Daily Quote:
No man is appointed as an authority over the community unless there is something objectionable in his past, lest he lord over the community[Talmud]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behaalotecha, 4th Portion Numbers 9:15-10:10 with Rashi
• Chapter 9
15On the day the Mishkan was erected, the cloud covered the Mishkan, which was a tent for the Testimony, and at evening, there was over the Mishkan like an appearance of fire, [which remained] until morning. טווּבְיוֹם הָקִים אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כִּסָּה הֶעָנָן אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן לְאֹהֶל הָעֵדֻת וּבָעֶרֶב יִהְיֶה עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמַרְאֵה אֵשׁ עַד בֹּקֶר:
the Mishkan which was a tent for the Testimony: The Mishkan served as a tent over the tablets of the Testimony. המשכן לאהל העדת: המשכן העשוי להיות אהל ללוחות העדות:
there was over the Mishkan: Heb. יִהְיֶה. In the sense of being continuously over the Mishkan. Such [is the meaning of] the expression in the entire passage. יהיה על המשכן: כמו הווה על המשכן, וכן כל לשון הפרשה:
16So it was always, the cloud covered it and there was an appearance of fire at night. טזכֵּן יִהְיֶה תָמִיד הֶעָנָן יְכַסֶּנּוּ וּמַרְאֵה אֵשׁ לָיְלָה:
17and according to the cloud's departure from over the Tent, and afterwards, the children of Israel would travel, and in the place where the cloud settled, there the children of Israel would encamp. יזוּלְפִי הֵעָלוֹת הֶעָנָן מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יִסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכָּן שָׁם הֶעָנָן שָׁם יַחֲנוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
the cloud’s departure: הֵעָלוֹת. As the Targum renders, אִסְתַּלְּקוּת, departure. Similarly,“the cloud departed” (verse 21). It would have been incorrect to write, וּלְפִי עֲלוֹת הֶעָנָן [and in verse 21] וְעָלָה הֶעָנָן, for that would not be an expression denoting ‘departure’ but sprouting forth or ascending, as in,“Behold a cloud, small as a man’s palm, rising (עֹלָה) from the sea” (I Kings 18:44). העלות הענן: כתרגומו אסתלקות, וכן ונעלה הענן. ולא יתכן לכתוב ולפי עלות הענן ועלה הענן, שאין זה לשון סלוק אלא צמוח ועלייה, כמו (מלכים א' יח, מד) והנה עב קטנה ככף איש עולה מים:
18At the bidding of the Lord, the children of Israel traveled, and at the bidding of the Lord, they encamped. As long as the cloud hovered above the Mishkan, they encamped. יחעַל פִּי יְהֹוָה יִסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל פִּי יְהֹוָה יַחֲנוּ כָּל יְמֵי אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכֹּן הֶעָנָן עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן יַחֲנוּ:
At the bidding of the Lord…traveled: We learned in the [Baraitha] Melecheth HaMishkan [ch. 13]: When the Israelites traveled, the cloud would fold and spread itself over the tribe of Judah like a beam. They blew a tekiah (long blast), a teruah (series of short blasts), and another tekiah , but it did not move on until Moses declared, “Rise up, O Lord” (10:35), and then the banner of the camp of Judah would travel. This [appears] in the Sifrei. [35] על פי ה' יסעו: שנינו במלאכת המשכן, כיון שהיו ישראל נוסעים היה עמוד הענן מתקפל ונמשך על גבי בני יהודה כמין קורה, תקעו והריעו ותקעו ולא היה מהלך עד שמשה אומר קומה ה', ונסע דגל מחנה יהודה, זו בספרי:
and at the bidding of the Lord they encamped: As soon as the Israelites encamped, the pillar of cloud would mushroom upward and spread itself over the tribe of Judah like a canopy. It would not depart until Moses declared, “Return O Lord, to the myriads of Israel’s thousands” (10:36). This is what is meant by,“according to the Lord’s word, through Moses” (verse 23). - [Melecheth HaMishkan ch. 13] ועל פי ה' יחנו: כיון שהיו ישראל חונים, עמוד הענן מתמר ועולה ונמשך על גבי בני יהודה כמין סוכה, ולא היה נפרש עד שמשה אומר שובה ה' רבבות אלפי ישראל, הוי אומר על פי ה' וביד משה:
19When the cloud lingered over the Mishkan for many days, the children of Israel kept the charge of the Lord and did not travel. יטוּבְהַאֲרִיךְ הֶעָנָן עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן יָמִים רַבִּים וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת יְהֹוָה וְלֹא יִסָּעוּ:
20Sometimes, the cloud remained for several days above the Mishkan; at the Lord's bidding they traveled and at the Lord's bidding they encamped. כוְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן יָמִים מִסְפָּר עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַל פִּי יְהֹוָה יַחֲנוּ וְעַל פִּי יְהֹוָה יִסָּעוּ:
Sometimes: Heb. וְיֵשׁ, lit., [and there is used in the sense of וּפְעָמִים]“and sometimes.” ויש: כלומר ופעמים:
several days: Heb. יָמִים מִסְפָּר, lit., days of number, a few days. ימים מספר: ימים מועטים:
21Sometimes the cloud remained from evening until morning, and when the cloud departed in the morning, they traveled. Or, the cloud remained for a day and a night, and when the cloud departed, they traveled. כאוְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן בַּבֹּקֶר וְנָסָעוּ אוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן וְנָסָעוּ:
22Whether it was for two days, a month or a year, that the cloud lingered to hover over the Mishkan, the children of Israel would encamp and not travel, and when it departed, they traveled. כבאוֹ יֹמַיִם אוֹ חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ יָמִים בְּהַאֲרִיךְ הֶעָנָן עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן לִשְׁכֹּן עָלָיו יַחֲנוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִסָּעוּ וּבְהֵעָלֹתוֹ יִסָּעוּ:
or a year: Heb. יָמִים, a year, as in“Its [period of] redemption shall be a full year (יָמִים)” (Lev. 25:29). או ימים: שנה, כמו (ויקרא כה, כט) ימים תהיה גאולתו:
23At the Lord's bidding they would encamp, and at the Lord's bidding they would travel; they kept the charge of the Lord by the word of the Lord through Moses. כגעַל פִּי יְהֹוָה יַחֲנוּ וְעַל פִּי יְהֹוָה יִסָּעוּ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת יְהֹוָה שָׁמָרוּ עַל פִּי יְהֹוָה בְּיַד משֶׁה:
Chapter 10
1The Lord spoke to Moses saying: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2Make yourself two silver trumpets; you shall make them [from a] beaten [form]; they shall be used by you to summon the congregation and to announce the departure of the camps. בעֲשֵׂה לְךָ שְׁתֵּי חֲצוֹצְרֹת כֶּסֶף מִקְשָׁה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם וְהָיוּ לְךָ לְמִקְרָא הָעֵדָה וּלְמַסַּע אֶת הַמַּחֲנוֹת:
Make yourself: So they should blow before you like a king, as it says, “There was a king among in Jerushun” [Deut. 33:5]. עשה לך: שיהיו תוקעין לפניך כמלך, כמו שנאמר (דברים לג, ה) ויהי בישורון מלך:
Make yourself: From your own resources. עשה לך: משלך:
Make yourself: You make them and use them, but no one else. - [from Midrash Rabbah]) עשה לך: אתה עושה ומשתמש בהם ולא אחר:
To summon the congregation: When you wish to speak with the members of the Sanhedrin court and the rest of the people, and you summon them to gather before you, convene them with the trumpets. למקרא העדה: כשתרצה לדבר עם הסנהדרין ושאר העם ותקראם לאסוף אליך, תקראם ע"י חצוצרות:
And to announce the departure of the camps: At the time the camps are due to depart, blow on them as a signal. It follows that they traveled at the behest of three-at God’s bidding, by the word of Moses and by the call of the trumpets. ולמסע את המחנות: בשעת סלוק מסעות תתקעו בהם לסימן, נמצאת אתה אומר על פי שלשה היו נוסעים, על פי הקב"ה וע"פ משה ועל פי חצוצרות:
Beaten: It should be made out of a single block, by banging it with a hammer. מקשה: מהעשת תעשה בהקשת הקורנס:
3When they blow on them, the entire congregation shall assemble to you, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. גוְתָקְעוּ בָּהֵן וְנוֹעֲדוּ אֵלֶיךָ כָּל הָעֵדָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
When they blow on them: With both of them; it is a signal for the congregation to assemble, as it says, “the entire congregation shall assemble to you, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” ותקעו בהן: בשתיהן והוא סימן למקרא העדה, שנאמר ונועדו אליך כל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד:
4If they blow one of them, the princes, the leaders of Israel's thousands, shall convene to you. דוְאִם בְּאַחַת יִתְקָעוּ וְנוֹעֲדוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַנְּשִׂיאִים רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
If they blow one of them: It is a signal for the princes to assemble, as it says, “the princes…shall assemble to you.” Their meeting point was also at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This is derived by the Sifrei from the rule of inference. ואם באחת יתקעו: הוא סימן למקרא הנשיאים, שנאמר ונועדו אליך הנשיאים. ואף הן יעידתן אל פתח אהל מועד. ומגזרה שוה הוא בא בספרי:
5When you blow a teruah [a series of short blasts, the camps which are encamped to the east shall travel. הוּתְקַעְתֶּם תְּרוּעָה וְנָסְעוּ הַמַּחֲנוֹת הַחֹנִים קֵדְמָה:
When you blow a teruah: [a series of short blasts] The signal for the camps to travel was a tekiah , a teruah and a tekiah . The Sifrei derives this from redundant verses. ותקעתם תרועה: סימן מסע המחנות תקיעה תרועה ותקיעה, כך הוא נדרש בספרי מן המקראות היתרים:
6When you blow a second teruah, the camps encamped to the south shall travel; they shall blow a teruah for traveling. ווּתְקַעְתֶּם תְּרוּעָה שֵׁנִית וְנָסְעוּ הַמַּחֲנוֹת הַחֹנִים תֵּימָנָה תְּרוּעָה יִתְקְעוּ לְמַסְעֵיהֶם:
7But when assembling the congregation, you shall blow a tekiah [long blast] but not a teruah. זוּבְהַקְהִיל אֶת הַקָּהָל תִּתְקְעוּ וְלֹא תָרִיעוּ:
But when assembling the congregation: Because it says, “they shall be used by you to summon the congregation and to announce the departure of the camps” (verse 2). Just as summoning the congregation is done by two priests, and with both trumpets as it says, “they shall blow with them”-so the traveling of the camps was with both of them. I might think that just as [with] the departure of the camps he blows a tekiah , teruah , tekiah , so when summoning the congregation he blows a tekiah , teruah , tekiah , and now there would be no difference between [the signal for] summoning the congregation and [the signal for initiating] the departure of the camps. Scripture therefore teaches, “But when assembling the congregation…” indicating that no teruah is blown to summon the congregation, and the same applies for [convening] the leaders. So there is a signal for all three: Summoning the congregation was with two, and [convening] the princes with one and neither of them included a teruah . Initiating the camps departure was with both-with a teruah and a tekiah . ובהקהיל את הקהל וגו': לפי שהוא אומר והיו לך למקרא העדה ולמסע את המחנות מה מקרא העדה, תוקע בשני כהנים ובשתיהן, שנאמר ותקעו בהן וגו', אף מסע המחנות בשתיהן, יכול מה מסע המחנות תוקע ומריע ותוקע אף מקרא העדה תוקע ומריע ותוקע, ומעתה אין חילוק בין מקרא העדה למסע את המחנות, תלמוד לומר ובהקהיל את הקהל וגו', לימד שאין תרועה למקרא העדה והוא הדין לנשיאים. הרי סימן לשלשתם, מקרא העדה בשתים, ושל נשיאים באחת, וזו וזו אין בהם תרועה, ומסע המחנות בשתים ע"י תרועה ותקיעה:
8The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets; this shall be an eternal statute for your generations. חוּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים יִתְקְעוּ בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:
The descendants of Aaron…shall blow: For these summonings and journeyings. ובני אהרן יתקעו: במקראות ובמסעות הללו:
9If you go to war in your land against an adversary that oppresses you, you shall blow a teruah with the trumpets and be remembered before the Lord your God, and thus be saved from your enemies. טוְכִי תָבֹאוּ מִלְחָמָה בְּאַרְצְכֶם עַל הַצַּר הַצֹּרֵר אֶתְכֶם וַהֲרֵעֹתֶם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹת וְנִזְכַּרְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְנוֹשַׁעְתֶּם מֵאֹיְבֵיכֶם:
10On the days of your rejoicing, on your festivals and on your new-moon celebrations, you shall blow on the trumpets for your ascent-offerings and your peace sacrifices, and it shall be a remembrance before your God; I am the Lord your God. יוּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַתְכֶם וּבְמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם וּבְרָאשֵׁי חָדְשֵׁכֶם וּתְקַעְתֶּם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹת עַל עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְעַל זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
For your ascent-offerings: The verse speaks of communal offerings. - [from Sifrei] על עלתיכם: בקרבן צבור הכתוב מדבר:
I am the Lord your God: From here we learn that [on the New Year Festival (Rosh HaShanah)] the verses proclaiming God’s kingship (מַלְכִיוֹת) [are recited] with [verses of] remembrances (זִכְרוֹנוֹת) and [verses] relating to the shofar (שׁוֹפְרוֹת), for it says,“You shall blow”-this refers to the שׁוֹפְרוֹת;“a remembrance”-this refers to זִכְרוֹנוֹת;“I am the Lord your God”-this refers to מַלְכִיוֹת. - [from Sifrei] אני ה' אלהיכם: מכאן למדנו מלכיות עם זכרונות ושופרות, שנאמר ותקעתם הרי שופרות, לזכרון הרי זכרונות, אני ה' אלהיכם זה מלכיות וכו':Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 79 - 82
• Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 6• Lessons in Tanya
• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5775 · June 3, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 6
Earlier on, in ch. 4, the Alter Rebbe explained that the Supernal attributes of Chesed andGevurah — the former finding expression in the diffusion of the Divine life-force that creates and animates created beings, and the latter finding expression in the obscuring of this life-force from them (so that they conceive of themselves as independently existing beings) — both possess one source. He explained there that since these two attributes are essentially one, thetzimtzum of Gevurah does not truly conceal, for “an entity cannot conceal its own self.”
All this applies to Chesed and Gevurah in the state in which they are found within their source. One might, however, think that in their revealed state (whether in a Sefirah, or in a mortal middah or attribute) they are indeed two separate and opposite entities — revelation and concealment, respectively. The Alter Rebbe therefore goes on to say in this chapter, that even when these attributes are revealed they are still in a state of hitkalelut, mutual incorporation, and both serve to bring about one result — a physical world with corporeal creatures. Were the Divine life-force to be revealed within these creatures they would be completely nullified within their source; there would be no such thing as created beings.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the tzimtzum brought about by Gevurah is also motivated byChesed, for this concealment makes creation possible. Gevurah and Chesed are thus joined in a state of mutual incorporation. What makes this fusion possible is the fact that they are both united with the light of the Ein Sof. Hence, even when they are in a revealed state and appear to be two disparate entities, they are essentially one.
והנה שם אלקים הוא שם מדת הגבורה והצמצום
Now the Name Elokim is the Name which indicates the attribute of Gevurah andtzimtzum,
Each of G‑d’s Names denotes a particular Divine attribute. The Name pronounced Keil, for example, indicates the attribute of Chesed, as in the verse,1 “The kindness of Keil endures throughout the day.” Likewise, the Name that indicates the attribute of Gevurah or tzimtzum isElokim; i.e., when the light of the Ein Sof garbs itself in the attribute of Gevurah to bring about its own tzimtzum and concealment, it is known by the Name Elokim.
ולכן הוא גם כן בגימטריא הטבע
hence it is also numerically equal to hateva (“nature”), which equals 86,
“Nature” signifies the ordered way of the world. Because of its repetitiveness, people become accustomed to it and it arouses no sense of wonder. No thought is given to the Divine power and life-force which is concealed in those things which have an established order and are repeated constantly.
לפי שמסתיר האור שלמעלה, המהוה ומחיה העולם
for it (the Divine Name Elokim) conceals the supernal light that brings the world into existence and gives it life,
The supernal light constantly creates the world ex nihilo — a feat more wondrous than the Splitting of the Red Sea. The Divine Name Elokim, however, conceals this light, so that it will not be visible to created beings,
ונראה כאלו העולם עומד ומתנהג בדרך הטבע
and it appears as though the world exists — without having to be constantly renewed, as if permanently programmed — and is conducted according to the laws of nature,independently of any supernatural influence.
Thus, even those things which are observed to undergo some degree of renewal are also perceived as “the way of nature,” inasmuch as they follow these seemingly immutable laws.
Chassidus explains that the wordטבע (“nature”), has a number of meanings, including “entrenched” and “submerged”. This means that the laws of nature are so “entrenched” in creation that it is difficult to detect the ongoing process of its renewal. Additionally, just as a submerged object is completely concealed by water, so, too, is the Divine life-force utterly “submerged” and concealed within created beings.
ושם אלקים זה
And this Name Elokim, not as it exists in its supernal source, but as it acts through the attribute of Gevurah, so that the world appears to be conducted in a natural manner,
-הוא מגן ונרתק לשם הויה
is a shield and a sheath for the Name Havayah,
The Divine Name Havayah — as mentioned earlier, in explanation of the verse, “For a sun and a shield is Havayah Elokim”— is like the illuminating sun, while the Name Elokimconceals its light as does the sun’s shield, thereby enabling created beings to benefit from it.
-להעלים האור והחיות הנמשך משם הויה, ומהוה מאין ליש
concealing the light and life-force which flows from the Name Havayah and bringing creation into existence from naught, this being the purpose of Havayah, the Name itself meaning “to bring into existence.” This light and life-force is concealed by Elokim:
שלא יתגלה לנבראים, ויבטלו במציאות
so that it should not be revealed to the creatures, which would thereby become absolutely nullified.
Since it is only through the concealment effected by the Name Elokim that created beings are able to exist:
והרי בחינת גבורה זו וצמצום הזה הוא גם כן בחינת חסד, שהעולם יבנה בו
The quality of this2 Gevurah and tzimtzum is also an aspect of Chesed, through which the world is built.
This is an allusion to the verse that states:3 “For I declared that the world be built through [the attribute of] Chesed.” For inasmuch as the world could not possibly have been created without the tzimtzum and concealment afforded by the Divine Name Elokim, it follows that the ultimate intent of this tzimtzum is actually Chesed.
וזו היא בחינת גבורה הכלולה בחסד
And this is the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed.4
I.e., this is a form of Gevurah through which an act of Chesed is accomplished. As such it is included within Chesed.5
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Tehillim 52:3. |
| 2. | Note of the Rebbe: “As distinct from that [Gevurah] of Part I, end of ch. 6.” In this brief note, the Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe stresses here that specifically“this [manner of] Gevurah and tzimtzum is also a quality of Chesed.” His intention is to exclude thereby the Gevurah and tzimtzum discussed earlier, in the sixth chapter of the first part of Tanya. When he says there that the life-force of holiness descends through many degrees of tzimtzum that enable it to be invested within the kelipah and sitra achra so as to provide them with life, it is clear that there the tzimtzum is truly one of Gevurah and concealment, and by no means a quality of Chesed. For the Divine intent there is that there should be no revelation whatever. |
| 3. | Tehillim 89:3. |
| 4. | The Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe states that “this is the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed,” after having already said that “this quality of Gevurah and tzimtzum is also a quality of Chesed.” The Alter Rebbe’s purpose here is to introduce a basic new point, and thereby to forestall a powerful question, which because of its apparent simplicity — says the Rebbe — seems to be overlooked. The question is as follows: We are speaking here of G‑d’s infinite attributes. Just as the effect of His Chesed is limitless, creating as it does an infinite multitude of beings (see above, ch. 4), so too should the infinite effect of Gevurah be an infinite degree of concealment. This concealment should therefore only allow (heaven forfend) such creation of which it may be said (as the Alter Rebbe says in Tanya, ch. 36) that “there is none lower than it in terms of concealment of His light.” Accordingly, it would seem that the infinite concealment of Gevurah should only allow for the creation of an infinite multitude of creatures which are of the lowest level of this gross and material world, “the lowest in degree,” inasmuch as only within this lowest level is there to be found the utmost concealment — the infinite effect of Gevurah. How, then, did the rest of creation come about? According to the analogy of the sun’s shield and sheath, as well as the above explanation that the purpose of the concealment is not concealment alone, but also that creation not be totally nullified within the Divine light, the question is resolved as follows. The sun not only operates by means of its shield; being a luminary, it also shines — and may be seen — through it. Thus, the effect of the shield is also to allow the revelation of the sun. The same is true of the infinite degrees of creation which emanate from the “sun” of Chesedand the infinite degrees of concealment emanating from the “shield” of Gevurah. Every level of the infinity of creatures created by Chesed is protected from being nullified in relation to its source, by the corresponding level of the infinity of shields brought into being through the infinite attribute of Gevurah. This, then, is the new and basic point the Alter Rebbe indicates when he says that “this is the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed”: Within each of the infinite degrees and levels of creatures generated by Chesed, there is to be found the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed, so that they will not be nullified in relation to their source. We thus have two novel points explained here by the Alter Rebbe: (a) The quality ofGevurah is not only an expression of concealment and tzimtzum, but also a quality ofChesed, for it makes creation possible; (b) this quality of Gevurah is included in Chesed. This latter point finds expression in the fact that each level of creation and each creature was brought into being through a manner of tzimtzum that is likened to “individual droplets” of rain that are channeled and phased, rather than descending all at once like “the floodgates of heaven.” The “channeling” effect is thus twofold. On the one hand, it negates and limits the unbridled “floodgates of heaven”; at the same time, it causes the droplets to descend individually, so that they may be utilized in a profitable manner. Another analogy: Smoked glass is used to protect one’s eyes from the sun’s rays by blocking the free passage of light that a lighter-colored glass would admit; at the same time, this same protective glass does permit some degree of light to enter, so that benefit may be derived from the sun’s rays. The same is true in the analogue, regarding the two characteristics of tzimtzum andGevurah. On one hand, tzimtzum makes it possible for the created being not to become totally nullified in relation to its source — something that would be certain to occur if creation were to derive from the attribute of Chesed alone; on the other hand, tzimtzum at the very same time is a partner in creation — an act of Chesed, as the verse states, “For I declared that the world be built through Chesed.” This is what is meant by “the quality of Gevurahwhich is included in Chesed”; i.e., that Gevurah which creates beings. |
| 5. | An example of this, notes the Rebbe, is the rainfall as described in note 4, above. So too, as discussed there, one can look at the sun only by using a darkened glass, which thus serves a function of Gevurah as included in Chesed. And the same is true in the analogue: Since the world is created by virtue of the concealment effected by Gevurah, this attribute thereby becomes a component of the attribute of Chesed. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5775 · June 3, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 131
Consuming Leftover Sacrificial Meat
"But a stranger shall not eat of them, because they are holy"—Exodus 29:33.
It is forbidden to eat sacrificial meat after the deadline for their consumption has passed.
Consuming Leftover Sacrificial Meat
Negative Commandment 131
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 131st prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating nosar, i.e. the meat of a sacrifice which remains after the time for its consumption has passed.
The Torah does not explicitly prohibit consuming it, but it does state in Scripture that one who eats nosar is punished by kares. This is G‑d's statement in the Torah portion Kedoshim,1 when speaking of the peace offering, "But anything left over until the third day must be burned in fire. If one [even plans to] eat it on the third day, it is considered pigul and it is not acceptable. One who eats them has desecrated that which is holy to G‑d, and he shall bear his guilt. This person shall be cut off [spiritually] from his people."
From here it is clear that [the punishment is] kares if one acts intentionally. If one ate unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.
The punishment is written in Scripture, but the actual prohibition is [derived] from what is written regarding the Inauguration sacrifices,2 "Do not eat them, because they are holy." The expression, "them,"3 includes any sacrifice which became invalid and thereby prohibited from consumption, such as nosar.
The Mishneh4 says, "Pigul and nosar are not counted together,5 because they have different names."
Our Sages, in tractate Me'ilah,6 say on this, "This statement only applies to impurity of the hands,7 which is of Rabbinic origin. As far as eating is concerned, they are counted together,8 as the Beraisa says, 'R. Eliezer says, the verse, "Do not eat them, because they are holy," adds a prohibition to eat any holy things which became invalid.'" Since both pigul and nosar are sacrifices which became invalid, the statement, "Do not eat them, because they are holy," prohibits the consumption of each one of them.
We have already explained that the punishment for [eating] nosar is kares.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 19:6-8.
2.Ex. 29:33. These sacrifices inaugurated Aaron and his sons into the priesthood.
3.It is difficult to understood it literally as plural, because only one animal is discussed in the verse (the others having been completely burned). See Kapach 5731, note 71. Heller, 5706, note 12.
4.Me'ilah 17b.
5.I.e. if one has half an ounce of pigul and half and ounce of nosar, they are not counted together as one ounce of "invalid sacrificial meat."
6.17b.
7.There is a Rabbinic decree that if one touches pigul or nosar, his hands are deemed impure. This is only if there is the minimum amount (either a kezayis or k'beitzah — see Pesachim 121b) of either pigul or nosar. But if it is half pigul and half nosar, they are not counted together and his hands remain pure.
8.Therefore, if one ate half a kezayis of pigul and half a kezayis of nosar, they are counted together as if he ate a full kezayis of prohibited meat.
Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
[There are requirements regarding] the s'chach of a sukkah, and not all substances are acceptable [to be used for this purpose]. For s'chach, we may use only a substance which grows from the ground, has been detached from the ground, is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, does not have an unpleasant odor, and does not have elements which fall off and wither constantly.
Commentary Halacha 1
In contrast to the walls mentioned in the last halachah of the previous chapter...
[There are requirements regarding] the s'chach of a sukkah, and not all substances are acceptable [to be used for this purpose]. - Some of the requirements mentioned by the Rambam were established by Torah law, while others are Rabbinic ordinances, as explained below.
For s'chach, we may use only a substance which:
a) grows from the ground - i.e., is an agricultural product and is neither found naturally - e.g., metals - nor produced from animals nor manufactured synthetically;
b) has been detached from the ground - and is not still connected to its source of nurture;
c) is not subject to contracting ritual impurity - This excludes articles used as food and those that have been fashioned into utensils. These three requirements are alluded to by Deuteronomy 16:13: "Make the Sukkot holiday for yourselves for seven days, when you gather in from your grain and grapes..."
Sukkah 12a explains that the verse implies that the s'chach, the essential element of the sukkah, must resemble "the leftovers from the grain and grape harvest."
(The expression "alluded to" was used rather than "derived from" on the basis of the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:4. That expression implies that the concept cannot be derived from the verse per se. Rather, it was transmitted as a halachah l'Moshe miSinai, and the Biblical verse is merely an allusion.)
The Rambam gives examples of entities which are not acceptable as s'chachon the basis of these principles in the following halachah.
d) does not have an unpleasant odor - As implied by the following halachah, this and the following clause are Rabbinic decrees. S'chach with an unpleasant odor will not create an inviting holiday environment. Indeed, substances with an unpleasant odor should not be used for the sukkah's walls either.
e) and does not have elements which fall off and wither constantly - for a person will not be pleased to have portions of the s'chach falling into his food. The Mishnah Berurah 629:39 states that the prohibition applies to elements that fall off naturally. However, if they fall off only when subjected to wind, there is no difficulty in using them.
Halacha 2
When a person uses as s'chach a substance which does not grow from the ground, is still connected to the ground, or is subject to contracting ritual impurity, [the sukkah] is not acceptable.
However, if he transgressed and used as s'chach a substance which has elements which fall off and wither, or which possesses an unpleasant odor, it is kosher. [Our Sages] said only that one should not use these as s'chach lest one leave one's sukkah and depart. One must take care that the branches and leaves should not descend within ten handbreadths of the ground, so that one will not be uncomfortable when using the sukkah.
If one used metals, bones, or hides as s'chach, it is unacceptable because these do not grow from the ground. If one suspended vines and the like over it until they made a sukkah, it is unacceptable, because they were not uprooted [from the ground].
Should one use wooden utensils, mats that were made to lie on, and the like ass'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. Similarly, using broken and worn out utensils as s'chach is unacceptable. Since these substances were subject to ritual impurity, [the latter law was instituted] lest one use broken pieces which have not yet attained a state of [unquestionable] purity.
Commentary Halacha 2
When a person uses as s'chach a substance which does not grow from the ground, is still connected to the ground, or is subject to contracting ritual impurity, [the sukkah] is not acceptable. - for these requirements stem from the Torah itself. The particular aspects of these requirements are described in this and the following halachot.
However, if he transgressed and used as s'chach a substance which has elements which fall off and wither - Sukkah 13a gives the shrub known as hollow as an example of such a substance.
or possesses an unpleasant odor - Sukkah 12b gives the plant known as wormwood as an example of such a substance.
it is kosher - after the fact, for these are only Rabbinic requirements. TheMishnah Berurah 629:38 emphasizes that even if other s'chach is available, there is no need to remove the s'chach with the unpleasant odor. However, thePri Megadim stresses that if the odor is so unpleasant that no one would bear it in his home, it is forbidden to use such a sukkah.
[Our Sages] - Sukkah 13a
said only that one should not use these as s'chach lest one leave one's sukkah and depart.
One must take care that the branches and leaves should not descend within ten handbreadths of the ground - the minimum height for a sukkah prescribed in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
so that one will not be uncomfortable - Sukkah 4a describes this as "a disgusting dwelling, unfit for human habitation."
when using the sukkah. - The Rambam's phraseology leaves room for the interpretation that this is a suggestion, but not an absolute requirement. (See Rabbenu Manoach.) Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 633:9) states that such a sukkah is unacceptable for use.
If one used metals - even if they have not been made into utensils, but are still in a raw state in which they are unfit to contract ritual impurity;
bones, or hides - even if they have not been made into garments, but are still in a raw state in which they are unfit to contract ritual impurity;
as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because these do not grow from the ground.
If one suspended vines and the like over it until they made a sukkah, it is unacceptable, because they were not uprooted [from the ground]. - The laws governing the use of such plants as s'chach after they have been hung over the sukkah and then detached from the ground are discussed in Halachah 12.
Should one use wooden utensils - In particular, this refers to wooden utensils that have a receptacle or are wide and other articles are frequently placed upon them - e.g., a table. However, wooden utensils that do not fall into these categories are not subject to contracting ritual impurity, and, hence, may be used for s'chach. An example of such utensil is a ladder. The Rambam (Hilchot Keilim 4:1) declares that a ladder is not subject to contracting ritual impurity. Hence, according to his opinion, there is no difficulty with using it ass'chach.
(It must be emphasized that other authorities question the Rambam's decision on a ladder and maintain that a ladder may be subject to contracting ritual impurity. Hence, it is preferable not to use it as s'chach. See the Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Orach Chayim 629:7.)
mats that were made to lie on - However, mats that were made for use ass'chach or for shade may be used as s'chach. Halachah 6 discusses the laws which apply when a mat was made without any specific intention.
and the like as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. Similarly, using broken - e.g., utensils with holes of sufficient size to render them no longer subject to contracting ritual impurity. (See Hilchot Keilim, Chapter 6.)
and worn out - e.g., garments that have worn out and are less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths in size and, hence, are no longer subject to contracting ritual impurity (Sukkah 16a; Hilchot Keilim 22:21).
utensils as s'chach is unacceptable. - This is a Rabbinic decree on the basis of the following rationale...
Since these substances were subject to ritual impurity - previously,
[the latter law was instituted] lest one use broken pieces - from utensils
which have not yet attained a state of [unquestionable] purity - i.e., are still subject to contracting ritual impurity.
as s'chach.
Halacha 3
If one used foods as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. [When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs, runners from a grape vine which contain grapes, branches of a date palm which contain dates and the like, [the following rules apply:] We see - if the waste is more than the food; then we may use them as s'chach. If not, we may not use them as s'chach.
If one uses as s'chach vegetables which, when they dry up, will wither, and none of their substance will remain, even though they are now fresh, their place is considered to be vacant, as though they did not exist.
Commentary Halacha 3
If one used foods - This refers only to foods for humans. Food which is eaten primarily by animals is not subject to contracting ritual impurity (Hilchot Tum'at Ochlin 1:1) and hence may be used as s'chach (Taz 629:12).
as s'chach, it is unacceptable, because they are subject to contracting ritual impurity. - There is a slight imprecision in the Rambam's statements. Produce is not subject to contracting ritual impurity until it comes into contact with liquid. (See Leviticus 11:38; Hilchot Tum'at Ochlin 1:1-2.) Nevertheless, foods are not fit to be used as s'chach even though they have never come into contact with water (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:1; Mishnah Berurah 629:28).
[When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs, runners from a grape vine which contain grapes, branches of a date palm which contain dates and the like - i.e., the difficulty being that although the branches are proper s'chach, the fruit is unfit to be used for that purpose...
[the following rules apply:] We see if the waste - the branches and leaves
is more than the food - the fruit
then we may use them as s'chach. If not, we may not use them as s'chach. - Rabbenu Manoach explains that these decisions are based on the principle that according to Torah law, mixtures are categorized according to the majority (בטל ברב).
On the basis of Sukkah 13b-14a, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:10) explains that sometimes the stems of the fruit are considered part of the fruit, and on other occasions part of the branches. The Magen Avraham 629:12 explains that generally, a stem is not considered to be longer than three handbreadths. However, there are certain instances (e.g., grains) when a longer measure is considered. Hence, it is proper to be stringent in this regard. (See also Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:15-16.)
The apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 13 is discussed in the commentary on that halachah.
If one uses as s'chach vegetables - The Maggid Mishneh explains that this refers to vegetables that are used as animal food, and hence were not excluded by the previous clause of this halachah. Rabbenu Manoach and theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:12) explain that this refers to vegetables that are eaten by humans. Sukkah 13b appears to support the latter interpretation, stating:
The vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation on Pesach... [can] invalidate a sukkah, [because they are considered] to be vacant space.
which, when they dry up, will wither, and none of their substance will remain - i.e., the vegetables will dry up and wither during the Sukkot festival, leaving the sukkah with more vacant space than shade (Kessef Mishneh).
even though they are now fresh, their place is considered to be vacant, as if they did not exist. - According to the Maggid Mishneh's interpretation, the explanation of the law is straightforward. It teaches us that rather than consider the vegetables to be non-kosher s'chach, we consider their space to be vacant. The latter interpretation requires a slightly more intricate explanation. The vegetables are not considered to be non-kosher s'chach, which would invalidate the sukkah if they take up four handbreadths, as explained in Halachah 14. Rather, their space is considered to be empty. Hence, a space of three handbreadths is sufficient to invalidate the sukkah, as explained in Halachah 20.
Halacha 4
If one used as s'chach branches of flax which were not crushed and combed, they are kosher, because they are still considered to be wood. After the flax has been crushed and combed, it may not be used as s'chach, since its form has changed and it is as though it is no longer a product of the earth.
One may use ropes made from palm bast or hemp and the like as s'chach, since their original form is unchanged and ropes are not considered to be utensils.
Commentary Halacha 4
If one used as s'chach branches of flax which were not crushed and combed, they are kosher, because they are still considered to be wood. -The use of the word עץ, rendered as branches or wood, with regard to flax, has its source in Joshua 2:6, which describes how Rachav "hid them in branches of flax."
After the flax has been crushed and combed - The Rishon Letzion questions the law when the flax has been crushed but not combed, and concludes that as long as it has not been combed, it is acceptable. Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:5 does not accept this conclusion.
it may not be used as s'chach - Though it is not considered to be a garment and, hence, is not subject to contracting ritual impurity (Maggid Mishneh; see also Shabbat 27b), it may nevertheless not be used as s'chach...
since its form has changed and it is as though it is no longer a product of the earth. - The Ra'avad disagrees with this principle and states that even before it is woven into a garment, flax is useful to stuff pillows and covers. Hence, it is subject to contracting ritual impurity and is thus unfit to be used ass'chach.
The Maggid Mishneh points out a contradiction to the Ra'avad's logic. The "male arrows" mentioned in the following halachah are - like flax - prepared to be used for a purpose. Nevertheless, they are considered acceptable for use ass'chach.
Rav Kapach mentions two possible extensions of the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ra'avad:
a) paper or carton - According to the Rambam, it may not be used because it no longer resembles a plant produced from the earth. According to the Ra'avad, it might be acceptable, since it is not subject to contracting ritual impurity.
b) cotton wool - It may be used for the purposes mentioned by the Ra'avad and thus, according to his opinion, would be subject to contracting ritual impurity. Nevertheless, its natural form is preserved. Hence, according to the Rambam's opinion, it would be acceptable. (It must be noted that the Magen Avraham629:3 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 629:5 maintain that after cotton has been combed, it is considered as though its form has been altered.)
One may use ropes made from palm bast or hemp and the like as s'chach, since their original form is unchanged and ropes are not considered to be utensils. - nor are they subject to contracting ritual impurity. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:5 quotes this law as halachah, but adds that ropes of flax and canvas may not be used for this purpose.
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply] when one uses arrows as s'chach. Those which are "male" are kosher; those which are "female" are not acceptable. Even though [ultimately,] they will be filled with iron, they have a receptacle. Hence, they are susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as are all utensils with receptacles.
Commentary Halacha 5
[The following rules apply] when one uses arrows as s'chach. - The question whether the arrows are acceptable as s'chach or not revolves around another issue - their susceptibility to contracting ritual impurity.
Those which are "male" - i.e., the end of their body is sharpened and comes to a point, which is intended to be put inside a metal arrowhead.
are kosher - for the arrow itself is considered a simple wooden utensil which is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. (See Hilchot Keilim 1:10.)
The Magen Avraham 629:2 states that this decision applies only before these arrows were placed in the arrowhead. If they have been placed in the arrowhead, even if subsequently removed they are no longer acceptable ass'chach.
those which are "female" - i.e., the end of their body is hollowed out for the arrowhead to be inserted within
are not acceptable. - for they are subject to contracting ritual impurity.
Even though [ultimately,] they will be filled with iron - Hilchot Keilim 2:3 states: "A receptacle which is made to be filled is not considered a receptacle." Thus, one might assume that these arrows would also not be considered as having a receptacle. The Pri Ha'aretz explains that since the iron arrowheads are often removed from these bodies, it is considered as though...
they have a receptacle. Hence, they are susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as are all utensils with receptacles. - It must be noted that Rashi and other commentators follow the simple interpretation of Sukkah 12b (the source for this law) and disagree with the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Keilim. They maintain that if a utensil has a receptacle, even if it will be permanently filled, it is subject to contracting ritual impurity.
Halacha 6
A mat of reeds, of raw rubber, or of hemp - if it is small, we may assume that it was made to lie on. Therefore, it may not be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made for this purpose.
If it is large, we may assume that it was made for shade; therefore, it may be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made to lie on.
If it has a border, even a large mat may not be used as s'chach, because it is considered to be a receptacle. Even if the border were removed, it may not be used as s'chach, because it would be considered to be a broken utensil.
Commentary Halacha 6
A mat of reeds, of raw rubber, or of hemp - if it is small, we may assume that it was made to lie on. - The commentaries note an apparent contradiction in the Rambam's words. Hilchot Keilim 25:13 states that even a small mat of reeds or hemp is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, because it is uncomfortable to lie on.
Therefore, it may not be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made for this purpose. - Since the mat was made with that specific intention, we do not follow the general principles, but rather judge it individually.
If it is large - The Rambam's statements are based on Sukkah 20a. It must be noted that his decisions are dependent on the version of the text of the Talmud he accepted. The Ra'avad and others interpret the word גדולה as related to the word גדיל (tassel). Thus, they explain that the Talmud is referring to a small mat. However, because it is made of thick tassels, rather than woven, it is not comfortable to lie on, and hence would most likely be used for shade. According to this opinion, any woven mat, even if it is large, is unfit to be used as s'chach. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:6) quotes the Rambam's interpretation.
we may assume that it was made for shade; therefore, it may be used for s'chach unless it was [explicitly] made to lie on. - The Ramah (Orach Chayim, ibid.) mentions that in places where it is customary to affix mats permanently as the roofs for homes, they may not be used for s'chach. The Rabbis instituted this decree lest people remain in their homes on Sukkot without differentiating between them and a sukkah.
If it has a border - a small lip (Sukkah 20b)
even a large mat may not be used as s'chach, because it is considered to be a receptacle. - Tosafot, Sukkah 20b quotes Ketubot 50b, which explains that such mats were used to collect dates.
Even if the border was removed, it may not be used as s'chach, because it would be considered to be a broken utensil. - which, as explained in Halachah 2, may not be used as s'chach even though they are not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.
Halacha 7
Boards which are less than four handbreadths wide may be used for s'chacheven though they have been planed. If they are more than four handbreadths wide, they should not be used as s'chach, even though they have not been planed. This is a decree [instituted] lest one sit under a roof and regard it as a sukkah.
If one placed a board which was more than four handbreadths wide over [a sukkah, the sukkah] is kosher. However, one should not sleep under the board. A person who did sleep under the board has not fulfilled his obligation.
There were boards that were four handbreadths wide, but less than four handbreadths thick. A person turned them on their side so that they would not be four handbreadths wide to use them as s'chach. This is not acceptable, because a board is unacceptable for use as s'chach whether one uses its width or thickness.
Commentary Halacha 7
Boards which are less than four handbreadths wide - In many places throughout the Talmud, four handbreadths is established as the minimum size of an area. Hence, a board of that size is considered significant and may not be used as s'chach (Sukkah 14a).
may be used for s'chach even though they have been planed - smooth, and thus are fit to be used in their present state (Sukkah 15a; Rabbenu Manoach).
If they are more than four handbreadths wide, they should not be used as s'chach, even though they have not been planed. This is a decree [instituted] lest one sit under a roof and regard it as a sukkah. - A person might think: "What is the difference between the sukkah and my house - they are both covered with boards?" This is surely a false assumption. As explained in the following halachah, since the boards of a roof were not placed there for the purpose of shade, but rather to be part of the permanent structure of the house, they cannot be considered to be s'chach (Sukkah 14a; Rabbenu Manoach).
If one placed a board which was more than four handbreadths wide over [a sukkah, the sukkah] is kosher. - The Maggid Mishneh explains that this applies only when the board is placed at the side of the sukkah. Thus, it could be considered to be an extension of the wall (דופן עקומה), as explained in Halachah 14. However, if it is in the midst of the sukkah, it is not acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law can apply even in the midst of a sukkah, provided the sukkah already possesses its minimum size. His decisions in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:1 follow this interpretation.
However, one should not sleep under the board. - According to the Maggid Mishneh, because it is part of the wall; according to the Kessef Mishneh, because it appears to be a separate domain.
A person who did sleep - or fulfilled any other of the activities which must be performed in the sukkah
under the board has not fulfilled his obligation.
There were boards that were four handbreadths wide, but less than four handbreadths thick. A person turned them on their side so that they would not be four handbreadths wide to use them as s'chach. This is not acceptable, because a board is unacceptable for use as s'chach whether one uses its width or thickness. - Sukkah 14b explains that after the Sages forbade the use of such boards, they are considered to be equivalent to iron poles.
The Magen Avraham 629:22 writes that at present it is customary not to use boards as s'chach, even if they are less than four handbreadths wide. However, if there is no other s'chach available, one may use boards for that purpose even if they are more than four handbreadths wide.
Halacha 8
A roof which is not covered by a ceiling - i.e., the plaster and the stones - but rather has only boards fixed in place, is not acceptable, since they were not placed there for the purpose of a sukkah, but to be part of the house.
Therefore, if one lifted up the boards and removed the nails with the intent [that they serve] as a sukkah, it is kosher. [This applies provided] that each board is not four handbreadths wide.
Similarly, it is kosher if one removed a board from between two others and replaced it with kosher s'chach, with the intention [that it serve] as a sukkah.
Commentary Halacha 8
A roof which is not covered by a ceiling - i.e., the plaster and the stones - but rather has only boards fixed in place, is not acceptable, since they were not placed there for the purpose of a sukkah - as required by the following halachah
but to be part of the house. Therefore, if one - performed two activities:
a) lifted up the boards - from their place. (Though the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:9 does not mention this requirement, the Mishnah Berurah 631:4 does.)
and b) removed the nails - holding the boards in position. (See the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:7.) Through these actions, one is considered to have nullified the previous placement of the boards, and it is considered as though they have been placed there...
with the intent [that they serve] as a sukkah - Therefore
it is kosher - for the boards are essentially fit to be used as s'chach. The only difficulty was the intention with which they were originally placed. A change of mind without an act is not sufficient, since, as explained in the commentary on the following halachah, we are required to "make" a sukkah and not use one which has already been made.
[This applies provided] that each board is not four handbreadths wide. -as explained in the previous halachah. Rabbenu Asher states that in such a situation, the sukkah is acceptable even though the boards are more than four handbreadths wide.
He explains that in the previous instance, the reason the Sages forbade using such boards was to differentiate between them and the boards of a house. In the present instance, the fact that the person took apart the roof of his house obviously implies that he realizes that it may not be used as a sukkah. Hence, there is no need for such a decree. This opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, ibid.
Halacha 9
A sukkah that was made for any purpose whatsoever - even if it was not made for the purpose of [fulfilling] the mitzvah - if it was made according to law, it is kosher. However, it must be made for the purpose of shade. Examples of this are sukkot made for gentiles, sukkot made for animals, and the like.
In contrast, a sukkah that came about on its own accord is unacceptable, because it was not made for the purpose of shade. Similarly, when a person hollows out a place in a heap of produce and thus makes a sukkah, it is not considered to be a sukkah, because the produce was not piled there for this purpose. Accordingly, were one to create a space one handbreadth [high] and seven [handbreadths] in area for the purpose of a sukkah, and afterwards hollow it out till it reached ten [handbreadths], it is kosher, since its s'chach was placed for the purpose of shade.
Commentary Halacha 9
A sukkah that was made for any purpose whatsoever - even if it was not made for the purpose of [fulfilling] the mitzvah - if it was made according to law - Sukkah 8b quotes a baraita which contains the latter statement and questions: "What does 'according to law' mean?...That it was made for the purpose of shade."
It appears that the Rambam uses the same expression, but with different implications. Since he explicitly states that the sukkah must be constructed for the purpose of shade, one might infer that the expression "according to law" is intended to include other concepts. Thus, it can be a reference to the requirements for a sukkah's size and the nature of the materials used for thes'chach, as mentioned in this and the previous chapter.
it is kosher. - The Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1, states:
An old sukkah: The School of Shammai deems it unacceptable, while the School of Hillel rules it kosher.
The commentaries explain that the term "an old sukkah" refers to any sukkah that was constructed for purposes other than the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
In its discussion of this law, the Jerusalem Talmud requires that one must make an addition or change to the s'chach. Though that decision is not quoted by the Rambam, Rabbenu Asher mentions it and it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 636:1). Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham 636:1 explains that this is a desirable and proper step, but the sukkah is acceptable even though no changes have been made.
However, it must be made for the purpose of shade. - Isaiah 4:6 states: "It shall be a sukkah for shade from the heat...," thus defining the purpose of such a structure. A sukkah constructed for the purposes of modesty is not acceptable (Rabbenu Manoach).
Examples of this are sukkot made for gentiles, sukkot made for animals, and the like - which are outside the entire framework of mitzvot. Sukkah 8b also mentions the sukkot made for shepherds and watchmen. Though the latter are obligated to keep the mitzvah of sukkah, they did not necessarily construct their sukkot with that intent in mind.
In contrast, a sukkah that came about on its own accord - e.g., branches fell over a frame, and of course, any time a roof is covered for other purposes - e.g., the construction of a home, as mentioned in the previous halachah...
is unacceptable, because it was not made for the purpose of shade.
Similarly, when a person hollows out a place in a heap of produce and thus makes a sukkah, it is not considered to be a sukkah - Sukkot 12a explains that there is an added factor involved in this example. Deuteronomy 16:13 states: "Make a [celebration of] the Sukkot holiday for seven days." This refers to the construction of the sukkah and teaches that we must "make" a sukkah and not use what was already made. Therefore, despite the fact that the person hollowed out the space for the purpose of shade, the sukkah is not acceptable, because the produce was not originally placed there for that purpose.
We find a similar principle concerning tzitzit. Deuteronomy 22:12 states: "Make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garments." On the basis of this command, Menachot 40b teaches that it is unacceptable to tie tzitzit to a three-cornered garment and then cut a fourth corner, since we are required to maketzitzit, and not use what is already made.
for the produce was not piled there for this purpose. - The Ba'al Hamaorwrites that if, originally, a person were to pile produce with the intention that later he would hollow out a sukkah, the sukkah would be acceptable. However, this opinion is not accepted by other authorities.
Accordingly, were one to create a space one handbreadth [high] - We find the measure of one handbreadth considered to define a structure with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Accordingly, it is given significance in this context as well. (See Sukkah 16a.)
and seven [handbreadths] - by seven handbreadths
in area for the purpose of a sukkah, and afterwards hollow it out till it reached ten [handbreadths] - the minimum height of a sukkah, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
it is kosher, since its s'chach was placed for the purpose of shade - and then, the original structure was merely expanded.
Halacha 10
We may not use bundles of straw, bundles of wood or bundles of reeds ass'chach. This decree [was instituted] lest one place those bundles on one's roof to dry out, and then change one's mind and sit under them with the intent [that they serve as] a sukkah. The person did not place the s'chach there originally for the purpose of shade. Thus, it resembles a sukkah that came about on its own accord.
If one untied [the bundles], they are acceptable [for use as s'chach]. A bundle is considered to be no fewer than twenty five units.
Commentary Halacha 10
We may not use bundles of straw, bundles of wood or bundles of reeds as s'chach. - Although, according to the Torah's requirements, these would be considered proper s'chach...
This decree [was instituted] - by the Sages (Sukkah 12a)...
lest one place those bundles on one's roof to dry out, and then change one's mind and sit under them with the intent [that they serve as] a sukkah. The person did not place the s'chach there originally for the purpose of shade. Thus, it resembles a sukkah that came about on its own accord. - which is unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachah.
If one - placed bundles of these substances on a roof with the intent that they would be used as s'chach and...
untied [the bundles], they are acceptable [for use as s'chach]. - TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:17) explains that a different rule applies if the bundles were originally placed on the roof to dry out. For them to be acceptable as s'chach, untying them alone is insufficient, and one must also shift the position of their contents.
A bundle is considered to be no fewer than twenty five units. - Thus, any lesser amount of these substances are acceptable as s'chach even though they are tied together.
The Rambam bases his statements on the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 1:6). Though the Ra'avad maintains that a bundle may be composed of even a smaller number of units, the Rambam's opinion is accepted as halachah by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 629:15.
Halacha 11
Small bundles that were tied together [to be sold] by number may be used ass'chach.
Similarly, if one cuts off the top of a date palm and the branches are bound to it, it may be used as s'chach, because elements that are bound naturally are not considered to be bundles. Furthermore, even if one tied the tops of the branches from one side, and they thus appear to be a single bundle with one of its two ends bound naturally and the other bound as a result of human activity, it may be used as s'chach. A single tree which is bound up is not considered to be a bundle, but rather a single piece of wood, since [the branches] are bound together naturally.
Similarly, any knot which is not strong enough to hold when carried is not considered a knot [and the resulting bundle may be used as s'chach].
Commentary Halacha 11
Though the Sages instituted the decree mentioned in the previous halachah, they made certain exceptions. Therefore...
Small bundles - The Kessef Mishneh questions the reason for the addition of the adjective, noting that if the bundles contain fewer than twenty five units, they are permitted, as stated in the previous halachah. Others mention that this refers to bundles of small branches.
that were tied together [to be sold] by number - to be untied immediately thereafter (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:16).
may be used as s'chach. - Sukkah 13b relates that bundles of this nature were frequently used in Sura, and that the Sages permitted them to be used ass'chach.
Similarly, if one cuts off the top of a date palm and the branches are bound to it, it may be used as s'chach, because elements that are bound naturally are not considered to be bundles. - The Ba'al Hamaor questions whether this principle applies only with regard to s'chach, where it is logical to assume that a more lenient position would be taken, since the entire question revolves around a Rabbinic decree, or whether it also applies in all cases where Torah law itself requires a bundle.
Furthermore, even if one tied the tops of the branches from one side and they thus appear to be a single bundle with one of its two ends bound naturally and the other bound as a result of human activity, it may be used as s'chach. A tree which is bound up is not considered to be a bundle, but rather a single piece of wood, since [the branches] are bound together naturally. - However, if one were to add even one branch and then tie them together, it would be considered to be a bundle (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:15).
Similarly, any knot which is not strong enough to hold when carried is not considered a knot [and the resulting bundle may be used as s'chach]. - Sukkah 13b mentions this principle when explaining why bundles of willows whose upper tie was loosened could be used as s'chach.
Halacha 12
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home.
If one draped the leaves and branches of trees [over the sukkah], and then placed s'chach over them, and only afterwards detached them, [the following rules apply:]
If the amount of [kosher] s'chach exceeded [the branches], it is kosher. If the amount of s'chach which originally was kosher did not exceed [the branches], one must move them after detaching them, so that they will have been put in place for the purpose of a sukkah.
Commentary Halacha 12
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home - and the sukkah is unacceptable. This applies only when the shade the tree produces exceeds the open area. However, if there is more open space under the tree than shade, the sukkah may be kosher.
The determination of whether such a sukkah is kosher depends on a number of principles, based on the interpretation of Sukkah 9b and 11a. The Rambam's interpretation of that passage, and thus the ground rules he establishes, differ from those accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 626:1-2).
In the following halachah, the Rambam deals with the resolution of the question when no effort has been made to correct the problem of the non-koshers'chach. As will be explained, there his interpretation is contested by other authorities. In this halachah, the Rambam describes the rulings which govern the situation when an effort has been made to rectify the situation by detaching the branches from their source of nurture. These are based on the Mishnah,Sukkah 11a, and are also accepted by other Rabbinic authorities. (See theShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 626:2.)
If one draped the leaves and branches of trees [over the sukkah], and then placed s'chach over them, and only afterwards detached them - As mentioned in Halachot 1 and 2, branches are fit to be used for s'chach only after they have been detached from their source of nurture.
[the following rules apply:]
If the amount of [kosher] s'chach exceeded [the branches], it is kosher. -Though at present, the branches would be acceptable as s'chach, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 9, the Torah requires that when s'chach is originally put in place, it must be kosher. Otherwise, it is unacceptable even though steps were taken to correct the disqualifying factors. This is based on the principle that one must make a sukkah and not use one which is already made.
Nevertheless, since the prohibition against using these branches as s'chachdoes not relate to their essential nature, their presence may be nullified when there is a majority of kosher s'chach. This conforms to the principle of ביטול ברב.
If the amount of s'chach which originally was kosher did not exceed [the branches] - the presence of the branches remains halachically significant. Hence,...
one must move them - i.e., each of the branches individually (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.)
after detaching them, so that they will have been put in place for the purpose of a sukkah. - Moving the branches negates their previous placement, and afterwards they are considered to be kosher s'chach, which was put in place for the purpose of creating a sukkah.
Halacha 13
If one mixed a substance which may be used for s'chach with a substance that may not be used for s'chach and used the two as s'chach, even though the quantity of kosher s'chach exceeds that of the substance which was not acceptable as s'chach, [the mixture] is not acceptable.
If one covered the sukkah with the two substances and kept them separate, [the following rules apply:] If there are more than three handbreadths of the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach in one place, whether in the middle of the sukkah or at its side, it is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha 13
If one mixed a substance which may be used for s'chach with a substance that may not be used for s'chach - This may refer to a substance like metal, which is unfit for use as s'chach because it does not grow in the earth, or branches of a tree which have not been detached from their source of nurture.
and used - the mixture of...
the two as s'chach, even though the quantity of kosher s'chach exceeds that of the substance which was not acceptable as s'chach - The presence of the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach is not nullified according to the principles of ברב ביטול, because it exists as a separate entity which can be distinguished from the kosher s'chach.
Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, notes the apparent contradiction between this decision and Halachah 3, which states:
[When one uses] branches from a fig tree which contain figs,...We see if the waste is more than the food; then we may use them as s'chach.
That halachah also mentions kosher s'chach - the branches - and substances which are not acceptable as s'chach - the figs. However, if there is a greater quantity of branches, the presence of the figs is nullified. In contrast, in this halachah, that concept is not applied.
Rav Avraham distinguishes between the two. In Halachah 3, the person does not intend to use the fruit for the purpose of shade; he merely wants to save the effort of removing it from the branches. Therefore, their presence may be nullified. In contrast, in this halachah the substances which are not acceptable as s'chach are being employed for the purpose of shade itself. Hence, their presence cannot be nullified.
[the mixture] is not acceptable. - As mentioned above, this decision depends on the Rambam's interpretation of Sukkah 9b. That passage reads:
A person who constructs his sukkah under a tree is considered as though he built it within his home...Ravva said: "The above applies only to a tree whose shade is greater than its open space. However, if its open space is greater than its shade, it is kosher.What difference does it make if its open space is greater than its shade, the substance not acceptable as s'chach will be combined with the kosher s'chach[and therefore, the sukkah will not be acceptable]?Rav Pappa said: בשחבטן.
The Maggid Mishneh, the Ra'avad, and Rabbenu Manoach explain that the Rambam renders בשחבטן as "when he separated them." Thus, when the two substances were combined, the Rambam's opinion would be that the sukkah is not kosher, as explained in this clause of the halachah. When they are separate, the sukkah may be kosher according to the stipulations mentioned in the following clause of this halachah and the halachot to come.
(The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam renders בשחבטן as "when he severed them." However, that difference in interpretation does not result in a difference in halachah.)
Rashi and others interpret בשחבטן as "when he lowered them (and mixed them together with the kosher s'chach)." Thus, according to this opinion, the sukkah is acceptable when the kosher and non-kosher s'chach are mixed together. Thus, this view is diametrically opposed to the Rambam's, who maintains that such a mixture is of no avail.
As noted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 626:1), there are two ways of understanding this interpretation of the passage. However, since both of them are not acceptable to the Rambam, their explanation will not be included here.
If one covered the sukkah with the two substances and kept them separate - When there is a majority of kosher s'chach, it is judged to be an independent entity. When there is a sufficient amount of kosher s'chach, the sukkah is kosher unless the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach is placed in a manner which can disqualify the entire sukkah, as is explained in this and the following three halachot.
[the following rules apply:] If there are more than three handbreadths of the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach in one place - The principle of l'vud, by which this substance could be considered to be a continuation of the kosher s'chach, cannot apply. However, if there is less than three handbreadths of the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach in one place, even though there are a number of such patches among the s'chach, the sukkah is kosher, as stated in Halachah 16. Furthermore, one may eat and sleep under the non-kosher s'chach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:1).
whether - the substance which is not acceptable as s'chach is placed...
in the middle of the sukkah or at its side, it is not acceptable. - As stated in the following halachot, this is relevant only with regard to a sukkah which possesses the minimum area. The reason the sukkah is not acceptable is not that it is disqualified by the non-kosher s'chach, but that it does not have the minimum amount of kosher s'chach (Sukkah 17b).
Halacha 14
Where does the above apply? In a small sukkah. However, in a large sukkah, where there is a substance that is unacceptable as s'chach in the middle, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four handbreadths of it. [If there is] less than that, the sukkah is kosher.
Where the substance that is unacceptable as s'chach is at the side, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four cubits of it. [If there is] less than that, the sukkah is kosher.
For example,
a) [the roof of] a house which was opened in the center and s'chach placed over the opening
b) a courtyard surrounded by an exedra which was covered with s'chach
c) a large sukkah over which was placed a substance that was not acceptable as s'chach near the sides of its walls.
[In all these cases,] if there are four cubits [or more] from the edge of the kosher s'chach until the wall, it is not acceptable. If there is less than that amount, we view it as though the wall has been made crooked - i.e., the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach is considered part of the wall and it is kosher. This concept is a halachah received by Moses on Mount Sinai.
Commentary Halacha 14
Where does the above apply? In a small sukkah. - See the commentary on both the previous and following halachot.
However, in a large sukkah - which possesses a minimal amount of koshers'chach, more lenient rules apply...
where there is a substance that is unacceptable as s'chach in the middle, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four handbreadths of it - across the entire span of the sukkah, dividing the sukkah in half, it is considered to be significant (Rashi, Sukkah 17a), and hence the sukkah is disqualified.
The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2) emphasizes that even where the non-kosher s'chach is of this size, if the sukkah possesses seven cubits by seven cubits of kosher s'chach in one place, that portion may be considered to be a kosher sukkah and used during the holiday.
[If there is] less than that - the division is not as noticeable. Hence,
the sukkah is kosher. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 632:1) states that one may eat and sleep throughout the entire sukkah. However, the Ra'avad and Rabbenu Nissim do not accept this leniency, and the Mishnah Berurah(632:3) advises following this stringency.
Where the substance that is unacceptable as s'chach is at the side, it disqualifies the sukkah if there are four cubits of it. - Four cubits or more exceeds the measure of leniency provided by the Torah.
[If there is] less than that, the sukkah is kosher. - on the basis of the principle of דופן עקומה explained below.
For example, a) [the roof of] a house which was opened in the center and s'chach placed over the opening - This and the following examples are given by the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:10.
b) a courtyard surrounded by an excedrah - note the drawing accompanying Chapter 4, Halachah 8.
which was covered with s'chach - Sukkah 17a explains that one might not necessarily have been able to deduce this example from the previous one, because in that instance the walls of the house were constructed for it. In contrast, the walls of the excedrah were not constructed for its sake, but for the houses on either side.
c) a large sukkah over which was placed a substance that was not acceptable as s'chach near the sides of its walls. - Sukkah 17a explains that one might not necessarily have been able to deduce this example from the previous ones, because in those instances only kosher s'chach was placed over the opening of those structures. In this instance, a substance that is not acceptable as s'chach was placed on the roof intentionally.
[In all these cases,] if there are four cubits [or more] from the edge of the kosher s'chach until the wall, it is not acceptable. If there is less than that amount, we view it as though the wall has been made crooked - i.e., the substance that is not acceptable as s'chach is considered part of the wall - Rabbenu Nissim states that this law applies only when the walls reach all the way to the s'chach. Otherwise, it is impossible to consider the non-koshers'chach to be an extension of the walls. The Tur and the Taz quote more lenient positions and allow such a sukkah, even though the walls do not reach the s'chach.
and it is kosher. - Though the sukkah as a whole is kosher, one may not eat or sleep under the non-kosher s'chach if it is four handbreadths or more in size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.). The rationale behind this decision is that the non-kosher s'chach is considered to be part of the wall and not part of the s'chach.
This concept is a halachah received by Moses on Mount Sinai. - The latter term refers to a law that was transferred from generation to generation reaching back to Mount Sinai. Nevertheless, there is no mention of - or even direct allusion to - it in the written Torah. See Eduyot 8:7.
Halacha 15
What is a small sukkah? Any [sukkah] whose area is no more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths.
[What is meant by] a large one? Any [sukkah] [whose area is large enough] that seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s'chach will remain besides the s'chach which is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha 15
What is a small sukkah? - referred to in the previous two halachot and in Halachah 20
Any [sukkah] whose area is no more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths. - As explained above, if there are three handbreadths or more of non-kosher s'chach in one place, the principle of l'vud cannot apply. Hence, the sukkah is not kosher, because it lacks the minimum amount of s'chach(Sukkah 17a). However, if there is less than that amount of non-kosher s'chach, the non-kosher s'chach is included as part of the sukkah and is counted as part of its minimum size (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).
[What is meant by] a large one? Any [sukkah whose area is large enough] that seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s'chach will remain besides the s'chach which is not acceptable. - Since it is of sufficient size, it will be disqualified only when it is divided in half by a significant portion of non-kosher s'chach, or when it is too far, i.e., more than four cubits, removed from the walls.
Halacha 16
If one used as s'chach substances that were acceptable as s'chach and substances that were not acceptable as s'chach, and placed them alongside each other, leaving no place with non-kosher s'chach more than three handbreadths in area, [the following rules apply:]
If the total of the kosher s'chach exceeds that of the non-kosher s'chach, it is kosher. If there was an exactly equal amount of both substances, it is not acceptable even though there is not a single place which has three handbreadths [of non-kosher s'chach]. [This decision is rendered] because non-kosher s'chach is considered to be open space.
Commentary Halacha 16
If one used as s'chach substances that were acceptable as s'chach and substances that were not acceptable as s'chach, and placed them alongside each other, leaving no place with non-kosher s'chach more than three handbreadths in area - so that even in a small sukkah, all the conditions mentioned in the above halachot are met, there is a further requirement before the sukkah is considered kosher.
[the following rules apply:] If the total of the kosher s'chach exceeds that of the non-kosher s'chach, it is kosher. - This concept can be derived from the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:8): "If someone places iron staves or the frames of a bed as the roof of his sukkah, it is kosher, provided there is an equivalent amount of empty space."
In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam emphasizes that the word "equivalent" should be interpreted loosely, since there must be more koshers'chach than the non-kosher s'chach.
If there was an exactly equal amount of both substances, it is not acceptable - This decision has raised questions from all authorities. Though the Rambam's decision is based on Sukkah 15a, Eruvin 15b states that a divider whose open portion is as great as its closed portion is considered to be a divider. Indeed, the Rambam himself quotes that decision in Hilchot Shabbat16:16. If so, why does he not follow the same principle in this instance as well?
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's decision is based on the fact that there is no way that there will not be some tiny open spaces within the kosher s'chach of a sukkah. Accordingly, even if the kosher s'chach is equal in area to the non-kosher s'chach, the tiny spaces between the kosher s'chach will tip the balance in favor of the non-kosher s'chach.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 631:8 quotes the Rambam's decision as halachah, but adds as a reason (a quote from Rabbenu Tam's text of Sukkah15b): "for it is impossible to be exact." This implies that were it possible to know that the kosher s'chach is exactly equal to the non-kosher s'chach, it would be acceptable. See also commentary to Halachah 19.
even though there is not a single place which has three handbreadths [of non-kosher s'chach] - in a small sukkah, or four handbreadths in a large sukkah.
Halacha 17
If one spread a cloth above [the s'chach] or spread one below it to catch [the leaves] which fall, it is unacceptable. If one spread it [under the s'chach] as a decoration, it is kosher. Similarly, if one covered the sukkah with s'chach as required by law and adorned it with various types of fruit, delicacies, and articles which hang from either the walls or the s'chach as a decoration, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 17
If one spread a cloth above [the s'chach] - for added shade (Sukkah 1:3)
or spread one below it to catch [the leaves] which fall - the bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's commentary on that Mishnah.
it is unacceptable. - The cloth nullifies the presence of the kosher s'chach above or below it.
(Tosafot explains that as long as the sukkah has sufficient s'chach without the cloth, the cloth will not necessarily nullify the presence of the kosher s'chach. However, the majority of the halachic authorities and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 629:19 do not accept this view.)
However, once the cloth is lifted away, the kosher s'chach is acceptable without any further activity. (See Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 626:3.) Thus, a roof can be constructed to protect a sukkah from rain, provided it is removed while the sukkah is being used.
If one spread it [under the s'chach] as a decoration, it is kosher. - for a decoration is considered to be an extension of the article it adorns.
Similarly, if one covered the sukkah with s'chach as required by law and adorned it - Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes how the s'chach should be set in place before the decorations. Otherwise, they could be considered as intervening substances.
with various types of fruit, delicacies, and articles - Sukkah 10a describes the decoration of a sukkah with tapestries, nuts, pomegranates, grapes, and flasks of wine, oil, and flour.
which hang from either the walls or the s'chach as a decoration, it is kosher. - and one is permitted to eat and sleep under the decorations.
Halacha 18
Sukkah decorations do not reduce its height, but they do reduce its width.
If the sukkah decorations are four handbreadths or more removed from the roof, it is unacceptable, because it is as though a person who sits there is not sitting under the s'chach, but rather under the decorations, which are foods and utensils that are not acceptable as s'chach.
Commentary Halacha 18
Sukkah decorations do not reduce its height - i.e., if the inner space of the sukkah is more than twenty cubits high and the sukkah is therefore not acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 1), the presence of the decorations is not considered significant to reduce that space to the legal requirements.
Alternatively, if the sukkah is very low and the decorations reduce its inner space to less than ten handbreadths, it is still kosher. (See Halachah 2 with regard to branches.) They are considered to be part of the s'chach, and the space they take up is not taken into account (Kessef Mishneh, Rabbenu Manoach).
but they do reduce its width. - The Bach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim639) explains that since we are forbidden to use these adornments throughout the holiday, they are considered to be a permanent part of the sukkah. Thus, the sukkah must have a full seven by seven handbreadths of open space besides them.
If the sukkah decorations are four handbreadths or more - as mentioned frequently above, four handbreadths constitutes a significant space
removed from the roof - they are considered to be non-kosher s'chach, and if they are of the size mentioned in Halachot 13 and 14...
it is unacceptable, because it is as though a person who sits there is not sitting under the s'chach, but rather under the decorations, which are foods and utensils that are not acceptable as s'chach. - See Chapter 5, Halachot 1 and 2.
The Taz (627:5) cautions against hanging any decorations more than four handbreadths away from the s'chach regardless of how small they are.
Halacha 19
The [following rules apply when the] s'chach has open spaces through which the sky can be seen: If the area of the open spaces is equivalent to that of the space covered by s'chach, it is not acceptable, because the portion exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded portion. Whenever the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it is not considered as s'chach.
If the s'chach exceeds the open space, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 19
The [following rules apply when the] s'chach has open spaces through which the sky can be seen: If the area of the open spaces is equivalent to - and of course, if it is more than
that of the space covered by s'chach, it is not acceptable, because -Although the sukkah should be acceptable as long as the covered portion is equal to the open portion, in this situation...
the portion exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded portion. -Sukkah 22b explains that light spreads out. Accordingly, even though on the roof the portion covered by s'chach is equal to the uncovered portion, on the ground the area exposed to the sun will be greater than the shaded area. See also the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:1.
Whenever the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it is not considered as s'chach. - As mentioned in Halachah 9, a sukkah must be constructed for the purpose of shade. If the portion exposed to the sun is greater than the shaded portion, it obviously does not serve that purpose.
If the s'chach exceeds the open space, it is kosher. - On the surface, the Rambam's choice of phraseology is slightly inexact, because everything depends on the amount of shade on the ground.
Halacha 20
When does the above apply? When there is no one open space of three handbreadths. However, if there is an open space of three handbreadths - whether in the center or at the side - it is unacceptable until one reduces [the space] to less than three.
If one used substances that were not acceptable as s'chach - e.g., pillows and blankets - to reduce the space, it is kosher if the sukkah is large. If it is a small sukkah, it is not acceptable unless [the space] was reduced with a substance that is acceptable as s'chach.
When the shaded portion of most of the sukkah exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, although in the lesser part of the sukkah the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion, because as a whole the shaded portion exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, it is kosher.
Commentary Halacha 20
When does the above apply? When there is no one open space - To disqualify the sukkah, the empty space must extend across the entire span of the sukkah or create a place large enough for a person to stand in (Tosafot, Sukkah 17a; Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2).
Furthermore, if the sukkah area is more than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in addition to the open space, the remaining covered area of the sukkah is kosher.
of three handbreadths - Any space less than three handbreadths can be considered to be part of the s'chach on the basis of the principle of l'vud.
Though the sukkah as a whole is kosher, it is forbidden to eat or sleep under the open portion (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:2).
However, if there is an open space of three handbreadths - whether in the center - i.e., an empty space cutting the sukkah in two
or at the side - i.e., an empty space that runs from one corner of the sukkah to the other. Rashi, on Sukkah 17a, explains that the concept of דופן עקומה, by which non-kosher s'chach is considered an extension of the wall, does not apply in this instance. Since it is merely empty space, it cannot be considered to be an extension of the wall.
It must be emphasized that we are speaking about a sukkah with only three walls. If the sukkah has four walls, but there is an empty space between thes'chach and the fourth wall, the sukkah as a whole is kosher.
it is unacceptable until one reduces [the space] to less than three.
If one used substances that were not acceptable as s'chach - e.g., pillows and blankets - to reduce the space, it is kosher - Non-koshers'chach and open space are two different halachic categories. They have different measures with which they each disqualify a sukkah, and combinations of the two are not considered to be a single entity. Thus, if there is an open space three and a half handbreadths wide, one may correct the sukkah by putting one handbreadth of non-kosher s'chach in its place. (See the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 632:3.)
if the sukkah is large. - The terms "large" and "small" are explained in Halachot 13-15.
If it is a small sukkah, it is not acceptable - because the sukkah has less than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths of kosher s'chach.
unless [the space] was reduced with a substance that is acceptable as s'chach.
When the shaded portion of most of the sukkah exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, although in the lesser part of the sukkah the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion - i.e., there are two portions of the sukkah, one which is mostly shaded and one which is mostly exposed to the sun.
because - when the sukkah is taken...
as a whole the shaded portion exceeds the portion exposed to the sun, it is kosher - and one may eat and sleep in the part of the sukkah where the portion exposed to the sun exceeds the shaded portion (Magen Avraham631:1). The Ramah quotes a more stringent opinion which forbids using the portion with more sun if it is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths in area.
Halacha 21
The proper way is that s'chach should be thin, so that the large stars can be seen through it. However, even though it is thick - like [the roof of] a house - and stars cannot be seen through it, it is kosher.
If the s'chach is uneven - i.e., some of it high and some of it low - it is kosher, provided there is less than three handbreadths between the upper and lower [portions of the s'chach]. If the upper portion [of the s'chach] is a handbreadth or more wide, even though it is more than three handbreadths above [the lower portion], we consider it to be descending and touching the edge of the lower portion. [This applies] provided it is aligned opposite the edge of the lower portion.
Commentary Halacha 21
The proper way - Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:5) uses the expression לכתחילה - i.e., one should set out to construct a sukkah in this manner.
is that s'chach should be thin, so that the large stars can be seen through it. - From the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 2:3, the source for this statement, it appears that the expression "large stars" means stars large enough to be seen during the day.
However, even though it is thick - like [the roof of] a house - and stars cannot be seen through it - The latter expression is quoted from the Mishnah, Sukkah 2:2.
it is kosher. - Shulchan Aruch HaRav (631:5) uses the expression בדיעבד (after the fact), implying that it is not desirable to construct a sukkah in this manner. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah (631:5) quotes many Ashkenazic authorities who tend toward making the s'chach thick.
The above applies only with regard to placing the s'chach. However, afterwards, even when the s'chach is thick, a person should have no compunctions about using such a sukkah.
Though thick s'chach is kosher, the Magen Avraham 631:2 notes that if it is so thick that rain will not enter the sukkah, the sukkah is unacceptable, because then it resembles a house and not a temporary dwelling made for shade.
If the s'chach was uneven - Sukkah 22a questions: "What is the meaning of the word מדובללת used by the Mishnah?" Shmuel (whom the halachah follows) replies: "One reed going upward and one reed going downward."
i.e., some of it high and some of it low - it is kosher - Even though there will gaps in the s'chach and during certain times of the day, when the sun shines at an angle, the portion of the sukkah exposed to the sun will exceed the shaded portion (Ramah, Orach Chayim 631:5).
provided there is less than three handbreadths between the upper and lower [portions of the s'chach]. - As explained previously, any distance less than three handbreadths is not significant because of the principle of l'vud.
If the upper portion [of the s'chach] is a handbreadth - by a handbreadth, the minimum size of a roof. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 7.)
or more wide, even though it is more than three handbreadths above [the lower portion], we consider it to be descending and touching the edge of the lower portion. - This principle, referred to by Sukkah 22a as חבוט רמי - literally, "cast it down" - is one of the leniencies followed as a halachah received from Moses on Mount Sinai. It allows this uneven roof to be considered to be a single straight entity. The same principle is also applied in Hilchot Shabbat15:25 and Hilchot Tum'at Meit 16:5.
[This applies] provided it is aligned opposite the edge of the lower portion. - i.e., that the upper portion could be lowered into the space left open by the lower portion. However, if it would not fit exactly in between the spaces, this principle does not apply (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, noting the Rambam's decision in Hilchot Shabbat, explains that even if the lower space is wider than the upper portion, as long as they do not overlap, it is acceptable.
The Merchevat Hamishneh explains that the law differs here from Hilchot Shabbat, because there is a principle that two halachot received from Moses on Mount Sinai cannot be used simultaneously to have a sukkah considered to be kosher.
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 631:5), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the opinion he stated in the Kessef Mishneh. However, Shulchan Aruch HaRav(631:7) and others follow the view of the Lechem Mishneh.
Halacha 22
When a person constructs one sukkah on top of another sukkah, the lower one is unacceptable. It is considered as though it had been constructed in a house. [However,] the upper one is kosher.
When do we say that the lower one is unacceptable? When the inner space of the upper sukkah is ten handbreadths or more [high] and the roof of the lower sukkah is strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah, even if that is done with difficulty.
However, if the inner space of the upper sukkah is less than ten handbreadths [high], or the roof of the lower sukkah is not strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah, even with difficulty, even the lower sukkah is kosher. This applies provided the height of both together does not exceed twenty cubits, since [use of] the lower sukkah is permitted because of thes'chach of the upper one.
Commentary Halacha 22
When a person constructs one sukkah on top of another sukkah, the lower one is unacceptable. - Sukkah 9b explains that the verse which commands us to dwell in sukkot (Leviticus 23:42) spells the word - סכת - omitting the letter ו, which is usually used. On that basis, the Sages explained that a single structure may be used for one sukkah, but not for two. Of the two, the lower sukkah is disqualified because...
It is considered as though it had been constructed in a house. - since the floor of the upper sukkah is its roof, it may not be considered to be s'chach, because it was not placed there for purposes of shade alone, nor can the lower sukkah be acceptable because of the s'chach of the upper sukkah, for the floor intervenes between them.
[However,] the upper one is kosher - There is no reason that the presence of the lower sukkah should disqualify it.
When do we say that the lower one is unacceptable? When the inner space of the upper sukkah is ten handbreadths or more [high] - the minimum height of a sukkah, as explained in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
and the roof of the lower sukkah is strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah - Otherwise, the upper sukkah is not fit to dwell in. Though a sukkah is only a temporary dwelling, it must be fit to be used for all the purposes for which one uses one's home, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.
even if that is done with difficulty. - i.e., even if the floor of the upper sukkah shakes when pillows and covers are placed on it (Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 1:2).
However, if the inner space of the upper sukkah is less than ten handbreadths [high], or the roof of the lower sukkah is not strong enough to hold the pillows and covers of the upper sukkah, even with difficulty - and thus, is unfit to be used.
even - The use of this word is questionable. It implies that both sukkot, the upper and the lower one, are kosher. The Kessef Mishneh states that if the upper sukkah is not fit to dwell in, it is not kosher, and therefore recommends striking the word "even" from the text. Though the Lechem Mishneh attempts to justify the use of the term, his arguments seem forced. However, it must be noted that most manuscripts and printings of the Mishneh Torah as well as the Rambam's and most other texts of the source for this halachah - the Mishnah,Sukkah 1:2 - include this word.
the lower sukkah is kosher. - for the reason that since its roof is of no functional purpose, it is not considered an intervening substance between the sukkah and the upper s'chach.
This applies provided the height of both together does not exceed 20 cubits - the maximum height of the sukkah, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
since [use of] the lower sukkah is permitted because of the s'chach of the upper one. - In the Kessef Mishneh - and also in the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 628:1) - Rav Yosef Karo explains that this applies only when thes'chach of the lower sukkah is not substantial enough to allow the use of the sukkah. However, if the s'chach of the lower sukkah alone produces enough shade to permit the use of the sukkah, it is kosher even though the s'chach of the upper sukkah is more than 20 cubits high.
He continues to explain that even though the presence of non-kosher s'chachnullifies the kosher s'chach below it, that applies only when the substance used is by nature not acceptable for use as s'chach. In this instance, the s'chach of the upper sukkah is fit to be used; the only difficulty is its position: its placement above the maximum height of the sukkah.
(Though this concept is found in Tosafot, Sukkah 9b, no allusion to it appears in the Rambam's statements. Indeed, the simple meaning of the Rambam's words implies the very opposite. Furthermore, in his commentary on the Mishnah [Sukkah 1:1], the Rambam explains that the reason s'chach placed higher than 20 cubits is unacceptable is that it makes the sukkah into a permanent dwelling. Thus, according to the Rambam, such s'chach can be compared to the boards of a house, which though originally kosher for use as s'chach, are disqualified because they became part of a permanent structure.)
Halacha 23
A bed [with a canopy placed] inside a sukkah: If [the canopy] is more than ten handbreadths high, a person who sits under it does not fulfill his obligation, because it is considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah.
Similarly, a canopy with a roof - even as small as a handbreadth: If it is ten handbreadths high, one may not sleep under it in a sukkah. By the same token, if one sets up four pillars and spreads a sheet over them, if they are ten [handbreadths high], they are considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah.
Commentary Halacha 23
A bed [with a canopy placed] inside a sukkah: If [the canopy] is more than ten handbreadths high - the minimum height for a dwelling to be considered to be an independent structure (Sukkah 20b).
In this and the following instances mentioned in this halachah, the ten handbreadths are measured from the ground to the canopy (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 627:2-3; Mishnah Berurah 627:5).
a person who sits under it does not fulfill his obligation - The Mishnah,Sukkah 2:1 relates:
An incident occurred concerning Tavi, Rabban Gamliel's slave. He would sleep under a [canopied] bed [in the sukkah]. Rabban Gamliel told the Sages: "See my slave, Tavi. He is well-learned and knows that slaves are free of the obligation of [dwelling in] the sukkah. Hence, he sleeps under a bed."
for it is considered to be a sukkah - with non-kosher s'chach
within a sukkah. - even if it has no walls (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 627:1)
Similarly, a canopy - placed over a bed
with a roof - even as small as a handbreadth: - As mentioned frequently above, a handbreadth is the minimum measure of a roof.
If it is ten handbreadths high, one may not sleep - or perform any other activity required to be performed in a sukkah. (Perhaps the Rambam mentions sleeping because it is an activity that may be performed only within a sukkah. Even a short nap should not be taken outside the sukkah. In contrast, a snack may be eaten outside a sukkah.)
under it in a sukkah. - for the same reasons mentioned above.
By the same token, if one sets up four pillars and spreads a sheet over them, if they are ten [handbreadths high], they are considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah. - Hence, we are forbidden to use the space below it as a sukkah.
This halachah depends on the Rambam's interpretation of the Mishnah, Sukkah1:3. However, Tosafot, Sukkah 10b and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim627:3) interpret the passage differently and forbid spreading a canopy over bedposts which are permanently affixed to the four corners of a bed, even if the canopy is less than ten handbreadths above the ground.
Halacha 24
In contrast, should one spread a sheet over two pillars or [use] a canopy that has a roof of less than a handbreadth - no matter how high they are - it is permitted to sleep under them within a sukkah. They are not considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah, because they do not have a roof.
Commentary Halacha 24
In contrast, should one spread a sheet over two pillars - Tosafot (ibid.) and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) differ with this decision as well, and explain that if these pillars are ten handbreadths high and permanently affixed to the bed, it is forbidden to spread a sheet over them.
or [use] a canopy that has a roof of less than a handbreadth - If the canopy is not permanently affixed to the bed, even Tosafot and the Shulchan Aruch will permit its use.
no matter how high they are - i.e., even if they are more than ten handbreadths high.
it is permitted to sleep under them within a sukkah. - Sukkah 19a relates that Abbaye found Rav Yosef sleeping in a canopied bed in the sukkah. The latter explained that the canopy he was using was permitted because it did not have a roof.
They are not considered to be a sukkah within a sukkah, because they do not have a roof. - As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, such structures are not acceptable for use as a sukkah. Hence, they also cannot disqualify a sukkah.
Halacha 25
A borrowed sukkah is fit [to be used on the holiday]. Similarly, a stolen sukkah is also fit [for use].
What does the latter imply? If a person attacked a colleague, forced him to leave his sukkah, stole it, and dwelled in it, the attacker has fulfilled his obligation, because landed property cannot be stolen.
[Similarly,] if he stole wood and made a sukkah from it, he has fulfilled his obligation, because the Sages ordained that the owner of the wood is entitled only to the monetary worth of the wood. Even if one stole boards and merely put them in place without attaching them or changing anything about them, he has fulfilled his obligation.
If a person constructs his sukkah in the public domain, it is acceptable.
Commentary Halacha 25
A borrowed sukkah is fit [to be used on the holiday]. - Although, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10, a person cannot fulfill the mitzvah of lulav as prescribed by the Torah with a lulav belonging to a colleague, that concept does not apply with regard to a sukkah.
Sukkah 27b explains the derivation of this concept as follows: Leviticus 23:42states: "Every citizen of Israel shall dwell in sukkot." The latter word is written סכת, implying one sukkah. This prompted our Sages to declare: "All Israel are fit to dwell in a single sukkah."
In his commentary, Rashi explains that the cost of such a sukkah would not be high enough to require every individual to pay a penny's worth. Hence, we must assume that some people would be using a borrowed sukkah, and, nevertheless, our Sages said that it was kosher.
Similarly, a stolen sukkah is also fit [for use]. - There is a slight imprecision with the Rambam's statements. A stolen object which the thief is obligated to return cannot be used to perform a mitzvah, because it is considered a mitzvah that came about through a sin (מצוה הבאה בעבירה). However, in the instances cited by the Rambam, the sukkah itself is never considered stolen property. Hence, the use of such a sukkah is not forbidden. However, in a number of instances (see below), the sukkah itself is considered to be stolen property and must be returned. Hence, it cannot be used to fulfill the mitzvah.
What does the latter imply? If a person attacked a colleague, forced him to leave his sukkah, stole it, and dwelled in it, the attacker has fulfilled his obligation, because landed property cannot be stolen. - Hilchot Gezeilah 8:14 relates that "landed property is never acquired by a thief, but rather remains in the possession of its owner forever."
Since the sukkah is built on the land, it is considered part of the property and the above rule applies to it as well. Thus, the sukkah is still considered to be the property of its original owner and the thief is viewed as merely "borrowing" the sukkah from him. As mentioned above, use of a borrowed sukkah is permitted.
[Similarly,] if he stole wood and made a sukkah from it, he has fulfilled his obligation - Sukkah 31a relates that a woman once came to Rav Nachman complaining that the exilarch's servants had stolen wood from her to build his sukkah.
Rav Nachman answered that they had, nevertheless, fulfilled their obligation...
because the Sages ordained that the owner of the wood is entitled only to the monetary worth of the wood - but not the wood itself. Thus, the sukkah itself is the property of the thief. Though he is obligated to pay the owner for his wood, that obligation does not prevent the sukkah from being considered as his.
Hilchot Gezeilah 1:5 explains this principle by stating:
Anyone who steals is obligated to return the stolen property itself... If it was lost or changed, he is obligated to return its monetary value...Even if one steals a beam and builds a mansion [using it], since [the beam] has not been changed, the Torah law would require him to destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owner.Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a decree [to encourage] those who repent; they ordained that all that is necessary is for him to return [the beam's] monetary value, and thus he will not forfeit his building.
Rabbenu Manoach asks: Since the mitzvah of sukkah is commanded by the Torah, and Torah law regards these boards as stolen, how can the Sages' decree change their status in this context?
He explains that, as implied by the principle הפקר הפקר בית דין, the Torah has granted the Sages the right to determine the status of property. Their decree can alter entirely a person's rights to its title. Thus, in the present case, since Rabbinic law entitles the thief to use of the boards, he is permitted, according to Torah law, to use them as a Sukkah.
The Magen Avraham (637:5) writes that if the thief refuses to pay for the wood, it is considered to be the property of its original owner, and the thief does not fulfill his obligation.
Even if one stole boards and merely put them in place without attaching them or changing anything about them, he has fulfilled his obligation. -This is a special leniency granted out of respect for the mitzvah of sukkah (Sukkah, ibid.). Since the thief has not made any changes in the wood itself or built a permanent structure from it, the Rabbinic decree mentioned above would not apply. Thus, during the rest of the year (and even in this case, after the Sukkot festival), the wood would have to be returned. During the festival, the Sages considered it to be the property of the thief and he is allowed to use without any constraints throughout the festival (Hilchot Gezeilah, ibid.).
Nevertheless, in his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim637:3), Rav Yosef Karo gives two examples of a stolen sukkah which one is forbidden to use: a sukkah that had been constructed on a ship or one that had been constructed on a wagon. Since the thief did not build anything, the abovementioned Rabbinic decree does not apply; nor are they affixed to land, and hence the principle that landed property cannot be stolen is not relevant.
If a person constructs his sukkah in the public domain - Though the Jewish inhabitants of the city would surely not object to use of public property for this purpose, the gentile inhabitants of the city would. Since they also have a share in this property, building a sukkah there is equivalent to stealing from the public (Magen Avraham 637:3).
Nevertheless, since the theft of land is involved...
it is acceptable - for the reasons mentioned above. Note the Magen Avraham, ibid. and the Bi'ur Halachah, who discuss whether or not it is permitted to recite a blessing when using such a sukkah.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a sin-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with a burnt-offerings of doves or a burnt-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with sin-offerings of doves,1 even one in a myriad, they should all be consigned to death.2
When does the above apply? When their identity had been explicitly determined when they were purchased by the owner, [saying]: "This is a sin-offering. This is a burnt-offering." Different rules apply, however, of one brought doves to fulfill his obligation, some [for] a sin-offering and some for a burnt-offering, without stating explicitly [what each was, instead, they were brought] without specification and then a [dove designated as] a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering became mixed with these undesignated [doves] brought to fulfill his obligation.
Halacha 2
What are the appropriate laws? If [a dove designated as] a sin-offering becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves] brought to fulfill one's obligation, only the number of doves to be brought as sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable.3 The number of burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the sin-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a sin-offering has become intermingled with burnt-offerings.4
Halacha 3
Therefore if the unspecified [group] is [at least] twice as large as the number of sin-offerings [that became intermingled with them], half of the unspecified group is acceptable,5 and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the lower portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a sin-offering.6
Halacha 4
Similarly, if a burnt-offering7 becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves], only the number of doves to be brought as burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable. The number of sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the burnt-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a burnt-offering has become intermingled with sin-offerings.8
Whether there are more doves in the unspecified group than the number of burnt-offerings that became intermingled with them, there were more burnt-offerings than doves in the unspecified group, or they were of equal amounts, only the amount of burnt-offerings in the unspecified group are acceptable. Therefore if the unspecified group was twice as large as the number of doves that became intermingled with them, half of the unspecified group is acceptable, and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the upper portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a burnt-offering.
Halacha 5
When one unspecified group becomes intermingled with another unspecified group - whether they were all for one purpose, e.g., doves brought by zavimtogether with doves brought by zavim, or for two purposes, doves brought byzavim together with doves brought by women after childbirth, whether they were both brought by the same person, or they were brought by two separate people, if they were both similar, half are acceptable and half are disqualified.9[This applies] whether [the priest] offered all of them on the upper portion of the altar or all on the lower portion of the altar, or half were offered on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, half are always acceptable and half are always disqualified, because half [of the mixture] are burnt-offerings and half are sin-offerings and a sin-offering is offered on the lower portion of the altar and a burnt-offering is offered on the upper portion.
[To explain:] If he offered them all on the upper portion, half are acceptable and they are burnt-offerings.10 If he offered them all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.11 If half were offered on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion, half of the half offered on the upper portion are acceptable [and the other half are disqualified,] because of the mixture.12 [The acceptable ones] are burnt-offerings. And half of the half of those offered on the lower portion are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply if] two unspecified groups became intermingled with each other and one was larger than the other, e.g., one had four doves and one had six. If he offered them all on the upper portion of the altar, or all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are disqualified for the reason we explained.13 [Different laws apply] if he offered half on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion. If he did this after he asked,14 the lesser amount are acceptable.15 If he did this on his own initiative, the greater amount are acceptable.16
Halacha 7
This is the general principle: Whenever, on his initiative, the priest offered half on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, and it is impossible that [the doves of] one [owner] will not have been offered on both halves of the altar, the greater amount is acceptable.17 Since it is known that a portion of [this person's]18 sacrifices will be [offered] on the upper portion of the altar and a portion on the lower half, all of his sacrifices are acceptable.
Halacha 8
When two individuals purchase pairs of doves together or give the money for them to the priest [to purchase them], the priest may offer whichever he desires as sin-offerings and whichever he desires as burnt-offerings.19 For [the identity of the sacrifices] in the pair is determined only when purchased by the owners or when offered by the priest, as we explained.20
Halacha 9
If there were [groups of doves], some [groups of] sin-offerings and others, burnt-offerings, before a priest and he offered21 both [groups] on the upper portion of the altar or both on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.22 If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion without knowing whether it was the sin-offerings or the burnt-offerings that he offered on the lower portion, they are all unacceptable. For we surmise that it was the burnt-offering that were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.
Halacha 10
If there were three groups of doves before him:23 one sin-offerings, one burnt-offerings, and one undefined, half burnt-offerings and half sin-offerings, without the purpose [for any given dove] being defined, if he offered all of them on the upper portion or on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.24
Halacha 11
If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion,25 only the group that was undefined that was offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion is acceptable.26 It is divided between the owners27 and [the portion allotted to] each one is considered as valid for them, for the priest does not know which groups were specified [as being sin-offerings] and which one was left undefined. The two specified groups are not acceptable, because it is not known which one was offered on the upper portion of the altar and which one, on the lower portion and it is possible that the burnt-offerings were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As mentioned in the previous chapter and notes, a zav, a zavah, and a woman who gave birth are required to bring two doves as offerings, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. The designation of the doves for these offerings is made either by the owner at the time of purchase or - and this is the most common instance - by the priest when he offers them. If the person bringing the doves did not designate them, the doves are referred to as a chovah, which we have translated as "the unspecified group."
|
| 2. |
A dove designated as a sin-offering may not be offered as a burnt-offering, nor may one designated as a burnt-offering be offered as a sin-offering, as explained in Chapter 7, Halachot 5-8. Since the identity of the dove is not known, some of the offerings will be unacceptable. Hence none are offered and instead, they are consigned to die.
|
| 3. |
The rationale is that half of the doves in the unspecified group are sin-offerings. Hence even if another dove that was designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a group of four unspecified doves, there are definitely two doves that can be selected to be offered as sin-offerings (either two are from the unspecified group or one is from the unspecified group and one is the sin-offering that became intermingled).
A third sin-offering may not be brought because it is possible that the third dove is from the unspecified group and it should be designated as a burnt-offering.
|
| 4. |
Either the dove designated as the sin-offering is among the three. Or the three are from the unspecified group and two are burnt-offerings and one is a sin-offering.
|
| 5. |
For example, if five sin-offerings become intermingled with an unspecified group of ten, there are five acceptable sin-offerings in the intermingled group of fifteen.
|
| 6. |
The expression "It appears to me" indicates a conclusion the Rambam reached through the process of deduction without any clearcut prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam is saying that all of the doves, even those which are disqualified, should be offered on the lower half of the altar. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam, asking how is it possible for him to suggest that unacceptable doves should be offered as sacrifices. (If, he states, the Rambam's intent was that all of the sin-offerings should be offered on the bottom half of the altar, that is obvious and does not need the introduction "It appears to me.")
The Kessef Mishneh states that with the expression "It appears to me," the Rambam is introducing a new idea. The previous halachah is speaking about an instance where the priest offered only half the doves in the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar. If, however, he offers more than half of the doves (half of the unspecified group and the number of doves designated as sin-offerings that became intermingled with them) on the lower half of the altar, not only is half the unspecified group acceptable, the sin-offerings that became mixed with the unspecified group are also acceptable. The priest is allowed to offer the majority of the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar because the other doves were never specified as burnt-offerings. Although they would have to be offered as burnt-offerings (and hence, are disqualified), since they were never specified as such, they may be offered on the lower half of the altar. Rav Yosef Corcus adds that according to the Rambam, the intent is the sacrifices are acceptable. It is just that the owners can fulfill their obligation only for half of them.
|
| 7. |
In addition to burnt-offerings from the pairs mentioned above, this could also refer to doves donated for freewill offerings which are all burnt offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:3)].
|
| 8. |
I.e., the same principles applied in Halachot 2-3 with regard to a sin-offering are applied here with regard to a burnt-offering.
|
| 9. |
Here the problem is that perhaps unknowingly, the priest will be offering all the doves from one unspecified group as sin-offerings and all of the other, as burnt-offerings, instead of offering them, half and half, as required.
|
| 10. |
The other half are unacceptable, because they were sin-offerings and they were offered as burnt-offerings.
|
| 11. |
The other half are unacceptable, because they were burnt-offerings and they were offered as sin-offerings.
|
| 12. |
As explained in note 8.
|
| 13. |
In the previous halachah.
|
| 14. |
I.e., he consulted with the women and asked them what he should do [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 1:4)]. Others interpret this as meaning that he consulted the court.
|
| 15. |
For example, Leah brought six doves and Rachel, four. If the priest offered five on the upper portion of the altar and five on the lower portion, it is possible that three are from Leah's group and she intended for them to be sin-offerings not burnt-offerings. Hence only two of the doves offered on the upper portion are acceptable. The same applies with regard to those offered on the lower portion (see the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus).
|
| 16. |
For the reason explained in the next halachah.
|
| 17. |
Because the distinction of the sacrifices as burnt-offerings and sin-offerings was left to the priest to determine.
|
| 18. |
I.e., the person who brought the larger group.
|
| 19. |
They are all acceptable, because when offering them, he is determining which is a sin-offering and which, a burnt-offering.
|
| 20. |
Chapter 5, Halachah 11.
|
| 21. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:2), the Rambam states that this is speaking about an instance where the groups were not intermingled. The identity of the groups was left for the priest to determine. After doing so, he forgot how he had determined the identity of the groups and offered them in the manner described. Afterwards, he remembered they were of different types and inquired what was the outcome of his deeds. If, however, the groups became intermingled at the outset, they should all be consigned to death, as stated in Halachah 1 (see Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 22. |
I.e., the groups contained an equal number of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Thus if they are all offered as one type, half will be unacceptable.
|
| 23. |
This too is speaking about an instance where the groups are not intermingled, but rather three groups were brought to a priest to define their status and to offer them. Afterwards, he forgot and offered them without being conscious of their different status [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].
|
| 24. |
This is a combination of the previous halachah and Halachot 2 and 4.
|
| 25. |
This refers to a situation similar to that described in note 23, except that here, he offered one group on the upper portion of the altar, one group one the lower portion, and one group, half and half.
|
| 26. |
For it was offered as required, half on the upper portion of the altar and half, on the lower portion.
|
| 27. |
Each of the people who brought sacrifices are credited with an equal share of the sacrifices offered. Thus each one is considered to have brought half their sacrifices and must bring the other half.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a dove from an unspecified group flies to free spaces or among doves that are consigned to death,1 or one of the doves dies, a second one should be taken for its pair.
Halacha 2
If it flies among [doves] that are fit to be offered, it is disqualified and it disqualifies one [of the group], for when a dove flies from an unspecified group to among those which will be offered, it becomes disqualified and it disqualifies another one corresponding to it.2
What is implied? A dove from a group of unspecified doves flies to an unspecified group of ten doves. If [the priest] offered five on the lower portion [of the altar] and six on the upper portion, five of the burnt-offerings from the six offered on the upper portion are acceptable3 and four of the sin-offerings from the five offered on the lower portion are acceptable. [The rationale is that] one says: "Perhaps the dove that flew is one of the five offered on the lower portion."4
Similarly, if he offered six on the lower portion and five on the upper portion, five sin-offerings and four burnt-offerings are acceptable. For one might say: "Perhaps the dove [that flew] is one of the five offered on the upper portion." Thus from the ten [from the second group], nine are acceptable and [the dove] disqualified one.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of four doves and another unspecified group of four doves. If one from the first group flew to the second group, it disqualified one of the second group.5 If, after it became intermingled among them,6 one of the second group flew to the first group, it disqualifies one of the first group.7 Thus there are only two doves in the first group that are acceptable.8
Halacha 4
If, again, one of the first group flew back to the second group, even if [they continue flying back and forth] the entire day, they do not add to the number disqualified,9 for even if they become entirely intermingled with each other, half are acceptable and half are disqualified, as we explained.10
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of two doves, a second group of four doves, a third of six, a fourth of eight, a fifth of ten, a sixth of twelve, and a seventh of fourteen. If one of the first group flew to the second,11 one of the second12 flew to the third, one of the third to the fourth, one of the fourth to the fifth, one of the fifth to the sixth, and one of the sixth to the seventh - and then, one flew back from group to group until one returned to the first group from which the original one had flown, one dove is disqualified in the first movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the first and second groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the third group has two; the fourth, four; the fifth, six; the sixth, eight, and the seventh, twelve.13
If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a second time and then one flew back from the last [group], going from group to group until it reaches the first, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. The third14 and the fourth groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the fifth group has two; the sixth, four, and the seventh, ten.
If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a third time and then one flew a fourth time, going from group to group, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the fifth and the sixth are disqualified entirely and the seventh has eight acceptable doves remaining, i.e., when the fourteen doves are offered [on the altar], seven on the upper portion and seven on the lower portion, eight will be acceptable and six will be disqualified because of the intermingling of the doves that flew back and forth.
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when there was] a group of doves that was unspecified and another group [in which the doves for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering] had already been specified. If one of the doves from the unspecified group flew to the group that had been specified, [the owner of the unspecified group] should take a partner for the remaining dove.15
If [the above group became intermingled and then of the doves] returned [to the unspecified group] or [at the outset,] one of the doves from the specified group flew to the unspecified group and it was not known whether it was the one designated as a burnt-offering or the one designated as the sin-offering,16 all of the doves in the unspecified group should be consigned to death. [The rationale is that] if it was the one designated as a burnt-offering that became intermingled, all of the sin-offerings [in that group] are disqualified.17 And if it was the one designated as a sin-offering that became intermingled, all of the burnt-offerings [in that group] are disqualified. Therefore,18 they should all be consigned to death.
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply when there were] a group of doves that were designated as sin-offerings on one side, others designated as burnt-offerings on the other side, and an unspecified group in the middle. If one of the unspecified group flew to the group on one side and another, to the other group, nothing is lost. Instead, the owner should say: "The one which flew to the sin offerings is a sin-offering. The one which flew to the burnt-offerings is a burnt-offering."19
If, after they became intermingled, one from each of the sides returned to the center, the two in the center should be consigned to death, for they are a burnt-offering and a sin-offering mixed together and those on the sides should be offered - these as sin-offerings and these as burnt-offerings - as was their original state.
If those [which returned to] the center flew to the sides, they must all be consigned to death for perhaps20 the burnt-offering became intermingled with the sin-offerings and the sin-offering became intermingled with the burnt-offerings.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
Because they have become intermingled with a dove designated as a sin-offering.
|
| 2. |
The redundancy in the Rambam's ruling is a quote from Kinim 2:1.
|
| 3. |
I.e., it is obvious that one of the six offered as burnt-offerings is unacceptable, because there only five in the second group. The sixth is either one of the original group that should have been offered as a burnt-offering and is thus unacceptable. Or it is the one that flew into it, in which instance, it is unacceptable, because perhaps it was to be offered as a sin-offering. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:1).
|
| 4. |
And one of the sin-offerings in that group had been offered together with the burnt-offerings.
|
| 5. |
As described in the previous halachah.
|
| 6. |
If, however, it is obvious that the dove that flew from the first group flew back to it, none of the doves are disqualified (ibid.).
|
| 7. |
And it is disqualified itself.
|
| 8. |
They should be offered one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Similarly, in the second group, only one pair of doves should be offered, for we surmise that it was one of the three that was acceptable that flew to the first group.
|
| 9. |
I.e., each group has two acceptable doves and two which are disqualified.
|
| 10. |
Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
|
| 11. |
And became intermingled there. The dove that flies into the group is unacceptable and it disqualifies another dove in the group. Thus of the group of four, only two acceptable doves remain. This principle applies every time one dove flies from one group to another, as evident from Halachah 3.
|
| 12. |
If it is discernable that the dove that flew from the first group to the second flew from the second to the third, etc., all of these rules do not apply [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim2:3)].
|
| 13. |
More acceptable doves remain in the last group because only two doves are disqualified in each circuit, while in all the other groups four are disqualified each time.
|
| 14. |
As mentioned above, all of the doves in the first and second group were disqualified in the first phase of movement.
|
| 15. |
One should be offered as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. With regard to the doves from the group that had been specified. We are speaking about a situation where the identity of one of the doves - for argument's sake, the burnt-offering - is still known and the one designated as the sin-offering has become intermingled with the dove that flew into that group. Hence one burnt-offering and two sin-offerings should be offered and only one of the sin-offerings is acceptable. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:4).
|
| 16. |
If, however, the identity of the dove which became intermingled is known, different laws apply, as explained in Chapter 8.
|
| 17. |
The rationale is that since the doves are intermingled and it is known that one was a burnt-offering, none may be offered on the lower portion of the altar.
|
| 18. |
I.e., since we do not know whether it was a burnt-offering or a sin-offering that was intermingled.
|
| 19. |
Determining their identities with that statement. The fact that the priest offering the doves does not know which doves were brought by which person is not significant. See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
|
| 20. |
And even the possibility warrants that the doves be consigned to death.
|
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a woman says: "I pledge a pair of doves when I give birth to a male," when she gives birth to a male she must bring four doves: two because of her vow, they are burnt offerings, as we explained,1 and two which she is obligated to bring because of the birth,2 one, a burnt-offering and the other, a sin-offering. Therefore the priest must offer three doves on the upper portion of the altar and one dove on the lower portion.
If he erred and offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion,3and he did not consult [with the woman],4 she must bring another dove and offer it on the upper portion of the altar.5
When does the above apply? When she brought all four doves from one type; either they were all turtle doves or young doves. If, however, she brought two turtle doves and two young doves and two6 were offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and two7 on the lower portion,8 she must bring one more turtle dove and one more young dove on the upper portion to fulfill her obligation.9For if at the outset, two turtle doves were offered on the lower portion, another turtle dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation.10[Or] if two young doves were offered on the lower portion, another young dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation. For a person should not bring a pair to fulfill his obligation that comprises one turtle dove and one young dove.11 Instead, either they should both be turtle doves or both be young doves.
Halacha 2
If she made her vow explicit, telling the priest: "These12 are for my vow and these are for my obligation," and the priest offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion without knowing which ones he offered on the upper portion and which ones he offered on the lower portion,13 she must bring three doves, two for her vow and one to complete her obligation.14 The two should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. [The rationale is that] she made her vow explicit and possibly the two brought because of her vow were offered on the lower portion, thus disqualifying them.15
When does the above apply? When she brought the four doves from which she explicitly defined two as being for her vow from one type. If, however, [she brought them from] two types, she must bring four other doves:16 the two from the type she designated explicitly for her vow should be offered for her vow and the other two may be from either type she desires for her obligation. One should be offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and one on the lower portion.
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply if a woman] defined17 [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow, saying: "If I give birth to a male, I pledge two turtle doves," and she gave birth and brought four doves:18 two for her vow and two for her obligation. The priest offered two on the upper portion [of the altar] and two on the lower portion, but did not know which were offered on the upper portion and which were offered on the lower portion and she also forgot and did not know the type of doves she had pledged for her vow, whether turtle doves or young doves. She should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow.19[All] four should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. She should bring another dove to complete her obligation and it should be offered on the lower portion. 20
When does the above apply? When originally she brought all of the four of one type. If, however, they were of two types, she must bring six other doves: two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow21 and for her obligation, she should bring either two turtle doves or two young doves22 and offer one on the upper portion of the altar and one on the lower portion.
Similarly, if she gave them to the priest23 and forgot what she gave him and the priest went and offered them, but was not aware where he offered all of the doves, whether he offered them all on the upper portion, all on the lower portion, or half above and half below, she should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow24 and two turtle doves or two young doves for her obligation.
Halacha 4
If she defined [which type of offering25 to be offered to fulfill] her obligation and [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow and forgot what she defined, it is [also] possible that her obligation was a lamb for a burnt-offering and a dove - either a turtle dove or a young dove - as a sin-offering. Therefore she must bring six doves - four for her vow26 and two for her obligation.27 And she must bring one sin-offering, either a young dove or a turtle dove, with a lamb.28 Thus she will have brought seven doves and a lamb.
Halacha 5
None of these sin-offerings should be eaten, because they are all offered because of a doubt.29
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The commentaries note that there is no explicit source which states that the doves pledged by a woman should be offered as burnt-offerings. They do, however, point to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:14 which states that a fowl is never brought as a peace-offering. Hence, the only alternative is for them to be offered as burnt-offerings.
|
| 2. |
I.e., when she is poor, as stated in Leviticus, ch. 14; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.
|
| 3. |
As would be appropriate in most instances, for pairs of doves are generally required to be offered, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.
|
| 4. |
If he did not consult with her, it is his prerogative to determine which dove should be offered as a sin-offering and which as a burnt-offering, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 8.
|
| 5. |
To fulfill her vow to bring a pair of doves as burnt-offerings.
|
| 6. |
I.e., of one type.
|
| 7. |
Of the other type.
|
| 8. |
This is speaking about a situation where the priest offering the sacrifice forgot which type he offered on the upper portion of the altar and which type on the lower portion [Ra'avad; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5)]. Were he to know which type he had offered on which portion, it would be sufficient to bring only one more dove.
|
| 9. |
I.e., to serve as the burnt-offering for the pair she was obligated to bring because of the birth, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 10. |
And the two young doves offered on the upper portion are considered as having been brought to fulfill her vow.
|
| 11. |
As the Kessef Mishneh states, it is not merely that it is unlikely for a person to do so, through Biblical exegesis, the Sifra derives that it is forbidden to do so.
|
| 12. |
I.e., this pair of doves.
|
| 13. |
And thus he is unsure if he fulfilled the woman's instructions.
|
| 14. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that since it is possible that the two doves designated for her vow were offered on the lower portion of the altar (as sin-offerings instead of burnt-offerings), it is possible that her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two other doves instead. Were that to have been the case, of the two offered on the upper portion of the altar, only one was acceptable and another dove must be brought as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
The above explanations are based of Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently, stating that this situation is considered like a burnt-offering that became intermingled with an unspecified group. See in Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
|
| 15. |
For they are burnt-offerings which must be offered on the upper portion of the altar.
|
| 16. |
Here the difficulty is that since the woman specified that the doves for her vow should come from a specific type and the priest did not remember whether he in fact offered that pair of doves as a burnt-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5), the Rambam explains this law. In the original sacrifice, perhaps the two turtle doves that were intended as burnt-offerings were sacrificed on the lower portion of the altar and were thus disqualified. Thus her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two turtle doves. The two young doves were offered on the upper portion of the altar as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary for another young dove to be offered on the lower portion as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
It is, however, also possible that the two young doves were offered on the lower portion of the altar. In that instance, she would have to bring another young dove to be offered on the upper portion as a burnt-offer to fulfill her obligation. Hence she must bring a total of two turtle doves and two young doves.
|
| 17. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains the difference between this instance and the one mentioned in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, we are speaking about an instance where the woman defined which doves were to be offered for which sacrifice at the time she gave them to the priest to offer and the priest forgot how he had offered them. In this instance, in addition to defining them when giving them to the priest, she pledged to bring them from a specific type and then she forgot which type of doves she pledged to bring for each particular sacrifice.
|
| 18. |
Of one type, as stated below.
|
| 19. |
The doves offered previously as a burnt-offering are of no consequence, because we are not certain that her vow was fulfilled. Because she is in doubt regarding which type she had specified in her vow, she must bring both types to fulfill it.
|
| 20. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this follows the same rationale as above. One of the burnt-offerings is acceptable. Hence it is necessary to bring a sin-offering to complete her obligation. He continues explaining that this decision is somewhat of a leniency, because it is possible that she will be offering the sin-offering from a different type of dove than the burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since we do not know of which type the original four doves were, this leniency is granted.
The above explanations are based on Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently. Similarly, this explanation requires - as suggested by the Kessef Mishneh - amending the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah to read:
it should be offered on the upper portion, for two were already offered on the lower portion as sin-offerings.
|
| 21. |
To be offered as burnt-offerings, for as above, it is possible that the ones designated as her vow were not offered as burnt-offerings and she does not remember which type she specified.
|
| 22. |
In contrast to the previous situations, she must bring two doves to fulfill her obligation. In this instance, one of those that were offered as a burnt-offering is not acceptable, because we know for certain that the offerings originally brought were of two types and we do not know which type of dove was brought as a burnt-offering so that a sin-offering could be brought from the same type of dove. Hence she must bring an entire pair to fulfill her obligation.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's rulings based on his interpretation of the Mishnah inKinnim (which is also supported by Rashi). Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's understanding.
|
| 23. |
Four doves. This is speaking about a situation where the woman designated two doves as a burnt-offering for her vow and two for her obligation, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. She forgot which type of doves she vowed, which she brought to the priest, and how she designated them.
|
| 24. |
To be offered as burnt-offerings. It is necessary to bring these offerings, because it is possible that no burnt-offerings were offered or those designated as burnt-offerings were not offered for that purpose. It is necessary to bring both types, because the woman does not know which type she pledged as a burnt-offering.
|
| 25. |
I.e., whether she would bring a lamb, the burnt-offering brought by a woman of means brings after childbirth, or a dove the burnt-offering brought when one lacks adequate means.
|
| 26. |
Two turtle doves and two young doves. This is necessary, because she forgot what type of dove she specified that she would bring to fulfill her vow.
|
| 27. |
Of one type, either young doves or turtle doves, for perhaps she intended to bring the sacrifice of a poor woman.
|
| 28. |
In the event she intended to bring the sacrifice of a woman of means.
It must be noted that Kinnim 3:5, the source for the Rambam's ruling, does not mention a lamb at all. The Rambam mentions it, both here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, because otherwise, there is no clear reason why an extra dove should be brought as a sin-offering (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 29. |
Instead, it should be burnt, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
|
• Wednesday, Sivan 16, 5775 · 03 June 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82.
Tanya: Ch. 5. Concerning (p. 299)...Shaar 44, ch. 3). (p. 301).
The early sages, who were like angels1 (may their merit protect us) have already determined that the healing of the soul is like the healing of the body:
The crucial first step is to identify the location of the illness, whether it is caused by the crassness, grossness and corruption of his physical body or by a failing in his soul-powers, the person being inclined to undersirable traits like arrogance or falsehood and the like. Or, the source of the malady may be habit - inadequate rearing or unwholesome environment having brought on bad habits.
Without ascertaining the specific site of the illness and the cause of infection, it is impossible to embark on a cure. One can only prescribe an orderly proper conduct in all matters, what to do and what to avoid. To "do good"2 in terms of observing mitzvot, designating times for Torah-study and acquiring good character traits - and also to "turn away from evil."3
Most urgent of all, however, is that the patient make himself aware of two things: a) to know that he is ill, and desire most fervently to be cured of his malady; b) to know that he can be cured, with hope and absolute trust that, with G-d's help, he will indeed be cured of his sickness.
FOOTNOTES
1. Allusion to the Talmudic statement: "If the first (or early ones, i.e. our predecessors) were like angels, then we are like men; if they were like men, we are like donkeys."
2. Tehillim 34:15.
3. Ibid.
Daily Thought:
Humble But Stubborn
The bravest heroes are also the most humble.
G‑d made the heart of David and his soldiers strong and brave, so they would win in battle against Israel’s enemies.
He made the hearts of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva stubborn, so they could traverse the highway from ignorance to enlightenment in adulthood.
They were all sensitive, humble men, nothing in their own eyes.
But G‑d put a stubborn courage in their hearts—and that they would not surrender.
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment