or wraps a [decorative] cloth around them and takes them, one fulfills his obligation. Taking the lulav through another medium is still considered to be taking it, provided [that medium] is one which gives honor and beauty [to the mitzvah, because]: "any entity which makes a substance more attractive is not considered to be a separation."
However, if one placed these species in a vase or a pot and took them, one has not fulfilled one's obligation.
Commentary Halacha 11
If one wraps a cord of silver or gold around [the three species] as they are bound together - The Mishnah (Sukkah 3:8) relates that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would wrap their lulavim together with golden cords.
or wraps a [decorative] cloth around them and takes them, one fulfills his obligation. - Though we are commanded to take the lulav, that does not necessarily imply actually holding the lulav in one's hands, because...
Taking the lulav through another medium is still considered to be taking it - i.e., holding another substance in which the lulav is contained is still considered to be holding the lulav...
provided [that medium] is one which gives honor and beauty [to the mitzvah, because]: "any entity which makes a substance more attractive is not considered to be a separation." - between one's hands and the lulav. The substance used to bind the lulav is not considered to be an independent entity, but rather an extension of the lulav. This principle is also mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 7 of this chapter and Halachot 5:17-18. The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:8) states that it is customary to remove rings or other intervening substances that cover even small portions of one's hands before taking the lulav.
However, if one placed these species in a vase or a pot - Sukkah 42a explains that this is unbecoming to the mitzvah.
and took them, one has not fulfilled one's obligation. - The Mishnah Berurah 651:31 states that this applies even if the container in which one placed the species is made of silver or gold.
Halacha 12
If one binds the lulav together with the myrtle and the willow and separates between the lulav and the myrtle with a cloth or the like, it is considered to be a separation. If one separates between them with myrtle leaves, it is not considered to be a separation, because an entity does not separate between its own kind.
One may bind the together with a string, a cord, or with any substance one desires, since binding it together is not a required element of the mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha 12
If one binds the lulav together with the myrtle and the willow and separates between the lulav and the myrtle with a cloth or the like - i.e., a substance which does not contribute to the lulav's attractiveness
it is considered to be a separation. - between the various species. Taking the lulav in this manner is not acceptable. The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:1) notes that the myrtle branches are frequently bound together with a cord. This must be removed before using them to fulfill the mitzvah.
If one separates between them with myrtle leaves - i.e., if the myrtle leaves fall off and collect between the lulav and the myrtle branches,
it is not considered to be a separation, because an entity does not separate between its own kind. - This principle applies in many different contexts. (See also Hilchot P'sulei Hamukdashin 1:21 and Hilchot Ma'aseh Hakorbanot 19:5.)
One may bind them together with a string, a cord, or with any substance one desires - i.e., using substances other than the three species used in the lulav
since binding it together is not a required element of the mitzvah. - the substance used to bind it is not considered to be significant. Therefore, using a different substance is not considered as adding a new entity to the mitzvah. However, if the binding were required, as one opinion (Sukkah 6b) maintains, it would be forbidden to use a different substance.
Halacha 13
The mitzvah of taking the lulav in every place, during every age - even on the Sabbath - applies only on the first day of the festival, as [Leviticus 23:40] states: "And on the first day, you shall take..."
In the holy place alone, it is to be taken on each of the seven days of the festival, as [the above verse] continues: "and you shall rejoice before God, your Lord, [seven days]."
When the Sabbath falls during the [later] days, [the lulav] is not taken on the Sabbath. This is a decree lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain, as decreed regarding the shofar.
Commentary Halacha 13
The mitzvah of taking the lulav in every place - i.e., even outside Jerusalem
during every age - i.e., whether or not the Temple is standing
even on the Sabbath - applies only on the first day of the festival, as [Leviticus 23:40] states: "And on the first day, you shall take..." - See Halachah 16. See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah4:2).
In the holy place alone - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:10), the Rambam states that the term מקדש refers to Jerusalem in its totality, not only the Temple Mount. Thus, the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 3:11) states:
"And you shall rejoice before God, your Lord, seven days" - in Jerusalem.
(See also the commentary on Halachah 2:8.)
it is to be taken on each of the seven days of the festival, as [the above verse] continues: "and you shall rejoice before God, your Lord [seven days]."
When the Sabbath falls during the [later] days, [the lulav] is not taken on the Sabbath. - neither in Jerusalem (where taking the lulav is a mitzvah according to the Torah) nor outside the holy city (where taking the lulav is a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Halachah 15).
This is a decree - instituted by the Rabbis (Sukkah 43a)
lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain, as decreed regarding the shofar. - See Halachah 2:6.
Halacha 14
Why was this decree not put in effect on the first day of the festival? Because [taking the lulav on that day] is a mitzvah from the Torah even outside of Jerusalem. Thus, the laws applying to it are not the same as those applying to the remaining days, because on the subsequent days of the festival a person is obligated to take the lulav only in the holy place.
Commentary Halacha 14
Why was this decree not put in effect on the first day of the festival? Because [taking the lulav on that day] is a mitzvah from the Torah even outside of Jerusalem. Thus, the laws applying to it are not the same as those applying to the remaining days - Taking the lulav on the first day was obviously a matter of great importance. Hence, the Sages did not feel that the fear that perhaps a person might carry the lulav in the public domain was sufficient reason to nullify the mitzvah. In contrast, on the subsequent days the mitzvah is not considered to be so severe a matter. Hence, the mitzvah could be nullified in Jerusalem as well.
The Rabbis question why the Sages differentiated between the lulav and the shofar, and (as explained in Halachah 2:6), nullified the mitzvah of hearing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath. As explained in our commentary on that halachah, in Rabbenu Nissim's commentary on the tractate of Sukkah, he states that this decree was instituted only because in most Jewish communities, the people were not aware of the date the court had established for Rosh Hashanah. (Note the details of the explanation there.)
because on the subsequent days of the festival a person is obligated to take the lulav only in the holy place. - Thus, while the Temple was standing, the lulav would not be taken outside Jerusalem during the subsequent days of the festival.
Halacha 15
When the Temple was destroyed, [the Sages] ordained that the lulav be taken everywhere for the entire seven days of the festival, as a remembrance of the Temple.
On each day, one recites the blessing on it:
[Baruch Attah Ado-nai...] asher kid'shanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu al netilat lulav.
because it a mitzvah ordained by the Rabbis.
This enactment, like the other enactments instituted by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai when the Temple was destroyed [is only temporary]. When the Temple is rebuilt, these matters will return to their original status.
Commentary Halacha 15
When the Temple was destroyed, [the Sages] ordained that the lulav be taken everywhere for the entire seven days of the festival as a remembrance of the Temple. - Sukkah 41a explains the source for the establishment of remembrances for the Temple practices:
[Jeremiah 30:17] states: "'I will restore health to you. I will heal you of your wounds," says God. 'Because they called you an outcast. Zion, for whom no one cares.'The verse states "for whom no one cares," implying that a show of our care is required.
On this basis, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai established a number of practices in remembrance of the Temple practices.
On each day - but only once a day (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim651:5).
one recites the blessing on it: [Baruch Attah Ado-nai...] asher kid'shanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu al netilat lulav. - As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 6, the Rambam explains in Hilchot Berachot 11:15 that it is preferable to conclude the blessing, litol lulav. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam's present statement is only a reference to his previous one, and not a reversal of his opinion. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim651:5) and all later authorities recommend reciting al netilat lulav.
because it a mitzvah ordained by the Rabbis. - In Hilchot Berachot 11:3, the Rambam writes that a blessing should be recited before the performance of a Rabbinic commandment. It is appropriate to say v'tzivanu (and He commanded us) because the commandment to follow the Sages includes the observance of all their enactments.
This enactment, like the other enactments instituted by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai when the Temple was destroyed [is only temporary]. When the Temple is rebuilt, these matters will return to their original status. -The Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah 2:7, states this concept explicitly. It is also obvious from Beitzah 5b, which explains that "when in the near future, the Temple will be rebuilt," difficulties may arise from following Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's decree.
Halacha 16
While the Temple was standing, the lulav would be taken [in the holy place even] when the first day of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath. The same applies in other places where they were certain that this day was celebrated as a holiday in Eretz Yisrael. However, the places which were distantly removed from Jerusalem would not take the lulav on this day because of the doubt involved.
Commentary Halacha 16
While the Temple was standing - and the day when a new month began was established through the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.
the lulav would be taken [in the holy place - i.e., the city of Jerusalem
even] when the first day of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath. - as stated above in Halachah 13.
The same applies in other places - throughout Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora
where they were certain that this day - the fifteenth of Tishre
was celebrated as a holiday in Eretz Yisrael. - As mentioned in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, Chapter 3, the Sanhedrin would send messengers to all Jewish communities to inform them when each new month had begun. The communities which received this information before the Sukkot festival celebrated the holidays for only one day. They would be allowed to take the lulav when the first day of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath.
Sukkot 41b relates:
When the first day of the festival fell on the Sabbath, everyone would bring their lulav to the synagogue [on Friday]. On the following day, everyone would recognize his lulav and take it.
This was the practice outside Jerusalem. Sukkot 42b describes the practice in the Temple.
They would bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount [on Friday]. The attendants would take them from them and place them on benches. The elders would place their lulavim in chambers. They would teach them to say: "Whoever receives my lulav may consider it as a gift."In the morning, they would arise and come [to the Temple]. The attendants would throw [the lulavim] to the people. They would grab them from one another and even come to violence. When the court saw that the situation was becoming dangerous, they ordained that each person should take [the lulav] in his own home.
However, the places which were distantly removed from Jerusalem - and were not informed of the day on which Rosh Hashanah had fallen, would celebrate two days. Therefore, they...
would not take the lulav on this day because of the doubt - whether or not the day was, in fact, Sukkot
involved. - i.e., had they known for sure that the holiday began on this day, they would have taken the lulav. However, since they were not sure of that fact, the Sages did not want to risk the possible violation of the Sabbath laws.
Halacha 17
When the Temple was destroyed, the Sages forbade even the inhabitants ofEretz Yisrael who had sanctified the new month to take the lulav on the Sabbath on the first day of Sukkot.
[This was instituted] because of the inhabitants of the distant settlements, who were not aware of when the new month had been declared. Thus, a uniform guideline was established, rather than having some take the lulav on the Sabbath and some not. [The guiding principle was] that the obligation [of taking the lulav] on the first day applies in all places, and there is no longer a Temple to use as a point of distinction.
Commentary Halacha 17
When the Temple was destroyed - even though the new moon was still sanctified according to the testimony of witnesses. (That practice continued several hundred years after the destruction of the Temple - Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3.)
the Sages forbade even the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael who had sanctified the new month - and thus knew that they were certainly obligated to perform the mitzvah
to take the lulav on the Sabbath on the first day of Sukkot - for the reasons mentioned in Halachah 13.
[This was instituted] because of the inhabitants of the distant settlements, who were not aware of when the new month had been declared. Thus, a uniform guideline was established, rather than having some take the lulav on the Sabbath and some not. - The Sages did not want confusion to arise because of a difference in local custom. Accordingly, they were willing to decree that many Jews forego the performance of a mitzvah from the Torah, in order to establish uniformity throughout the Jewish people.
[The guiding principle was] that the obligation [of taking the lulav] on the first day applies in all places - and the people in the distant communities could not take the lulav when the first day fell on the Sabbath because of the doubt involved
and there is no longer a Temple to use as a point of distinction - i.e., while the Temple was standing, the difference in practice between the people living in places where the date of the month was known and those where it was not known could be explained because everyone knew that the lulav was taken on the first day in the Temple. However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was no point of distinction, and the Sages established a totally uniform practice.
The Lechem Mishneh questions why Sages did not institute the celebration of the second day of each festival in Eretz Yisrael as well. If their desire for uniformity of observance was so great, why did they not establish a single practice in this regard as well?
He explains that the Sages were more reluctant to exercise their authority when they had to establish a new practice (קום ועשה) - celebrating an additional day as a festival - than when all that was necessary was to have the people refrain from the performance of a mitzvah (שב ועל תעשה), as in the case of the lulav.
Another concept can be derived from this halachah. The Hebrew word translated as Temple - מקדש - is used by the Rambam to refer to the entire city of Jerusalem. Thus, we can infer from the statement "there is no longer a מקדש" that this distinction is conferred on the holy city only while the Temple is standing.
Halacha 18
At present, when everyone follows a fixed calendar, the matter remains as it was, and the lulav is not taken on the Sabbath in the outlying territories or inEretz Yisrael even on the first day [of the festival]. [This applies] even though everyone knows the actual day of the month.
As explained, the reason for the prohibition of taking the lulav on the Sabbath is a decree lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.
Commentary Halacha 18
At present, when everyone follows a fixed calendar - See Chapter 5 ofHilchot Kiddush Hachodesh.
the matter remains as it was, and the lulav is not taken on the Sabbath in the outlying territories or in Eretz Yisrael - or in Jerusalem
even on the first day [of the festival]. - when the obligation to do so is from the Torah itself.
[This applies] even though everyone knows the actual day of the month. - As mentioned regarding the celebration of the second day of a festival (Beitzah 4b; Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:5), according to Torah law this practice should not be followed. Nevertheless, as a mark of respect for established custom, the practice is continued.
As explained - in Halachah 13,
the reason for the prohibition of taking the lulav on the Sabbath is a decree lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.
Halacha 19
Whoever is obligated to fulfill [the mitzvot of] shofar and sukkah is obligated to take the lulav. Whoever is not obligated regarding shofar and sukkah is not obligated to take the lulav.
A child who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated regarding the lulav by Rabbinic law, in order to train him in the performance of mitzvot.
Commentary Halacha 19
Whoever is obligated to fulfill [the mitzvot of] shofar and sukkah is obligated to take the lulav. Whoever is not obligated regarding shofar and sukkah is not obligated to take the lulav. - i.e., the lulav, like the shofar and the sukkah, is a positive commandment whose observance is restricted to a specific time. Accordingly, women and slaves are under no obligation. (See Halachot 2:1 and 6:1.)
A child who knows how to shake [the lulav] - according to the instructions of our Sages (Rabbenu Manoach). (See Halachot 9 and 10.)
is obligated - See the note on Halachah 6:1.
regarding lulav by Rabbinic law, in order to train him in the performance of mitzvot. - Note the specific instructions in Halachah 8:10 regarding a child's performance of the mitzvah on the first day of the festival.
Halacha 20
It is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Mount Sinai that - in addition to the willow of the lulav - another willow branch was taken in the Temple. A person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav.
The minimum requirement [to fulfill this mitzvah] is one branch with one leaf.
Commentary Halacha 20
It is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Mount Sinai - i.e., a commandment that has the status of Torah law even though there is no explicit commandment to that effect in the Torah.
that - in addition to the willow of the lulav - There is another totally different mitzvah performed with the willow.
another willow branch was brought in the Temple. - as described in the following halachot.
Rashi and Tosafot, (Sukkah 43b) explain that the mitzvah of the willow branch was only performed by the priests for only they were allowed to approach the Temple altar where the branches were arranged. However, from halachah 22, it appears that the Rambam does not share this opinion.
Sukkah 44a, b also mentions that outside the Temple there was a custom of established in the time of the prophets requiring the taking of the willow by all Jews. (See also Hilchot Berachot 11:16.)
A person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav - even if after using for the lulav, he detaches it and takes it by itself (Sukkah44b, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 664:6).
Halacha 21
How was this mitzvah performed?
On each of the seven days [of the festival], branches of willows were brought and stood upright near the altar with their tops bent over the altar. When they would bring them and arrange them [near the altar,] a series of [shofar blasts] -teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah - were sounded.
When the Sabbath fell in the midst of the festival, the willows would not be arranged [near the altar] unless the seventh day fell on the Sabbath. [On such an occasion,] the willows were arranged [near the altar], to publicize the fact that [taking] them is a mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha 21
How was this mitzvah performed? On each of the seven days [of the festival], branches of willows were brought - from Motza, a small town slightly west of Jerusalem (Sukkah 45a).
and stood upright near the altar - From this fact, Rashi and Tosafot conclude that the willows were taken by priests only because Israelites were not allowed to approach the Temple altar.
with their tops bent over the altar. - These willow branches were eleven cubits high and were placed on the base of the altar.
Afterwards, they would be taken by the people, as stated in the following halachah. Rabbenu Manoach maintains that the priests would take the willow branches and give them to the people because Israelites were not allowed to approach the altar, as above. However, he notes that Rav Yitzchak ibn Giat's description of the mitzvah could be interpreted to mean that the Israelites themselves were permitted to approach the altar on this occasion.
When they would bring them and arrange them [near the altar,] a series of [shofar blasts] - teki'ah, teru'ah, and teki'ah - were sounded - as an expression of happiness (Tosafot, Sukkah, ibid.). The shofar was also sounded in connection with the communal sacrifices and other rites carried out in the Temple.
When the Sabbath fell in the midst of the festival, the willows would not be arranged [near the altar] - on the Sabbath, since the mitzvah of lulav was negated on such an occasion (Halachah 13). Indeed, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:3), the Rambam writes that the reason the mitzvah of taking the willow on the Sabbath was negated was so that people would not extend the leniency and take the lulav as well.
unless the seventh day fell on the Sabbath. - The seventh day of Sukkot falls on the Sabbath only when Rosh Hashanah is celebrated on Sunday. Since the Sages attempted to prevent the latter occurrence (Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 7:7) - indeed, it is impossible according to today's fixed calendar - it was rare that the seventh day of Sukkot would fall on the Sabbath.
[On such an occasion,] the willows were arranged [near the altar] - and the willows were taken as during the week. Though the mitzvah of lulav would not be performed on such an occasion, an exception was made regarding the willows, in order...
to publicize the fact that [taking] them is a mitzvah. - Since the willows were placed near the altar by the priests, and the performance of the mitzvah was under the supervision of the court, there was no need to worry about people carrying willows in the public domain (Sukkah 43b).
In a related context, Sukkah 43b relates that the followers of Boethus, who did not respect the Oral Law, once tried to prevent the people from following the mitzvah of the willow branches on the Sabbath. Indeed, precisely because the source for the mitzvah is the oral tradition alone, the Sages made a point of allowing it to be observed on the Sabbath at least under such circumstances (Rabbenu Manoach).
The actual performance of the mitzvah on the Sabbath is described in the following halachah.
Halacha 22
How would they fulfill [this mitzvah on the Sabbath]?
They would bring [the branches] to the Temple on the Sabbath eve and place them in golden containers, so their leaves would not dry out. On the following morning, they would be placed next to the altar and the people would take them in the same manner as they did each day.
Since the willow is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, it is not taken on each of the seven days of the festival as a remembrance of the Temple. Rather, at present it is taken only on the seventh day.
What is done? One takes one branch or many branches in addition to the willow of the lulav, and hits the ground or a utensil with them two or three times. No blessing is recited, because this practice is a custom instituted by the prophets.
Commentary Halacha 22
How would they fulfill [this mitzvah on the Sabbath]? They would bring [the branches] to the Temple on the Sabbath eve and place them in golden containers so their leaves would not dry out. - Some commentaries explain that the golden vessels were used as an expression of respect for the mitzvah. However, the Ma'aseh Rokeach explains that, in comparison to containers made of other metals, golden ones are more beneficial in preserving the willows' freshness.
On the following morning, they would be placed next to the altar, and the people would take them in the same manner as they did each day. - Note the commentary on the previous halachah.
Since the willow is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah - The Maggid Mishneh's text of the Mishneh Torah reads: "it is not explicitly [an obligation] from the Torah." Accordingly, he and the other commentators debated whether the Rambam considers a halachah conveyed by Moses from Mt. Sinai as a Torah obligation or not. In Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:10, the Rambam specifically states that a halachah conveyed by tradition has the power of Torah law.
it is not taken on each of the seven days of the festival as a remembrance of the Temple - as is the lulav (Halachah 15).
Rather, at present it is taken only on the seventh day. - Hoshanah Rabbah.
What is done - to fulfill the mitzvah at present?
One takes one - willow
branch or many branches - At present, it is customary to take five.
in addition to the willow of the lulav and hits the ground - The Zoharmentions this practice
or a utensil with them two or three times. - According to Kabbalah, the custom is to hit the ground five times.
No blessing is recited, because this practice is a custom instituted by the prophets. - In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:3), the Rambam writes: "The willow is a halachah conveyed by Moses....It was a custom of the prophets to take it without a blessing."
However, in Hilchot Berachot 11:15, he writes:
Every practice which is a custom - even if it a custom of the prophets (e.g., taking the willow on the seventh day of the festival)... - [does not require] the recitation of a blessing.
It is possible to reconcile the two statements as follows: A blessing was never recited upon taking the willow in the Temple (though it could have been), because of the custom of the prophets mentioned in his Commentary on the Mishnah. There was never any reason to recite a blessing over taking the willow outside the Temple because it was only a custom.
Halacha 23
On each day of the festival, they would walk around the altar once, carrying their lulavim in their hands, reciting: "Please, God, save us. Please, God, grant us success" [Psalms 118:25]. On the seventh day, they would walk around the altar seven times.
It has become universally accepted Jewish custom to place the ark in the center of the synagogue and walk around it each day, as they walked around the altar in remembrance of the Temple [service].
Commentary Halacha 23
On each day of the festival - in the Temple
they - There is a question if this practice was carried out only by the priests, or by Israelites as well. (See the commentary on Halachah 21.)
would walk around the altar once, carrying their lulavim - Sukkah 43b mentions an opinion that states that the people would walk around the altar carrying the willow branch, but concludes as the Rambam does. (See alsoShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 664:4.)
in their hands, reciting: "Please, God, save us. Please, God, grant us success" - Many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state "Please, God, save us" twice, repeating that verse as is our custom in the recitation of Hallel.
On the seventh day, they would walk around the altar seven times. - TheYalkut Shimoni notes that this recalls the miracle of the conquest of Jericho.
It has become universally accepted Jewish custom to place the ark in the center of the synagogue - From Hilchot Tefillah 11:3, it appears that in addition to the main ark of the synagogue, there was a small movable ark that was positioned in the center of the synagogue. The present custom is to hold the Torah scrolls on the reader's platform in the center of the synagogue. This is also mentioned in the Yalkut Shimoni: "The chazan stands as an angel of God, holding the Torah scroll in his arm."
and walk around it each day - once, and seven times on Hoshanah Rabbah.
as they walked around the altar in remembrance of the Temple [service].
Halacha 24
The following custom was observed in Jerusalem: A person would leave his house in the morning [carrying] his lulav in his hand. He would enter the synagogue with it in his hand; pray while it was in his hand; go to visit the sick and comfort the mourners with it in his hand. When he entered the House of Study, he would send it home with his son or servant.
Commentary Halacha 24
The following custom was observed in Jerusalem - as an expression of the dearness with which the people regarded the mitzvah:
A person would leave his house in the morning [carrying] his lulav in his hand. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 652:1) states that "the eager" fulfill the mitzvah of lulav early in the morning. Afterwards, the lulav would be carried - while open, without a carrying case - throughout the day.
He would enter the synagogue with it in his hand; pray while it was in his hand - Even though one should not ordinarily hold any objects in one's hands while praying, lest one's concentration be distracted, since holding the lulav is a mitzvah dear to a Jew's heart, it will not become a distraction.
go to visit the sick and comfort the mourners with it in his hand - for there is no difficulty in carrying the lulav while fulfilling those mitzvot.
When he entered the House of Study, he would send it home with his son or servant. - We fear that a person's involvement in his studies will prevent him from showing proper attention to the lulav, and perhaps he will drop it (Rashi,Sukkah, ibid.).
Halacha 25
During the time the lulav was taken on the Sabbath, a woman was allowed to receive the lulav from her son or her husband and return it to the water on the Sabbath. On the festival, a person might add to the water. On Chol Hamo'ed, one might change the water.
Commentary Halacha 25
42a).
During the time the lulav was taken on the Sabbath - See Halachot 13 and 14. At present, it is forbidden to carry the lulav on the Sabbath (Ramah, Orach Chayim 558:2).
a woman was allowed to receive the lulav from her son or her husband -Though she was not required to fulfill the mitzvah herself, no prohibition was instituted against her carrying the lulav.
and return it to the water on the Sabbath. - This was not considered a violation of the Sabbath laws which prevent causing any agricultural growth. However, it was forbidden to add to the water or change it on the Sabbath because of the trouble involved.
On the festival, a person might add to the water. - but not change it.
On Chol Hamo'ed - though there are certain restrictions against work
one might change the water. - Indeed, it is proper to do so to keep the lulav fresh (Rabbenu Manoach).
Halacha 26
It is forbidden to smell the myrtle in the lulav. Since it is useful only for smelling and it has been set aside for the performance of the mitzvah, it is forbidden to smell it. However, it is permitted to smell an etrog, because setting it aside for the mitzvah [prohibits it from being] eaten.
Commentary Halacha 26
It is forbidden to smell the myrtle in the lulav. - As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 15, with regard to the s'chach of a sukkah: after it has been set aside for use as a mitzvah, it may not be used for mundane purposes throughout the holiday.
Since it is useful only for smelling - in contrast to the etrog, mentioned in the second clause.
and it has been set aside for the performance of the mitzvah, it is forbidden to smell it. - The prohibition applies even on the Sabbath, when the lulav is not taken (Mishnah Berurah 653:2).
However, it is permitted to smell an etrog, because setting it aside for the mitzvah [prohibits it from being] eaten. - An etrog is primarily used for eating. Thus, its being set aside for use for the mitzvah causes that function to be prohibited. However, smelling it is a secondary function that is not included in that prohibition.
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 653:1) recommends refraining from smelling the etrog, because of the doubt regarding the proper blessing to recite. The Mishnah Berurah (653:3) states that with the exception of the time when the lulav is being taken, one may smell the etrog throughout the holiday.
Halacha 27
It is forbidden to eat the etrog throughout the seventh day [of the festival]; since it was set aside for a portion of the day, it is set aside for the entire day. However, on the eighth day it is permitted to be eaten.
At present, when we celebrate [the festivals for] two days - even though the etrog is not taken on the eighth day - the etrog is forbidden on the eighth day, since it was forbidden on the eighth day during the time [the festivals] were celebrated for two days because of the doubt whether [the eighth day] was, in fact, the seventh.
When a person sets aside seven etrogim, [one for each] of the seven days [of the festival], each one of them can be used for the mitzvah on its day and eaten on the morrow.
Commentary Halacha 27
It is forbidden to eat the etrog - even if it has become unacceptable for use in performing the mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 665:1).
throughout the seventh day [of the festival] - The Mishnah (Sukkah 4:6) relates that despite this prohibition, after the mitzvah was fulfilled on the seventh day of Sukkot the children would eat their etrogim.
since it was set aside for a portion of the day, it is set aside for the entire day. However, on the eighth day it is permitted to be eaten. - In contrast, the s'chach of the sukkah might not be used for a mundane purpose on the eighth day either (Chapter 6, Halachah 15). Rabbenu Manoach explains the difference, relating that - should one desire to eat - the sukkah must also be used beyn hash'mashot - the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars - while the lulav would not be taken during that time.
At present, when we celebrate [the festivals for] two days - because of the previously established custom, even though there is no question regarding the dates of the holidays because of the fixed calendar we use, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 18.
even though the etrog is not taken on the eighth day - The Maggid Mishneh notes the contrast between the mitzvot of lulav and of the sukkah, which, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 13, must be fulfilled on the eighth day of the festival. He differentiates between the two, noting that it is a mitzvah from the Torah to dwell in the sukkah for all seven days of the holiday. Therefore, because of the doubt, that mitzvah was also observed on the eighth day. In contrast, outside of Jerusalem there was never a mitzvah from the Torah to take the lulav for seven days. Hence, that mitzvah need not be observed on the eighth day.
The Kessef Mishneh adds a further point. It is forbidden to carry the lulav for no purpose on the eighth day, the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. No such prohibition applies regarding the use of the sukkah.
the etrog is forbidden on the eighth day - However, it is permitted on the ninth day, Simchat Torah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).
In contrast, at present, the use of the s'chach is forbidden on the ninth day.
since it was forbidden on the eighth day - The Kessef Mishneh advises amending the text to read "on the seventh day." In either case, the intent is the same - because it was forbidden by law on the seventh day, that prohibition was observed on the eighth day as well, because of the doubt involved.
during the time [the festivals] were celebrated for two days because of the doubt whether [the eighth day] was, in fact, the seventh. - i.e., during the time when the calendar was established according to the testimony of witnesses, and word of the sanctification of the new moon could not reach the people in the outlying communities in time for the celebration of the holiday, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 16.
When a person sets aside seven etrogim, [one for each] of the seven days [of the festival], each one of them can be used for the mitzvah on its day and eaten on the morrow - more precisely, even on the night after it was used, for the etrog was set aside only for that day alone.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence.1 Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered aspiggul,2 if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.
Halacha 2
The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.3
What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service.4The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal.5If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.6
If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has an disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.7
They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally,8 as will be explained.9 Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.10
Halacha 3
What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent,11 it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings.12
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy13 while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed,14there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent,15 because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.16
If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.17
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal offering,21 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.
Halacha 7
These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard],22the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim,23 the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers24 of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail.25 Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices.26 This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.
Halacha 8
A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt.
If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services,27 one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable.
What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of itseimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard]28 or on the following day,29 the sacrifice is acceptable.30 [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day.
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable.31Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt,32 outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable.33 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
If34 one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul,35 as we explained.36 If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but notpiggul.37
Halacha 10
The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.38 Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.39
If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion,40 they can be combined because both are called eating.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,41 the eating is combined.42 If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion and at the time of casting [the blood on the altar], he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion, the two intents - whether concerning the place or the time - are combined. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning an olive-sized portion43 at the time he received [the blood] and [such an intent] concerning an olive-sized44portion while bringing [it to the altar, they are combined]. For all the four services [mentioned above]45 are combined and can be considered as a single service.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent regarding offering half an olive-sized portion of the handful [of meal] and [a similar intent] regarding half an olive-sized portion of the frankincense,46 they are combined. For with regard to the meal-offering, the frankincense and the handful [of meal] are considered like the eimorim for an animal sacrifice. Therefore if one had the intent to offer an olive-sized portion of frankincense at an improper time, [the meal-offering] is consideredpiggul, as was be explained.44
Whether one had the intent to cast all [of an animal's] blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day or had the intent to cast [only] a portion of its blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, since he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning the amount of blood sufficient to present on the altar,47 [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Note the parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:22.
|
| 2. |
Vayikra Rabbah 22:7 states that even if the owner "sits and thinks [unacceptable intents] the entire day," the sacrifice is not disqualified.
|
| 3. |
The Rambam proceeds to define each of these concepts.
|
| 4. |
For these undesirable intents disqualify a sacrifice only when they alone are the factors that disqualify it and not when it is disqualified for other reasons [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:1)].
|
| 5. |
For it is disqualified and must be disposed.
|
| 6. |
He should then bring it to the altar and cast it upon it. The sacrifice is then acceptable. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 27-28, the rationale is that "individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants." Hence it is as if the blood of the sacrifice had never been taken.
|
| 7. |
Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
|
| 8. |
E.g., a burnt-offering is offered with the intent that it is a peace-offering.
|
| 9. |
Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
|
| 10. |
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is implying that since the sacrifice is acceptable in these instances, even though in other instances, such a change in intent would disqualify it, a person who is not fit for Temple service is considered just like one who is. His intent is significant and could disqualify the sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions on what the Rambam bases this principle.
|
| 11. |
I.e., with the intent that it be offered as another type of meal-offering.
|
| 12. |
I.e., all of the other meal-offerings were brought from wheat and thus the barley used for the omeroffering is unfit to be used for other meal-offerings. Hence even if one had the intent to offer it as another type of offering, that intent is of no consequence. (The meal-offering of a sotah is also brought from barley, but there are fundamental differences between it and the omer offering.)
The Rambam's understanding is based on his understanding of Menachot 5b which states that the omer offering is a chidush, something new and different than other meal-offerings, for it is from barley, as explained. The Ra'avad follows a different version of the text which states that the omeroffering is different, because it is brought from chadash, wheat from the new harvest.
There is an advantage to the Ra'avad's understanding, because - as he explains - according to the Rambam, the same rationale could seemingly be used with regard to the sotah offering mentioned in the second clause of the halachah. There would be no necessity to mention frankincense. The Kessef Mishneh favors the Rambam's version and explains that by mentioning frankincense, our Sages (and the Rambam) chose one of two possible answers. They could also have stated that it is unfit to be used for other offerings.
|
| 13. |
The term used by Numbers 5:15,18 to describe the meal-offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery.
|
| 14. |
It is forbidden to place frankincense on this offering (Numbers 5:15). Thus before the offering is brought, the frankincense must be removed and until it is removed, the offering is not fit. Hence, whatever intent the person has concerning the offering at that time is of no consequence.
|
| 15. |
And it may be offered when the altar is repaired.
|
| 16. |
This applies even if he had this intent while performing service in the Temple Courtyard. Since the altar is not fit for sacrifices to be offered upon it, the place is not considered as fit for service.
|
| 17. |
Because the act was performed outside the Temple Courtyard, a place where sacrificial service may not be performed.
|
| 18. |
The definitions given in this and the following two halachot are necessary to understand the laws stated in Halachot 8-10 (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 19. |
The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's wording is not exact, for although the blood is presented on the altar, it is not "offered on the altar's pyre."
|
| 20. |
The fats and organs offered on the altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:18).
|
| 21. |
I.e., what remains after the handful is removed.
|
| 22. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices.
|
| 23. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.
|
| 24. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed. [The Mishnah there uses the termmourah. The spelling of that term is important, for some spell it in the same way as a term the Rambam translates as referring to one of a fowl's stomachs.]
|
| 25. |
In the above source, the Rambam explains that when the feathers are removed from these places, they remain dry projections that are unfit for consumption unless the fowl is very fat.
|
| 26. |
Similarly, they are not considered as meat with regard to the prohibitions against partaking of forbidden foods and the laws of ritual purity. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:18, 9:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:7.
|
| 27. |
See Halachah 2 above.
|
| 28. |
I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the place.
|
| 29. |
I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the time.
|
| 30. |
Because the substances mentioned are not usually eaten.
|
| 31. |
For these entities are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
|
| 32. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices.
|
| 33. |
Because these sacrifices are not fit to be eaten. With regard to a disqualifying intent while burning these sacrifices, see Chapter 13, Halachah 8.
|
| 34. |
While performing one of the four services mentioned previously.
|
| 35. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that, as stated in the following halachah, our Sages considered an animal's consumption as "eating." Hence consumption by such individuals will certainly fall into that category.
|
| 36. |
In Chapter 13, Halachah 1. The fact that the person who was intended to partake of the sacrifice or offer it was impure or disqualified is not significant.
|
| 37. |
See Chapter 13 which explains that the concept of piggul applies only when the disqualifying intent applies time alone.
|
| 38. |
An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1;Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
|
| 39. |
Because his forbidden intent is of no consequence.
|
| 40. |
Zevachim 31b refers to II Kings 9:10 as support for the concept that consumption by animals can be termed achilah.
|
| 41. |
I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. Generally, if a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized portion beyond this time span, it is not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat prasas 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur.
|
| 42. |
For here the emphasis is not on the person's activity of eating, but on the sacrifice being eaten (Kin'at Eliyahu).
|
| 43. |
The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read "half an olive-sized portion" and in that way fit the context of the entire halachah. The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah, however, indicate that all of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torahspeak of an olive-sized portion.
|
| 44. |
An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1;Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
|
| 45. |
See Halachah 2 above.
|
| 46. |
The Mishneh LiMelech notes that in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the Rambam writes that two grains of frankincense are sufficient for a meal-offering to be considered acceptable. Seemingly, then, that amount should also be enough to disqualify such an offering.
|
| 47. |
I.e.,. a very small amount.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices1 - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable,2 but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.3If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, he brings it to altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained.4
What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon.5
When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence.6
Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable,7 but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable.
Halacha 2
Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner8 and a meal offering of a sotah.9If while performing one of the four services10 one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable.11
What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan.12 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained.13 Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose.14
Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner.15
And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to God, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner,16 it is not acceptable.
And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering."17 And with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah, [Numbers 5:15] states: "It is a meal-offering [resulting from] envy." [The implication is that] all of the actions associated with them must be performed for that purpose.
Halacha 4
When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
Halacha 5
According to the Oral Tradition,18 was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.
Halacha 6
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.19
Halacha 7
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering,20 it is unacceptable.
Halacha 8
If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burnt-offering ,21 it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.
[The concept mentioned previously22 derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.
Halacha 9
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices].23
Halacha 10
If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant].26 Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
Halacha 11
A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal27 - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,'28
When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day29 for a different intent, it is unacceptable.30 If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable.31
[If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year32 and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.
Halacha 13
When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering,33 but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.
Halacha 14
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation,34for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.35
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams,38 the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation.39 If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.40
Halacha 17
When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from] tzara'at41was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement,42 accompanying offerings43 are required.44For if it were offered without accompanying offerings, it will be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.
Halacha 18
When the sheep that is brought together with the omer offering45 was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering.46 Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation.47
Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood48 should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.
Halacha 19
When the sheep offered on Shavout49 where slaughtered for a different intent or they were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten50 even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar].51 If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.
Halacha 20
Similarly when the peace-offerings of a nazirite were offered for a different intent, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation, they are eaten for a day and a night52 and do not require bread.53 Similarly, when the guilt-offering of a nazirite or the guilt-offering of one [to be purified from] tzara'at54 were offered for a different intent, they are eaten, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The mention of communal sacrifices represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1, which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that a communal sacrifice slaughtered for a different intent fulfills the community's obligation. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura also follows this view. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text). Note also Rabbi Akiva Eiger's gloss who questions the initial version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.
|
| 2. |
Hence, even if one slaughtered an animal designated as a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, one should continue performing all the subsequent tasks for the sake of a burnt-offering [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. See Halachah 3.
|
| 3. |
See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.
|
| 4. |
Chapter 13, Halachah 4.
|
| 5. |
See Halachah 3 which explains the derivation of this concept. The Mishneh LiMelech questions the Rambam's equation of sacrifices offered for a different purpose than they were originally designated and those offered for the sake of a different person. There is, he explains, a fundamental difference between them. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of another person, the owner is still considered to have fulfilled his obligation. It is only when the blood is cast on the altar for the sake of another person that he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be interpreted as referring to an instance when one slaughtered the animal with the intent to cast its blood on the altar for the sake of another person.
|
| 6. |
This also represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that if an intent is supplanted in error, it is considered to be supplanted. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text).
|
| 7. |
This applies even if its blood was presented on the lower portion of the altar as is the blood of a sin-offering.
|
| 8. |
I.e., the mal-offering brought by a transgressor obligated to bring an adjustable guilt-offering who is very poor. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 10.
|
| 9. |
A woman suspected of adultery. This meal-offering is comparable to that of a sinner.
|
| 10. |
Mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 6.
|
| 11. |
See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.
|
| 12. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 13, for a description of the differences between these offerings.
|
| 13. |
Chapter 18, Halachah 1.
|
| 14. |
The rationale is that since the sacrifice is acceptable, its functions must be performed for the proper intent.
|
| 15. |
Zevachim 7a interprets the phrase cited as implying: for him and not for his colleague. See Halachah 8.
|
| 16. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), the Rambam states that the first verse teaches that the offering must be brought as a Paschal sacrifice and the second, that it must be brought for the sake of its owner. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions only the second verse and states that a Paschal sacrifice that is not offered for the proper purpose is unacceptable. See also Halachah 11.
|
| 17. |
Our text reflects an amended version. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah contains a different prooftext.
|
| 18. |
Zevachim 46b derives this principle through Biblical exegesis.
|
| 19. |
I.e., even though it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, since it was not slaughtered for the sake of the sin for which the animal was originally designated, it is unacceptable.
|
| 20. |
Since this is a different type of sacrifice, one might think that the situation is comparable to that stated in the following halachah, slaughtering a sin-offering for the sake of a person obligated to bring a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since both offerings atone for sins punishable by karet, they are considered as comparable. Hence the sacrifice is disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 9b).
|
| 21. |
To atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment.
|
| 22. |
I.e., the law stated in Halachah 7. From this concept, it is also possible to derive the law stated in this halachah, for the implication is that when one offers a sin-offering for the sake of another person who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, it is disqualified, but not when one offers it for the sake of another person who is not so obligated (Zevachim 7a).
|
| 23. |
Hence the deceased person is not considered as obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore, this is not considered as an instance where one offered a sacrifice for the sake of another person obligated to bring a sacrifice.
|
| 24. |
A burnt-offering to atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment.
|
| 25. |
Hence he is considered to be obligated to bring a sacrifice.
Zevachim 71-7b explains that there is a difference between such a situation and a person who knows he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering (in which instance, the sin-offering is not disqualified, as stated in the previous halachah). When the person knows he must bring a burnt-offering, his atonement is associated with that offering only. When, however, he does not know that he must bring a burnt-offering, he will not seek atonement. Hence, the sin-offering he brings will bring him a certain measure of atonement for the positive commandments he did not perform. For as stated in Halachah 14, everyone has certain positive commandments that he has failed to fulfill.
|
| 26. |
The Mishneh LiMelech restricts the scope of the Rambam's statements, maintaining that if at the time of slaughter or the performance of one of the other three services mentioned in Halachah 2, one has a disqualifying intent concerning receiving the blood or bringing it to the altar, the sacrifice is still acceptable.
|
| 27. |
The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, because even a sin-offering is acceptable when slaughtered as an ordinary animal. The Kessef Mishneh states that the phrase "unto God" in the prooftext excludes slaughtering the animal for ordinary purposes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud which states that the phrase "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice' excludes all other intents.
|
| 28. |
See Halachot 1 and 3.
|
| 29. |
The Paschal sacrifice may not be sacrificed until the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. Nevertheless, since it is offered on that day, the morning is considered "the time of its sacrifice" with regard to the disqualification of an offering.
|
| 30. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Zevachim 1:3. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam maintaining that the more lenient opinion should be accepted. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the Rambam accepted the more stringent view because it is debated in the Talmud.
|
| 31. |
For if it was slaughtered at such a time, it is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering that was slaughtered with a different intent is acceptable.
In the clause which follows, the sacrifice is unacceptable, because there is no one to partake of it and a Paschal sacrifice is brought only to be eaten (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 2).
|
| 32. |
At this age, it is no longer fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice.
|
| 33. |
See Leviticus 7:15 which speaks of "the thanksgiving-peace sacrifice."
|
| 34. |
For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 35. |
And atonement for these unknown faults will be secured by this sacrifice.
|
| 36. |
The heir.
|
| 37. |
For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 38. |
As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.
|
| 39. |
And two other sheep must be brought.
|
| 40. |
As stated in Halachah 1.
|
| 41. |
A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.
|
| 42. |
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.
|
| 43. |
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.
|
| 44. |
Even though the person has not fulfilled his obligation and must bring another sacrifice, he is required to bring the accompanying offerings, for the reason mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 45. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3.
|
| 46. |
As would be required were it offered for the specified intent (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:5).
|
| 47. |
In contrast to the guilt-offering mentioned in the previous halachah, it is customary to bring burnt-offerings as freewill offerings. Hence, the accompanying offerings should be brought accordingly.
|
| 48. |
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:2-3.
|
| 49. |
As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.
|
| 50. |
The commentaries note that it is forbidden to offer the eimorim on the festival and question whether the intent is that the meat may be eaten on the festival or whether it is necessary to wait until the evening.
|
| 51. |
For only obligatory sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath.
|
| 52. |
Like the peace-offerings of a nazirite, rather than for a two days and a night like other peace offerings.
|
| 53. |
Bread must be brought with the peace-offerings of a nazirite (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1).
|
| 54. |
A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16
Halacha 1
We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.
When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4
What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, If one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5
Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.
The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place is combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.
Halacha 2
When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;
an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8
half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or
half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but notpiggul.
Halacha 3
If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10
Halacha 4
If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] ispiggul.11
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12
Halacha 5
If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained.13 If one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15 [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
Halacha 6
If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,
[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,
he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or
he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16
Since we have explained in these halachot17 that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood which was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18[There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
Halacha 7
If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19 [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].
Halacha 8
If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20 Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is notpiggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.
If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21
Halacha 9
If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23
Halacha 10
When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24 and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are notpiggul.25If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26
Halacha 11
If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27 and thus it is piggul or it was not established28 and it is not piggul.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Chapter 13, Halachah 1.
|
| 2. |
Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah.
|
| 3. |
Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul.
|
| 4. |
As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.
|
| 5. |
I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first, as long as another intent is mixed together with the intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. InZevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.
|
| 6. |
More precisely, that the meat be eaten whether by himself or by someone else.
|
| 7. |
See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.
|
| 8. |
Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time.
|
| 9. |
As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined.
|
| 10. |
In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.
The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text.
|
| 11. |
I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. The fact that - had the person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, the first half portion would have been combined with the second half portion is not of consequence Ravva (Zevachim31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.".
|
| 12. |
Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded.
|
| 13. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 14. |
Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent the sacrifice from being considered aspiggul.
|
| 15. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is not piggul.
|
| 16. |
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.
It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.
|
| 17. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 18. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
|
| 19. |
Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought.
|
| 20. |
For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggul only when one thinks of it while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah.
|
| 21. |
Even though neither of the intents in their own right would cause the sacrifice to be considered aspiggul, when combined, they have this effect.
To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.
|
| 22. |
As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable.
|
| 23. |
There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance in Menachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 24. |
Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10.
|
| 25. |
Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed.
|
| 26. |
Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar.
|
| 27. |
For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.)
|
| 28. |
For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering.
|
• Friday, Sivan 18, 5775 · 0 June /2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'lach, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 88-89.
Tanya: From the inclusion (p. 303)...in the sun. (p. 305).
This is the actual time of the "footsteps of Mashiach."1 It is therefore imperative for every Jew to seek his fellow's welfare - whether old or young - to inspire the other to teshuva(return), so that he will not fall out - G-d forbid - of the community of Israel who will shortly be privileged, with G-d's help, to experience complete redemption.
FOOTNOTES
1. The final age prior to Mashiach's advent.
Daily Thought:
Strong Inside
The ego is not a source of strength. It is weakness in disguise.
Inside there is invincible strength. Remove the cloud of the mind’s ego, and the inner power will be free to shine.
___________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment