Torah Reading
Vayikra: Leviticus 1:
1 Adonai called to Moshe and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said, 2 “Speak to the people of Isra’el; say to them, ‘When any of you brings an offering to Adonai, you may bring your animal offering either from the herd or from the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he must offer a male without defect. He is to bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, so that it can be accepted by Adonai. 4 He is to lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before Adonai ; and the sons of Aharon, the cohanim, are to present the blood. They are to splash the blood against all sides of the altar, which is by the entrance to the tent of meeting. 6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it in pieces. 7 The descendants of Aharon the cohen are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 The sons of Aharon, the cohanim, are to arrange the pieces, the head and the fat on the wood which is on the fire on the altar. 9 He is to wash the entrails and lower parts of the legs with water, and the cohen is to cause all of it to go up in smoke on the altar as a burnt offering; it is an offering made by fire, a fragrant aroma for Adonai.
10 “‘If his offering is from the flock, whether from the sheep or from the goats, for a burnt offering, he must offer a male without defect. 11 He is to slaughter it on the north side of the altar before Adonai; and the sons of Aharon, the cohanim, are to splash its blood against all sides of the altar. 12 He is to cut it into pieces, and the cohen is to arrange them with the head and fat on the wood which is on the fire on the altar. 13 He is to wash the entrails and lower parts of the legs with water; and the cohen is to offer it all and make it go up in smoke on the altar as a burnt offering; it is an offering made by fire, a fragrant aroma for Adonai.
• Maharam's Body Ransomed (1307)
The tragic saga of the imprisonment of Rabbi Meir ben Baruch ("Maharam") of Rothenburg came to a close when his body was ransomed, 14 years after his death, by Alexander ben Shlomo (Susskind) Wimpen.
"Maharam" (1215?-1293) was the leading Torah authority in Germany, and authored thousands of Halachic responsa as well as the Tosaphot commentary of the Talmudic tractateYoma. In 1283 he was imprisoned in the Ensisheim fortress and held for a huge ransom, but he forbade the Jewish community to pay it (based on the Talmudic ruling that exorbitant sums should not be paid to free captives, as this would encourage the taking of hostages for ransom). For many years Maharam's disciple, R. Shimon ben Tzadok, was allowed to visit him in his cell and recorded his teachings in a work called Tashbetz.
Even after the Maharam's passing in 1293, his body was not released for burial until it was ransomed by R. Alexander, who was subsequently laid to rest at his side.
Links: A brief biography
• Passing of R. Leib Sarah's (1791)
Adar 4 is the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of Rabbi Leib Sarah's (1730-1791), a disciple of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. One of the "hidden tzaddikim," Rabbi Leib spent his life wandering from place to place to raise money for the ransoming of imprisoned Jews and the support of other hidden tzaddikim.
Link: More on R. Leib Sarah's
• Roman Ghetto Abolished (1798)
In 1555, Pope Paul IV segregated the Jews of Rome in a walled quarter surrounded by gates that were locked at night. The ghettoed Jews were then subjected to various forms of degradation as well as restrictions on their personal freedoms.
During the French Revolution, Italy was conquered by Napoleon Bonaparte. On the 4th of Adar (Tuesday, February 20, 1798) the Ghetto was legally abolished. It was reinstated, however, as soon as the Papacy regained control.
Daily Quote:
Every Jewish soul possesses a spark of the soul of Moses[Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayikra, 2nd Portion Leviticus 1:14-2:6 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 1
14And if his sacrifice to the Lord, is a burnt offering from birds, he shall bring [it] from turtle doves or from young doves. ידוְאִ֧ם מִן־הָע֛וֹף עֹלָ֥ה קָרְבָּנ֖וֹ לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וְהִקְרִ֣יב מִן־הַתֹּרִ֗ים א֛וֹ מִן־בְּנֵ֥י הַיּוֹנָ֖ה אֶת־קָרְבָּנֽוֹ:
from birds: But not all birds. Since it is stated: “an unblemished male, from cattle, from sheep, or from goats” (Lev. 22:19), [denoting that the requirement of] perfection and maleness apply [only] to animals, but [the requirement of] perfection and maleness does not apply to birds. One might think that even a bird that lacks a limb [may be brought for this offering]. Scripture, therefore, says [here]: “from birds” [but not all birds, excluding a bird lacking a limb]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:71] מן העוף: ולא כל העוף, לפי שנאמר (ויק' כב יט) תמים זכר בבקר בכשבים ובעזים, תמות וזכרות בבהמה, ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות, יכול אף מחוסר אבר, תלמוד לומר מן העוף:
turtle-doves: [Because the verse specifies “young” doves, whereas it simply says “turtle-doves” without stating “young, ” it must refer to] adult ones [only that may be offered], and not young ones. התרים: גדולים ולא קטנים:
young doves: young ones [only may be offered], and not adult ones. - [Torath Kohanim 1:74] בני היונה: קטנים ולא גדולים:
from turtle-doves or from young doves: [The word “from” occurring twice in this verse comes] to exclude [birds] whose feathers have just begun to become reddish in both species, that they are unfit [for sacrifice], for they are too old to be qualified as “young doves,” and they are too young to be qualified as [adult] “turtle-doves.” - [Torath Kohanim 1:75] מן התרים או מן בני היונה: פרט לתחלת הציהוב, שבזה ושבזה שהוא פסול, שגדול הוא אצל בני יונה וקטן אצל תורים:
15And the kohen shall bring it near to the altar, and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird's] blood shall be pressed out upon the wall of the altar. טווְהִקְרִיב֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וּמָלַק֙ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה וְנִמְצָ֣ה דָמ֔וֹ עַ֖ל קִ֥יר הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
shall bring it: One may bring even a single bird. - [Torath Kohanim 1:77] \b the \b0kohen shall … והקריבו: אפילו פרידה אחת יביא:
nip off: The nipping [of the bird’s head] must not be done with anything but with the body of kohen. He would cut with his [thumb]nail adjacent to the back of the head, cutting right through its spine, until he reached the simanim [literally, “the signs”; in the context of slaughtering, this refers to the esophagus (gullet) and the trachea (wind-pipe)], and cuts through them [see Rashi on Lev. 5:8]. הכהן ומלק: אין מליקה בכלי אלא בעצמו של כהן. קוצץ בצפרנו ממול העורף וחותך מפרקתו עד שמגיע לסימנין וקוצצן:
and its [the bird’s] blood shall be pressed out: [The word וְנִמְצָה] an expression similar to “the pressing out (מִיץ) of wrath” (Prov. 30:33); and, “for the milking (הַמֵּץ) has come to an end” (Isa. 16:4). He presses the slaughtering area [of the bird’s neck] against the wall of the altar, and thereby, the blood is pressed out and runs down [the wall]. ונמצה דמו: לשון מיץ אפים (משלי ל לג), כי אפס המץ (ישעיה טז ד), כובש בית השחיטה על קיר המזבח והדם מתמצה ויורד:
and cut…and cause it to go up in smoke…shall be pressed out:[According to the sequence of these terms, one would think that Scripture is commanding the kohen to first cut the bird’s neck, send the bird up in smoke, and only then to press out its blood. But] is it possible to suggest this? Since [the kohen] has already caused the bird to go up in smoke, he presses its blood out? Rather, [the meaning is clearly not so, and the procedure of causing the bird to go up in smoke appears in the verse after that of nipping off the head, to teach us that] just as with the procedure of causing it to go up in smoke, the bird’s head [is smoked] separately and its body separately, so is it with the procedure of nipping [the bird’s head, i.e., the head is cut at the neck, to become virtually separate from its body-even though it is still attached to the body by the skin] (Torath Kohanim 1:81). According to the simple meaning of the verse, it is transposed [and is to be understood as]: and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird’s] blood shall already have been pressed out. ומלק, והקטיר, ונמצה: אפשר לומר כן, מאחר שהוא מקטיר הוא מוצה, אלא מה הקטרה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו, אף מליקה כן. ופשוטו של מקרא מסורס הוא ומלק והקטיר, וקודם הקטרה, ונמצה דמו כבר:
16And he shall remove its crop along with its entrails, and cast it next to the altar on the east side, to the place of the ashes. טזוְהֵסִ֥יר אֶת־מֻרְאָת֖וֹ בְּנֹֽצָתָ֑הּ וְהִשְׁלִ֨יךְ אֹתָ֜הּ אֵ֤צֶל הַמִּזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ קֵ֔דְמָה אֶל־מְק֖וֹם הַדָּֽשֶׁן:
its crop: Heb. מֻרְאָתוֹ, the place of the רְעִי, the digested food or waste, i.e., the crop, [known in the Talmud as זֶפֶק The word מֻרְאָתוֹ stems from רְאִי, which is equivalent to רְעִי, since an “aleph” is sometimes interchangeable with an “ayin.”]- [Torath Kohanim 1:84] מראתו: מקום הראי וזה הזפק:
with its entrails: Heb. בְּנֹצָתָהּ, with its entrails (Zev. 64b). The word נוֹצָה denotes something disgusting, as [in the verse], “for they are foul (נָצוּ), even slipping” (Lam. 4:15). And this is what Onkelos means [when he translates this word as]: בְּאוּכְלֵיהּ, “with its digested food” [i.e., the excrement found in its entrails]. This is the explanation given by Abba Yose ben Hanan, who states: The kohen removes the gizzard with it. But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, [understanding נוֹצָה to mean “feathers,”] explain [the verse as follows]: With a knife, he cuts an opening around the crop, like a window, and takes it [together] with the feathers (נוֹצָה) that are on the skin (Zev. 65a). In the case of the burnt offering of an animal, which eats exclusively from the feeding trough of its owner, it says, “And the innards and the legs, he shall wash with water. … and cause it to [go up in] smoke [on the altar]” (verse 13). However, regarding birds, which feed themselves on things stolen [from other people’s property], the verse says here, “And he shall [remove its crop]…and cast” the entrails, which ate from stolen property. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:4] בנצתה: עם בני מעיה. ונוצה לשון דבר המאוס, כמו כי נצו גם נעו (איכה ד טו) וזה שתרגם אנקלוס באוכליה. וזהו מדרשו של אבא יוסי בן חנן, שאמר נוטל את הקורקבן עמה. ורז"ל אמרו קודר סביב הזפק בסכין כעין ארובה ונוטלו עם הנוצה שעל העור. בעולת בהמה, שאינה אוכלת אלא באבוס בעליה, נאמר (פסוק יג) והקרב והכרעים ירחץ במים והקטיר, ובעוף, שנזון מן הגזל, נאמר והשליך, את המעים, שאכל מן הגזל:
next to the altar on the east side: At the eastern side of the כֶּבֶשׁ [the ramp leading up to the altar]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:86] אצל המזבח קדמה: במזרחו של כבש:
to the place of the ashes: I.e., the place where each morning they deposit the ashes removed [from the outer altar], and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the menorah. All these were [miraculously] absorbed there in their place. — [Yoma 21a] אל מקום הדשן: מקום שנותנין שם תרומת הדשן בכל בוקר ודישון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה. וכולם נבלעים שם במקומן:
17And he shall split it open with its wing feathers [intact], but he shall not tear it completely apart. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, on top of the wood which is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יזוְשִׁסַּ֨ע אֹת֣וֹ בִכְנָפָיו֘ לֹ֣א יַבְדִּיל֒ וְהִקְטִ֨יר אֹת֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַל־הָֽעֵצִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הָאֵ֑שׁ עֹלָ֣ה ה֗וּא אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
And he shall split it open: Heb. וְשִׁסַּע. The term שִׁסּוּעַ refers only to [splitting open] with the hand. Similarly, [Scripture] says regarding Samson: “and he split it open (וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ) as he would have split open (כְּשַׁסַּע) a kid” (Jud. 14:6). - [Zev. 65b] ושסע: אין שיסוע אלא ביד, וכן הוא אומר בשמשון (שופטים יד ו) וישסעהו כשסע הגדי:
with its wing feathers: [I.e.,] with its wings; he need not pluck out its wing feathers. בכנפיו: עם כנפיו, אינו צריך למרוט כנפי נוצתו:
with its wing feathers: [Lit., “its wings.” Here, it refers to] the actual feathers [of its wings]. But surely you will not find even the simplest of people [i.e., even a person who is not particular,] who, when smelling the odor of burnt feathers, does not find it repulsive. Why then does Scripture command us to send [the feathers] up in smoke? [The feathers are left intact] so that the altar should appear sated and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor man [who could afford only a bird]. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:5] בכנפיו: נוצה ממש. והלא אין לך הדיוט שמריח ריח רע של כנפים נשרפים ואין נפשו קצה עליו, ולמה אמר הכתוב והקטיר, כדי שיהא המזבח שבע ומהודר בקרבנו של עני:
but he shall not tear it completely apart: [Although the kohen splits open the bird,] he must not tear it apart completely into two [separate] pieces. Rather, he must tear it along its back. Now, regarding a bird [offering], it says here: “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord],” and regarding animals, it says, “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord]” (verse 9) [as well. From here we see that both in the case of a large animal or a small bird, the fragrance is pleasing to God]. This teaches us: Whether one offers much or little, [it is equally pleasing to God,] provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. — [Toroth Kohanim 1:91] לא יבדיל: אינו מפרקו לגמרי לשתי חתיכות, אלא קורעו מגבו. נאמר בעוף ריח ניחוח, ונאמר בבהמה ריח ניחוח, לומר לך אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, ובלבד שיכוין את לבו לשמים:
Leviticus Chapter 2
1And if a person brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil over it and place frankincense upon it. אוְנֶ֗פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תַקְרִ֞יב קָרְבַּ֤ן מִנְחָה֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה סֹ֖לֶת יִֽהְיֶ֣ה קָרְבָּנ֑וֹ וְיָצַ֤ק עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ שֶׁ֔מֶן וְנָתַ֥ן עָלֶ֖יהָ לְבֹנָֽה:
And if a person brings: [literally, “And if a soul brings.”] Regarding all the sacrifices which were donated voluntarily, the only instance where Scripture states the word נֶפֶשׁ “soul” is in the case of the meal-offering. Now, who usually donates a meal-offering? A poor man [because flour is less expensive than birds or animals]. [Hence,] the Holy One Blessed is He, says: “I account if for him as if he has sacrificed his very soul!” - [Men. 104b] ונפש כי תקריב: לא נאמר נפש בכל קרבנות נדבה אלא במנחה, מי דרכו להתנדב מנחה, עני, אמר הקב"ה מעלה אני עליו כאלו הקריב נפשו:
his offering shall be from fine flour: If a person says, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering,” without specifying which type of meal-offering, then he shall bring מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, a meal-offering of fine flour, which is the first of the meal-offerings [mentioned in this chapter] (Men. 104b), and קֹמֶץ [fistful of the offering] is scooped out while it is [still in the form of] flour, as is explained in this passage. Since five kinds of meal-offerings are enumerated here, all of which had to be brought ready-baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping took place], with the exception of this one, it is, therefore, called מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, “a meal-offering of fine flour.” סלת יהיה קרבנו: האומר הרי עלי מנחה סתם, מביא מנחת סלת, שהיא הראשונה שבמנחות ונקמצת כשהיא סלת, כמו שמפורש בענין. לפי שנאמרו כאן חמשה מיני מנחות, וכולן באות אפויות קודם קמיצה חוץ מזו, לכך קרויה מנחת סלת:
fine flour: סֹלֶת. [The term] סֹלֶת always denotes [fine flour of] wheat, as the verse says, “fine flour (סֹלֶת) of wheat” (Exod. 29:2). - [Torath Kohanim 2:96] No meal-offering consists of less than one עִשָּׂרוֹן [“one tenth” of an ephah of flour], as it is said, “one tenth measure for a meal-offering (עִשָּׂרוֹן)” (Lev.14:21), [implying that] one tenth measure [shall be used] for each meal-offering. — [see Men. 89a] סלת: אין סלת אלא מן החטין, שנאמר (שמות כט ב) סלת חטים, ואין מנחה פחותה מעשרון, שנאמר (ויק' יד כא) ועשרון סלת למנחה, עשרון לכל מנחה:
He shall pour oil over it: Over all of it. [However,] ויצק עליה שמן: על כולה:
and place frankincense upon it: Upon part of it; the kohen places a fistful of frankincense upon it at one side [of the offering]. Now what makes you say this? Because an inclusion after an inclusion in the Torah means only to exclude. [Now, here, the expression עָלֶיהָ, upon it or over it, is inclusive in nature, for its assumed meaning is “upon all of it,” i.e., the kohen shall pour the oil over all of the offering. In the continuation of the verse, “and place frankincense upon it (עָלֶיה),” however, the second mention of the word עָלֶיה represents a רִבָּוי after a רִבָּוי, and so, the second עָלֶיה becomes preclusive, meaning that the frankincense is to be placed only upon part of the offering.] Another explanation: Oil [is poured] over all of it, because it [the oil] has to be mixed with it and scooped with it, as it is said, “[scoop out a fistful] from its fine flour and its oil.” However, the frankincense because it is neither mixed nor scooped with it, as it is said, “in addition to] all its frankincense” (verse 2), for, after he has completed the קְמִיצָה procedure, he collects all the frankincense from the meal-offering and makes it go up in smoke. — [Torath Kohanim 2:98] ונתן עליה לבנה: על מקצתה, מניח קומץ לבונה עליה לצד אחד. ומה ראית לומר כן, שאין ריבוי אחר ריבוי בתורה אלא למעט. דבר אחר שמן על כולה, מפני שהוא נבלל עמה ונקמץ עמה, כמו שנאמר (פסוק ב) מסלתה ומשמנה, ולבונה על מקצתה, שאינה נבללת עמה ולא נקמצת עמה, שנאמר (פסוק ב) על כל לבונתה, שלאחר שקמץ מלקט את הלבונה כולה מעליה ומקטירה:
He shall pour [oil]…and place [frankincense] …and he shall bring [it to…the kohanim]: [Because Scripture mentions the “pouring” of the oil before the individual “brings” it to the kohanim ,] this teaches [us] that pouring and mixing may be performed [even] by a non- kohen. [And how do we know this concerning the mixing? Because in verses 5-6 below, Scripture states of a meal-offering, “mixed with oil,” before the pouring procedure is to take place, thus, if pouring may be performed by a non- kohen, then mixing, which precedes pouring, may surely be performed by a non- kohen]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] [However,] ויצק, ונתן, והביאה: מלמד שיציקה ובלילה כשרים בזר:
2And he shall bring it to Aaron's descendants, the kohanim, and from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out his fistful of its fine flour and its oil, in addition to all its frankincense. Then, the kohen shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke on the altar; [it is] a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. בוֶֽהֱבִיאָ֗הּ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י אַֽהֲרֹן֘ הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֒ וְקָמַ֨ץ מִשָּׁ֜ם מְלֹ֣א קֻמְצ֗וֹ מִסָּלְתָּהּ֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ עַ֖ל כָּל־לְבֹֽנָתָ֑הּ וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־אַזְכָּֽרָתָהּ֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
[And he shall bring it to…] the kohanim, and he [the kohen] shall scoop out: From the קְמִיצָה scooping procedure and onwards, it is exclusively the priesthood who is commanded [to perfo rm these remaining procedures]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] הכהנים וקמץ: מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה:
And from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out: [From where?] From the place where the feet of the non- kohen were standing. — [Torath Kohanim 2:104] This teaches us that scooping may be performed any place within the courtyard of the Holy Temple, even within the eleven cubits [span of courtyard grounds] in which ordinary Israelites [i.e., non- kohanim were permitted] to walk. — [Yoma 16b] וקמץ משם: ממקום שרגלי הזר עומדות, ללמדך שהקמיצה כשרה בכל מקום בעזרה, אף בי"א אמה של מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל:
his fistful: One might think [that the fistful may be] full to overflowing, bursting through his fist and coming out on every side! Scripture, therefore, states in another passage, “And from it, he shall lift up in his fist” (Lev. 6:8), [i.e., only what is contained within his fist is valid to be burnt]. But since [we now know that the amount shall be only] what is contained within his fist, one might suggest that it means less than a fistful. Scripture, therefore, states here, מְלֹא, “full” [i.e., it shall be a full fist]. How then [does the kohen scoop out exactly a fistful, not more and not less]? He covers the palm of his hand with his three fingers, [and then, with the remaining thumb from above and little finger from below, he levels off any overflowing mixture, so that exactly a full measure of “three fingers” is attained]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:105; Men. 11a] This is the definition of קֹמֶץ, a “fistful” in the Hebrew language [while in other languages, a “fistful” of something might mean four fingers full of something]. מלא קמצו: יכול מבורץ, מבצבץ ויוצא לכל צד, תלמוד לומר במקום אחר (ויק' ו ח) והרים ממנו בקמצו, אין לך כשר אלא מה שבתוך הקומץ. אי בקמצו יכול חסר, תלמוד לומר מלא. הא כיצד, חופה שלש אצבעותיו על פס ידו, וזהו קומץ במשמע לשון העברית:
in addition to all its frankincense: In addition to all the frankincense, the fist shall be full. על כל לבונתה: לבד כל הלבונה יהא הקומץ מלא:
its frankincense. Then, [the kohen] shall cause…to [go up in] smoke:The frankincense is also to be burnt. — [Torath Kohanim 2:107] לבונתה והקטיר: אף הלבונה בהקטרה:
his fistful of its fine flour and its oil: but if he scooped, and a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense went up into his hand, it is unfit. - [Torath Kohanim 2:107] מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה: הא אם קמץ ועלה בידו גרגיר מלח או קורט לבונה פסולה:
its reminder: The fistful offered up to the Most High [God], is the “reminder” of the meal-offering, because through it, its owner [who brought that sacrifice] is remembered for the good, [causing God] contentment. אזכרתה: הקומץ העולה לגבוה הוא זכרון המנחה, שבו נזכר בעליה לטובה ולנחת רוח:
3And what remains of the meal offering shall belong to Aaron and to his descendants; [it is] holy of holies from the fire offerings of the Lord. גוְהַנּוֹתֶ֨רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים מֵֽאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
to Aaron and his descendants: The Kohen Gadol [signified by “Aaron” here,] takes a portion [of what remains of the meal-offering] first, without having to take part in the equal division of the meal offering, while [after this,] the ordinary kohen [signified by “and his descendants” here,] takes his share in the equal division of the meal-offering. — [Torath Kohanim 2:112] לאהרן ולבניו: כהן גדול נוטל חלק בראש שלא במחלוקת, וההדיוט במחלוקת:
[it is] holy of holies: for the Kohanim. קדש קדשים: היא להם:
from the fire-offerings of the Lord: They may take their share in it only after the offerings to the fire [i.e., only after the fistful has been scooped out and burnt, thereby becoming a fire-offering to God. Before this, however, they may not partake of the meal-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 113] מאשי ה': אין להם חלק בה אלא לאחר מתנות האישים:
4And if one brings a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall consist of [either] unleavened loaves [made] of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. דוְכִ֥י תַקְרִ֛ב קָרְבַּ֥ן מִנְחָ֖ה מַֽאֲפֵ֣ה תַנּ֑וּר סֹ֣לֶת חַלּ֤וֹת מַצֹּת֙ בְּלוּלֹ֣ת בַּשֶּׁ֔מֶן וּרְקִיקֵ֥י מַצּ֖וֹת מְשֻׁחִ֥ים בַּשָּֽׁמֶן:
And if you bring [a meal-offering which was baked in an oven]:[Namely: If a person] said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven.” Scripture teaches [us] that he may bring either loaves or wafers. — [Torath Kohanim 2:115] The loaves are to be mixed up (בְּלוּלֹת) [with olive oil], while the wafers are to be anointed (מְשֻׁחִים) [with olive oil]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:117; Men. 74b] Now, our Rabbis (Men. 75a) differ regarding the anointing procedure (מְשִׁיחָה) [for the wafers]: Some say that one must anoint them and again anoint them until all the oil in the log [a volume of liquid] has been used up, for all meal-offerings require one log of oil [each]. Others say that [some of] the oil was smeared [on the wafer] in the form of a Greek “chi” [shaped like the Hebrew נ, see Rashi Exod. 29:2], while the remaining oil was eaten separately by the kohanim. [Now, the verse here says, “mixed with oil…anointed with oil.”] What does the repetition of the word “oil” come to teach us? [It teaches us that for meal-offerings, oil used need not be only from the initial extract from the olives, but] may also be from the second and third extract out of the olives. The only case where the initial extract of oil is required, is the menorah, because regarding it, Scripture says (Exod. 27:20), שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָ, “clear olive oil.” - [Torath Kohanim 2:118] And we learned in Men. (76a): All meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping out] procedure, and consequently whose קְמִיצָה is performed by breaking the offering into pieces (see verse 6), all shall be offered in [parcels of] ten loaves [regarding those about which Scripture says חַוֹת, “loaves,” and parcels of] ten wafers, for those offerings about which Scripture says רְקִיקִין, “wafers.” וכי תקרב וגו': שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה תנור, ולימד הכתוב שיביא או חלות או רקיקין, החלות בלולות, והרקיקין משוחין. ונחלקו רבותינו במשיחתן יש אומרים, מושחן וחוזר ומושחן עד שיכלה כל השמן שבלוג, שכל המנחות טעונות לוג שמן. ויש אומרים מושחן כמין כי יונית ושאר השמן נאכל בפני עצמו לכהנים. מה תלמוד לומר בשמן בשמן שתי פעמים, להכשיר שמן שני ושלישי היוצא מן הזיתים, ואין צריך שמן ראשון אלא למנורה, שנאמר בו (שמות כז כ) זך. ושנינו במנחות (עו א) כל המנחות האפויות לפני קמיצתן ונקמצות ע"י פתיתה, כולן באות עשר עשר חלות, והאמור בה רקיקין, באה עשרה רקיקין:
5And if a meal offering on a pan is your sacrifice, it shall be [made] of fine flour, mixed with oil; it shall be unleavened. הוְאִם־מִנְחָ֥ה עַל־הַמַּֽחֲבַ֖ת קָרְבָּנֶ֑ךָ סֹ֛לֶת בְּלוּלָ֥ה בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן מַצָּ֥ה תִֽהְיֶֽה:
And if a meal-offering on a pan [is your sacrifice]: מִנְחָה עַל הַמַּחֲבַת Namely: If one said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring מִנְחַת הַמַּחֲבַת, a pan-fried meal offering.” [מַחִבַת] was a vessel in the Holy Temple, in which [certain] meal-offerings were baked in oil upon the fire. This vessel is not deep, but shallow. And therefore, meal-offerings made in it were hard, for since the pan was shallow, [the oil spread thin and consequently,] the fire consumed the oil [causing the product to become hard]. — [Men. 63a] And all [meal-offerings] require three applications of oil: יְצִיקָה [pouring], בְּלִילָה [mixing] and placing oil in the vessel before their preparation. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 121, Men. 75a] ואם מנחה על המחבת: שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מחבת. וכלי הוא שהיה במקדש, שאופין בו מנחה על האור בשמן, והכלי אינו עמוק אלא צף, ומעשה המנחה שבתוכו קשין, שמתוך שהיא צפה, האור שורף את השמן. וכולן טעונות שלש מתנות שמן יציקה, ובלילה, ומתן שמן בכלי קודם עשייתן:
fine flour, mixed with oil: [This] teaches [us] that he must mix them while they are [still] fine flour [and not mixing the oil with the already-fried cakes]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:122] סלת בלולה בשמן: מלמד שבוללן בעודן סלת:
6Break it into pieces, and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal offering. ופָּת֤וֹת אֹתָהּ֙ פִּתִּ֔ים וְיָֽצַקְתָּ֥ עָלֶ֖יהָ שָׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָ֖ה הִֽוא:
Break it into pieces, […It is a meal-offering]: [The clause at the end of this verse, “It is a meal-offering,” appears superfluous. However, it] comes to include all meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה procedure, to [have their קְמִיצָה performed by] פְּתִיתָה, breaking them into pieces. — [Men. 75a] פתות אתה פתים: לרבות כל המנחות, הנאפות קודם קמיצה, לפתיתה:
and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal-offering: This includes all meal-offerings for יְצִיקָה, “pouring of the oil.” One might think that this applies also to a meal-offering baked in an oven. Scripture, therefore, says, “[You shall then pour oil] עָלֶיהָ, over it, ” [but not over that baked in an oven.] Perhaps we should exclude חַות, loaves [of oven-baked meal-offerings only], while not excluding the רְקִיקִין wafers [of oven baked meal-offerings]? Scripture, therefore, says, הִיא [i.e., “It,” to have both cases of loaves and wafers of an oven-baked meal-offering excluded from יְצִיקָה]. — [Men. 75a] ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא: לרבות כל המנחות ליציקה. יכול אף מנחת מאפה תנור כן, תלמוד לומר עליה, אוציא את החלות ולא אוציא את הרקיקין, תלמוד לומר הוא:
Chumash: Vayikra, 2nd Portion Leviticus 1:14-2:6 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 1
14And if his sacrifice to the Lord, is a burnt offering from birds, he shall bring [it] from turtle doves or from young doves. ידוְאִ֧ם מִן־הָע֛וֹף עֹלָ֥ה קָרְבָּנ֖וֹ לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וְהִקְרִ֣יב מִן־הַתֹּרִ֗ים א֛וֹ מִן־בְּנֵ֥י הַיּוֹנָ֖ה אֶת־קָרְבָּנֽוֹ:
from birds: But not all birds. Since it is stated: “an unblemished male, from cattle, from sheep, or from goats” (Lev. 22:19), [denoting that the requirement of] perfection and maleness apply [only] to animals, but [the requirement of] perfection and maleness does not apply to birds. One might think that even a bird that lacks a limb [may be brought for this offering]. Scripture, therefore, says [here]: “from birds” [but not all birds, excluding a bird lacking a limb]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:71] מן העוף: ולא כל העוף, לפי שנאמר (ויק' כב יט) תמים זכר בבקר בכשבים ובעזים, תמות וזכרות בבהמה, ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות, יכול אף מחוסר אבר, תלמוד לומר מן העוף:
turtle-doves: [Because the verse specifies “young” doves, whereas it simply says “turtle-doves” without stating “young, ” it must refer to] adult ones [only that may be offered], and not young ones. התרים: גדולים ולא קטנים:
young doves: young ones [only may be offered], and not adult ones. - [Torath Kohanim 1:74] בני היונה: קטנים ולא גדולים:
from turtle-doves or from young doves: [The word “from” occurring twice in this verse comes] to exclude [birds] whose feathers have just begun to become reddish in both species, that they are unfit [for sacrifice], for they are too old to be qualified as “young doves,” and they are too young to be qualified as [adult] “turtle-doves.” - [Torath Kohanim 1:75] מן התרים או מן בני היונה: פרט לתחלת הציהוב, שבזה ושבזה שהוא פסול, שגדול הוא אצל בני יונה וקטן אצל תורים:
15And the kohen shall bring it near to the altar, and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird's] blood shall be pressed out upon the wall of the altar. טווְהִקְרִיב֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וּמָלַק֙ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה וְנִמְצָ֣ה דָמ֔וֹ עַ֖ל קִ֥יר הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
shall bring it: One may bring even a single bird. - [Torath Kohanim 1:77] \b the \b0kohen shall … והקריבו: אפילו פרידה אחת יביא:
nip off: The nipping [of the bird’s head] must not be done with anything but with the body of kohen. He would cut with his [thumb]nail adjacent to the back of the head, cutting right through its spine, until he reached the simanim [literally, “the signs”; in the context of slaughtering, this refers to the esophagus (gullet) and the trachea (wind-pipe)], and cuts through them [see Rashi on Lev. 5:8]. הכהן ומלק: אין מליקה בכלי אלא בעצמו של כהן. קוצץ בצפרנו ממול העורף וחותך מפרקתו עד שמגיע לסימנין וקוצצן:
and its [the bird’s] blood shall be pressed out: [The word וְנִמְצָה] an expression similar to “the pressing out (מִיץ) of wrath” (Prov. 30:33); and, “for the milking (הַמֵּץ) has come to an end” (Isa. 16:4). He presses the slaughtering area [of the bird’s neck] against the wall of the altar, and thereby, the blood is pressed out and runs down [the wall]. ונמצה דמו: לשון מיץ אפים (משלי ל לג), כי אפס המץ (ישעיה טז ד), כובש בית השחיטה על קיר המזבח והדם מתמצה ויורד:
and cut…and cause it to go up in smoke…shall be pressed out:[According to the sequence of these terms, one would think that Scripture is commanding the kohen to first cut the bird’s neck, send the bird up in smoke, and only then to press out its blood. But] is it possible to suggest this? Since [the kohen] has already caused the bird to go up in smoke, he presses its blood out? Rather, [the meaning is clearly not so, and the procedure of causing the bird to go up in smoke appears in the verse after that of nipping off the head, to teach us that] just as with the procedure of causing it to go up in smoke, the bird’s head [is smoked] separately and its body separately, so is it with the procedure of nipping [the bird’s head, i.e., the head is cut at the neck, to become virtually separate from its body-even though it is still attached to the body by the skin] (Torath Kohanim 1:81). According to the simple meaning of the verse, it is transposed [and is to be understood as]: and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird’s] blood shall already have been pressed out. ומלק, והקטיר, ונמצה: אפשר לומר כן, מאחר שהוא מקטיר הוא מוצה, אלא מה הקטרה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו, אף מליקה כן. ופשוטו של מקרא מסורס הוא ומלק והקטיר, וקודם הקטרה, ונמצה דמו כבר:
16And he shall remove its crop along with its entrails, and cast it next to the altar on the east side, to the place of the ashes. טזוְהֵסִ֥יר אֶת־מֻרְאָת֖וֹ בְּנֹֽצָתָ֑הּ וְהִשְׁלִ֨יךְ אֹתָ֜הּ אֵ֤צֶל הַמִּזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ קֵ֔דְמָה אֶל־מְק֖וֹם הַדָּֽשֶׁן:
its crop: Heb. מֻרְאָתוֹ, the place of the רְעִי, the digested food or waste, i.e., the crop, [known in the Talmud as זֶפֶק The word מֻרְאָתוֹ stems from רְאִי, which is equivalent to רְעִי, since an “aleph” is sometimes interchangeable with an “ayin.”]- [Torath Kohanim 1:84] מראתו: מקום הראי וזה הזפק:
with its entrails: Heb. בְּנֹצָתָהּ, with its entrails (Zev. 64b). The word נוֹצָה denotes something disgusting, as [in the verse], “for they are foul (נָצוּ), even slipping” (Lam. 4:15). And this is what Onkelos means [when he translates this word as]: בְּאוּכְלֵיהּ, “with its digested food” [i.e., the excrement found in its entrails]. This is the explanation given by Abba Yose ben Hanan, who states: The kohen removes the gizzard with it. But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, [understanding נוֹצָה to mean “feathers,”] explain [the verse as follows]: With a knife, he cuts an opening around the crop, like a window, and takes it [together] with the feathers (נוֹצָה) that are on the skin (Zev. 65a). In the case of the burnt offering of an animal, which eats exclusively from the feeding trough of its owner, it says, “And the innards and the legs, he shall wash with water. … and cause it to [go up in] smoke [on the altar]” (verse 13). However, regarding birds, which feed themselves on things stolen [from other people’s property], the verse says here, “And he shall [remove its crop]…and cast” the entrails, which ate from stolen property. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:4] בנצתה: עם בני מעיה. ונוצה לשון דבר המאוס, כמו כי נצו גם נעו (איכה ד טו) וזה שתרגם אנקלוס באוכליה. וזהו מדרשו של אבא יוסי בן חנן, שאמר נוטל את הקורקבן עמה. ורז"ל אמרו קודר סביב הזפק בסכין כעין ארובה ונוטלו עם הנוצה שעל העור. בעולת בהמה, שאינה אוכלת אלא באבוס בעליה, נאמר (פסוק יג) והקרב והכרעים ירחץ במים והקטיר, ובעוף, שנזון מן הגזל, נאמר והשליך, את המעים, שאכל מן הגזל:
next to the altar on the east side: At the eastern side of the כֶּבֶשׁ [the ramp leading up to the altar]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:86] אצל המזבח קדמה: במזרחו של כבש:
to the place of the ashes: I.e., the place where each morning they deposit the ashes removed [from the outer altar], and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the menorah. All these were [miraculously] absorbed there in their place. — [Yoma 21a] אל מקום הדשן: מקום שנותנין שם תרומת הדשן בכל בוקר ודישון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה. וכולם נבלעים שם במקומן:
17And he shall split it open with its wing feathers [intact], but he shall not tear it completely apart. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, on top of the wood which is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יזוְשִׁסַּ֨ע אֹת֣וֹ בִכְנָפָיו֘ לֹ֣א יַבְדִּיל֒ וְהִקְטִ֨יר אֹת֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַל־הָֽעֵצִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הָאֵ֑שׁ עֹלָ֣ה ה֗וּא אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
And he shall split it open: Heb. וְשִׁסַּע. The term שִׁסּוּעַ refers only to [splitting open] with the hand. Similarly, [Scripture] says regarding Samson: “and he split it open (וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ) as he would have split open (כְּשַׁסַּע) a kid” (Jud. 14:6). - [Zev. 65b] ושסע: אין שיסוע אלא ביד, וכן הוא אומר בשמשון (שופטים יד ו) וישסעהו כשסע הגדי:
with its wing feathers: [I.e.,] with its wings; he need not pluck out its wing feathers. בכנפיו: עם כנפיו, אינו צריך למרוט כנפי נוצתו:
with its wing feathers: [Lit., “its wings.” Here, it refers to] the actual feathers [of its wings]. But surely you will not find even the simplest of people [i.e., even a person who is not particular,] who, when smelling the odor of burnt feathers, does not find it repulsive. Why then does Scripture command us to send [the feathers] up in smoke? [The feathers are left intact] so that the altar should appear sated and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor man [who could afford only a bird]. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:5] בכנפיו: נוצה ממש. והלא אין לך הדיוט שמריח ריח רע של כנפים נשרפים ואין נפשו קצה עליו, ולמה אמר הכתוב והקטיר, כדי שיהא המזבח שבע ומהודר בקרבנו של עני:
but he shall not tear it completely apart: [Although the kohen splits open the bird,] he must not tear it apart completely into two [separate] pieces. Rather, he must tear it along its back. Now, regarding a bird [offering], it says here: “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord],” and regarding animals, it says, “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord]” (verse 9) [as well. From here we see that both in the case of a large animal or a small bird, the fragrance is pleasing to God]. This teaches us: Whether one offers much or little, [it is equally pleasing to God,] provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. — [Toroth Kohanim 1:91] לא יבדיל: אינו מפרקו לגמרי לשתי חתיכות, אלא קורעו מגבו. נאמר בעוף ריח ניחוח, ונאמר בבהמה ריח ניחוח, לומר לך אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, ובלבד שיכוין את לבו לשמים:
Leviticus Chapter 2
1And if a person brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil over it and place frankincense upon it. אוְנֶ֗פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תַקְרִ֞יב קָרְבַּ֤ן מִנְחָה֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה סֹ֖לֶת יִֽהְיֶ֣ה קָרְבָּנ֑וֹ וְיָצַ֤ק עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ שֶׁ֔מֶן וְנָתַ֥ן עָלֶ֖יהָ לְבֹנָֽה:
And if a person brings: [literally, “And if a soul brings.”] Regarding all the sacrifices which were donated voluntarily, the only instance where Scripture states the word נֶפֶשׁ “soul” is in the case of the meal-offering. Now, who usually donates a meal-offering? A poor man [because flour is less expensive than birds or animals]. [Hence,] the Holy One Blessed is He, says: “I account if for him as if he has sacrificed his very soul!” - [Men. 104b] ונפש כי תקריב: לא נאמר נפש בכל קרבנות נדבה אלא במנחה, מי דרכו להתנדב מנחה, עני, אמר הקב"ה מעלה אני עליו כאלו הקריב נפשו:
his offering shall be from fine flour: If a person says, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering,” without specifying which type of meal-offering, then he shall bring מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, a meal-offering of fine flour, which is the first of the meal-offerings [mentioned in this chapter] (Men. 104b), and קֹמֶץ [fistful of the offering] is scooped out while it is [still in the form of] flour, as is explained in this passage. Since five kinds of meal-offerings are enumerated here, all of which had to be brought ready-baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping took place], with the exception of this one, it is, therefore, called מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, “a meal-offering of fine flour.” סלת יהיה קרבנו: האומר הרי עלי מנחה סתם, מביא מנחת סלת, שהיא הראשונה שבמנחות ונקמצת כשהיא סלת, כמו שמפורש בענין. לפי שנאמרו כאן חמשה מיני מנחות, וכולן באות אפויות קודם קמיצה חוץ מזו, לכך קרויה מנחת סלת:
fine flour: סֹלֶת. [The term] סֹלֶת always denotes [fine flour of] wheat, as the verse says, “fine flour (סֹלֶת) of wheat” (Exod. 29:2). - [Torath Kohanim 2:96] No meal-offering consists of less than one עִשָּׂרוֹן [“one tenth” of an ephah of flour], as it is said, “one tenth measure for a meal-offering (עִשָּׂרוֹן)” (Lev.14:21), [implying that] one tenth measure [shall be used] for each meal-offering. — [see Men. 89a] סלת: אין סלת אלא מן החטין, שנאמר (שמות כט ב) סלת חטים, ואין מנחה פחותה מעשרון, שנאמר (ויק' יד כא) ועשרון סלת למנחה, עשרון לכל מנחה:
He shall pour oil over it: Over all of it. [However,] ויצק עליה שמן: על כולה:
and place frankincense upon it: Upon part of it; the kohen places a fistful of frankincense upon it at one side [of the offering]. Now what makes you say this? Because an inclusion after an inclusion in the Torah means only to exclude. [Now, here, the expression עָלֶיהָ, upon it or over it, is inclusive in nature, for its assumed meaning is “upon all of it,” i.e., the kohen shall pour the oil over all of the offering. In the continuation of the verse, “and place frankincense upon it (עָלֶיה),” however, the second mention of the word עָלֶיה represents a רִבָּוי after a רִבָּוי, and so, the second עָלֶיה becomes preclusive, meaning that the frankincense is to be placed only upon part of the offering.] Another explanation: Oil [is poured] over all of it, because it [the oil] has to be mixed with it and scooped with it, as it is said, “[scoop out a fistful] from its fine flour and its oil.” However, the frankincense because it is neither mixed nor scooped with it, as it is said, “in addition to] all its frankincense” (verse 2), for, after he has completed the קְמִיצָה procedure, he collects all the frankincense from the meal-offering and makes it go up in smoke. — [Torath Kohanim 2:98] ונתן עליה לבנה: על מקצתה, מניח קומץ לבונה עליה לצד אחד. ומה ראית לומר כן, שאין ריבוי אחר ריבוי בתורה אלא למעט. דבר אחר שמן על כולה, מפני שהוא נבלל עמה ונקמץ עמה, כמו שנאמר (פסוק ב) מסלתה ומשמנה, ולבונה על מקצתה, שאינה נבללת עמה ולא נקמצת עמה, שנאמר (פסוק ב) על כל לבונתה, שלאחר שקמץ מלקט את הלבונה כולה מעליה ומקטירה:
He shall pour [oil]…and place [frankincense] …and he shall bring [it to…the kohanim]: [Because Scripture mentions the “pouring” of the oil before the individual “brings” it to the kohanim ,] this teaches [us] that pouring and mixing may be performed [even] by a non- kohen. [And how do we know this concerning the mixing? Because in verses 5-6 below, Scripture states of a meal-offering, “mixed with oil,” before the pouring procedure is to take place, thus, if pouring may be performed by a non- kohen, then mixing, which precedes pouring, may surely be performed by a non- kohen]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] [However,] ויצק, ונתן, והביאה: מלמד שיציקה ובלילה כשרים בזר:
2And he shall bring it to Aaron's descendants, the kohanim, and from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out his fistful of its fine flour and its oil, in addition to all its frankincense. Then, the kohen shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke on the altar; [it is] a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. בוֶֽהֱבִיאָ֗הּ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י אַֽהֲרֹן֘ הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֒ וְקָמַ֨ץ מִשָּׁ֜ם מְלֹ֣א קֻמְצ֗וֹ מִסָּלְתָּהּ֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ עַ֖ל כָּל־לְבֹֽנָתָ֑הּ וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־אַזְכָּֽרָתָהּ֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
[And he shall bring it to…] the kohanim, and he [the kohen] shall scoop out: From the קְמִיצָה scooping procedure and onwards, it is exclusively the priesthood who is commanded [to perfo rm these remaining procedures]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] הכהנים וקמץ: מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה:
And from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out: [From where?] From the place where the feet of the non- kohen were standing. — [Torath Kohanim 2:104] This teaches us that scooping may be performed any place within the courtyard of the Holy Temple, even within the eleven cubits [span of courtyard grounds] in which ordinary Israelites [i.e., non- kohanim were permitted] to walk. — [Yoma 16b] וקמץ משם: ממקום שרגלי הזר עומדות, ללמדך שהקמיצה כשרה בכל מקום בעזרה, אף בי"א אמה של מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל:
his fistful: One might think [that the fistful may be] full to overflowing, bursting through his fist and coming out on every side! Scripture, therefore, states in another passage, “And from it, he shall lift up in his fist” (Lev. 6:8), [i.e., only what is contained within his fist is valid to be burnt]. But since [we now know that the amount shall be only] what is contained within his fist, one might suggest that it means less than a fistful. Scripture, therefore, states here, מְלֹא, “full” [i.e., it shall be a full fist]. How then [does the kohen scoop out exactly a fistful, not more and not less]? He covers the palm of his hand with his three fingers, [and then, with the remaining thumb from above and little finger from below, he levels off any overflowing mixture, so that exactly a full measure of “three fingers” is attained]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:105; Men. 11a] This is the definition of קֹמֶץ, a “fistful” in the Hebrew language [while in other languages, a “fistful” of something might mean four fingers full of something]. מלא קמצו: יכול מבורץ, מבצבץ ויוצא לכל צד, תלמוד לומר במקום אחר (ויק' ו ח) והרים ממנו בקמצו, אין לך כשר אלא מה שבתוך הקומץ. אי בקמצו יכול חסר, תלמוד לומר מלא. הא כיצד, חופה שלש אצבעותיו על פס ידו, וזהו קומץ במשמע לשון העברית:
in addition to all its frankincense: In addition to all the frankincense, the fist shall be full. על כל לבונתה: לבד כל הלבונה יהא הקומץ מלא:
its frankincense. Then, [the kohen] shall cause…to [go up in] smoke:The frankincense is also to be burnt. — [Torath Kohanim 2:107] לבונתה והקטיר: אף הלבונה בהקטרה:
his fistful of its fine flour and its oil: but if he scooped, and a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense went up into his hand, it is unfit. - [Torath Kohanim 2:107] מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה: הא אם קמץ ועלה בידו גרגיר מלח או קורט לבונה פסולה:
its reminder: The fistful offered up to the Most High [God], is the “reminder” of the meal-offering, because through it, its owner [who brought that sacrifice] is remembered for the good, [causing God] contentment. אזכרתה: הקומץ העולה לגבוה הוא זכרון המנחה, שבו נזכר בעליה לטובה ולנחת רוח:
3And what remains of the meal offering shall belong to Aaron and to his descendants; [it is] holy of holies from the fire offerings of the Lord. גוְהַנּוֹתֶ֨רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים מֵֽאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
to Aaron and his descendants: The Kohen Gadol [signified by “Aaron” here,] takes a portion [of what remains of the meal-offering] first, without having to take part in the equal division of the meal offering, while [after this,] the ordinary kohen [signified by “and his descendants” here,] takes his share in the equal division of the meal-offering. — [Torath Kohanim 2:112] לאהרן ולבניו: כהן גדול נוטל חלק בראש שלא במחלוקת, וההדיוט במחלוקת:
[it is] holy of holies: for the Kohanim. קדש קדשים: היא להם:
from the fire-offerings of the Lord: They may take their share in it only after the offerings to the fire [i.e., only after the fistful has been scooped out and burnt, thereby becoming a fire-offering to God. Before this, however, they may not partake of the meal-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 113] מאשי ה': אין להם חלק בה אלא לאחר מתנות האישים:
4And if one brings a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall consist of [either] unleavened loaves [made] of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. דוְכִ֥י תַקְרִ֛ב קָרְבַּ֥ן מִנְחָ֖ה מַֽאֲפֵ֣ה תַנּ֑וּר סֹ֣לֶת חַלּ֤וֹת מַצֹּת֙ בְּלוּלֹ֣ת בַּשֶּׁ֔מֶן וּרְקִיקֵ֥י מַצּ֖וֹת מְשֻׁחִ֥ים בַּשָּֽׁמֶן:
And if you bring [a meal-offering which was baked in an oven]:[Namely: If a person] said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven.” Scripture teaches [us] that he may bring either loaves or wafers. — [Torath Kohanim 2:115] The loaves are to be mixed up (בְּלוּלֹת) [with olive oil], while the wafers are to be anointed (מְשֻׁחִים) [with olive oil]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:117; Men. 74b] Now, our Rabbis (Men. 75a) differ regarding the anointing procedure (מְשִׁיחָה) [for the wafers]: Some say that one must anoint them and again anoint them until all the oil in the log [a volume of liquid] has been used up, for all meal-offerings require one log of oil [each]. Others say that [some of] the oil was smeared [on the wafer] in the form of a Greek “chi” [shaped like the Hebrew נ, see Rashi Exod. 29:2], while the remaining oil was eaten separately by the kohanim. [Now, the verse here says, “mixed with oil…anointed with oil.”] What does the repetition of the word “oil” come to teach us? [It teaches us that for meal-offerings, oil used need not be only from the initial extract from the olives, but] may also be from the second and third extract out of the olives. The only case where the initial extract of oil is required, is the menorah, because regarding it, Scripture says (Exod. 27:20), שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָ, “clear olive oil.” - [Torath Kohanim 2:118] And we learned in Men. (76a): All meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping out] procedure, and consequently whose קְמִיצָה is performed by breaking the offering into pieces (see verse 6), all shall be offered in [parcels of] ten loaves [regarding those about which Scripture says חַוֹת, “loaves,” and parcels of] ten wafers, for those offerings about which Scripture says רְקִיקִין, “wafers.” וכי תקרב וגו': שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה תנור, ולימד הכתוב שיביא או חלות או רקיקין, החלות בלולות, והרקיקין משוחין. ונחלקו רבותינו במשיחתן יש אומרים, מושחן וחוזר ומושחן עד שיכלה כל השמן שבלוג, שכל המנחות טעונות לוג שמן. ויש אומרים מושחן כמין כי יונית ושאר השמן נאכל בפני עצמו לכהנים. מה תלמוד לומר בשמן בשמן שתי פעמים, להכשיר שמן שני ושלישי היוצא מן הזיתים, ואין צריך שמן ראשון אלא למנורה, שנאמר בו (שמות כז כ) זך. ושנינו במנחות (עו א) כל המנחות האפויות לפני קמיצתן ונקמצות ע"י פתיתה, כולן באות עשר עשר חלות, והאמור בה רקיקין, באה עשרה רקיקין:
5And if a meal offering on a pan is your sacrifice, it shall be [made] of fine flour, mixed with oil; it shall be unleavened. הוְאִם־מִנְחָ֥ה עַל־הַמַּֽחֲבַ֖ת קָרְבָּנֶ֑ךָ סֹ֛לֶת בְּלוּלָ֥ה בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן מַצָּ֥ה תִֽהְיֶֽה:
And if a meal-offering on a pan [is your sacrifice]: מִנְחָה עַל הַמַּחֲבַת Namely: If one said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring מִנְחַת הַמַּחֲבַת, a pan-fried meal offering.” [מַחִבַת] was a vessel in the Holy Temple, in which [certain] meal-offerings were baked in oil upon the fire. This vessel is not deep, but shallow. And therefore, meal-offerings made in it were hard, for since the pan was shallow, [the oil spread thin and consequently,] the fire consumed the oil [causing the product to become hard]. — [Men. 63a] And all [meal-offerings] require three applications of oil: יְצִיקָה [pouring], בְּלִילָה [mixing] and placing oil in the vessel before their preparation. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 121, Men. 75a] ואם מנחה על המחבת: שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מחבת. וכלי הוא שהיה במקדש, שאופין בו מנחה על האור בשמן, והכלי אינו עמוק אלא צף, ומעשה המנחה שבתוכו קשין, שמתוך שהיא צפה, האור שורף את השמן. וכולן טעונות שלש מתנות שמן יציקה, ובלילה, ומתן שמן בכלי קודם עשייתן:
fine flour, mixed with oil: [This] teaches [us] that he must mix them while they are [still] fine flour [and not mixing the oil with the already-fried cakes]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:122] סלת בלולה בשמן: מלמד שבוללן בעודן סלת:
6Break it into pieces, and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal offering. ופָּת֤וֹת אֹתָהּ֙ פִּתִּ֔ים וְיָֽצַקְתָּ֥ עָלֶ֖יהָ שָׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָ֖ה הִֽוא:
Break it into pieces, […It is a meal-offering]: [The clause at the end of this verse, “It is a meal-offering,” appears superfluous. However, it] comes to include all meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה procedure, to [have their קְמִיצָה performed by] פְּתִיתָה, breaking them into pieces. — [Men. 75a] פתות אתה פתים: לרבות כל המנחות, הנאפות קודם קמיצה, לפתיתה:
and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal-offering: This includes all meal-offerings for יְצִיקָה, “pouring of the oil.” One might think that this applies also to a meal-offering baked in an oven. Scripture, therefore, says, “[You shall then pour oil] עָלֶיהָ, over it, ” [but not over that baked in an oven.] Perhaps we should exclude חַות, loaves [of oven-baked meal-offerings only], while not excluding the רְקִיקִין wafers [of oven baked meal-offerings]? Scripture, therefore, says, הִיא [i.e., “It,” to have both cases of loaves and wafers of an oven-baked meal-offering excluded from יְצִיקָה]. — [Men. 75a] ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא: לרבות כל המנחות ליציקה. יכול אף מנחת מאפה תנור כן, תלמוד לומר עליה, אוציא את החלות ולא אוציא את הרקיקין, תלמוד לומר הוא:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 23 - 28
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 23
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust
1
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
FOOTNOTES
1.I trust that “the lord is my light and salvation” etc. (Rashi)
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just desserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 35• 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
• Monday, Adar II 4, 5776 · March 14, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 35
• Before beginning ch. 35, it will be worthwhile to note once again that the Tanya is based on the verse, “For the matter (of observing Torah and mitzvot) is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.”
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Adar II 4, 5776 · March 14, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 115
Donating Animals
"He shall present the animal before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it"—Leviticus 27:11-12.
If a person pledges to give a non-kosher animal [or a kosher animal not fit to be brought as a sacrifice] to G‑d, he must follow the law prescribed in the Torah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Donating Houses
"And if a man shall sanctify his house, holy to G‑d...the priest shall evaluate it"—Leviticus 27:14.
If a person pledges to give a house to G‑d, he must follow the law prescribed in the Torah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Donating Fields
"And if a man shall dedicate part of his field"—Leviticus 27:16-22.
If a person pledges to give a field to G‑d, he must follow the law prescribed in the Torah. The procedure varies depending whether it is an ancestral field or a field that one acquired.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
This verse asserts that the Torah is easily fulfilled through all of man’s three forms of expression (also called the “garments of the soul”): thought (“in your heart”), speech (“in your mouth”) and action (“that you may do it”). In a deeper sense, the phrase “in your heart” refers also to the emotions of love and fear of G‑d; they, too, are “very near to you,” i.e., easily attainable.
Concerning this latter statement, the Alter Rebbe points out (in ch. 17) that this claim appears contrary to our experience; in fact, it is by no means an easy matter for us to acquire the love and fear of G‑d.
In answer, he explains that the phrase “that you may do it” qualifies and describes the emotions intended in the words “in your heart,” thus: What sort of love and fear of G‑d is “very near to you... in your heart?” — The love and fear which serve to motivate one’s practical observance of the mitzvot (even though such love and fear are not experienced in the heart as fiery spiritual emotions). Intellectual contemplation of G‑d’s greatness will lead one to an intellectual appreciation (“love”) of G‑d, and an awe (“fear”) of Him, which will in turn affect the heart (since, by nature, the mind rules the heart). The heart will then be motivated and will resolve to observe all the mitzvot in the spirit of this “love” or “fear”.
The Alter Rebbe then went on to say that even he who is not suited to such intellectual contemplation may also attain a love and fear of G‑d by revealing the natural love hidden in the heart of every Jew. This love also contains an element of fear, the fear of separation from G‑dliness. Thus, it is indeed “very near” and easy to serve G‑d “in one’s heart,” i.e., out of both the love and fear of G‑d.
Yet, from the wording of the verse (“It is very near to you... in your mouth, and... heart, that you may do it”) it is evident that however necessary the love and fear of G‑d may be, the actual, practical observance of the mitzvot is paramount. In the following chapters the Alter Rebbe explains the superiority of the practical aspect of mitzvot over this seemingly more “spiritual” aspect.
It is also important to bear in mind the Alter Rebbe’s definition of the rank of Beinoni: The Beinoni is he who is not guilty of any sin, whether in action, in speech, or even in thought.
The inner evil of his animal soul, however, retains its native strength, and is capable of arousing forbidden desires in his heart; only by constant vigilance does the Beinoni prevent these desires from finding expression in his actions, words and (conscious) thoughts.
והנה, לתוספת ביאור תיבת לעשותו
Let us elucidate still further the term “that you may do it,” in the verse, “For the matter is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it,” where, as mentioned, the climax of the verse is its emphasis on action.
וגם להבין מעט מזעיר תכלית בריאת הבינונים
Let us also understand [at least] in a very small measure, the purpose in creating Beinonim — to be, and remain forever on the level of Beinonim; for as explained in ch. 14, the souls of the Beinonim are usually incapable of rising to the level of tzaddik through their own will and effort: they were created to be Beinonim;
וירידת נשמותיהם לעולם הזה, להתלבש בנפש הבהמית שמהקליפה וסטרא אחרא
also, [the purpose of] their souls‘ descent to this world, being clothed within an animal soul deriving from the kelipah and sitra achra, the very antithesis of the (divine) soul.
מאחר שלא יוכלו לשלחה כל ימיהם, ולדחותה ממקומה מחלל השמאלי שבלב
Since they will not be able to banish [the animal soul] throughout their lives, nor [even] dislodge it from its place in the left part of the heart,
שלא יעלו ממנה הרהורים אל המוח
so that no [evil] imaginings rise from it to the brain,
כי מהותה ועצמותה של נפש הבהמית שמהקליפה היא בתקפה ובגבורתה אצלם כתולדתה
inasmuch as in the Beinonim, the essence of the animal soul derived from the kelipah remains in its full strength and potency as at birth,
רק שלבושיה אינם מתלבשים בגופם כנ״ל
except that its “garments”, i.e., its forms of expression as evil thought, speech and action, do not clothe themselves in their body, as mentioned above — in ch. 12, where the Alter Rebbe explains that by means of constant battle with his animal soul, the Beinoni prevents the budding evil of this soul from expressing itself in his thought, speech and action.
However, since the Beinoni succeeds only in suppressing the “garments” of the animal soul, but can never, despite all his efforts, effect any change in the essential, evil nature of the animal soul itself, the question arises:
ואם כן, למה זה ירדו נשמותיהם לעולם הזה ליגע לריק, חס ושלום, להלחם כל ימיהם עם היצר, ולא יכלו לו
Why then did their souls descend to this world, to strive in vain, G‑d forbid; waging war all their lives against their evil inclination, yet never being able to vanquish it?
It was explained in the previous chapter that the ongoing battle waged by the Beinoni in preventing his evil inclination from asserting itself in thought, speech and action causes prodigious pleasure Above. How then can we complain that the battle is in vain? Yet, were this divine pleasure the sole object of the battle, there would be no reason for having the divine soul clothed within the animal soul; on the contrary, the two souls ought then be separate and distinct from each other, so that whenever the divine soul emerges victorious from a particular struggle (against the desire of the animal soul to act or speak evilly), it would then act alone, without the participation of the animal soul. Since the divine soul is clothed within the animal soul, the objective obviously lies in perfecting the animal soul itself. From this perspective, the battle of the Beinonidoes indeed seem futile, since all his efforts have no effect on the evil nature of the animal soul.
ותהי זאת נחמתם לנחמם בכפליים לתושיה, ולשמח לבם בה׳ השוכן אתם בתוך תורתם ועבודתם
Let this forthcoming explanation be their solace, to comfort them in a double measure of aid, and to gladden their hearts in G‑d Who dwells amongst them in their Torah and [divine] service. I.e., the explanation will show them how to find comfort and joy in the G‑dly light that abides within them when they study the Torah and when they engage in the service of G‑d.
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Adar II 4, 5776 · March 14, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 115
Donating Animals
"He shall present the animal before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it"—Leviticus 27:11-12.
If a person pledges to give a non-kosher animal [or a kosher animal not fit to be brought as a sacrifice] to G‑d, he must follow the law prescribed in the Torah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Donating Animals
Positive Commandment 115
Translated by Berel Bell
The 115th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the financial evaluation (erachin) of a non-kosher animal.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "[If it involves a non-kosher animal,] he shall present the animal to the kohen, and the kohen shall set its value."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in T'murah and Me'ilah.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Or a blemished animal.
2.
Positive Commandment 116
Lev. 27:11-12.
Donating Houses
"And if a man shall sanctify his house, holy to G‑d...the priest shall evaluate it"—Leviticus 27:14.
If a person pledges to give a house to G‑d, he must follow the law prescribed in the Torah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Donating Houses
Positive Commandment 116
Translated by Berel Bell
The 116th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the financial evaluation (erachin) of houses.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "If a person consecrates his house as something sacred to G‑d, the kohen shall set its value...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Erachin.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Positive Commandment 117
Lev. 27:14.
Donating Fields
"And if a man shall dedicate part of his field"—Leviticus 27:16-22.
If a person pledges to give a field to G‑d, he must follow the law prescribed in the Torah. The procedure varies depending whether it is an ancestral field or a field that one acquired.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Donating Fields
Positive Commandment 117
Translated by Berel Bell
The 117th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the financial evaluation (erachin) of fields.
The sources for this commandment are G‑d's statements,1 "If [a person consecrates] a field from his hereditary property..." and "If the field is not his hereditary property but a field he has bought...."
If it is hereditary property, "its value shall be calculated according to the amount of seed [required to sow it]."2
If the field was purchased, "The kohen shall calculate the proportion of its value [on the basis of the number of years remaining until the jubilee year]."
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in tractate Erachin.
Do not think that these four categories of evaluation share something in common which requires them to be counted together as one mitzvah. Each one has its unique regulations, and is therefore counted separately. All they share in common is the title "evaluation" (erach). Therefore, the various categories of erachin cannot be counted as only one mitzvah just as the various types of sacrifices are not counted as only one mitzvah. After careful consideration, this will become clear.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Lev. 27:16, 27:22.
2.
Lev. 27:16. 50 shekels for each kur (about 3.87 acres; see The Living Torah, Kaplan)
• 1 Chapter: Klei Hamikdash Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
There are three types of priestly garments: the garments of an ordinary priest, [the High Priest's] golden garments and his white garments. An ordinary priest has four garments: a tunic, leggings, a hat, and a sash. They are all made from white linen with six-fold threads.1The sash2 alone was embroidered with wool.3
Halacha 2
The golden garments are the garments of the High Priest.4 There were eight garments: The four of an ordinary priest, the cloak, the ephod, the breastplate, and the forehead plate. The sash of the High Priest was embroidered5 and was made in a similar manner as that of the ordinary priest. Similarly, the turban [the Torah] mentions with regard to Aaron6 corresponds to the hat mentioned with regard to his sons.7 [The difference is that the] turban of the High Priest is worn like fabric swathed around a hernia. The hat of the ordinary priest, by contrast, is worn like an ordinary hat;8 hence, its name.9
Halacha 3
The white garments are the four garments that the High Priests would wear on Yom Kippur.10 They are: a tunic, leggings, a sash, and a turban. They are all white, their threads are six-fold, and they are made from linen alone.11 The High Priests had two other tunics for Yom Kippur: one he would wear in the morning12 and one he would wear in the evening.13 Both of them cost 30maneh.14They were purchased with communal funds.15 If he wished to add to their value, he must add from his own funds. He would consecrate the additional money and then use it to have the tunic made.
Halacha 4
It is a mitzvah for the priestly garments to be new, attractive, and to hang low like the garments of the men of stature, as [implied by Exodus 28:2 which states that they must be made]: "for honor and for beauty." If they were soiled,16 torn,17 longer than his appropriate measure,18 shorter than his appropriate measure, hoisted up by the sash,19 and a priest performed service while wearing them, his service is invalid.20If they were worn-out or they were too long and he hoisted them with the sash so that they would be appropriate to his measure, his service is valid.
Halacha 5
Whenever any of the priestly garments become soiled, they are not bleached or laundered. Instead, they are left to be used for wicks and he should wear new ones.21When the garments of the High Priest22 become worn out, they should be entombed.23 The white garments which the High Priest wears on the day of the fast should not be worn a second time at all. Instead, they are entombed in the place where he removes them, as [Leviticus 16:23] states: "And he shall leave them there." It is forbidden to benefit from them.
Halacha 6
They would make wicks from the leggings and the sashes of the ordinary priests that wore out.24 They were used to kindle lamps in the Temple for the rejoicing that accompanied the water libation.25 The tunics of the ordinary priests26 that wore out were used to make wicks for the Menorah lit continually.27
Halacha 7
All of the priestly garments come from communal funds. When one individual donates one of the priestly garments, he may donate it to the community and then it is permitted to be used. Similarly, the sacrificial vessels and the wood for the altar arrangement that an individual donated to the community are acceptable.28 Even all the communal sacrifices which an individual donates from his own resources to the community are acceptable, provided he gives them to the community.
Halacha 8
They would make many sets29 of clothes for ordinary priests. There were 96 lockers in the Temple30 in which to place the clothes, four lockers for each watch. The name of each watch was written on the lockers and they were all closed. When the men of the watch began their priestly service on the Sabbath, they would open their lockers throughout their week and take their garments. When they departed, they would return the clothes to their lockers and close them.
Halacha 9
Why did they make four lockers for each watch? So that the garments would not be intermingled.31 Instead, all of the leggings were [stored] in one locker on which was written: Leggings. Similarly, the sashes were [stored] in one locker on which was written: Sash. Similarly, the hats and the tunics each had their own locker.
Halacha 10
The High Priest would leave his golden garments in his chamber32 at night or when he left the Temple.
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
It is, however, forbidden for an ordinary priest to wear it except during his service. The [clothes] the priests wear for their service are of wool and linen alone.
Halacha 13
Whenever the Torah uses the word sheish or bad, it is referring to flax, i.e., linen. Whenever the term techeilet is used, it refers to wool which is dyed sky-blue, i.e., lighter35 than dark blue. The term argaman refers to wool that is dyed red.36 And tola'at sheni refers to wool dyed with a gnat.37
Halacha 14
Whenever the Torah uses the term sheish or "spun sheish," it is necessary that the strand be sixfold.38 Where the term bad is used, it is valid, if one strand alone is used. [Even in such situations,] the most desirable manner of performing the mitzvah is that it be sixfold. Whenever the term meshizar39 is used alone, the intent is a thread that is eightfold.
Halacha 15
Whenever the Torah uses the term "a work of embroidery," the intent is that the design which is woven will be seen on one side of the fabric. When it uses the term "a work of craft," the intent is that the design will be seen on both sides of the fabric, front and back.
Halacha 16
How are the clothes made? The tunic - whether of the High Priest or an ordinary priest - was made with a boxlike knit. The knit had sequences of squares as is the structure of an animal's maw,40 in the manner which weavers make firm garments. Its sleeve was woven separately and then sown to the body of the tunic.
Halacha 17
The length of the tunic extended until slightly above the heel.41 The length of the sleeve extended until his wrist and its width was the width of his hand.
Halacha 18
The leggings - whether of the High Priest or an ordinary priest - extend from the loins until the thighs, i.e., from above the navel, close to the heart, until the end of the thigh, i.e., until the knee. They had straps.42 They did not have a special feature for the anus, nor for the male organ. Instead, they would surround the body like a pouch.
Halacha 19
The turban - whether of an ordinary priest or a High Priest - was sixteen cubits long.43 The sash was about three fingerbreadths44 wide and 32 cubits long. [The priest would] wrap it around himself, winding after winding. The priestly garments were not sown, rather they woven, as [Exodus 39:22] states: "weavers' craft."
FOOTNOTES
1.
As mentioned in the notes to the previous chapter, the Radbaz explains that this is implied by the very Hebrew term used for linen sheish, for that term also means "six." See Halachah 14.
2.
The Torah (Exodus 39:29) mentions the use of woolen fabrics only with regard to the sash of the High Priest, but through the process of Biblical exegesis, our Sages (Yoma 12b) also derived that the sash of an ordinary priest also contains these fabrics.
3.
Although the combination of these fabrics violates the prohibition against shaatnez(see Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 12), the positive commandment of wearing the Priestly Garments overrides the negative commandment of shaatnez. Nevertheless, this applies only when it is a mitzvah to wear them, i.e., when involved in the Temple service. Otherwise, it is forbidden to wear them (Hilchot Kilayim 10:3).
4.
As the Rambam continues to explain, these garments were not all golden. Nevertheless, they are called golden because certain garments were golden.
7.
Ibid.:40.
8.
The Kessef Mishneh cites the Ramban who states that the headgear of both the ordinary priests and the High Priests were turbans. This is also indicated by Halachah 18 which speaks of their length. The turban of the High Priest, however, was round, while those of the ordinary priests were cone-shaped like hats. Other authorities (Rashi and the Ra'avad) differ and maintain that the ordinary priests wore hats and not turbans.
9.
With regard to this point as well, the Kessef Mishneh cites the Ramban who states that the letters kuf and gimmel can be interchanged. Thus migba'at parallelsmikva'at that relates to the word kova, hat.
10.
More particularly, they are the garments that he would wear when he performed the service unique to Yom Kippur. For he would also wear his golden garments on that day and carry out the service that was also peformed on other days while wearing them. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:1.
11.
I.e., even the sash was made from linen alone. On this day, it was not of sha'tnez.
12.
To perform the sacrificial service of Yom Kippur.
13.
To remove from the Holy of Holies the ladle that had carried the incense.
14.
A maneh is 100 silver pieces. Thus these were very expensive garments, made of fine fabric. The commentaries note that Yoma35a states that the garments the High Priest would wear in the morning were more valuable than those he would wear in the evening and question why the Rambam does not mention this point. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 3:7) which states that the only difference between the two was their cut.
15.
I.e., funds from terumat halishkah, the Temple treasury collected to purchase the communal sacrifices and all their needs. See Halachah 7 and Hilchot Shekalim 4:2.
16.
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Zevachim 18b.
17.
The commentaries have drawn attention to an apparent contradiction in the Rambam's words, for in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:14, he rules that, after the fact, when a priest performs service in torn garments, although he is liable to die at the hand of heaven, his service is acceptable. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking about clothes that remain torn. Hence, it is as if he is no longer wearing that garment. In Hilchot Bi'at Hamikdash, by contrast, he is speaking about torn garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains (in his gloss there), the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made when one rends his garments in mourning which can be mended. Here, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many places.
18.
I.e., they should reach slightly above the ground, extending until above the priest's heel (Halachah 17). If they drag along the ground, they are disqualified. That is the intent of the phrase "too long" mentioned later (Kessef Mishneh).
19.
It is as if the material hoisted up by the sash was cut off (Zevachim 18b).
20.
It is as if he performed the service without wearing priestly garments at all.
21.
For there should be no expressions of poverty in a place of wealth (Zevachim 88b).
22.
I.e., the golden garments.
23.
Although this is not stated explicitly, it is deduced from a comparison to the white garments (Yoma 12b).
24.
These were not used for the Menorah. The rationale is that since the sash contains wool, it will not serve as an effective wick (see Shabbat 20b-21a). And it is improper to use the leggings for that purpose since the priest wore them on his lower body (Tifferet Yisrael, Sukkah 5:3).
25.
See the conclusion of Hilchot Lulav where this rejoicing is described. Significantly, however, there the Rambam does not connect the rejoining with the water libation.
26.
The Kessef Mishneh asks why the Rambam does not mention the hats of the ordinary priests. He offers two possible resolutions: a) their fabric was thin and not suitable for wicks at all;
b) they were in fact used for the Menorah.
27.
In contrast to the lamps for the water libation rejoicing which took place only during the Sukkot holiday.
28.
I.e., generally, we think of the community purchasing these items by using funds from the Temple treasury. If, however, an individual donates these substances to the Temple treasury they also become communal property and then can be used for whatever purpose the community desires.
29.
I.e., a set with four garments: leggings, a tunic, a sash, and a hat.
30.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah5:6), the Rambam speaks of 24 lockers.Rambam LeAm suggests that each watch had one large locker which in turn had four compartments.
31.
Having the garments sorted individually made it easier for the priests to put on the garments in the proper order: first, the leggings, then, the tunic, the sash, and the hat [see Chapter 10, Halachah 1; see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:3)].
32.
The Chamber of the High Priest. See Chapter 5, Halachah 7.
Har Hamoriah writes that since the Talmud does not mention that there was a locker for the High Priest's garments, we can assume there was none and that he would leave them in his chamber.
33.
Tosafot, Yoma 69a, suggests that as an initial preference, a priest should not benefit from them. In practice, however, that is not possible, because "the Torah was not given to the ministering angels" and it is impossible for the priests to remove the priestly garments immediately after their Temple service was completed (Kiddushin 54b). Hence they were consecrated with the stipulation that the priests would derive personal benefit from them.
34.
A prohibited mixture of fabrics. During the Temple service, however, it may be worn, because then it is a mitzvah to do so and the observance of a positive mitzvah supersedes the observance of a prohibition. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the sash may be worn throughout the day, as long as the priest is in the Temple.
Rav Yosef Corcus mentions that the ephodand the breastplate of the High Priest also involved a forbidden mixture of fabrics. He explains, however, that according to the Rambam, the prohibition against mixed fabrics does not apply to them, because they are not worn to provide the body with warmth, and if a garment is worn for a purpose other than that, this prohibition does not apply (Hilchot Kilayim 10:19).
35.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 1:4 where the Rambam defines patuch as a color mixed with white. See also Hilchot Tzitzit 2:1.
36.
There are some who interpret the term as referring to a purplish dye. Others explain that it is mixture of several dyes of thread. See Ra'avad and Kessef Mishneh.
37.
See Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2 where the Rambam writes that this dye is produced from a seed that has a small gnat in it that produces a scarlet color.
38.
I.e., one strand made up of six thinner threads.
39.
Often translated as twisted.
40.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:1). The boxes were indented slightly, like small pockets.
41.
For as mentioned in Halachah 4, the priests' garments should be fit to their measure, neither too long or too short. Compare to the description of the clothes of Torah scholars in Hilchot De'ot 5:9.
42.
To tighten them around the priest's waist.
43.
As explained in Halachah 2, according to the Rambam, the difference was the manner in which they wrapped the turbans. The actual cloth was the same.
44.
A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according toShiurei Torah.
• 3 Chapters: Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2, Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3, Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class•
---------------------
Audio: Listen | Download• Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
When a person says: "I pledge the airech of my hand," "...my eye," or "...my foot," or "...that person's hand" or "...that person's eye," his words are of no consequence.1 [If he says:] "I pledge the airech of my heart" or "...my liver" or "...that person's heart" or "...that person's liver," he must pay the entireairech.2 Similarly, with regard to any limb which if removed would cause the person to die, if one says: "I pledge its airech," he must pay the airech of the entire person.
Halacha 2
If a person says: "I pledge half my airech," he must pay half his airech. If he says: "I pledge the airech of half myself," he must pay his entire airech, for it is impossible for him to live if half his body is removed.3
Halacha 3
When a person says: "I pledge the worth of my hand" or "...the worth of so-and-so's hand," we evaluate how much he is worth with a hand and how much he would be worth without a hand and he should give [the difference] to the Temple treasury.4
What is implied? If he is sold in his entirety, he will be worth fifty [zuz], but if he were sold aside from his hand - i.e., his hand would remain the property of its owner and the purchaser would not have any portion of it5 - he would be worth forty, he is obligated to pay ten to the Temple treasury. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
When a person says: "I pledge the worth of my head" or "...my liver" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so's head" or "...so-and-so's liver," he must pay his entire worth.6 Similarly, if one says: "I pledge the worth of half myself," he must pay his entire worth. When, however, he says: "I pledge half my worth," he [is obligated] to pay [only] half his worth.
Halacha 5
When one says: "I pledge my weight" or "I pledge the weight of so-and-so," he should pay his weight. [If] he specified "[his weight in] silver," [he should pay in] silver; if [in] gold, [he should pay] in gold.7
If he said: "I pledge the weight of my arm" or "...my leg," we see how much it would weigh and he must pay the money that he specified. What is the length of the arm in this context? Until the elbow.8 And the leg is until the knee. [The rationale is that] with regard to vows, we follow [the meaning of] the terms as used by people at large.9
Halacha 6
When a person says: "I pledge my height in silver" or "...in gold," he must give a scepter of his height that will [stand straight] without bending from the type [of metal] he specified. If he said: "I pledge the extent of my height," he may give even a scepter that will bend from the type [of metal] he specified.10
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply when a person] says: "I pledge my weight" and does not specify from which substance. If he is very wealthy and [obviously] intended to give a substantial donation, he should give his weight in gold.11Similarly, if [such a person] says: "I pledge the weight of my arm," "...the weight of my leg," or "...my height" without specifying the substance from which he will give, he should give gold. If, however, [the donor] is not exceedingly wealthy, he should give his weight or the weight of his hand from any substance which is commonly weighed in that locale, even fruits. Similarly, he should give a scepter as tall as he is [from any substance], even from wood. Everything depends on his wealth and [our assessment of] his intent.
Halacha 8
When a person uses any [of the following] expressions - "I pledge my standing," "...my sitting," "...the place where I sit," "...my width," "...my thickness," or "...my circumference" - [his intent is a matter of question12 and] there is doubt [regarding his obligation. Hence,] he should [be required to] give [generously] according to [what could be expected of a person of] his means until he says: "This was not my intent."13 If he died,14 his heirs are required to give the minimum that the expression could mean.15
Halacha 9
When a person says: "I pledge a silver coin," he should not give less than a silver dinar.16 When he says: "I pledge a brass coin," he should not give less than [brass coins worth] a silver me'ah.17 "I pledge iron," he should not give less than [a piece of iron] one cubit by one cubit fit for the blade [of iron that protected against] ravens which stood at the top of the roof of the Temple, as explained in its place.18
Halacha 10
When he says: "I pledge silver" or "...gold" without mentioning the word "coin," he should [be required to] give a slab of silver or of gold of [significant] weight until he says: "This was not my intent." Similarly, if he explicitly mentioned a weight [of silver or gold], but forgot how much he specified, he should [be required to] give until he says: "This was not my intent."
Halacha 11
Whether a person says: "I pledge my worth" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so," or whether one says: "I pledge a manah,"19 "...fifty zuz," "...silver," or "...gold," they are all called "monetary obligations." [Both] arechim and monetary obligations are given toward capital improvements for the Temple, as explained.20
Halacha 12
There were two chambers in the Temple: one was called "the chamber of secret gifts," and the other "the chamber for vessels." "The chamber of secret gifts" was given that name because sin-fearing men make donations there furtively and poor people of distinguished lineage receive their sustenance from there in secret.21
"The chamber for vessels" was given that name because anyone who donated a vessel [to the Temple] would cast it there. Once in thirty days, the treasurers would open [the chamber]. Any utensil that could be used for the improvement of the Temple was saved [for that purpose]. The remainder would be sold and the proceeds placed in the chamber for [funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.
Halacha 13
If [funds] were needed [to purchase] sacrifices for the altar and the funds collected for that purpose were not sufficient, what is necessary can be taken from [the funds] consecrated for physical improvements to the Temple.22 If, however, [funds] were required for physical improvements to the Temple and there were not sufficient resources in the chamber dedicated for that purpose, we do not take what is necessary from [the funds] consecrated for sacrifices for the altar.23
FOOTNOTES
1.
The rationale is that the Torah prescribed anairech for a person in his or her totality, not for his individual limbs (Arachin 4a; 20a).
2.
Since the person's life is dependent on his heart or his liver, pledging the airech of these organs is like pledging his entireairech. See Arachin 20a.
3.
The same law applies if he pledges theairech of half of his heart (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 5:3).
4.
This reflects one of the differences between pledges of worth and arechim. He is liable for his pledge, because his words have significance. His hand has value that can be appraised.
5.
Arachin 19b emphasizes that we do not evaluate his value as if his hand were amputated, for then his worth would depreciate greatly, because no one wants a person without a hand.
6.
Again, since the person's life is dependent on that organ, it is as if his entire worth was pledged.
7.
The laws that apply if he did not specify in what his weight should be measured are stated in Halachah 7.
8.
The Rambam's opinion is shared by Tosafot19a. Rashi and others, however, offer a different interpretation.
9.
In a halachic context, by contrast, the termyad can refer to the hand. See Hilchot Berachot 6:4; Hilchot Mikveot 11:4.
10.
Adding the extra term "extension of" indicates that he is deviating from the ordinary manner in which the term would be explained (Arachin 19a).
11.
Arachin, loc. cit., derives this from an instance which occurred in the Talmudic era. A very rich woman pledged her daughter's weight to the Temple. Our Sages obligated her to give her weight in gold.
12.
For example, if he pledged: "My standing," we are unsure whether he meant a scepter that could stand on its own or one that would bend. If he pledged: "My sitting," we are unsure of whether he meant a scepter as tall as he is when he sits or one of his full height that is bent according to his position when he sits. See Rashi and Tosafot, Arachin, loc. cit., where the possible interpretations of each of the above terms are explained.
13.
I.e., we compel him to give generously, because if he gives less than the amount he promised, he will be transgressing the prohibition against desecrating his vow. If, however, he says: "This was not my origin intent," we are certain that he fulfilled his vow (Lechem Mishneh).
14.
And thus his estate is obligated to fulfill his vow (Chapter 1, Halachah 21).
15.
There is no question of the heirs desecrating a vow, because they did not take the vow. The only question is the lien against the estate. Accordingly, we follow the principle that money is not expropriated from a person unless it is certain that he is liable (Lechem Mishneh).
16.
We assume that this was the intent, for this is the most commonly used silver coin.
17.
We assume that this was the intent, for anything less would not have significant value.
18.
As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:3, there was a blade of iron position on top of the Temple building to prevent ravens from resting there and dirtying it with droppings. We assume that this was the intent, for there would be no other purpose to give iron to the Temple treasury.
19.
One hundred zuz.
20.
Chapter 1, Halachah 10.
21.
See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:8 which explains that giving charity in this manner - i.e., where neither the donor nor the recipient know of each other's identity - is one of the highest forms of giving.
22.
We are permitted to use funds designated for one charitable purpose for a charitable purpose that is higher. And the offering of the communal sacrifices is considered the highest possible purpose.
23.
Because doing so would be considering lowering the level of holiness from that for which the funds were designated.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling based on several sources. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's position.
Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When a person pledges the airech of someone less than 20 years old and he does not stand before [a court for] appraisal until he exceeds that age, the donor is required to give only the airech of one less than 20.1 For the airech is defined only at the time that it is pledged and not at the time one stands before the court.2
Halacha 2
All of the arechim that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah are to be given when the one who makes the pledge is wealthy.3 If, however, he was poor and he does not have the means, he is [required to] give everything that he possesses - even if it is only a sela4 - and he discharges his obligation, as [Leviticus 27:8] states: "If he is to poor [to pay] the airech... the priest should evaluate him5 according to his capacity."
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
If the person does not possess even a sela, we do not take less than a selafrom him. Instead, the entire amount is considered as a debt incumbent upon him. If he acquires property and becomes wealthy,8 he must pay a full airechas prescribed by the Torah.
Halacha 5
When a rich person [pledged an airech] and then became poor, or when a poor person pledged an airech and became wealthy [before he was evaluated], he must give a full airech.9 If, however, he pledged an airech when he was poor, became wealthy, and then became poor again [before he was evaluated], he may give the airech required of a poor man.
Halacha 6
When a rich man says: "I pledge my airech" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so," and a poor person heard and says: "I pledge whatever he said," the poor person is obligated to pay the airech required of a wealthy man, i.e., a fullairech.10
If, however, a poor person pledges the airech of a wealthy man, saying: "I pledge his airech," he is liable only for a poor man's airech, i.e., what he is capable of paying.
Halacha 7
What is the difference between a person who is liable for a poor man's airechand one who is liable for the airech of a wealthy which is the entire sum [mentioned in the Torah]? Once everything that he owns is expropriated from a poor man, even if it is only one sela, and then he becomes wealthy, he is not liable to pay the greater sum.11 If, however, he would have been liable for theairech of a wealthy man, the entire airech would remain a debt for which he is liable until he becomes wealthy and pays it [in total].
Halacha 8
When a person explicitly mentions the sum of the airech, saying: "I pledge myairech of 50 selaim" or "I pledge the airech of so-and-so, 30 selaim," his financial capacity is not evaluated.12 Instead, we expropriate everything that he possesses and the remainder remains a debt for which he is liable until he becomes wealthy and pays.
Halacha 9
Similarly, if one says: "I pledge my worth" or "I pledge the worth of so-and-so," we do not evaluate his possessions.13 [The rationale is that] a pledge of worth is like an explicit vow.14 It is like someone who said: "I pledge a maneh15 to the Temple treasury." He is obligated to give an entire maneh.
Halacha 10
When a person says: "I pledge an airech" without explaining his words, he is not considered as having pledged three shekalim.16 Instead, he is judged according to his financial capacity, as is the law with regard to other arechim.
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when a person] states: "I pledge my airech" and then repeats: "I pledge my airech."17 If he possesses [only] ten selaim and gives nine for the second airech and one for the first, he fulfills the obligations of both of them.18 For arechim are not like debts.19 Although everything he possesses is on lien to the first [airech],20once the Temple Sanctuary has collected its due, it has been collected.21
If, however, he gave nine [selaim] for the first [airech] and one for the second, he fulfilled his responsibility for the second airech, but not for the first. [The rationale is that] everything that he possesses is on lien to the first airech and when he gave nine, he retained a sela. Thus he did not give everything in his possession.22 Therefore the remainder of the first airech should remain [a debt incumbent] upon him until he becomes wealthy and pays it.
Halacha 12
When a person says: "I pledge two of my arechim,"23 and he possesses only less than that sum, there is an unresolved question. Is [the money he possesses] on lien to them both? Hence he should give half of what he possesses for one airech and the other half, for the other and in this way fulfill his obligation.24 Or is he required to give one full airech - or everything that he possesses25 - for one airech and the other airech should remain a debt [incumbent] upon him which he will pay - either as a wealthy man or as a poor man - according to his financial capacity.26
Halacha 13
When a person sets aside his airech or his worth and [the funds] are stolen or lost, he is liable to replace them even if he did not accept responsibility for them until they reach the Temple treasurer,27 as [implied by Leviticus 27:23]: "You will give your airech on that day, sanctified unto God."28 Even though he set them aside, they are nevertheless considered as ordinary property29 until they reach the Temple treasurer.30
Halacha 14
[The Temple treasurers are entitled to] seize collateral for airechim or pledges of worth. They take what they vowed [from the donors] against their will.31They are not required to return the collateral by day or by night.32 They sell all the landed property and movable property in their possession including their clothing, household articles, servants, and livestock, taking their payment from everything.
Halacha 15
[When a person] pledges arechim, the worth of an entity, or he consecrates amaneh to the Temple treasury and does not possess [the immediate resources to meet his pledge, we expropriate] all the movable property he owns, leaving him only:35 his head and arm tefillin, his sandals, a chair to sit on, and a bed and a mattress appropriate36 for him to sleep on. If he is poor, we give him a bed and a straw mat to sleep on. And we give him food for 30 days and clothing for twelve months for himself alone.37 We do not [make these provisions] for his wife and children although he is obligated to provide for their livelihood and their clothing,38 We leave him only garments that are fitting for his [social standing].39
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
If he was a craftsman, we leave him two of every type of the tools of his trade.42
What is implied? If he was a carpenter, we leave him two planes and two saws. If he had many tools of one type and a few of another type, we do not sell many of those of which he possesses a lot and purchase some of those of which he possesses a little. Instead, we leave him two tools of those which he possesses a lot and all those he possesses of those which he possesses a little.
Halacha 18
If he was a donkey driver or a farmer, we don't leave him his livestock even though he can only earn his livelihood with it. If he was a sailor, we do not leave him his boat.43 Instead, everything must be sold.
Halacha 19
If there were livestock, servants, and pearls among his possessions and merchants said: "If clothing worth 30 [zuz] is purchased for this servant, his value will increase by 100"; "If we wait to sell this cow to a meat market, its price will increase by ten [zuz]; or "If this pearl is taken to this-and-this place, it will be worth much money, but here it will only be worth a small amount," we do not heed them. Instead, what is done? We sell everything in its place and at its time as it is, as [the above prooftext [implied by Leviticus 27:23]: "You will give your airech on that day, sanctified unto God." [This teaches that] every entity [that is] consecrated [to the Temple treasury] is not embellished, nor do we wait to take it to the market, nor do we bring it from place to place. Instead, consecrated articles are sold only in their place and at the time [they were consecrated].44
FOOTNOTES
1.
Which is a lesser amount, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
2.
Arachin 18a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:17.
3.
I.e., he has the means to pay the pledge that he made.
4.
The laws that apply if he cannot pay even asela are discussed in Halachah 4.
5.
Thus the evaluation mentioned by the verse is twofold: a) the age of the person whoseairech is pledged is considered and on that basis, we determine the sum the one who made the pledge must pay;
b) if the one who made the pledge is poor, we evaluate his capacity to pay (Radbaz).
Once the poor person pays the lesser amount, he is not obligated to pay any more even if later he becomes wealthy (Halachah 7).
6.
Implied is that an airech must be at least ashekel. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:1), the Rambam states that if he paid less than a shekel, it is as if he did not pay anything at all.
7.
For this is the highest airech mentioned in the Torah.
8.
I.e., acquires the amount he pledged.
9.
He is not given the option of paying a lesser amount. Instead, the full airech remains a debt incumbent upon him.
10.
For he was not pledging an airech, but instead, taking vow to pay the amount the wealthy person had pledged. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the poor man is judged according to his own financial capacity. The Ra'avad supports his view from Arachin 17a where there appears to be a difference of opinion among the Sages. Although the Rambam interprets that passage differently (see his Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 2:1), the Kessef Mishneh notes that the Ra'avad's view seems more appropriate to the text's simple meaning.
11.
We find a parallel concept with regard to sacrifices. There are certain offerings that are dependent on a person's financial status. If he is wealthy, he must bring one type of sacrifice and if he is poor another. If a poor person brings the sacrifice required of him, he is not liable to bring a second sacrifice if he becomes wealthy (Arachin17b; Radbaz).
12.
I.e., even if he is poor, we do not evaluate his financial status as we ordinarily do if he pledged an airech. The rationale is that he mentioned a specific amount and hence, he is obligated for that amount (Radbaz).
13.
I.e., and establish his liability only according to the possessions he owns.
14.
The Ra'avad differs and offers a different explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Rambam's view.
15.
100 zuz.
16.
The smallest airech there is. I.e., he is liable to pay three shekalim if he possesses that sum (Chapter 1, Halachah 20). If, however, he does not possess that sum, we do not say that he has taken an explicit vow. Instead, his worth is evaluated, as above.
17.
And thus he is obligated to pay two arechim. This halachah is speaking about an instance where the donor is poor and does not have the money to pay either - let alone both - of his pledges.
18.
I.e., the priest began evaluating the secondairech first. The donor could not give the entire amount for the second airech, since he was already liable for the first.
19.
In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 20:1, the Rambam writes that if a creditor whose lien begins later expropriates property from a debtor first, the court expropriates it from him and gives it to the creditor with the prior lien. This, however, applies only with regard to landed property and not to movable property (ibid.:2).
20.
And thus he should have paid all ten selaimfor that airech, if he did not do so and paid a lesser amount, he fulfills his obligation.
21.
The Rambam's ruling follows the logic of Rav Sherira Gaon, as quoted by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi (Ketubot 94a), although the wording of Arachin 7b, 8a, does not imply such a conclusion.
The difference between the two situations is that the two debts are owed to two different people. Hence giving one is taking from the other. Thus the chronological sequence when the liens were established is important.Arechim, however, are always given to the Temple treasury. Thus they are both being given to the same place. Hence there is no point in having the money expropriated.
22.
For when giving the first airech, he should not consider the second airech at all.
23.
In which case he is obligated to pay both of them, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 19.
24.
According to this view, even if he becomes wealthy afterwards, he is not obligated to give anything more.
25.
If he does not have enough for even one complete airech.
26.
The Radbaz rules that, because of the doubt, all we obligate the person is to fulfill the first (more lenient) view. Nevertheless, if the Temple treasurer seizes the entire amount as payment for the first airech, the donor remains liable for the second.
27.
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of theMishneh Torah. The standard published text has a somewhat different version.
28.
The verse implies that the obligation is incumbent upon you until the funds are actually given. This is in contrast to some other financial commitments vowed to the Temple treasury, as stated in Hilchot Nedarim 1:2; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot14:4-6.
29.
I.e., they are not consecrated and the prohibition against misusing property dedicating to the Temple treasury does not apply to them.
30.
For the implication of the prooftext is that on the day you give the airech, it becomes consecrated.
31.
In contrast to an ordinary lender who must wait for collateral to be given to him. The donor must be evaluated by the court, however, before his property may be taken.
32.
I.e., in contrast to collateral taken from an ordinary lender which must be returned. SeeDeuteronomy 24:13.
33.
Even if they have not worn it already.
34.
For these articles are considered as owned by the person's wife or children and their property may not be expropriated to pay for the donor's debt. Compare to Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 1:5.
35.
I.e., he is left the basic necessities for his spiritual and material sustenance. If he consecrates all of his property, he is not left even these articles (Chapter 6, Halachah 3).
36.
Implied is that if he possesses an expensive mattress, we sell it and buy him an ordinary one.
37.
If he does not possess the above, we leave him financial resources to purchase them (see Arachin 6:3 and commentaries).
38.
These obligations are discussed in Hilchot Ishut 12, 2; 13:6.
39.
Note the following halachah.
40.
I.e., if he possesses clothing that is appropriate for someone of a higher social standing, that clothing is sold, the funds are used to purchase clothing appropriate for his social standing, and the remainder is given to the Temple treasury. Compare to Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 1:7.
41.
I.e., weekday garments are less expensive than those worn on Sabbaths and festivals.
42.
So that he will be able to continue to earn his livelihood.
43.
For these are considered as property, not as tools.
44.
The rationale is that although expected, these profits are not certain and a loss may occur (Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Arachin 6:5).
45.
We fear that the movable property can be lost or stolen or damaged in another way and that the servants may flee. See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 12:11.
46.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 27, for details regarding these announcements.
47.
For announcing the sale of the property will attract buyers and increase the price and land cannot be stolen or lost.
Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
How much is that? For every place where it is fit to sow a chomer4of barley,5sowing it by hand6 without sowing it too closely or to distantly, its airech is 50shekel for all the years of the Jubilee.7 The yovel is not counted. [This applies] whether one is consecrating a good field which has no parallel in Eretz Yisraelor a poor field which has none as bad as it. [The above] is the airech for it.
Halacha 3
We have already explained in Hilchot Shekalim8 that the shekel referred to by the Torah was called a sela in our Sages' terminology and a gerah referred to by the Torah was called a ma'ah in our Sages' terminology.
They added to the value of a shekel, making it equivalent to a sela.9 A sela is equivalent to four dinarim. A dinar is equivalent to six ma'yin. And a ma'ah is equivalent to two pundiyonin.
Halacha 4
A chomer is equivalent to a kor which is equivalent to two letachim. A letach is fifteen se'ah.13 Thus a letach is equivalent to 30 se'ah which are ten efot, for an efah is three se'ah. We already explained in Hilchot Shabbat14 that a place with an area of 50 cubits by 50 cubits is called a beit se'ah, because a se'ahcan be sown in it.
Thus a place with an area of 75000 sq. cubits, i.e., a square approximately 274 cubits by 274 cubits.15 This is a beit kor in which a chomer of barley can be sown.
Halacha 5
What is the manner in which the arechim of fields are calculated? If a person consecrated his ancestral field when eight years remain until the Jubilee - not including the Jubilee, as we explained16 - whoever desires to redeem it from the domain of the Temple treasury must give eight selaim and eight pundiyoninfor every portion in which a chomer of barley can be sown.
If the [prior] owners desire to redeem it,17 they must give ten selaim and tenpundiyonin [for every portion of that size], for owners add a fifth.18 Similarly, whenever the Torah mentions a fifth, the intent is that the principal and the addition will be [a multiple of] five.19 Thus he adds a fourth of the principle. Similarly, if the wife of the one who consecrated it or one of his heirs redeems it, they must add a fifth.20
Halacha 6
If four years remain until the Jubilee, the one who redeems it must give fourselaim and four pundiyonin for every [portion in which a] chomer [of barley can be sown]. If the owners redeem it, they must pay five.21 Similarly, we calculate the sum [of every field dedicated based on multiples of] a sela and a pundiyon. One may not pay the sum year by year. Instead, it must be paid all at once.22
Halacha 7
If there remains only a year between [the time the field was consecrated] and the Jubilee, one cannot redeem it by paying a sela and a pundiyon, as [implied by Leviticus 27:18]: "And the priest shall calculate for him [the amount to be paid] according to the years that remain." [The use of the plural indicates] that the field cannot be redeemed by [the payment of] a reduced amount of silver23except two or more years before the Jubilee.
Halacha 8
If there remains a year and [several] months between [the time the field was consecrated] and the Jubilee and the Temple treasurer desires to calculate the months as a year so that [the donor] will give two shekelim and twopundiyonin for every [portion in which a] chomer [of barley] can be sown, this is permissible.24 [The rationale is that] we do not calculate months with regard to consecrated articles, as [indicated by the prooftext]: "According to theyears that remain." [Implied is that one] should calculate years with regard to consecrated property, but one does not calculate months.
Halacha 9
Accordingly, it is not appropriate for a person to consecrate his field less than two years before the Jubilee. If he does consecrate it, it is consecrated and it cannot be redeemed by [paying] a reduced amount of silver. Instead, if the one redeeming it is willing to pay 50 shekel for [each parcel in which] achomer [can be sown], he may redeem it. If not, it is given to the priests in the Jubilee year, as will be explained.25
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Just as they can redeem [their fields] at all times,28 so too, they can consecrate them at all times.
Halacha 12
When a person consecrates his field after the Jubilee year, it is not redeemed by [paying] a reduced amount of silver until the completion of a year after the Jubilee, because we do not calculate months with regard to consecrated property.29 Therefore f the one redeeming it is willing to pay 50 shekel for [each parcel in which] a chomer can be sown, he may redeem it even on the day after the Jubilee year. He does not reduce its price at all.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
If there are hollows that are ten handbreadths or more deep that do not contain water, they are measured independently and calculated according to their worth.32
Halacha 15
[If the consecrated field] contains trees, the trees are consecrated even if [the donor] did not say so explicitly. [The rationale is that] when a person consecrates property, he does so with a generous spirit. We calculate the worth of the trees [and add that to the sum arrived at by] measuring the land and placing its airech at a sela and a pundiyon for every [parcel in which] achomer can be sown, as we explained.33
Halacha 16
When a person consecrates a field that is not fit to be sown and is referred to as rocky terrain, it is redeemed for its value.34 Similarly, if a person consecrates trees alone, they are redeemed according to their value.
Halacha 17
If there were three trees35 planted in an area large enough to sow a se'ah36and [the donor] did not explicitly say that he was consecrating only the trees, he is considered to have consecrated the land37 and the [small] trees between [the three larger ones].38 If, however, the trees were planted [more sparsely - i.e.,] every three or less trees were planted in more than the area large enough to sow a se'ah39 or he consecrated [each of the trees individually,] one after the other,40 he did not consecrate the land41 or the [small] trees between [the larger ones].
Halacha 18
If he consecrated the trees and then consecrated the land, he redeems the trees according to their worth and the land according to its measure.42
Halacha 19
When a person consecrates an ancestral field and the Jubilee arrives without it being redeemed, but instead, it has remained in the domain of the Temple treasury, the priests [of the watch in which the Jubilee falls]43 must pay itsairech44 and it becomes their ancestral heritage.45 [They are required to pay,46because] consecrated property is never released without being redeemed. The money paid is given to the Temple treasury for improvements to its structure.47
Halacha 20
If the person who consecrated it redeemed it before the Jubilee, it returns to its owner [in the Jubilee].48 The airech which he pays is given for improvements to the Temple, as we have explained.49 Similarly, if the son of the person who consecrated it redeemed it, it returns to his father in the Jubilee.50 If, however, his daughter, another relative, or an unrelated person redeemed it, [different laws apply]. If the person who consecrated it redeems it from them, it returns to him at all times [before the Jubilee year].51 If, however, he did not redeem it from their possession and when the Jubilee arrived it is in the possession of the daughter, another relative, or an unrelated person, it is expropriated from them52 [and becomes the property of] the Temple treasury. It never returns to its owners again. Instead, it becomes the ancestral property of the priests, as [Leviticus 27:21] states: "When the field departs [from the purchaser's domain] in the Jubilee, it shall become the priests." The priests do not have to pay its value,53 because it was already redeemed from the Temple treasury and [the Temple treasury] received its airech from another person. Hence, it is returned to the priests as if they are its owners.
Halacha 21
To whom does the above54 apply? To an Israelite. If, however, the person who consecrated the field was a priest or a Levite,55 he may redeem it at all times. Even if the Jubilee passed and it was not redeemed from the Temple treasury, he may redeem it after the Jubilee, as [Leviticus 25:32] states: "The Levites have an eternal right of redemption."
Halacha 22
When a woman consecrated her ancestral field, her husband redeemed it from the Temple treasury, and it is in his possession when the Jubilee arrives, there is an unresolved question whether it returns to the woman56 or it is given to the priests.57 Therefore if the woman came first and took possession of it after the arrival of the Jubilee, the priests cannot expropriate it from her domain. If the priests took possession of it first, she cannot expropriate it from their possession.58
Halacha 23
If a person consecrated a field and a priest redeemed it from the Temple treasury and it is in his domain when the Jubilee arrives, he should not say: "Since it is expropriated for the sake of the priests and it is in my possession, I should acquire it." Instead, it is given to all of his brethren, the priestly family.
Halacha 24
When it is expropriated on behalf of the priests in the Jubilee, it should be given to those priests59 in the watch60 in which the Jubilee begins. If the Rosh HaShanah of the Jubilee falls on the Sabbath and thus one watch will enter and one will depart,61 it should be given to the watch which departs.62
Halacha 25
When a person consecrates trees and the Jubilee arrives without him having redeemed them, they are not expropriated [and given] to the priests, for [Leviticus 27:21] states: "When the field is expropriated in the Jubilee... [it shall become the priests]." [Trees,] however, are not a field.63 If, however, a person consecrates rocky terrain64 and the Jubilee arrives without it being redeemed, it is expropriated [and given] to the priests, for [the prooftext] states "And the field shall..." and this is called a field.
Halacha 26
What are the laws that apply when a person consecrates purchased property? Its worth is evaluated and we see what its value will be65 until the Jubilee.66 Anyone who desires may redeem it. If the person who consecrated it redeems it, he is not required to add a fifth. The redemption is given for the purpose of improvements to the Temple as are other arechim and pledges of worth.
When the Jubilee arrives, it returns to its original owner who sold it. [This applies] whether it was redeemed from the Temple treasurer and it is departing from the domain of another person or whether it was not redeemed and it is departing from the domain of the Temple treasury, it returns to the seller and is not expropriated for the priests. [The rationale is that] a person cannot consecrate an article that is not his.67
Halacha 27
Whenever a field is evaluated for the Temple treasury so that it can be sold for its worth, we announce its sale for 60 consecutive days in the morning when workers come to work and in the evening when they leave. We mark its boundaries and say how much it produces and what is it worth.68 Whoever wishes to purchase it may come and purchase it.
Halacha 28
[The following laws apply when a person] purchases a field from his father or from another person from whom he could inherit it and consecrates it to the Temple treasury. Whether he consecrated it after the death of his father or the other testator or he consecrated it during the lifetime of his father or the other testator and then his father [or that testator] died, it is considered as an ancestral field.69 [This is derived from Leviticus 27:22:] "[If he will consecrate] a field that he acquired which is not an ancestral field...." [Implied is that the subject is] a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, thus excluding this one which is fit for him to inherit.70
FOOTNOTES
1.
As a present or the like.
2.
The Rambam begins describing the laws involving the consecration of ancestral fields. Those involving the consecration of purchased property are described from Halachah 26 onward.
3.
Leviticus 27:16. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 117) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 355) include the commandment to deal with the consecration of a field as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These laws apply only in Eretz Yisrael (Hilchot Bikkurim1:6), but not in the Diaspora and only during the time the Jubilee year is observed (Chapter 5, Halachah 1; Hilchot Shemitah V'Yovel 10:9).
4.
See Halachah 4 for a definition of this measure.
5.
This is a larger area than that required to sow an equivalent amount of wheat (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Arachin 3:2).
6.
Arachin 25a makes this distinction, differentiating between a field that is sown by hand or sown by leading an animal with an open bag of seed through the field.
7.
As indicated by the following halachah, theairech is given for every year individually. We calculate the number of years left until the Jubilee and divide the sum of 50shekalim accordingly.
8.
Hilchot Shekalim 1:2-3; see Chapter 1, Halachah 4.
9.
As mentioned above, a sela is equivalent to 384 barley corns of silver.
10.
I.e., we divide the 50 selaim into 49 years.
11.
And thus seemingly one is overpaying by a fractional amount.
12.
That is the money-changer's profit for the transaction.
13.
A se'ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish.
14.
Hilchot Shabbat 16:3.
15.
The measure mentioned by the Rambam produces a square with an area of 75076 sq. cubits.
16.
See Halachah 2.
17.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, the owners are commanded to redeem it and they are given the option of doing so before another person.
18.
As Leviticus 27:19 states: "If the person who consecrates it redeems it, he shall add a fifth in silver of its airech."
19.
See also Hilchot Terumot 10:26; Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 5:1.
20.
The Mishneh LiMelech states that this refers to a heir redeeming the field after his testator's death, but not during his lifetime. A person's wife, however, must add a fifth even during her husband's lifetime, for they are considered as a single entity.
21.
I.e., five selaim and five pundiyonin.
22.
One may, however, redeem half the field by paying half the required sum, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
23.
We have taken some liberty in the translation. The Hebrew term used by the Rambam, girayon kessef, means "the subtraction of silver," i.e., we subtract the sum due for the years of the Jubilee cycle that have already passed from the sum of fifty shekel. See Leviticus 26:18.
The Rambam uses this wording because, as stated in Halachah 9, if the person desires to pay the full 50 shekelim, he may redeem the field even if less than a year remains to the Jubilee.
24.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that although this appears to be the meaning of Arachin 25a, it is illogical to say so. If the field is not redeemed by its owner before the Jubilee, he must pay 50shekel a measure to redeem it in the Jubilee. If he does not redeem it, it is given to the priests who are required to pay its fair value (see Halachah 19). Thus the Temple treasury will almost certainly be losing by allowing the person to redeem it for the 2 year amount. Why then would the Temple treasurer be allowed to do so?
The Kessef Mishneh notes the Ra'avad's logic, but states that this is the new concept taught: that even if it is not to the benefit of the Temple treasury, the treasurer may make such a decision. The Radbaz states that the law applies in an instance when there will be a benefit to the Temple treasury to enable the property to be redeemed in this manner.
25.
See Halachah 19.
26.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this issue in Arachin 25b. Shmuel interpretsLeviticus 27:17 as excluding fields consecrated in the Jubilee itself. Rav differs. Significantly, although here the Rambam follows the opinion of Shmuel, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 7:1), he originally follows Rav's view, as indicated by the standard published version. Rav Kapach maintains that the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah reflect a change of view and as in the text here, he follows Shmuel's view.
27.
As stated in the following halachah and in Halachah 21, they are governed by different laws than ordinary Israelites in this regard. See also Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 13:7.
28.
See Halachah 21.
29.
As stated in Halachah 8.
30.
To calculate its size so that the amount required to be paid can be determined, as explained in Halachah 2.
31.
If they are not that high or that deep, they are not considered as significant entities (Arachin 25a).
32.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that from Arachin 25a, it appears that such patches of land are measured together with the field. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Talmud is stating that they are consecrated, but that they are considered as independent from the field. Hence, rather than be measured according to the standard value, they are measured according to their worth.
33.
Halachah 5. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that although the trees are consecrated, they are redeemed when the field as a whole is redeemed. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's view.
34.
The Torah passage pertaining to consecrated fields mentions a field that is "sown." Since such a field is not fit to be sown, the general principles that apply toarechim for fields at large do not apply to it. Instead, it is considered as an ordinary vow.
35.
This reflects the Rambam's version ofArachin 14a. The standard printed text of that source reads differently.
36.
Fifty cubits by fifty cubits, as stated in Halachah 4.
37.
In which instance, he adds the value of the trees to the standard airech of the field, as stated in Halachah 15. The rationale for this ruling is evident from Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval 3:2; Hilchot Bikkurim 2:13: Once trees have grown, they need this much land to be maintained. Hence when one sells the trees, he is considered to have sold the land with them and when he consecrates the trees, he consecrates the land with them.
38.
Because these are considered to be included in the land on which they are planted.
39.
Since the trees are scattered, we do not consider the land as subservient to them. Hence, unless the land is consecrated explicitly, it is not considered as included in his statement.
40.
Since the trees are all mentioned individually, each is considered as a discrete entity and we do not view him as having consecrated the property as a whole.
41.
Since the land is not consecrated, the small trees are also not consecration, because their consecration depends on that of the land.
42.
The Radbaz states that seemingly this ruling is self-evident, for it is the same as that of Halachah 15 where the donor does not mention the trees explicitly. He explains that there is a new dimension in the Rambam's ruling, for one might think that since the donor mentioned the trees explicitly, the land associated with them should be considered as a distinct entity and evaluated according to its worth and not its measure. Hence, the Rambam feels it necessary to emphasize that this is not the case.
43.
See Halachah 24 and notes.
44.
The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam shares the understanding of Rashi (Arachin 25b) who maintains that the priests pay the standard amount for a beit kor.
45.
I.e., it never returns to its original owner or his heirs.
46.
From a simple reading of Leviticus 27:20, one might think that they are given the field without any charge. Hence, the Rambam adds this explanation.
47.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 10; Chapter 5, Halachah 7.
48.
The Rambam is referring to the law (Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval, ch. 11) that an ancestral field which is sold returns to its owner in the Jubilee year. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's wording, for since the donor redeemed the field, it need not return to him in the Jubilee; it is in his possession. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that even if the donor gave the money, but did not take possession before the beginning of the Jubilee, the field returns to him in the Jubilee. The fact that he consecrated it does not cause it to be removed from the category of an ancestral field. The Kessef Mishnehstates that the Rambam is using wording that will enable the different clauses of the halachah to appear similar.
49.
From a simple reading of Leviticus 27:20, one might think that they are given the field without any charge. Hence, the Rambam adds this explanation.
50.
Leviticus 27:20 states that a person loses his right to have his ancestral field return in the Jubilee: "If he [the Temple treasurer] sold the field to another man...." Nevertheless, since in many contexts, a son is considered an extension of his father, he is not considered as "another man" and his purchase of the field does not cause his father to lose his claim to it (Arachin 25b).
51.
As is the law with regard to an ancestral field. The fact that it was consecrated and redeemed by another person does not remove it from this category.
This ruling follows the Rambam's version ofArachin 7:3 and his interpretation in his Commentary to the Mishnah. The standard printed text of Arachin 25a differs, however, and states that the field is given to the priests in such an instance. The Ra'avad notes the existence of the two versions of the source.
52.
For they purchased the right to it only until the Jubilee year.
53.
In contrast to the situation mentioned in the previous halachah. The rationale for the difference is that they are required to pay in the previous instance, because consecrated property never leaves the domain of the Temple treasury without being redeemed. In this instance, however, the field has already been redeemed as the Rambam continues to explain.
54.
That a field which is not redeemed becomes the property of the priests.
55.
This refers to a field that was given to a priest or a Levite as an ancestral heritage, not one that they purchased.
56.
Because her husband's redemption of it could be considered as if she redeemed it herself.
57.
Because in actual fact, she did not redeem it.
58.
We follow the principle: "When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him." The Ra'avad differs with this ruling, stating that since her husband is working the field, it is considered as having been acquired by him, for her. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Ra'avad's ruling, stating that since the Talmud (Arachin 25b) left the matter unresolved, it is not appropriate for the Ra'avad to resolve it by logic. The Radbaz adds that the husband (as his wife's agent) must intend to acquire the field and it is possible to work a field without having this intent.
59.
It is sold and its value divided among all the priests of that watch, not only those serving in the Temple on Rosh HaShanah.
60.
The priestly family is broken up into 24 watches who each serve for a week in the Temple (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3). Thus over the course of the years, there is a revolution of the times when each of the priestly watches serve.
61.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:9.
62.
Because when Rosh HaShanah began, it was in their possession (Radbaz).
63.
The Ra'avad states that this law applies when the person consecrates only one or two trees, but not when he consecrates three. For in that instance, they are consecrated together with the land on which they grow (see Halachah 17) and hence, the consecrated property could be referred to as a field.
64.
Although certain aspects of the laws of ancestral fields do not apply to it (see Halachah 16), this dimension of them does.
65.
This is in contrast to an ancestral field where a standard amount is given, as explained above. In his commentary to the Torah (Leviticus 27:22), Rashi writes that it is redeemed in the same manner as an ancestral field. Nevertheless, in his commentary to the Talmud (Arachin 26b), he states that it is redeemed according to its worth.
66.
For in the Jubilee, it was to return to its ancestral owner. The donor's ownership did not extend past that time. Hence he cannot consecrate it for longer, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
67.
And the person who consecrated the field never possessed permanent ownership of it, only the right to partake of its produce. Hence, he cannot consecrate it to the Temple treasury permanently (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah,Arachin 7:4).
68.
As evaluated by the court.
69.
I.e., the price for its redemption becomes fixed and if he does not redeem it, it becomes the property of the priests, as stated above.
70.
See also Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval, ch. 11, where more details concerning ancestral fields and purchased property are discussed.
• English Text | Video Class•
"Today's Day"
Monday, Adar II 4, 5776 · 14 March 2016
Thursday Adar Sheini 4 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: P'kudei, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: Ch. 35. Let us (p. 155)...Torah and (Divine) service. (p.157).
When the Mitteler Rebbe would say Chassidus, there was a perfect hush. Still he would intersperse the Chassidus with, "Sha, sha!"
My father explained that this was to still the gushing of his intellect. With this he explained the expression in Zohar:1 The venerable sage whose mind is concealed, for it is still and tranquil.
FOOTNOTES
1.Zohar 3, 128b. See Likutei Sichot Vol. 1, p. 117.
•
Daily Thought:
Miraculous Failure
An open miracle is somewhat of a disappointment for G‑d.
Once all is said and done, He got His way only by ignoring the norms of this world He created—by breaking His own rules. If He can only perform miracles by bullying Nature, He may as well concede that our world is a place where He does not belong.
So He also makes another sort of miracle—the sort that blends seamlessly into the order of things below. These are impossible miracles: They break no rules, but change everything.
In truth, they are the most awesome of miracles—these that reveal the Infinite unrestrained within the finite nature of everyday things.
No comments:
Post a Comment