Today in Jewish History:
• Maharal Meets Rudolph II (1592)
Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel Lowe, known as the Maharal of Prague was famous among Jews and non-Jews alike. He was a mystic who was revered for his holiness and Torah scholarship, as well as his proficiency in mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences. Eventually, word of his greatness reached the ears of Emperor Rudolph II.
The Emperor invited the Maharal to his castle on February 23, 1592. There they conversed for one and a half hours, and developed a mutual respect for each other.
Rabbi Judah Lowe made use of his excellent connections with the Emperor, often intervening on behalf of his community when it was threatened by anti-Semitic attacks or oppression.
Link: Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague, The Maharal
Daily Quote:
"Give me [the city of] Yabneh and its sages"[Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai to Vespasian, when the Roman general promised to grant him his request before the destruction of Jerusalem]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tzav, 1st Portion Leviticus 6:1-6:11 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 6
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: That is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn with it. בצַ֤ו אֶת־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֣יו לֵאמֹ֔ר זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הָֽעֹלָ֑ה הִ֣וא הָֽעֹלָ֡ה עַל֩ מוֹקְדָ֨ה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ כָּל־הַלַּ֨יְלָה֙ עַד־הַבֹּ֔קֶר וְאֵ֥שׁ הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ תּ֥וּקַד בּֽוֹ:
Command Aaron: Heb. צַו. The expression צַו always denotes urging [to promptly and meticulously fulfill a particular commandment] for the present and also for future generations. Rabbi Simeon taught: Scripture especially needs to urge [people to fulfill commandments,] where monetary loss is involved. — [Torath Kohanim 6:1] צו את אהרן: אין צו אלא לשון זרוז מיד ולדורות. אמר ר' שמעון ביותר צריך הכתוב לזרז במקום שיש בו חסרון כיס:
This is the law of the burnt-offering…: This passage comes to teach us that the burning of [sacrificial] fats and parts [of an animal] is valid throughout the entire night [following the day it is offered up]. — [Meg. 21a] And [this passage also] teaches us regarding invalid sacrifices: which one, if it has already been brought up [on the altar], must be taken down, and which one, if it has been brought up [on the altar], need not be taken down. [And how do we know the latter case from Scripture?] Because every [instance of] תּוֹרַת [in the Torah] comes to include. [Thus here, it comes] to say that there is one law (תּוֹרָה for all sacrifices that go up [on the altar], even invalid ones, namely, that if they have already been brought up [on the altar], they need not be taken down. [However,] זאת תורת העלה וגו': הרי הענין הזה בא ללמד על הקטר חלבים ואיברים שיהא כשר כל הלילה, וללמד על הפסולין איזה אם עלה ירד, ואיזה אם עלה לא ירד, שכל תורה לרבות הוא בא, לומר תורה אחת לכל העולים, ואפילו פסולין, שאם עלו לא ירדו:
That is the burnt-offering: Heb. הִוא הַָעֹלָה [While the words תּוֹרַת הַָעֹלָה include invalid offerings, the words הִוא הַָעֹלָה come] to exclude the case of animals which have cohabited with a human, whether the animal was an active or a passive party to the transgression, and similar cases, in which their becoming invalid did not occur within the Holy [Temple precincts], but rather, they became invalid before they even arrived at the courtyard [of the Holy Temple]. - [Torath Kohanim 6:3] הוא העלה: למעט את הרובע ואת הנרבע וכיוצא בהן, שלא היה פסולן בקדש, שנפסלו קודם שבאו לעזרה:
3And the kohen shall don his linen tunic, and he shall don his linen trousers on his flesh. And he shall lift out the ashes into which the fire has consumed the burnt offering upon the altar, and put them down next to the altar. גוְלָבַ֨שׁ הַכֹּהֵ֜ן מִדּ֣וֹ בַ֗ד וּמִכְנְסֵי־בַד֘ יִלְבַּ֣שׁ עַל־בְּשָׂרוֹ֒ וְהֵרִ֣ים אֶת־הַדֶּ֗שֶׁן אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֹּאכַ֥ל הָאֵ֛שׁ אֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֖ה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְשָׂמ֕וֹ אֵ֖צֶל הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
his linen tunic: Heb. מִדּוֹ, lit. his measure. This is כֻּתֹּנֶת, a long tunic (seeExod. 28:39:40). Now why does it say מִדּוֹ ? [To teach us] that it must be [made] according to his size [of the kohen wearing it]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:7] מדו בד: היא הכתונת. ומה תלמוד לומר מדו, שתהא כמדתו:
on his flesh: i.e., nothing must interpose between [the trousers and his flesh]. — [Zev. 19a] על בשרו: שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בנתיים:
and he shall lift out the ashes: He would scoop out a full pan of ashes from the innermost [mass of ashes from] burnt out sacrificial parts [on the altar] and deposit them at the east side of the ramp [that led up to the altar (see Exod. 20:23, Rashi)]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:11; Tamid 28b] והרים את הדשן: היה חותה מלא מחתה מן המאוכלות הפנימיות ונותנן במזרחו של כבש:
the ashes into which the fire has consumed the burnt-offering: and made it into ashes, and some of these ashes the kohen should lift out and put them down next to the altar. הדשן אשר תאכל האש את העלה: ועשאתה דשן, מאותו דשן ירים תרומה ושמו אצל המזבח:
upon the altar: If he finds any [animal] parts which were not yet consumed, he must put them back onto the altar, after raking the burning embers in all directions and scooping out some of the innermost [ashes], because it is said, “the burnt-offering upon the altar,” [i.e., while it is still in the form of a burnt-offering, and not yet ashes, it must remain “upon the altar”]. — [Yoma 45a] על המזבח: מצא אברים שעדיין לא נתעכלו, מחזירן על המזבח, לאחר שחתה גחלים אילך ואילך ונטל מן הפנימיות, שנאמר את העולה על המזבח:
4He shall then take off his garments and put on other garments, and he shall take out the ashes to a clean place outside the camp. דוּפָשַׁט֙ אֶת־בְּגָדָ֔יו וְלָבַ֖שׁ בְּגָדִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֑ים וְהוֹצִ֤יא אֶת־הַדֶּ֨שֶׁן֙ אֶל־מִח֣וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶ֔ה אֶל־מָק֖וֹם טָהֽוֹר:
He shall then take off his garments: This is not an obligation, but proper practice, that, by taking out the ashes, he should not soil the garments in which he constantly officiates. [By analogy:] The clothes worn [by a servant] while cooking a pot [of food] for his master, he should not wear when he mixes a glass [of wine] for his master. Hence, [the verse continues,] “and put on other garments,” inferior to those [garments of the kehunah he had been wearing till now]. — [Yoma 23b] ופשט את בגדיו: אין זו חובה אלא דרך ארץ, שלא ילכלך בהוצאת הדשן בגדים שהוא משמש בהן תמיד. בגדים שבשל בהן קדרה לרבו אל ימזוג בהן כוס לרבו, לכך ולבש בגדים אחרים פחותין מהן: והוציא את הדשן - הצבור בתפוח, כשהוא רבה ואין מקום למערכה, מוציאו משם. ואין זה חובה בכל יום, אבל התרומה חובה בכל יום
and he shall take out the ashes: [By contrasting verse 3, “And he shall lift out (וְהֵריִם) the ashes,” with verse 4 here, “And he shall take out (וְהוֹצִיא) the ashes,” we see that there were two distinct obligations with regards to removing ashes from the altar: a) תּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, “lifting out” some of the innermost ashes from the altar and placing them next to the altar, and b) הוֹצָאַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, “taking out” the heap of ashes from atop the altar when they became overflowing, to a place “outside the camp.” Thus, our verse here, “And he shall take out the ashes,” refers to those ashes] which were heaped up in the apple-shaped pile [of ashes on top of the altar]. When this pile became so large that there was no longer any room on the wood-pile, he [the kohen] would take it out of there. Now, this was not a daily obligation (Tamid 28b), but lifting out [some innermost ashes] was a daily obligation. — [Tamid 20a] :
5And the fire on the altar shall burn on it; it shall not go out. The kohen shall kindle wood upon it every morning, and upon it, he shall arrange the burnt offering and cause the fats of the peace offerings to [go up in] smoke upon it. הוְהָאֵ֨שׁ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ תּֽוּקַד־בּוֹ֙ לֹ֣א תִכְבֶּ֔ה וּבִעֵ֨ר עָלֶ֧יהָ הַכֹּהֵ֛ן עֵצִ֖ים בַּבֹּ֣קֶר בַּבֹּ֑קֶר וְעָרַ֤ךְ עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ הָֽעֹלָ֔ה וְהִקְטִ֥יר עָלֶ֖יהָ חֶלְבֵ֥י הַשְּׁלָמִֽים:
And the fire on the altar shall burn on it: Heb. תּוּקַד. [In this passage,] we have many phrases employing the term יְקִידָה, “burning: ” עַל מוֹקְדָה, וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ (verse 2), הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ וְהָאֵשׁ עַל (verse 5), and אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ (verse 6). All these are expounded on in Tractate Yoma (45a), where [it is discussed how] our Rabbis differ regarding the number of wood-piles [that had to be arranged on that altar]. והאש על המזבח תוקד בו: ריבה כאן יקידות הרבה על מוקדה, ואש המזבח תוקד בו, והאש על המזבח תוקד בו, אש תמיד תוקד על המזבח, כולן נדרשו במסכת יומא (מג ב) שנחלקו רבותינו במנין המערכות שהיו שם:
and upon it, he shall arrange the burnt-offering: [This teaches us that] the תָּמִיד עוֹלַת, the [morning] daily burnt-offering, must come first [in the order of sacrifices offered up on the altar]. - [Pes. 58b] וערך עליה העלה: עולת תמיד היא תקדים:
the fats of the peace-offerings: Heb. עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים, [i.e.] if they bring peace-offerings [they are to be offered up on that fire]. Our Rabbis derived from here, however, “with it (עָלֶיהָ), i.e., with the morning burnt-offering [i.e., after the morning burnt-offering, but not after the evening burnt-offering], complete (הַשְּׁלֵם) all the sacrifices [of the day].” Hence, there must be no sacrifice offered after the [evening] daily burnt-offering. - [Pes. 58b] חלבי השלמים: אם יביאו שם שלמים. ורבותינו למדו מכאן עליה, על עולת הבוקר השלם כל הקרבנות כולם. מכאן שלא יהא דבר מאוחר לתמיד של בין הערבים:
6A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not go out. ואֵ֗שׁ תָּמִ֛יד תּוּקַ֥ד עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ לֹ֥א תִכְבֶּֽה:
A continuous fire: Heb. אֵשׁ תָּמִיד, the fire regarding which it says, “[to kindle the lamps] continually (תָּמִיד)” (Exod. 27:20) this fire must also be kindled from [the fire] on the outer altar. — [Yoma 45b] אש תמיד: אש שנאמר בה תמיד, היא שמדליקין בה את הנרות, שנאמר בה (שמות כז כ) להעלות נר תמיד, אף היא מעל המזבח החיצון תוקד:
it shall not go out: [Since “it shall not go out” is stated twice, once in verse 5 and a second time here,] anyone who extinguishes the fire on top of the altar, transgresses two negative commandments. לא תכבה: המכבה אש על המזבח עובר בשני לאוין:
7And this is the law of the meal offering: that Aaron's sons shall bring it before the Lord, to the front of the altar. זוְזֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַמִּנְחָ֑ה הַקְרֵ֨ב אֹתָ֤הּ בְּנֵי־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־פְּנֵ֖י הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
And this is the law of the meal-offering: Heb. וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה. [Since the תּוֹרַת (law) is always inclusive, the Torah teaches us that there is] one law for all meal-offerings, to require that they have oil and frankincense, as explained in this section. For one might think that only meal-offerings of ordinary Israelites [i.e., non- kohanim] need oil and frankincense, because their meal-offerings require scooping out (קְמִיצָה). How do we know [that] meal-offerings of kohanim, which are burned in their entirety (see verse 16 below), [also require oil and frankincense]? Scripture, therefore, תּוֹרַת [an inclusive term, in this case coming to include all meal-offerings in the requirement of oil and frankincense]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:24] וזאת תורת המנחה: תורה אחת לכולן להטעינן שמן ולבונה האמורין בענין. שיכול אין לי טעונות שמן ולבונה אלא מנחת ישראל שהיא נקמצת, מנחת כהנים שהיא כליל מנין, תלמוד לומר תורת:
shall bring it: This refers to bringing the offering near the south-west ern corner [of the altar]. [And how do we know that it must be brought near this specific corner? Because the verse says:] הקרב אתה: היא הגשה בקרן מערבית דרומית:
before the Lord: This refers to the west ern [side of the altar], which faced the Tent of Meeting, [and then it says:] לפני ה': הוא מערב שהוא לצד אהל מועד אל פני המזבח - הוא הדרום, שהוא פניו של מזבח, שהכבש נתון לאותו הרוח:
to the front of the altar: This refers to the south [side of the altar], which is the front of the altar for the ramp-כֶּבֶשׂ, [leading up to it] was placed on that side [of the altar. Hence, the south-western corner of the altar]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:26] :
8And he shall lift out of it in his fist, from the fine flour of the meal offering and from its oil and all the frankincense that is on the meal offering, and he shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke on the altar as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. חוְהֵרִ֨ים מִמֶּ֜נּוּ בְּקֻמְצ֗וֹ מִסֹּ֤לֶת הַמִּנְחָה֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ וְאֵת֙ כָּל־הַלְּבֹנָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַמִּנְחָ֑ה וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֗חַ רֵ֧יחַ נִיחֹ֛חַ אַזְכָּֽרָתָ֖הּ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
And he shall lift out of it: i.e., out of what is attached, meaning that [the amount of the mixture from where he lifts out,] should be a complete tenth [of an ephah,] at one time, namely at the time of the scooping. — [Torath Kohanim 6:27] והרים ממנו: מהמחובר, שיהא עשרון שלם בבת אחת בשעת קמיצה:
in his fist: [This teaches us that] he may not make a measure for a fistful [but rather, he must use his fingers directly]. - [Torath Kohanim 6:27] בקמצו: שלא יעשה מדה לקומץ:
from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil: [Now, we already know that the flour to be scooped up is mixed with oil, so why does the verse specifically mention oil here?] From here, we learn that the fistful [must be taken] from a place [in the meal-offering] where there is an abundance of its oil [i.e., where the oil is mixed thoroughly with the flour]. — [Sotah 14b] מסלת המנחה ומשמנה: מכאן שקומץ ממקום שנתרבה שמנה:
the meal-offering: [I.e., from that particular meal-offering;] it must not be mingled with another [meal-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:27] המנחה: שלא תהא מעורבת באחרת:
and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering, and he shall cause to [go up in] smoke: [meaning] that he must gather up [all] its frankincense after the scooping, and cause it to go up in smoke. And since Scripture specifically stated this law only in one case of the meal-offerings mentioned in וַיִּקְרָא (see Lev.2:2), Scripture found it necessary to repeat this section [including this law], to include all [kinds of] meal-offerings, in accordance with their law. ואת כל הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטיר: שמלקט את לבונתה לאחר קמיצה ומקטירו. ולפי שלא פירש כן אלא באחת מן המנחות בויקרא (ב, א - ג), הוצרך לשנות פרשה זו, לכלול כל המנחות כמשפטן:
9And Aaron and his sons shall eat whatever is left over from it. It shall be eaten as unleavened bread in a holy place; they shall eat it in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. טוְהַנּוֹתֶ֣רֶת מִמֶּ֔נָּה יֹֽאכְל֖וּ אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֑יו מַצּ֤וֹת תֵּֽאָכֵל֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֔שׁ בַּֽחֲצַ֥ר אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יֹֽאכְלֽוּהָ:
in a holy place: And which place is this? In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. — [Torath Kohanim 6:32] במקום קדש: ואיזהו, בחצר אהל מועד:
10It shall not be baked leavened. [As] their portion, I have given it to them from My fire offerings. It is a holy of holies, like the sin offering and like the guilt offering. ילֹ֤א תֵֽאָפֶה֙ חָמֵ֔ץ חֶלְקָ֛ם נָתַ֥תִּי אֹתָ֖הּ מֵֽאִשָּׁ֑י קֹ֤דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁים֙ הִ֔וא כַּֽחַטָּ֖את וְכָֽאָשָֽׁם:
It shall not be baked leavened. [As] their portion: [literally, “It must not be baked leavened, their portion.” I.e., from the juxtaposition of these words, is derived the law that] even the leftover portions [of the meal-offering, which go to the kohanim,] are prohibited to be leavened. — [Men. 55a] לא תאפה חמץ חלקם: אף השירים אסורים בחמץ:
like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering: [This refers to two different cases:] “Like a sin-offering” refers to the meal-offering of a sinner. [How is this sacrifice like a sin-offering? Insofar as just as the sin-offering must be sacrificed for that specific purpose, so too, the חוֹטֵא מִנְחַת] if [the kohen] performed the scooping while having in mind that should not be for the purpose of this sacrifice, it is invalid. And “like a guilt-offering” refers to a meal- offering brought as a voluntary donation. Therefore, if [the kohen] performed the scooping while having in mind that it should not be for the purpose of this sacrifice, it is still valid. — [Torath Kohanim 6:35] כחטאת וכאשם: מנחת חוטא הרי היא כחטאת, לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה. מנחת נדבה הרי היא כאשם, לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה כשרה:
11Any male among Aaron's sons may eat it. [This is] an eternal statute for your generations from the fire offerings of the Lord. Anything that touches them shall become holy. יאכָּל־זָכָ֞ר בִּבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ יֹֽאכְלֶ֔נָּה חָק־עוֹלָם֙ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם מֵֽאִשֵּׁ֖י יְהֹוָ֑ה כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֥ע בָּהֶ֖ם יִקְדָּֽשׁ:
Any male: Even if he has a blemish [which disqualifies him from performing the sacrificial service]. And why is this stated? If [this refers] to eating [the meal-offering, this is already stated [in Lev. 21:22, where Scripture says, referring to a kohen who has a blemish], “The offerings to his God from the holiest of the holy things [and from the holy things he may eat].” Rather, [Scripture here comes] to include blemished kohanim in the equal division [of meal-offerings, among all the kohanim [of the watch (מִשְׁמָר) , see Rashi Lev. 7:9)] כל זכר: אפילו בעל מום. למה נאמר, אם לאכילה הרי כבר אמור לחם אלהיו מקדשי הקדשים וגו', אלא לרבות בעלי מומין למחלוקת:
Anything that touches [them, shall become holy]: Sacrifices that have a lesser degree of holiness or ordinary food that comes in contact with a meal-offering and absorbs from it, כל אשר יגע וגו': קדשים קלים או חולין שיגעו בה ויבלעו ממנה:
shall become holy: to be like it [i.e., like the meal-offering], that if it is invalid, they will becomes invalid; and if it is valid, they will have to be eaten under the same stringency as the meal-offering [namely, within holy ground and only during the day of offering and the night following, until midnight]. — [Torath Kohanim 6:38; Zev. 97b] יקדש: להיות כמוה, שאם פסולה יפסלו, ואם כשרה יאכלו כחומר המנחה:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 55 - 59
• Hebrew text
• English text•
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• English text•
Chapter 55
David composed this psalm upon escaping from Jerusalem in the face of the slanderers, Doeg and Achitofel, who had declared him deserving of death. David had considered Achitofel a friend and accorded him the utmost honor, but Achitofel betrayed him and breached their covenant. David curses all his enemies, so that all generations should "know, and sin no more."
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a maskil by David.
2. Listen to my prayer, O God, do not hide from my pleas.
3. Pay heed to me and answer me, as I lament in my distress and moan -
4. because of the shout of the enemy and the oppression of the wicked; for they accuse me of evil and hate me passionately.
5. My heart shudders within me, and the terrors of death have descended upon me.
6. Fear and trembling penetrate me, and I am enveloped with horror.
7. And I said, "If only I had wings like the dove! I would fly off and find rest.
8. Behold, I would wander afar, and lodge in the wilderness forever.
9. I would hurry to find shelter for myself from the stormy wind, from the tempest.”
10. Consume, O Lord, confuse their tongue; for I have seen violence and strife in the city.1
11. Day and night they encircle her upon her walls, and iniquity and vice are in her midst.
12. Treachery is within her; fraud and deceit never depart from her square.
13. For it is not the enemy who taunts me-that I could bear; nor my foe who raises himself against me, that I could hide from him.
14. But it is you, a man of my equal, my guide and my intimate.
15. Together we took sweet counsel; we walked with the throng to the house of God.
16. May He incite death upon them, let them descend to the pit alive; for there is evil in their dwelling, within them.
17. As for me, I call to God, and the Lord will save me.
18. Evening, morning and noon, I lament and moan-and He hears my voice.
19. He redeemed my soul in peace from battles against me, because of the many who were with me.
20. May God-He who is enthroned from the days of old, Selah-hear and humble those in whom there is no change, and who do not fear God.
21. He extended his hands against his allies, he profaned his covenant.
22. Smoother than butter are the words of his mouth, but war is in his heart; his words are softer than oil, yet they are curses.
23. Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you; He will never let the righteous man falter.
24. And You, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit; bloodthirsty and treacherous men shall not live out half their days; but I will trust in You.
FOOTNOTES
1.Jerusalem.
Chapter 56
David composed this psalm while in mortal danger at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. In his distress David accepts vows upon himself.
1. For the Conductor, of the mute dove1 far away. By David, a michtam, 2 when the Philistines seized him in Gath.
2. Favor me, O God, for man longs to swallow me; the warrior oppresses me every day.
3. My watchful enemies long to swallow me every day, for many battle me, O Most High!
4. On the day I am afraid, I trust in You.
5. [I trust] in God and praise His word; in God I trust, I do not fear-what can [man of] flesh do to me?
6. Every day they make my words sorrowful; all their thoughts about me are for evil.
7. They gather and hide, they watch my steps, when they hope [to capture] my soul.
8. Should escape be theirs in reward for their iniquity? Cast down the nations in anger, O God!
9. You have counted my wanderings; place my tears in Your flask-are they not in Your record?
10. When my enemies will retreat on the day I cry out, with this I will know that God is with me.
11. When God deals strictly, I praise His word; when the Lord deals mercifully, I praise His word.
12. In God I trust, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
13. My vows to You are upon me, O God; I will repay with thanksgiving offerings to You.
14. For You saved my soul from death-even my feet from stumbling-to walk before God in the light of life.
FOOTNOTES
1.David having fled from Jerusalem, is silenced by fear (Rashi/Metzudot).
2.A psalm that was especially precious to David
Chapter 57
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, facing grave danger. Like Jacob did when confronted with Esau, David prayed that he neither be killed nor be forced to kill. In the merit of his trust in God, God wrought wonders to save him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction. By David, a michtam, when he fled from Saul in the cave.
2. Favor me, O God, favor me, for in You my soul took refuge, and in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge until the disaster passes.
3. I will call to God the Most High; to the Almighty Who fulfills [His promise] to me.
4. He will send from heaven, and save me from the humiliation of those who long to swallow me, Selah; God will send forth His kindness and truth.
5. My soul is in the midst of lions, I lie among fiery men; their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongue a sharp sword.
6. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be upon all the earth.
7. They laid a trap for my steps, they bent down my soul; they dug a pit before me, [but] they themselves fell into it, Selah.
8. My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast; I will sing and chant praise.
9. Awake, my soul! Awake, O harp and lyre! I shall awaken the dawn.
10. I will thank You among the nations, my Lord; I will praise You among the peoples.
11. For Your kindness reaches till the heavens, Your truth till the skies.
12. Be exalted above the heavens, O God; let Your glory be over all the earth.
Chapter 58
David expresses the anguish caused him by Avner and his other enemies, who justified Saul's pursuit of him.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction; by David, a michtam.
2. Is it true that you are mute [instead of] speaking justice? [Instead of] judging men with fairness?
3. Even with your heart you wreak injustice upon the land; you justify the violence of your hands.
4. The wicked are estranged from the womb; from birth do the speakers of falsehood stray.
5. Their venom is like the venom of a snake; like the deaf viper that closes its ear
6. so as not to hear the voice of charmers, [even] the most skillful caster of spells.
7. O God, smash their teeth in their mouth; shatter the fangs of the young lions, O Lord.
8. Let them melt like water and disappear; when He aims His arrows, may they crumble.
9. Like the snail that melts as it goes along, like the stillbirth of a woman-they never see the sun.
10. Before your tender shoots know [to become] hardened thorns, He will blast them away, as one [uprooting] with vigor and wrath.
11. The righteous one will rejoice when he sees revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
12. And man will say, "There is indeed reward for the righteous; indeed there is a God Who judges in the land."
Chapter 59
This psalm speaks of the great miracle David experienced when he eluded danger by escaping through a window, unnoticed by the guards at the door. The prayers, supplications, and entreaties he offered then are recorded here.
1. For the Conductor, a plea to be spared destruction, By David, a michtam, when Saul dispatched [men], and they guarded the house in order to kill him.
2. Rescue me from my enemies, my God; raise me above those who rise against me.
3. Rescue me from evildoers, save me from men of bloodshed.
4. For behold they lie in ambush for my soul, mighty ones gather against me-not because of my sin nor my transgression, O Lord.
5. Without iniquity [on my part,] they run and prepare-awaken towards me and see!
6. And You, Lord, God of Hosts, God of Israel, wake up to remember all the nations; do not grant favor to any of the iniquitous traitors, Selah.
7. They return toward evening, they howl like the dog and circle the city.
8. Behold, they spew with their mouths, swords are in their lips, for [they say], "Who hears?”
9. But You, Lord, You laugh at them; You mock all nations.
10. [Because of] his might, I wait for You, for God is my stronghold.
11. The God of my kindness will anticipate my [need]; God will show me [the downfall] of my watchful foes.
12. Do not kill them, lest my nation forget; drive them about with Your might and impoverish them, O our Shield, my Master,
13. [for] the sin of their mouth, the word of their lips; let them be trapped by their arrogance. At the sight of their accursed state and deterioration, [people] will recount.
14. Consume them in wrath, consume them and they will be no more; and they will know that God rules in Jacob, to the ends of the earth, Selah.
15. And they will return toward evening, they will howl like the dog and circle the city.
16. They will wander about to eat; when they will not be sated they will groan.
17. As for me, I shall sing of Your might, and sing joyously of Your kindness toward morning, for You have been a stronghold to me, a refuge on the day of my distress.
18. [You are] my strength, to You I will sing, for God is my stronghold, the God of my kindness.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 36• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Sunday, Adar II 10, 5776 · March 20, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 36
•
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Adar II 10, 5776 · March 20, 2016
וגם כבר היה לעולמים מעין זה, בשעת מתן תורה
A glimmer of this revelation which will take place in the future has already been experienced — at the time of the Giving of the Torah at Sinai,
כדכתיב: אתה הראת לדעת כי ה׳ הוא האלקים, אין עוד מלבדו
as it is written:1 “You (G‑d) revealed Yourself, that we may know that G‑d is the L‑rd; there is nothing else besides Him.”
הראת ממש, בראיה חושיית
“You actually ‘revealed Yourself’” (literally: “made Yourself seen”), indicating that the revelation was in a manner [perceptible to] physical sight.
כדכתיב: וכל העם רואים את הקולות, רואים את הנשמע
So it is written:2 “And all the people saw the thunder” — “They saw what is [normally] heard”; i.e., the Children of Israel perceived the revelation at Sinai with actual sight.
ופירשו רז״ל: מסתכלים למזרח ושומעין את הדבור יוצא: אנכי כו׳
As our Rabbis explain:3 “They looked eastward and heard the [divine] speech issuing forth, saying: ‘I am [G‑d your L‑rd-,’
וכן לארבע רוחות ולמעלה ולמטה
and so, too, turning toward the four points of the compass and above and below,“ they heard the words coming from every direction.
וכדפירש בתיקונים, דלית אתר דלא מילל מיניה עמהון כו׳
As explained also in Tikkunei Zohar: “There was no place from which He did not speak to them.”
והיינו מפני גילוי רצונו יתברך בעשרת הדברות
This was so because in the Ten Commandments His blessed Will was revealed,
שהן כללות התורה, שהיא פנימית רצונו יתברך וחכמתו, ואין שם הסתר פנים כלל
since they the Ten Commandments comprise the entire Torah which represents the inner aspect of His Will and Wisdom, where there is no “concealment of the Countenance” whatsoever,
כמו שאומרים: כי באור פניך נתת לנו... תורת חיים
as we say in our prayers:4 “For in the light of Your Countenance You gave us a Torah of life.”
The Torah thus represents the “light of His Countenance,” i.e., the inner light of G‑dliness. When this light was revealed through the uttering of the Ten Commandments, the entire world experienced a revelation of G‑dliness.
ולכן היו בטלים במציאות ממש, כמאמר רז״ל, שעל כל דיבור פרחה נשמתן כו׳
Therefore, they the Jews who stood at Sinai were nullified out of existence, as our Rabbis have said:5 “At every [divine] utterance their soul took flight from their body,
אלא שהחזירה הקדוש ברוך להן בטל שעתיד להחיות בו את המתים
but G‑d restored it to them with the dew with which He will revive the dead in the World to Come.“
והוא טל תורה שנקרא עוז
This is the “dew” of Torah which is called “might”; i.e., the Torah provides the strength that enables us to receive divine revelation without dissolving out of existence, as explained above in reference to the reward of tzaddikim in the World to Come.
כמאמר רז״ל: כל העוסק בתורה טל תורה מחייהו כו׳
Similarly, our Sages remark:6 “Whoever engages in the study of the Torah, the dew of Torah will revive him.”
The Torah is variously described as dew, rain, and so on, each figure denoting a different level within it. From the statement just paraphrased, we learn that “dew” refers to the Torah’s restorative power, and it was this “dew” by which G‑d restored the souls of the Jews which had taken flight upon experiencing a degree of divine revelation foreshadowing that of the Messianic era.
FOOTNOTES
1.Devarim 4:35.
2.Shmot 20:15; and Mechilta (quoted in Rashi) on the verse.
3.See Shmot Rabbah 5:9.
4.Liturgy, Amidah prayer.
5.Shabbat 88b.
6.See Ketubbot 111b; see also Likkutei Sichot, Vol. II, p. 193 (footnote).
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Adar II 10, 5776 · March 20, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 121
Fallen Stalks
"The gleanings of your harvest you shall not harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger"—Leviticus 23:22.
We are commanded to leave [for the poor] the leket [stalks that fall to the ground in the course of harvesting].
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Fallen Stalks
Positive Commandment 121
Translated by Berel Bell
The 121st mitzvah is that we are commanded to leave over leket [stalks1 of grain which have fallen during the harvesting process].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not pick up the stalks which fall during harvest. You must leave them for the poor and the stranger."3
This mitzvah is also in the category of lav shenitak l'aseh (a prohibition with a remedial positive commandment), as explained in tractate Makkos regarding pe'ah.4
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Pe'ah.5
The Biblical prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisroel.6
FOOTNOTES
1.
This mitzvah applies only of one or two stalks were dropped. If three were dropped together, the owner can take them. See Hilchos Matnos Aniyim, 4:1.
2.
Lev. 23:22.
3.
The first part of the verse serves as the prohibition, N211. The second part is the positive commandment discussed here.
4.
See N210, N214.
5.
Ch.4.
6.
See note to P120 above.
Negative Commandment 211
Gathering the Fallen Stalks
"You shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest"—Leviticus 23:22.
It is forbidden for the landowner to harvest the stalks that fall to the ground in the course of the harvest, rather they must be left for the poor.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Gathering the Fallen Stalks
Negative Commandment 211
Translated by Berel Bell
The 211th prohibition is that we are forbidden from taking for ourselves the stalks which fall during the harvesting process. Rather, they must be left for the poor.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not pick up the stalks which fall during harvest."
This mitzvah is also in the category of lav shenitak l'aseh (a prohibition with a remedial positive commandment), as explained regarding pe'ah.2
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Pe'ah.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Lev. 23:22.
2.
See above, N210, N214.
Positive Commandment 123
Defective Grape Clusters
"...you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger"—Leviticus 19:10.
We are commanded to leave the olelot [grape clusters that have not developed normally] for the poor.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Isreal.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Defective Grape Clusters
Positive Commandment 123
Translated by Berel Bell
The 123rd mitzvah is that we are commanded to leave over for the poor those [poor-quality1] grape clusters which are normally2 left in the vineyard during the harvesting process. These are called olelos.
The same verse,3 "You must leave them for the poor and the stranger," also refers to this mitzvah, since it follows mention of olelos.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Pe'ah.
The Biblical prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisroel.4
FOOTNOTES
1.
In Hilchos Matnos Aniyim 4:17-18, the Rambam defines olelos as clusters which are incompletely formed, either lacking grapes attached to the central stem, or grapes which lie on one another.
2.
See Kapach, 5731, note 32 to N212.
3.
Lev. 19:10. See above, P120.
4.
See note to P120 above.
Negative Commandment 212
Harvesting the Defective Grape Clusters
"You shall not harvest the defective clusters from your vineyard"—Leviticus 19:10.
It is forbidden for the landowner to remove all the grapes from the vineyard in the course of the harvest, rather he must leave for the poor the grape clusters that have not developed normally.
This prohibition applies to vineyards only, not to any other fruit, even those similar to grapes.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Harvesting the Defective Grape Clusters
Negative Commandment 212
Translated by Berel Bell
The 212th prohibition is that we are forbidden from completely harvesting a vineyard.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not pick the olelos in your vineyard." You must instead leave them for the poor.2
This law does not apply to other trees, even though they are similar to grapevines. The prohibition,3 "When you beat the fruit from your olive tree, do not go back over it" [is not related to this mitzvah of olelos but is] part of the prohibition against taking shik'cho (forgotten produce).4 From this verse which prohibits taking shik'cho from olive trees we learn that shik'cho applies to all trees. [The law of olelos, however, only applies to grapes.]
This mitzvah is also in the category of lav shenitak l'aseh (a prohibition with a remedial positive commandment).
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Pe'ah.5
FOOTNOTES
1.
Lev.19:10.
2.
See Ibn Tibbon translation.
3.
Deut. 24:20.
4.
See N214 below.
5.
Ch.7, Mishneh 4.
• 1 Chapter: Biat Hamikdash Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When an impure person serves in the Temple,1 he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there,2 as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure.3
Further on,4 [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.5
Halacha 2
Although one who serves in a state of impurity is liable only for lashes in court, his priestly brethren6 would not bring him to the court. Instead, they would take him outside7 [the Temple]8 and split open his brain. They would not be rebuked for this.9
Halacha 3
How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard10 and departed in the shortest way possible,11 but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames.12 [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service13 is considered as equivalent to that service.
Halacha 4
Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall of that day,14 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their God."15 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid. 22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure.16 A person whose atonement process was not completed17 who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment]18 even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice].
Halacha 5
What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.19
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known,20 all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths,21 the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.22 Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally.23We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.
Halacha 7
Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure,24 as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation,25 in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.
Halacha 8
The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead,26 as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before God."
Halacha 9
[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath27 or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering,28 supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.29
Halacha 10
All30 of the communal sacrifices have a fixed time when they must be offered.31 Hence [offering them] supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.
Halacha 11
All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten.32 Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar].33 The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten34 are burnt in the same manner35 as are other sacrifices that became impure.36
Halacha 12
What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority37 of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse,38 or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure39 due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together40 and enter the Temple Courtyard.41
Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karet for entering [the Courtyard]42 or death [at the hand of Heaven]43 for [carrying out] the service.44 For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices].
Halacha 13
When a Paschal sacrifice45 is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard.46 Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.47
Halacha 14
If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day48 were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices.49If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve].50 If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.
Halacha 15
Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clain?51 Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation.52 We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.53
Halacha 16
What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because a [deceased] human soul."54 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred.55 Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice:56 [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.
Halacha 17
This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure....57 For many of the people, may from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves."
What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"?58 Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month,59 because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves."60 As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh,61 as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.62
Halacha 18
There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh.63
Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions,64 as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May God Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'God heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.
2.As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard.
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.In reference to terumah.
5.See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above.
6.In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."
7.The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment to him. All they can do is bring him to the court.
8.I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.
9.The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken.
10.For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
11.In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.
12.See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act.
13.And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service.
14.As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe punishment.
15.See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in the mikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple.
17.I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure.
18.The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offence is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. TheKessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult.
19.I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted withtzara'at.
20.To even one person.
21.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.
Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about."
22.The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.
23.The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet.
24.I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34.
25.I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot.
26.There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist.
27.I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time.
28.I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices.
29.For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.
30.I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices, are not offered at a specific time.
31.And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).
32.With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim 7:5).
33.For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be offered on the altar.
34.Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omeroffering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered onRosh Chodesh.
35.Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.
36.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.
37.Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).
38.This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference whether or not the people at large are impure.
39.As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning.
40.I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
41.I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).
42.See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
43.As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.
44.They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).
45.Although this law also applies with regard to other communal sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of people in the Temple Courtyard.
46.Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the Sanctuary itself.
47.There is a question concerning this issue inPesachim 95b. Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes. The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well.
48.See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term.
49.As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure.
50.For the reason stated in the following halachah.
51.And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).
52.The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely, with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh toHilchot Shabbat 2:1.
53.As stated in Halachah 7.
54.The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.
55.See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.
56.Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2 states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now sinceNumbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.
57.King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them an extra month.
58.I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).
59.I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap year.
60.Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav Yosef Corcus).
61.Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
62.For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.
63.Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before.
64.I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4Halacha 1
When an impure person serves in the Temple,1 he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there,2 as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure.3
Further on,4 [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.5
Halacha 2
Although one who serves in a state of impurity is liable only for lashes in court, his priestly brethren6 would not bring him to the court. Instead, they would take him outside7 [the Temple]8 and split open his brain. They would not be rebuked for this.9
Halacha 3
How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard10 and departed in the shortest way possible,11 but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames.12 [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service13 is considered as equivalent to that service.
Halacha 4
Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall of that day,14 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their God."15 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid. 22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure.16 A person whose atonement process was not completed17 who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment]18 even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice].
Halacha 5
What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.19
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known,20 all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths,21 the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.22 Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally.23We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.
Halacha 7
Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure,24 as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation,25 in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.
Halacha 8
The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead,26 as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before God."
Halacha 9
[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath27 or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering,28 supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.29
Halacha 10
All30 of the communal sacrifices have a fixed time when they must be offered.31 Hence [offering them] supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.
Halacha 11
All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten.32 Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar].33 The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten34 are burnt in the same manner35 as are other sacrifices that became impure.36
Halacha 12
What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority37 of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse,38 or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure39 due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together40 and enter the Temple Courtyard.41
Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karet for entering [the Courtyard]42 or death [at the hand of Heaven]43 for [carrying out] the service.44 For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices].
Halacha 13
When a Paschal sacrifice45 is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard.46 Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.47
Halacha 14
If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day48 were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices.49If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve].50 If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.
Halacha 15
Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clain?51 Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation.52 We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.53
Halacha 16
What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because a [deceased] human soul."54 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred.55 Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice:56 [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.
Halacha 17
This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure....57 For many of the people, may from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves."
What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"?58 Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month,59 because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves."60 As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh,61 as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.62
Halacha 18
There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh.63
Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions,64 as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May God Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'God heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.
2.As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard.
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.In reference to terumah.
5.See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above.
6.In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."
7.The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment to him. All they can do is bring him to the court.
8.I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.
9.The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken.
10.For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
11.In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.
12.See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act.
13.And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service.
14.As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe punishment.
15.See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in the mikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple.
17.I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure.
18.The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offence is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. TheKessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult.
19.I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted withtzara'at.
20.To even one person.
21.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.
Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about."
22.The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.
23.The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet.
24.I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34.
25.I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot.
26.There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist.
27.I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time.
28.I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices.
29.For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.
30.I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices, are not offered at a specific time.
31.And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).
32.With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim 7:5).
33.For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be offered on the altar.
34.Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omeroffering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered onRosh Chodesh.
35.Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.
36.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.
37.Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).
38.This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference whether or not the people at large are impure.
39.As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning.
40.I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
41.I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).
42.See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
43.As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.
44.They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).
45.Although this law also applies with regard to other communal sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of people in the Temple Courtyard.
46.Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the Sanctuary itself.
47.There is a question concerning this issue inPesachim 95b. Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes. The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well.
48.See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term.
49.As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure.
50.For the reason stated in the following halachah.
51.And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).
52.The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely, with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh toHilchot Shabbat 2:1.
53.As stated in Halachah 7.
54.The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.
55.See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.
56.Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2 states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now sinceNumbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.
57.King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them an extra month.
58.I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).
59.I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap year.
60.Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav Yosef Corcus).
61.Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
62.For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.
63.Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before.
64.I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).
• 3 Chapters: Matnot Aniyim Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 2, Matnot Aniyim Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 3, Matnot Aniyim Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 2
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class•
---------------------
Audio: Listen | Download• Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Any food that grows from the earth,1 is guarded,2 is harvested at the same time, and is placed in storage3 is required that pe'ah [be separated from it], as [Leviticus 19:9] states: "When you reap the harvest of your land."4
Halacha 2
Anything that resembles a crop that is harvested by having these five qualities requires that pe'ah be separated from it, e.g., grain, legumes, carobs, nuts, almonds, pomegranates, grapes, olives, dates - whether dried or fresh - and any similar produce.
By contrast, indigo, rubia, and the like are exempt, because they are not food.5 Similarly, truffles and mushrooms are exempt, because they do not grow from the earth, like other produce of the earth.6 Similarly, ownerless produce is exempt, for there is no one to watch it, for it is free for anyone to take. Similarly, figs are exempt, because they are not harvested at one time. Instead, on the tree, there are some that will become ripe on one day and others that will not become ripe until after several days. Similarly, vegetables are exempt, for they are not placed in storage. Garlic and onions require thatpe'ah [be separated], for they are dried out and placed in storage. Similarly, seed onions that are placed in the earth to produce seed require that pe'ah [be given from them]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
If he harvested half of it and thieves harvested the remaining half, it is exempt, for the obligation was incumbent on the half that was harvested by the thieves.11 If, however, thieves harvested half of it and [the owner] harvested the remaining half, he should leave pe'ah according to the measure of what he harvested.12
If he harvested half and sold the [remaining] half, the purchaser must leavepe'ah for the entire field.13 If he harvested half and consecrated half, the person who redeems [the half] from the Temple treasury must leave pe'ah for the entire [field].14 If he harvested half [the field] and consecrated [what he harvested], he should leave pe'ah for the entire field from the remainder [of the crop].15
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when a person] harvested [some of] the grapes in his vineyard to sell in the market place, but had the intent to leave the remainder for the vat to press [for wine].16 If he would harvest for the marketplace from either side [of the vineyard], he should give pe'ah for [the grapes] that he harvests for the vat according to the amount that remain.17 If he would harvest for the marketplace from only one side, he should leave the amount of pe'ah appropriate for the entire field from the amount remaining. [The rationale is that] since he harvested from only one side, he is not considered as harvesting haphazardly in which instance, he would be exempt [from leaving pe'ah].18
Similarly, when a person harvests ears of grain bit by bit and brings them home, he is exempt from leket, shichachah, and pe'ah, even if he harvested his entire field in this manner.
Halacha 7
When a person harvests his entire field before it becomes completely ripe, before it reaches a third of its growth, he is exempt [from pe'ah].19 If it reached a third of its growth, he is obligated. Similarly, with regard to fruit from trees, if a third of their growth is completed, there is an obligation [to leave pe'ah].
Halacha 8
When a person consecrates his field while his grain is standing and redeems it while it is [still] standing, there is an obligation [to leave pe'ah]20 from it.21If the Temple treasurer harvested it and then he redeemed it, it is exempt, for at the time when the obligation for pe'ah became relevant, [the field] was consecrated and thus there was no obligation [to leave pe'ah] from it.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When a landowner harvested his entire field and did not leave pe'ah, he should give some of the stalks of grain as pe'ah to the poor.26 He does not have to tithe [the grain he leaves as pe'ah].27 Even if he gives the majority of the harvest as pe'ah, he is exempt from tithes.28
Similarly, if he threshed the grain, but did not winnow it, he should give thempe'ah, before he tithes. If, however, he threshed and winnowed the grain with a pitchfork and a shovel and completed the task, he should tithe29 and give [the poor] tithed produce equivalent to the appropriate measure of pe'ah for that field.30 Similar [concepts apply] with regard to trees.
Halacha 12
Pe'ah should be left only at the edge of the field, so that the poor will know where to come to collect it,31 so it will be obvious to passersby and they will not suspect [that the owner did not leave pe'ah], and so that deceivers will not intend to harvest their entire field and [will excuse themselves by] telling the observers: "I left it in the beginning of the field." Also, [leaving it there will prevent him from] waiting until a time when no one is present and leaving it for a poor person with whom he is close.
If a person transgressed and left pe'ah in the beginning or the middle of his field, it is considered as pe'ah, but he must leave an appropriate measure ofpe'ah for the portion of the field that remained after he separated the initial [pe'ah].32
Halacha 13
When the owner of a field gave pe'ah to the poor33 and they told him: "Give us from the [other] side," and he gave them from the other side [as well], both of the gifts are considered as pe'ah. Similarly, if the owner of a field separatedpe'ah and then said: "This is pe'ah and this also is" or "This is pe'ah and this,"34 they are both pe'ah.
Halacha 14
It is forbidden for workers to harvest the entire field.35 Instead, they should leave the appropriate measure [of grain] for pe'ah at the end of the field. [Nevertheless,] the poor do not have a share in it until the owner willfully separates it. Therefore [although] a poor person sees pe'ah at the end of a field,36 he is forbidden to touch it lest it be considered as theft until he knows that it was left with the consent of the owner of the field.
Halacha 15
Pe'ah from grain, legumes, and other similar species of crops that are harvested and similarly, pe'ah left in vineyards and orchards37 should be given while it is [growing] from the earth. The poor should grab it by hand; they should not cut it with sickles, nor uproot it with hatchets lest one person [accidentally] strike a colleague.
Halacha 16
Pe'ah from a grape vine [draped over a high wall] and from a date palm that the poor cannot reach to grab except at great danger40 the owner of the land should bring it down41 and divide it among them. If they all desire that it be left to be grabbed, that option is followed. If, however, ninety-nine say that they desire that it be left to be grabbed and one says that it should be divided, we listen to the latter, for his statement is in accord with Torah law.42 We obligate the owner to bring it down and divide it among them.
Halacha 17
At three times during the day,43 pe'ah is divided among the poor or left for them to take: at daybreak, at noon, and at minchah.44When a poor person does not come at these times, he is not allowed to take, so that there will be fixed times for the poor so that they will all gather together to take [pe'ah].
Why wasn't only one time a day established [for the poor to take]? Because there are poor nursing mothers that need to eat at the beginning of the day.45And there are poor children who are not awake in the morning and will not reach the field until midday and there are elderly people who will not come until the late afternoon.46
Halacha 18
When a poor person takes some of the pe'ah and throws it over the remainder, falls on it, or spreads his garment over it,47 we penalize him and make him relinquish it. Even what he took48 is removed from his possession and given to another poor person. [These laws] also apply with regard to leketand to a sheave that was forgotten.
Halacha 19
[The following rules apply if a person] took pe'ah and said: "This is for the poor person, so-and-so." If the person who took possession of the pe'ah is also poor, [the acquisition is binding]. Since he has the right to acquire it himself, he may acquire it for the other person.49 If [the person who took possession] was rich, he does not acquire it for him.50 Instead, he should give it to the poor person he finds first.
FOOTNOTES
1.
In the following halachah, the Rambam explains how each of the five factors he mentions here is significant and excludes a different type of produce.
2.
I.e., protected against thieves.
3.
To keep over a long period of time.
4.
All these concepts are implied by the word "harvest"; see the Sifri to the prooftext cited.
5.
I.e., they are used for dye and the like.
6.
I.e., they don't have roots in the earth through which they derive nurture (ibid.).
7.
I.e., a field does not have to be of a given size.
8.
The prooftext uses a plural term.
9.
I.e., taking the produce for themselves. If, however, they harvested it for the sake of the Jews, pe'ah must be given, as stated in Halachah 10.
10.
Although pe'ah must be given even if the grain was harvested (Chapter 1, Halachah 2), that is only because the obligation was incurred at the time of harvest. In these instances, the field was destroyed and the Jew received no benefit from the harvest. Hence, there is no obligation to leave pe'ah.
11.
The pe'ah is included in the standing grain. Since that was stolen by the thieves, it is considered as if they stole the portion due the poor.
12.
He need not, however, leave pe'ah for the portion stolen by the thieves.
13.
For the pe'ah is in the remaining half. Since the purchaser was obviously aware that the first half of the field had been harvested, he implicitly accepted the responsibility to leavepe'ah for the part of the field that had been harvested previously. For the owner has no right to sell the portion of the crops belonging to the poor [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 2:8)].
14.
I.e., he purchases the field from the Temple treasury with the understanding that he must leave pe'ah for the entire field.
15.
Since he consecrated the crop after he harvested it, he was already obligated to leave pe'ah for it.
16.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 23, which mentions laws that are relevant to this situation.
17.
He does not have to leave pe'ah for the amount that he harvested previously. The rationale is that since he harvested it indiscriminately, his act is not considered as significant. It is as if he picked some grapes haphazardly. As the Rambam continues to state, pe'ah is not required for such a harvest. Hence, when he harvests the grapes for the vat, he must leave pe'ah only for the grapes he is harvesting at that time.
18.
As explained above, a person is obligated to leave pe'ah only when he "harvests" his field. If he just gathers his food in a haphazard sporadic manner, he is not considered to have harvested and hence, is not liable to leave pe'ah.
19.
Here, also, the same rationale applies. Since the produce did not ripen completely, reaping it is not considered as a "harvest" (Menachot 71b).
20.
Or any of the other "presents to the poor" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 4:7)].
21.
For at the time he harvested it, it was his private property.
22.
Because at the time he harvested it, he was not obligated to observe these mitzvot.
23.
The Rambam's wording is perplexing, for he refers to two differing opinions in Pe'ah 4:6. To explain: That mishnah states: "When a gentile harvested his field and afterwards, converted, he is exempt from pe'ah, leket, and shichachah. Rabbi Yehudah obligates him in shichachah, because shichachahapplies only when sheaves [are transferred]."
The first opinion in the mishnah maintains that we draw an equation between the obligation of shichachah that applies to standing grain and the obligation ofshichachah that applies to sheaves. Sinceshichachah does not apply to one, it does not apply to the other. Rabbi Yehudah, by contrast, maintains that each obligation ofshichachah should be considered independently. The Rambam subscribes to the first opinion, but borrows the wording used by Rabbi Yehudah.
24.
The Radbaz explains that we suspect that they will give either less than the required amount and thus disadvantage the poor or give more than the required amount and thus disadvantage the owner.
25.
The fact that the individuals who did the actual harvesting were not obligated to fulfill the mitzvah does not remove the responsibility from the owner of the field.
26.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.
27.
For the produce he leaves as pe'ah is not his, and hence, he is not obligated to tithe it. Nor are the poor, because they were not the owners at the time it was harvested. SeeHilchot Terumot 2:9.
28.
I.e., one might think that he is liable, because such a large gift would be considered as a present (for which tithes must be given) and not as pe'ah. Hence it is necessary to state that this is not so (Radbaz).
29.
For he is already obligated to give tithes once he completes winnowing.
30.
Without subtracting the amount set aside as tithes from the pe'ah.
31.
The Tosefta (Pe'ah, ch. 1) states that this measure was instituted for the sake of the poor, so that their time would not be wasted waiting in limbo until the owner of the field designated a portion of the field as pe'ah. Instead, they could judge when he would complete his harvest and come at that time alone.
32.
He need not, however, leave pe'ah for the entire field. The pe'ah that he separated originally is effective in discharging the obligation for the crops harvested before it was separated.
33.
On one side of his field. Our translation is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.
34.
Although the owner did not explicitly say "And also this," we interpret that as his intent. Since this question is left unresolved by Nedarim 6b, the Rambam rules stringently (Kessef Mishneh).
35.
For they are acting on the owner's behalf.
36.
If, however, a poor person sees the owner separating pe'ah, he may take it, for he can assume that the owner consciously separated it.
37.
In contrast to the following halachah, here the Rambam is speaking about orchards with low trees which are not dangerous for the poor to climb.
38.
Instead of each person grabbing whatever he could.
39.
For the Torah instructs us to "leave" thepe'ah for the poor, implying that each one takes what he can get (Radbaz).
40.
Obviously, people vying with each other at heights for food could be severely dangerous.
41.
As he harvests the remainder of his crop.
42.
Because of the danger involved.
43.
Neither less, nor more.
44.
I.e., minchah ketanah, an hour and fifteen minutes before sunset.
45.
So it was established that pe'ah would be divided in the morning so that they would receive a portion at that time.
46.
Thus a time was established to enable every type of poor person to gather the pe'ah at an appropriate time.
47.
I.e., he is attempting to take possession of it, but is not employing accepted kinyanim, formal means of acquisition and hence, he is not entitled to that grain.
48.
And would rightfully belong to him.
49.
See Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 17:3, Hilchot Mechirah 4:15, which quote this principle is a binding construct in Jewish business law.
50.
For he has no right to acquire it himself.
51.
A coin of the Talmudic period.
52.
And therefore able to be acquired by the finder.
53.
And he acquires it through a formal kinyan.
Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Pe'ah should not be left in one field for another field.
What is implied? If [a person] owned two fields, he should not harvest one entirely and leave the amount of pe'ah appropriate for both in the second field. [This is derived from Leviticus 23:22:] "Do not completely remove [the grain in] the corners of your field." [Implied is] that one should leave in each field thepe'ah that is appropriate for it. If one left [pe'ah] from one field for another, it is not pe'ah.
Halacha 2
Although one's entire field was sowed with one crop, if there was a stream - even if did not flow1 - or an irrigation ditch - provided water flowed through it and it was established2 - in the midst of the field that would prevent one from harvesting both sides at the same time,3 it is considered as two fields and one should give pe'ah on each side for the portion there.
Halacha 3
Similarly, a path belonging to a private individual which is four cubits wide or a public thoroughfare which is sixteen cubits wide separates [between one field and another]. [Different rules apply regarding] a private path that is less than four cubits wide or a public path that is less than sixteen cubits wide.4 If it is permanent, i.e., it is maintained in the summer and in the rainy season, it is considered as a separation. If it is not permanent in the rainy season, it is not considered as a separation and [the entire area] is considered as one field.
Halacha 4
There are other factors which constitute a separation into two fields:
a) land that was uncultivated, that was neither sown, nor plowed;
b) land left fallow, that was plowed, but not sown;
c) crops were interrupted with another crop, e.g., there was wheat on either side and barley in the middle;5
d) one harvested in the middle of his field before the grain reached a third of its maturity and plowed the portion which he harvested.6
[The above applies] provided the width of each of the above is three rows of plowing. [This is] less7 than the area necessary to sow a quarter [of a kav].8
When does the above apply? With regard to a small field that is 50 cubits by two cubits or less. If it is larger than this uncultivated or fallow land does not cause it to be divided in two unless it was as wide as the area necessary to sow a quarter of a kav.9 [In this instance,] even the smallest amount of another crop creates a separation.10
Halacha 5
If locusts consumed [a field] in its midst or ants destroyed it, should one plow the portion that was consumed,11 it is considered to be a separation.
Halacha 6
[The following law applies when one] sows [crops] on a mountain [slope] that is not level, but instead has knolls and hollows. Even though he cannot plow it all at once and sow it all at once, but instead must plow the knolls by themselves and the hollows by themselves, it is considered as a single field. He should leave one portion of pe'ah at the end of the mountain for the entire mountain.12
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply when one sows crops on] terraced land. [When each terrace] is ten handbreadths higher than the other, one should leavepe'ah [separately] for each terrace. If the heads of the rows are joined together, he should leave one portion of pe'ah for the entire area. If they were less than ten handbreadths higher, he should leave one portion of pe'ah even if the heads of the rows are not joined together.
[The following rules apply] if there was a rock covering the surface of the entire field. If he must lift up the plow from one side and place it on the other side, it is considered an interruption.13 If not, it is not considered an interruption.
Halacha 8
When a person sows a field that has trees - even though he sows it in squares14 between the trees and thus the entire crop does not come together as one - he should give one portion of pe'ah for the entire field. For it is known that it is one field; it is only the place of the trees that causes the crop to be divided.15
Halacha 9
When does the above apply? When all ten trees were located in an area in which a se'ah [of grain can be sowed].16 If, however, all ten trees were located in an area larger than that in which a se'ah [of grain can be sowed], he should leave pe'ah from every square separately. For the trees are far apart and they did not cause him to sow the field in squares.17
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when a person] sowed an entire field with one crop, but when certain places in the field began to dry out, he uprooted or pulled out the crops that had dried out on either side until the fresh crops appeared as separate blocks. If it was customary for people to sow that crop in individual rows, e.g., dill or mustard seed,20 he should leave pe'ah for each individual square, for an observer would say: "It was planted in separate rows."21 If it was a species that was usually sown throughout an entire field, e.g., grain or legumes, he should leave one portion of pe'ah for the entire [field].22
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[The following law applies when a person] sowed a field with onions, beans, peas,25 or the like. If he had the intent to sell some of the fresh produce in the marketplace and leave part of the field to dry out and to be put aside in storage, he is obligated to leave pe'ah separately for both the portion he sells and the portion he harvests for storage.26 For [produce sold in] the market and produce set aside in storage are considered as two separate types.
Halacha 14
When a person sows his field with one species, he should leave one portion of pe'ah even though he collects the crops in two grain heaps.27 If he sows two species, even though he makes only one grain heap, he should leavepe'ah for each species separately.
Halacha 15
[The following law applies when a person] sows two types of the same species, e.g., he sows two types of wheat28 or two types of barley. If he stores them in one grain heap, he should leave one portion of pe'ah. If he stores them in two grain heaps, he should leave separate portions of pe'ah. This is a halachah communicated by Moses from Sinai.29
Halacha 16
When brothers have divided [the estate they inherited], they should leavepe'ah separately. If later30 they joined together in partnership, they should leave only one portion of pe'ah.31 When partners who have harvested half of a field break up the partnership, [one taking the grain that was harvested already and one taking the standing grain,] the one who took the grain that was harvested does not separate anything32 and the one who took the standing grain is required to separate only for the half which he took.33 If, afterwards, they reestablished their partnership34 and harvested the second half as partners, either one may separate [pe'ah] for his colleague's portion of the standing grain from his own portion of the standing grain,35 but not for the portion that was already harvested.36
Halacha 17
[There are situations in which pe'ah may be given from different parts of a field for other parts of the same field that were harvested afterwards. For example, the grain of] half of a field ripened to a third of its maturity and half did not ripen to that extent. [The owner] harvested half of the portion that reached maturity.37 Afterwards, the remainder of the field ripened to one third and then he completed the harvest of the first half that reached [a third of its maturity] previously. He may separate [pe'ah] from [the crops] harvested first for the middle portion38 and from the middle portion on the first portion39 and on the last portion.40
Halacha 18
[The following laws apply when a person] sells separate portions in his field to different people. If he sold his entire field, each one of the purchasers should leave pe'ah for the portion that he purchased.41 If the owner of the field had begun to harvest his field and sold a portion and retained a portion, the owner of the field should leave [the amount of] pe'ah appropriate for the entire field. [The rationale is that] since he began harvesting [the field] he became obligated to [separate pe'ah for] the entire [field].42 If he sold [the portions of the field] before [he began harvesting], the purchaser should separate [pe'ah] for the portion he purchased and the owner for the remainder.
Halacha 19
Only a high fence that separates between [the branches of] the trees divides an orchard with regard [to the laws of pe'ah]. If, however, the fence separates on a lower level, but the branches and the trellises are intermingled above and touch the top of the fence, the orchard is considered a single entity and [only] one portion of pe'ah should be given.43
Halacha 20
When two people purchased one tree [in partnership], they should leave one portion of pe'ah from it. If one purchased the northern side [of a tree] and the other purchased [the southern side], each one should leave pe'ahindividually.44
Halacha 21
[The following laws apply to] carob trees:45 Whenever one person stands next to one carob tree and his colleague stands next to another carob tree and they can see each other, [the trees] are considered as in one field and one portion of pe'ah should be left for them.
[Different rules apply] if, however, those on the extremes can see those in the center, but those on the extremes cannot see each other, he may separate from those on the extremes for those on the center and from those in the center for those on the extremes.46 He may not, however, separate from those on one extreme for those on the other extreme.47
Halacha 22
[The following laws apply to] olive trees: All the trees on one of the sides of a city, e.g., all of the olive trees on the entire western side or the entire eastern side of a city are considered as being from one field and one portion of pe'ahshould be left for all of them.
Halacha 23
A person who harvests a portion of his vineyard from either side in order to lessen [the demand] on the vines so that the other clusters will have more room and increase in size is called one who reduces.48 We already explained49 that a person who harvests from one side is not considered as one who reduces. Therefore he must leave the amount of pe'ah appropriate for the entire field even though he harvested [with the intent of selling the grapes in] the marketplace. If, however, he reduces [the produce on the vines with the intent of] selling [the produce] in the marketplace, he should not leavepe'ah for the produce that he took off.50 [Nevertheless,] if he reduces [the produce on the vines with the intent of] taking it home,51 he should leave the amount of pe'ah appropriate for the entire field from [the grapes] he left to be trodden for the vat.
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., even if at the time the stream was dried out, the ravine itself constitutes a separation (Radbaz). The Kessef Mishneh, however, interprets the Rambam as referring to a stream with water.
2.
I.e., an irrigation ditch constitutes a separation only when water flows through it throughout the year.
3.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Pe'ah2:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to a situation where a person standing on one side of the irrigation ditch cannot extend his hand and harvest the produce growing on the other.
4.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam makes a distinction between a path owned by a private individual and one used by people at large, explaining that a path owned by a private person is continually used by him. Hence, even if it is narrow, it is considered a separation. The public, by contrast, has many paths at their disposal and will not necessarily follow a particular path. Hence, unless a public path is very wide or permanent, it is not considered as a separation.
5.
We are speaking here about a situation where it is unnecessary to make a separation because of the laws of kilayim(mixed species; see Hilchot Kilayim, the latter part of ch. 3). If it is necessary to make a separation for that reason, that separation will be large enough to constitute a separation for pe'ah as well.
6.
As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 7, one is not obligated to leave pe'ah for such a field if he harvested it in such a preliminary state. Nevertheless, unless he plows it, the harvest alone is not considered significant enough to have divided the field with regard to the other crops (Kessef Mishneh). Needless to say, if it already grew to a third of its development and hence required pe'ahfor its own crop, it is only considered as a divider if the land was plowed (Radbaz).
7.
According to the Rambam's opinion, this is a far smaller figure, while according to the Ra'avad, the difference is not that great (Radbaz). The Ra'avad bases his interpretation on the treatment of this subject in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 2:2), claiming that that text does not support the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that there is a version of the Jerusalem Talmud that supports the Rambam's position and maintains that the Ra'avad's version is in error.
8.
The latter measure is slightly more than ten and one fifth cubits by ten and one fifth by approximately ten and one fifth cubits (Hilchot Kilayim 3:9 and notes).
9.
Since the entire field is larger, the area which creates the separation must also be larger.
10.
The Radbaz questions why leniency is granted with regard to separation when another crop is sown and explains that it is uncommon to sow a small amount of a second crop in between two larger portions of one crop. Hence, one can assume that it was done so only for the sake of making a distinction.
11.
If, however, one does not plow the consumed portion, it is not considered as a separation (Menachot 71b).
12.
This follws the second interpretation given by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 2:2).
13.
Since the rock divides the field, it is considered as two separate entities. Hence, he must leave pe'ah for each portion of the field individually. The commentaries question why this instance is different than the terraces that are less than ten handbreadths higher than each other mentioned in the first clause, for there too, he must lift the plow and move it to the side while plowing. TheKessef Mishneh explains that the terraces are different because they can be sewn and hence they appear as a single field, while the rock cannot be sewn.
14.
The term the Rambam uses literally means "the mold used to make bricks." That term is employed because the squares resemble such a mold [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 3:1).
15.
I.e., had there not been trees in the field, the entire field would have been sown as a single entity. It was the presence of the trees alone that caused him to divide it. Thus since it is essentially one field, he leaves one portion of pe'ah.
16.
An area 50 cubits by 50 cubits (Hilchot Shabbat 16:3; Hilchot Kilayim 4:7).
17.
Instead, he considered each block separate for other reasons. Hence, pe'ah should be left for each one individually. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam, basing his objections on the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah3:1). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehexplain that the Rambam had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud and that accounts for the difference between their positions. They also maintain that the Rambam's position is sounder logically, for the larger the field, the more likely it is that each separate block should be considered an independent field.
18.
Needless to say, there must be a distinction between the vegetables and the onions so that the laws of kilayim, mixed species, are not violated.
19.
In this instance as well, the physical separation does not cause the squares to be considered as separate fields. The Radbaz suggests that the reason the principle stated in Halachah 4 - that if another crop separates between two plantings of one crop, separate portions ofpe'ah should be left - does not apply here is that there is no obligation to leave pe'ah for vegetables.
20.
The commentaries note that the Rambam's statements here appear to contradict his statement in Hilchot Kilayim 1:9, in which he states that it is customary to sow entire fields of mustard seed. They are, however, reinforced by his statements in Hilchot Kilayim 3:18.
21.
And thus each square is considered as a separate field, requiring its own pe'ah.
22.
For the whole field will be considered as a single entity.
23.
For then it appears as a single field.
24.
For then each portion appears as a separate field. The Ra'avad disputes the Rambam's ruling based on his interpretation of the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 3:1). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position within the context of that passage.
25.
The commentaries note that there are some species of peas that are considered vegetables - and for which pe'ah need not be left - and others are considered as legumes. Here we are speaking about a species that are considered legumes.
26.
For each is considered as a separate harvest. The Radbaz explains that even if the person does not divide the field into separate portions, but rather harvests a small amount from each place both times, the two harvests are considered as separate. The difference in the time when they are harvested and the purpose for which they are harvested distinguishes them from each other.
27.
This halachah is speaking about a situation where a person transgressed and harvested his entire field and then desires to correct his actions by leaving pe'ah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam's ruling applies even if he makes these grain heaps at separate times.
28.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah2:5), the Rambam gives examples: "thin kernels or thick kernels, red wheat and green wheat."
29.
I.e., a point from the Oral Tradition for which there is no direct source in the Written Law.
30.
Before the harvesting of the field (Radbaz).
31.
As is the law concerning partners (Chapter 2, Halachah 3).
32.
For at the time the grain was harvested, there was no obligation to separate pe'ahfrom it, for the obligation to separate pe'ahapplies to the standing grain (Chapter 2, Halachah 4). Hence the partner who receives the harvested grain considers the situation analogous to that of a person who harvests half a field and then sells the remainder, in which instance, the purchaser - i.e., the second partner - is obligated to separate pe'ah for the entire field (ibid.:5).
33.
The rationale is that the second partner does not accept that rationale. Instead, he claims that we apply the principle of bereirah- that retroactively, it is considered as if the two partner's portions were divided from the outset. Thus from the outset, he was never required to do more than divide pe'ah from his individual portion.
One might protest that in this situation, the outcome is that the poor people do not receive their pe'ah. Indeed, that is the case. Our Sages did not resolve whether the principle of bereirah should be applied or not. Hence, each partner can claim that the responsibility for leaving pe'ah for the first half of the field lies on the other partner and not on him. Neither is not obligated to pay from his own funds, because in financial matters, we follow the principle: When one desires to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.
34.
Before harvesting the second half of the field, agreeing that each one received half of the grain that was harvested and half of the grain to be harvested (Kessef Mishneh).
35.
Since they reestablished their partnership, one pe'ah can be left for the remaining portion of the field. Either of the partners may do this, leaving a portion for his own grain and that of his partner. He does not have to do this for the grain in the first part of the field, as the Rambam continues to explain.
36.
Since there was no pe'ah required to be left for it originally, there is no requirement to leave pe'ah for it now.
37.
And did not leave pe'ah for this harvest although he was obligated to do so.
38.
I.e., the crops that ripened initially, but were not harvested. Since they ripened at the same time as those which harvested first, they can be included in the same pe'ah.
39.
As above, since they ripened at the same time, they could be considered a single field. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is preferable, because as mentioned previously, pe'ah should be left from standing grain for the portions harvested previously.
40.
Since this portion ripened before the second portion was harvested, it and the second portion could be considered as part of a single field and one measure of pe'ah would be sufficient for them both.
41.
For each portion of the field is considered as a separate entity.
42.
Chulin 138a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 23:22: "When you reap the harvest of your land" which implies that the obligation to leave pe'ah begins when on starts reaping.
43.
Based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 2:3), it appears that if trees are separated by a fence that is ten handbreadths high, they are considered as in separate fields unless their branches are intermingled above. If their branches are intermingled above, they are considered as one field, regardless of the height of the fence.
44.
Since they are not partners, the portion of each one is considered individually.
45.
I.e., in contrast to other trees that are separated by fences, different laws apply with regard to carobs (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of this law.
The Ra'avad explains that carobs and olives (mentioned in the following halachah) are governed by different laws than other trees because they are tall and the branches of one tree are likely to become intermingled with another. The Radbaz does not accept this explanation, because palm trees are taller than carobs and olives and pear trees are also taller and more likely to be intermingled. He explains instead that these trees are singled out, because they are extremely common in Eretz Yisrael.
46.
Since they can see each other, the principles stated in the first clause apply.
47.
Because they cannot see each other.
48.
The owner is not obligated to leave pe'ah for the fruit harvested for this reason, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
49.
Chapter 2, Halachah 6.
50.
For the primary reason he harvested it was to diminish the pressure on his vines. Since he is not interested in the harvest per se, he is not obligated to leave pe'ah.
51.
The fact that he takes the produce home demonstrates that his harvest is a calculated act and hence requires pe'ah.
Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
What is meant by leket? Produce that fall from the sickle when one is reaping or falls from his hand when he gathers the stalks [of grain]1 and harvests. [The above applies] provided only one or two stalks fell. If, however, three fell at the same time, the three belong to the owner of the field.2 If grain fell from behind the sickle or behind one's hand,3 it is not leket even if only one stalk fell.
Halacha 2
When he was harvesting by hand without a sickle, the stalks that fall from his hand are not leket.4 When, however, one pulls out crops that are usually pulled out by hand, those which fall from his hand are leket.5 If he was harvesting [with a sickle] or pulling out crops that are usually pulled out and after he harvested an armful [of produce] or after he pulled out a handful, [the produce] fell from his hand because he was struck by a thorn, [the produce] belongs to the owner.6
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply if a person] was harvesting and left a stalk of grain standing without harvesting it, although he harvested all the grain around it. If its tip could reach the standing grain at its side and it could be harvested with that grain, it belongs to the owner of the field.7 If not, it belongs to the poor.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply if] there were two stalks next to each other, the inner stalk could be harvested with [the remainder of] the standing grain8 and the outer could be harvested together with the inner stalk, but not with the standing grain. The inner stalk is retrieved9 and it retrieves the outer stalk.10For it is considered as falling from the sickle, even though it was not harvested yet.11
Stalks that are among the straw belong to the owner of the field.12
Halacha 5
[The following laws apply when] the wind scattered sheaves [of grain] and the harvest belonging to the owner becomes mixed with the leket. We estimate how much leket the field would produce and that amount is given to the poor. [A greater amount is not required]13 because this comes about due to forces beyond one's control. How much is this measure? Four kabbin for an area in which a kor of wheat would grow.14
Halacha 6
What should the owner of a field do if leket fell to the ground, it was not collected by the poor and he made a grainheap of his harvest on this earth?15He should move his grain pile to another place, [but] all the stalks that are touching the ground belong to the poor. [The rationale is that] we do not know which of them was leket and whenever there is a doubt concerning [whether produce] is from the presents for the poor, [it is given] to the poor.16 [This is implied by the term (Leviticus 23:22):] "Leave," i.e., leave from your produce for them.
Halacha 7
Why don't we make an estimation and give the poor [the amount that would be left as leket?17 Because [the owner] transgressed and made his grainheap onleket, he was penalized, even if he did so inadvertently. Even if the leket was barley and he made a grainheap of wheat upon it,18 even if he called for the poor [to collect the leket] and they did not come, and even if others made the grainheap without his knowledge, all of the produce touching the ground belongs to the poor.
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply when a person] must fertilize his field before the poor collect the leket in it. If his loss will be greater than the loss to the poor, he is permitted to fertilize it. If the loss to the poor will be greater than his loss, it is forbidden for him to fertilize. If he collects all the leket and places it on the fence until a poor person comes and collects it, that is an expression of the quality of piety.
Halacha 9
When kernels of grain are found in ant holes, if the holes were located in the midst of the standing grain, [the kernels] belong to the owner of the field, for the poor people do not have a right to anything in the standing grain. If they were located in the place which was harvested,19 they belong to the poor, because perhaps they were taken from the leket. Even if the kernel [in the hole] is black,20 we do not say that it was from the previous year, because whenever there is a doubt concerning [whether produce] is leket,21 we consider it as leket.
Halacha 10
When a stalk of leket becomes intermingled with the grain heap, the owner must separate two stalks. On the first, he says: "If this is leket, it belongs to the poor. If it is not leket, may the tithes for which I am obligated from this stalk22 be fixed on the other stalk."23 He then goes back and makes this same stipulation on the second stalk. He then gives one of the stalks to the poor and the other one will be [part of] the tithes.
Halacha 11
A person should not hire a worker24 with the intent that his son collect theleket after him.25 Sharecroppers, tenant farmers, and a person who purchased standing grain from a colleague to harvest, by contrast, may have their sons collect after them.26 A worker may bring his wife and his children to collect leket after him.27 [This applies] even if he hired him with the intent that he receive half of the harvest, one third, or one fourth as his wage.28
Halacha 12
A person who does not allow the poor to collect the leket, allows one but does not allow another, or helps one of them, [giving him an advantage] over his colleagues is considered as stealing from the poor.29
Halacha 13
It is forbidden for a person to have a lion or the like rest in his field so that the poor will fear and flee.30 When there are those among the poor who are not entitled to collect leket,31 if the owner can rebuke them, he should. If not, he should allow them [to collect it as an expression of] the ways of peace.
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
What is meant by peret?35 One grape or two grapes that separate from the cluster in the midst of the harvest. If three grapes fall at the same time, they are not peret.
Halacha 16
When a person was reaping [his grape harvest] and cut off a cluster, [that cluster] became entangled with its leaves and it fell to the ground and became divided into individual grapes, it is not peret. If, however, [the reaper] was harvesting and throwing the clusters to the earth, [more stringent rules apply]. Even if half the cluster is discovered [broken into individual grapes], it is peret. Similarly, [even] if an entire cluster was broken up into individual grapes, they are peret.36 When a person places a basket below the vine at the time he is harvesting,37 he is stealing from the poor.
Halacha 17
What is an olelet?38 This is a small cluster which is not thick like ordinary clusters and does not have a kataf, nor are its grapes notfot39 one on top of the other, but rather scattered. If it has a kataf, but not a nataf or a nataf, but not a kataf, it belongs to the owner of the vineyard. If there is a doubt, it should be given to the poor.
Halacha 18
What is kataf? Small clusters connected to the central stem40 [of the larger cluster], one on top of the other. [What is] nataf? Grapes connected to the center stem and hanging down. [The above applies] provided all of the individual grapes in the ollelot can touch the palm of his hand.41
Why is such [an underdeveloped cluster] called an ollel?42 Because it is comparable to a developed cluster in the same way an infant is comparable to an adult.
Halacha 19
The owner of the vineyard is not obligated to harvest the underdeveloped clusters and give them to the poor.43 Instead, [he should leave them for the poor] to harvest themselves. An individual grape is considered as an ollelet.
Halacha 20
[The following laws apply when] there was a cluster on a branch of a vine and an underdeveloped cluster on an offshoot of the branch. If [the offshoot] can be harvested with the cluster, it belongs to the owner of the vineyard.44 If not, it belongs to the poor.
Halacha 21
When a vineyard is comprised entirely of underdeveloped clusters, it belongs to the poor. [This is derived from Leviticus 19:10:] "Do not collect underdeveloped clusters in your vineyard," i.e., even if it comprises the entire vineyard. [The laws of] peret and ollelot apply only in a vineyard.45
Halacha 22
The poor do not have the right to take peret and ollelot until the owner of the vineyard begins harvesting his vineyard, as [Deuteronomy 24:21] states: "When you harvest your vineyard, do not collect underdeveloped clusters."46How much must [the owner] harvest for [the poor] to receive this right? Three clusters that will produce a revi'it [of wine].
Halacha 23
When a person consecrates his vineyard before he becomes aware of the underdeveloped clusters, the underdeveloped clusters do not belong to the poor.47 If he has become aware of the underdeveloped clusters, the underdeveloped clusters belong to the poor.48 They must pay a fee wages for their [increase in value] while they grew49 to the Temple treasury.50
Halacha 24
When one prunes a vine after he became aware of ollelot, he may prune according to his ordinary pattern. Just as he cuts off [fully-formed] clusters, he cuts off underdeveloped clusters.51
Halacha 25
When a gentile sells his vineyard to a Jew to harvest, the Jew is obligated to leave the underdeveloped clusters.52 When a Jew and a gentile are partners in a vineyard, there is an obligation [to leave] ollelot in the portion belonging to the Jew. That belonging to the gentile is exempt.
Halacha 26
Halacha 27
[The following laws apply when a person] has five vines, harvests them, and [brings the grapes] into his home. If his intent is to eat them while they are grapes, he is not obligated [to leave] peret, shichichah,57 and [neta] revai'i,58but is obligated [to leave] the ollelot [for the poor].59If he reaped them to make wine, he is obligated in all of the above unless he left a portion [unharvested].60
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., he was gathering several stalks of grain together in his hand in order to cut them with a sickle. In the process, some fell from his hand. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 4:10), the Rambam summarizes the principle as follows: "[Crops] encompassed by the hand or by the sickle that fall areleket."
2.
For three is a significant quantity that the owner would not be willing to abandon willfully.
3.
I.e., that fell when he moved the sickle or his hand back.
4.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 4:5) derives this from exegesis of the phrase (Leviticus 23:22): "You shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest." "Your harvest" implies crops cut with a sickle.
5.
This does not contradict the concept stated in the previous note. Since this is the usual way these crops are harvested, the laws ofleket apply when produce falls from one's hands.
6.
Since it did not fall from his hand as a by-product of the harvesting process.
7.
The Sifri derives this law from the exegesis of the phrase (Deuteronomy 24:19): "Do not return to take it." As long as the stalk of grain can be harvested together with the standing grain, one is not "going back" to harvest it. A question, however, arises: Why does the Rambam (and his source, Pe'ah5:2) mention this law in the context of the laws of leket and not together with those governing shichichah (the subject of the verse cited)? This question is resolved in Halachah 4.
8.
And thus meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah.
9.
I.e., it is considered as the owner's.
10.
Since it can be harvested together with the inner stalk, it is governed by the laws that apply to it.
11.
This refers to the previous halachah and serves as an explanation why these stalks are considered as leket (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
12.
Because, generally, the laws of leket do not apply to grain that was not harvested.
13.
As in the following halachot, where the owner is penalized for mixing his harvest with the leket.
14.
This area is 75000 sq. cubits. Shiurei Torah3:31 states that according to the Rambam, akav is equivalent to 1626 grams.
15.
Thus mixing his harvest with the leket.
16.
The Radbaz writes that, as stated in the following halachah, this measure is a penalty imposed upon the owner. Hence, even when there is no doubt involved, as exemplified there, we give the poor all the stalks that are touching the ground. Hence, the Rambam's words must be interpreted as meaning: Since we penalized the owner, the produce is taken from him in the case of a doubt.
17.
As in Halachah 5.
18.
And thus there is no doubt which is leket and which is ordinary produce.
19.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah4:11), the Rambam speaks of the grain "behind the reapers."
20.
And thus appears to have been there for a long time.
21.
For it is possible that the black kernel is from the present year, but from inferior grain.
22.
There is no obligation to separate tithes fromleket. The stipulation is necessary because tithes must be separated while the produce is still in one's possession, before the stalk is given to the poor.
23.
We have translated the Rambam's words directly, although there is an obvious difficulty with them. If we say, as implied by his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 5:2), that one of the stalks will be designated for the tithes, then since the identity of that stalk is not known and one of the stalks will be given to the poor, it is possible that the poor will be given the stalk that contains the tithes. Furthermore, leket cannot be used for tithes.
Therefore, the commentaries (Radbaz,Kessef Mishneh, et al) suggest that we are speaking about a third stalk which would also be used for the tithes of the entire field. The stipulations are made separately on the two stalks and then one is given to the poor and the other to the owner. And the third stalk is used for the tithes of the field.
24.
I.e., a poor man who is entitled to collectleket.
25.
I.e., this would be like a tip for the worker. In addition to his wages, he would receive theleket his son would collect. This is, however, considered as stealing from the poor, because the worker is likely to hire himself out for a lower wage in return for this consideration. As indicated by the continuation of the halachah, there is no difficulty with the worker's family collecting the leket. Since he - and/or they - are poor, they have that privilege. The difficulty is with stipulating it in his contract.
26.
Since they are not being paid a wage, but instead receive the produce and give a major share back to the owner, there is no difficulty in having the son collect the leketfrom the field, for they will not reduce their share for the license to have their son collect the leket. The other poor do not feel that the share-cropper is infringing upon their rights, because they expect that - were they to have the opportunity - their sons would be given the same privilege.
27.
As stated above, since the worker is poor, both his wife and his children are given this privilege.
28.
The Tzaphnat Paneach differentiates between this instance and that of the share-cropper mentioned in the previous clause, noting that here the worker's wife is mentioned and there she is not. He states that the wife of the sharecropper or the like is not entitled to collect the leket. Since he owns the produce, he is not entitled to collect a share. And since he is not entitled to collect a share, his wife may not do so either. His son may, however, because he is an independent person. The rationale is that the share-cropper is the owner of the harvest and he pays a share to the owner of the land. In this instance, by contrast, the harvest belongs to the owner and he pays a share to the worker. Hence, the worker is poor and his wife has the right to collect theleket.
29.
For unlike terumah and other agricultural obligations, the owner has no right to control who will be the recipient of leket.
30.
And thus abandon the leket.
31.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 13.
32.
I.e., instead of leaving it to be the property of the poor, he desires to declare it ownerless so that it can be acquired by the rich as well as the poor.
33.
I.e., once the majority has fallen, the status of the entire quantity is defined (Radbaz).
34.
But instead, it belongs to the poor (seeTemurah 25a).
35.
Individual grapes that fall that must be left for the poor, as stated in Leviticus 19:10.
36.
This law follows the same logic which motivates Halachot 6-7 which states that an owner who makes a grainheap on the place where leket has fallen must give all the stalks touching the ground to the poor. In this instance as well, since his grapes become mixed with those which fell as peret, we penalize him and preventing him from taking any of the individual grapes.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 6:4) mentions two opinions: one which states that this stringency applies only to half a cluster and one that it applies even to the entire cluster. The Rambam follows the latter view.
37.
So that all the individual grapes will fall into it.
38.
An underdeveloped grape cluster which should be left for the poor, as stated in Leviticus, loc. cit..
39.
These two Hebrew terms are defined in the following halachah.
40.
The Hebrew term used by the Rambam literally means "backbone."
41.
I.e., the small clusters are not large enough to prevent all the individual grapes from touching his palm.
The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of this phrase which is taken from the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 7:4). The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's interpretation.
42.
Which means "infant" in Hebrew.
43.
As stated above with regard to pe'ah(Chapter 2, Halachah 15). Here too, the command for the mitzvah uses the term "leave," implying that the mitzvah is not to give the underdeveloped clusters to the poor, but to allow them to collect them.
The Radbaz writes that if a vine is elevated to a high trestle and it would be dangerous for the poor to climb up and collect the underdeveloped clusters, the owner should harvest them for the poor. Note the parallel in Chapter 2, Halachah 16.
44.
Thus this ruling parallels the ruling in Chapter 4, Halachah 3, with regard to leket.
45.
I.e., and not to any other type of fruit.
46.
I.e., the obligation to observe these mitzvot begins "When you harvest..." and not before.
47.
Instead, they are included in his consecration.
48.
Once he becomes aware of the underdeveloped clusters, they become the property of the poor and the owner cannot consecrate them, because a person cannot consecrate property that does not belong to him (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Pe'ah 7:8, based on the Jerusalem Talmud and Arachin 28a).
Tosafot Yom Tov asks: Since, as stated in the previous halachah, the poor are not entitled to the produce until the owner begins his harvest, seemingly, it remains the property of the owner and he has the right to consecrate it. He explains that although the poor do not have the right to collect it until the harvest begins, these clusters belong to them and not the owner and he does not have the right to consecrate them.
49.
I.e., for their increase in value from the time they were consecrated until they became ripe (ibid.).
50.
Because the grapes from the clusters belonging to the poor are deriving benefit from land and vine consecrated to the Temple treasury.
51.
I.e., just as he shows no concern for the clusters that will ultimately be his, he may ignore those that will ultimately belong to the poor. For until the harvest, there is no prohibition against cutting them off. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Pe'ah 7:5.
52.
For the obligation to leave ollelot takes effect only at the time of the harvest and the person performing the harvest is Jewish.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the Rambam's source, the Tosefta(Pe'ah, the conclusion of ch. 3) also states the converse: that if a Jew sells his field to a gentile, the obligation to leave ollelot no longer applies and they question why the Rambam's omits this point.
53.
Produce from which terumah has not been separated.
54.
They belong to the poor and tithes need not be separated from them.
55.
The tenth which the Levites must separate from the tithes that they receive and give to the priests.
56.
I.e., as stated in Halachah 20, they are the Levite's private property and he can do with them as he sees fit. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.
57.
The Ra'avad adds that he is also not obligated to leave pe'ah. The Kessef Mishneh states that, as indicated by Chapter 2, Halachah 67, the Rambam would also accept this ruling.
58.
Neta Revai'i refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth which must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or exchanged for money that is brought to Jerusalem and used to purchase food that must be eaten in a state of ritual purity (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, chs. 9-10).
The owner is not considered as having harvested the grapes, but rather as having picked them for immediate use, e.g., as a snack. Hence he is freed from these obligations. Rambam LeAm accepts this explanation with regard to peret andshichichah, but not neta revai'i. With regard to the first two, the obligations are dependent on harvesting and he is not considered to have harvested his grapes, but neta revai'iis not connected with harvesting, but rather is an obligation incumbent on the crops themselves.
59.
For the ollelot belong to the poor and are not dependent on whether one harvests the grapes to use as wine or as fruit.
60.
In which instance, he is not obligated for those he picked first, since he is not harvesting but taking the grapes for immediate use. The Ra'avad differs with this point and requires that the pe'ah for the entire crop be separated from the produce that remains and to leave peret andshichichah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position.
• English Text | Video Class•
"Today's Day"
Sunday, Adar II 10, 5776 · 20 March 2016
Wednesday Adar Sheini 10 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 55-59.
Tanya: Something of this (p. 165)...of the Torah. (p. 167).
Before embarking on a journey from your place of residence, arrange a Chassidic farbrengen and receive a parting blessing from your good friends, and as the familiar expression goes: Chassidim never say farewell, for they never depart from each other. Wherever they are, they are one family.
•
Daily Thought:
Leave Nothing Behind
If it is not evil, we must use it for good.
If it can be raised higher, we cannot leave it in the dirt.
For everything He made, He made for His glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment