Today in Jewish History:
• Moses' Last Day of Leadership (1273 BCE)
Moses passed away on the 7th of Adar. Following G-d's instruction that Joshua should succeed him and lead the Jewish nation into the Land of Israel, Moses transferred leadership duties to Joshua on the day before he passed away. Thus the fifth day of Adar was the last day of Moses' leadership.
Link: Moses' Passing
Daily Quote:
And G‑d said: “. . . Abraham shall be a great people . . . Because I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him that they shall keep the way of G‑d, to do charity and justice.”[Genesis 18:17–19]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayikra, 3rd Portion Leviticus 2:7-2:16 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 2
7And if your sacrifice is a meal offering [made] in a deep pot, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. זוְאִם־מִנְחַ֥ת מַרְחֶ֖שֶׁת קָרְבָּנֶ֑ךָ סֹ֥לֶת בַּשֶּׁ֖מֶן תֵּֽעָשֶֽׂה:
[made] in a deep pot: מַרְחֶשֶׁת. This was a deep vessel in the Temple. And since it was deep, its oil gathered together, and the fire did not burn it. Consequently, meal-offerings made in it, vibrate (רוֹחִַשִׁין) (Torath Kohanim 2:127), [as] anything which has become softened through a liquid, [like in the case of deep-frying מִנְחַת מַרְחֶשֶׁת appears to vibrate (רוֹחֵשׁ) and wiggle.
מרחשת: כלי הוא שהיה במקדש עמוק, ומתוך שהיא עמוקה שמנה צבור ואין האור שורפו, לפיכך מעשה מנחה העשויין לתוכה רוחשין. כל דבר רך על ידי משקה נראה כרוחש ומנענע:
8Thus you shall bring the meal offering which shall be made from these [types], to the Lord. And he shall bring it to the kohen, and he shall bring it close to the altar. חוְהֵֽבֵאתָ֣ אֶת־הַמִּנְחָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר יֵֽעָשֶׂ֛ה מֵאֵ֖לֶּה לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וְהִקְרִיבָהּ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְהִגִּישָׁ֖הּ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
which shall be made from these [types]: [literally, “which shall be made from these,” meaning a meal-offering] which shall be made from one of these types [of meal-offerings mentioned, namely, fine flour baked in an oven, pan-fried or that made in a deep pot].
אשר יעשה מאלה: מאחד מן המינים הללו:
And he shall bring it: i.e., its owner [shall bring it] to the kohen.
והקריבה: בעליה אל הכהן:
and he shall bring it close: [I.e.,] the kohen [shall bring it close].
והגישה: הכהן:
to the altar: He shall bring it close to the south-western corner of the altar. — [Zev. 63b]
אל המזבח: מגישה לקרן דרומית מערבית של מזבח:
9And the kohen shall lift out, from the meal offering, its reminder and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar; [it is] a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. טוְהֵרִ֨ים הַכֹּהֵ֤ן מִן־הַמִּנְחָה֙ אֶת־אַזְכָּ֣רָתָ֔הּ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
its reminder: This is קֹמֶץ, [the fistful scooped out of the meal-offering].
את אזכרתה: היא הקומץ:
10And what remains of the meal offering shall belong to Aaron and his descendants; [it is] holy of holies from the fire offerings of the Lord. יוְהַנּוֹתֶ֨רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קָֽדָשִׁ֖ים מֵֽאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
11No meal offering that you sacrifice to the Lord shall be made [out of anything] leavened. For you shall not cause to [go up in] smoke any leavening or any honey, [as] a fire offering to the Lord; יאכָּל־הַמִּנְחָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר תַּקְרִ֨יבוּ֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לֹ֥א תֵֽעָשֶׂ֖ה חָמֵ֑ץ כִּ֤י כָל־שְׂאֹר֙ וְכָל־דְּבַ֔שׁ לֹֽא־תַקְטִ֧ירוּ מִמֶּ֛נּוּ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
or any honey: Any sweet fruit extract is called honey.
וכל דבש: כל מתיקת פרי קרויה דבש:
12[However,] you shall bring them as a first [fruit] offering to the Lord; nevertheless, they shall not go up on the altar as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יבקָרְבַּ֥ן רֵאשִׁ֛ית תַּקְרִ֥יבוּ אֹתָ֖ם לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֥חַ לֹא־יַֽעֲל֖וּ לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹֽחַ:
[However,] you shall bring them as a first [fruit] offering: What can you bring from leaven and honey? A first [fruit] offering, namely, a) the שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, the two loaves [of bread] brought on Shavuoth, which come from leaven, as it is said: “they shall be baked leavened” (Lev. 23:17), and b) The בִּכּוּרִים, “first fruits” which [contain] דְּבַשׁ, honey, e.g., the first fruits of figs and dates. — [Men. 58a]
קרבן ראשית תקריבו: מה יש לך להביא מן השאור ומן הדבש קרבן ראשית שתי הלחם של עצרת הבאים מן השאור, שנאמר (ויק' כג יז) חמץ תאפינה, ובכורים מן הדבש, כמו בכורי תאנים ותמרים:
13And you shall salt every one of your meal offering sacrifices with salt, and you shall not omit the salt of your God's covenant from [being placed] upon your meal offerings. You shall offer salt on all your sacrifices. יגוְכָל־קָרְבַּ֣ן מִנְחָֽתְךָ֘ בַּמֶּ֣לַח תִּמְלָח֒ וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁבִּ֗ית מֶ֚לַח בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ מֵעַ֖ל מִנְחָתֶ֑ךָ עַ֥ל כָּל־קָרְבָּֽנְךָ֖ תַּקְרִ֥יב מֶֽלַח:
the salt of [your God’s] covenant: for there was a covenant made with salt since the six days of Creation, in that the lower waters were promised that they would be offered on the altar. [And how were they offered? In the form of] salt [which comes from water,] and in the water libations on the Festival [of Succoth].
מלח ברית: שהברית כרותה למלח מששת ימי בראשית, שהובטחו המים התחתונים ליקרב במזבח במלח, וניסוך המים בחג:
[You shall offer salt] on all your sacrifices: [including] burnt-offerings from animals and birds, and the אֵימוּרִים, the portions of the sacrifices offered up on the altar, from all holy sacrifices. — [Men. 20a]
על כל קרבנך: על עולת בהמה ועוף ואימורי כל הקדשים כולן:
14When you bring a meal offering of the first grains to the Lord, you shall bring your first grain meal offering [from barley], as soon as it ripens, parched over the fire, kernels full in their husks, [ground into] coarse meal. ידוְאִם־תַּקְרִ֛יב מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרִ֖ים לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה אָבִ֞יב קָל֤וּי בָּאֵשׁ֙ גֶּ֣רֶשׂ כַּרְמֶ֔ל תַּקְרִ֕יב אֵ֖ת מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרֶֽיךָ:
When you bring: Heb. וְאִם תַּקְרִיב Now, the word אִם [here] has the meaning of כִּי, “when,” because this is not optional, for Scripture is referring to the מִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר [the omer meal-offering, a community sacrifice brought on the sixteenth of Nissan,] which is obligatory. [Thus, the verse reads: “When you bring…”]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:148] Likewise, “And when (וְאִם) the Jubilee…will be” (Num. 36:4), [and not “if the Jubilee…will be”].
ואם תקריב: הרי אם משמש בלשון כי, שהרי אין זה רשות, שהרי במנחת העומר הכתוב מדבר, שהיא חובה, וכן (במדבר לו ד) ואם יהיה היובל וגו':
a meal offering of the first grains: Scripture is referring here to the מִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר, the “omer meal-offering,” which is to be offered אָבִיב, meaning, as soon as the grain has ripened, and it comes from barley. [And how do we know that it comes from barley?] For here in our verse, it says, אָבִיב, and in an earlier verse, it says (Exod. 9:31), כִּי הַשְּׂעֹרָה אָבִיב, “for the barley was ripened (אָבִיב)”. — [Torath Kohanim 2:149; Men. 68b]
מנחת בכורים: במנחת העומר הכתוב מדבר, שהיא באה אביב בשעת בישול התבואה, ומן השעורים היא באה. נאמר כאן אביב, ונאמר להלן (שמות ט לא) כי השעורה אביב:
parched over the fire: For they dry the grain over a fire, in a roasting pipe [Rashi explains in Tractate Men., אָבִיב refers to a vessel used by those selling roasted seeds]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:150] [And they had to do this to the grain,] for otherwise, it could not be ground up, because it is moist.
קלוי באש: שמיבשין אותה על האור באבוב של קלאים, שאלולי כן אינה נטחנת בריחים, לפי שהיא לחה:
kernels full in their husks, [ground into] coarse meal: Heb. גֶּרֶשׂ כַּרְמֶל “Broken up while still moist (כַּרְמֶל).”
גרש כרמל: גרוסה בעודה לחה:
coarse meal: Heb. גֶּרֶשׂ, an expression denoting breaking up or grinding with grit millstones, and likewise, “Indeed, He has made [my teeth] grind (וַיַּגְְרֵס) on gravel” (Lam. 3:16), and similarly in the verse, “My soul is crushed (גָּרְסָה)” (Ps. 119:20).
גרש: לשון שבירה וטחינה, גורסה בריחים של גרוסות, כמו (איכה ג טז) ויגרס בחצץ, וכן גרסה נפשי (תהלים קיט כ):
full in their husks: Heb. כַּרְמֶל, [an acronym of כַּר, husk, and מָלֵא, full. Thus, it means: The grain is ground up] while the husk (כַּר) is still full (מָלֵא) (Men. 66b), i.e., when the produce is still fresh and full in its stalks; hence, fresh ears of grain are called כַּרְמֶל, and similarly, “and sheaves of fresh grain (כַּרְמֶל) in their shells” (II Kings 4:42).
כרמל: בעוד הכר מלא, שהתבואה לחה ומלאה בקשין שלה, ועל כן נקראים המלילות כרמל, וכן (מלכים ב' ד מב) וכרמל בצקלונו:
15And you shall put oil on it, and place frankincense upon it. It is a meal offering. טווְנָֽתַתָּ֤ עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ שֶׁ֔מֶן וְשַׂמְתָּ֥ עָלֶ֖יהָ לְבֹנָ֑ה מִנְחָ֖ה הִֽוא:
16Then, the kohen shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke, [taken] from its coarse meal and from its oil, with all its frankincense; [it is] a fire offering to the Lord. טזוְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־אַזְכָּֽרָתָ֗הּ מִגִּרְשָׂהּ֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ עַ֖ל כָּל־לְבֹֽנָתָ֑הּ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 29 - 34
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 29
• English text• Chapter 29
The Name of God appears eighteen times in this psalm, corresponding to which our Sages established eighteen blessings-the Amidah. The entire psalm can be interpreted as referring to the giving of the Torah and the ingathering of the exiles.
1. A psalm by David. Render to the Lord, children of the mighty, render to the Lord honor and strength.
2. Render to the Lord the honor due to His Name; bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness.
3. The voice of the Lord is over the waters, the God of glory thunders; the Lord is over mighty waters.
4. The voice of the Lord resounds with might; the voice of the Lord resounds with majesty.
5. The voice of the Lord breaks cedars; the Lord shatters the cedars of Lebanon.
6. He makes them leap like a calf, Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox.
7. The voice of the Lord strikes flames of fire.
8. The voice of the Lord makes the desert tremble; the Lord causes the desert of Kadesh to tremble.
9. The voice of the Lord causes the does to calve, and strips the forests bare; and in His Sanctuary all proclaim His glory.
10. The Lord sat [as King] at the Flood; the Lord will sit as King forever.
11. The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.
Chapter 30
This psalm teaches one not to be distressed if God visits suffering upon him in this world, for only through suffering can one enter the World to Come. Even one of great spiritual stature should realize that his stability is not guaranteed, but that all is in the hands of God.
1. A psalm, a song of dedication of the House, by David.
2. I exalt You, Lord, for You have uplifted me, and did not allow my enemies to rejoice over me.
3. Lord, my God, I cried out to You, and You healed me.
4. Lord, You have brought up my soul from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not descend to the pit.
5. Sing to the Lord, you His pious ones, and praise His holy Name.
6. For His wrath endures but for a moment, when He is conciliated there is [long] life; when one retires at night weeping, joy will come in the morning.
7. In my security I thought, "I shall never falter.”
8. Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong; when You concealed Your countenance I was alarmed.
9. I called to You, O Lord, and I made supplication to my Lord:
10. What profit is there in my death, in my going down to the grave? Can dust praise You? Can it proclaim Your truth
11. Lord, hear and be gracious to me; Lord, be a help to me.
12. You have turned my mourning into dancing; You have undone my sackcloth and girded me with joy.
13. Therefore my soul shall sing to You, and not be silent; Lord my God, I will praise You forever.
Chapter 31
Composed by a destitute and oppressed David, running from Saul while placing his trust in God, this psalm instructs man to put his trust in God alone.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. In You I have taken shelter, O Lord, I shall never be shamed; rescue me in Your righteousness.
3. Turn Your ear to me, save me quickly; be to me a rock of refuge, a fortress to deliver me.
4. For You are my rock and my fortress; for the sake of Your Name, direct me and lead me.
5. Remove me from the net they planted for me, for You are my stronghold.
6. I entrust my spirit into Your hand; You will redeem me, Lord, God of truth.
7. I despise those who anticipate worthless vanities; but I trust in the Lord.
8. I will rejoice and delight in Your kindness, for You have seen my affliction; You know the troubles of my soul.
9. You have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; You have set my feet on spacious ground.
10. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; my eye wastes away from vexation-my soul and my stomach.
11. For my life is spent in sorrow, my years in sighing; my strength fails because of my iniquity, and my bones are wasted away.
12. Because of my adversaries I have become a disgrace-exceedingly to my neighbors, and a dread to my friends; those who see me outside flee from me.
13. Like a dead man, I was forgotten from the heart; I became like a lost vessel.
14. For I have heard the slander of many, terror on every side, when they assembled together against me and plotted to take my life.
15. But I trusted in You, O Lord; I said, "You are my God.”
16. My times are in Your hand; save me from the hands of my enemies and pursuers.
17. Shine Your countenance upon Your servant; deliver me in Your kindness.
18. O Lord, let me not be ashamed, for I have called You; let the wicked be shamed, let them be silent to the grave.
19. Let the lips of falsehood-which speak insolently against the righteous, with arrogance and contempt-be struck dumb.
20. How abundant is Your good that You have hidden for those who fear You; in the presence of man, You have acted for those who take refuge in You.
21. Conceal them from the haughtiness of man, in the shelter of Your countenance; hide them in a shelter from the strife of tongues.
22. Blessed is the Lord, for He has been wondrous in His kindness to me in a besieged city.
23. I said in my panic, "I am cut off from before Your eyes!" But in truth, You heard the voice of my pleas when I cried to You.
24. Love the Lord, all His pious ones! The Lord preserves the faithful, and repays with exactness those who act haughtily.
25. Be strong and fortify your hearts, all who put their hope in the Lord!
Chapter 32
This psalm speaks of forgiveness of sin, and of the good fortune of one who repents and confesses to God wholeheartedly.
1. By David, a maskil.1Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2. Fortunate is the man to whom the Lord does not reckon his sin, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3. When I was silent, my limbs wore away through my wailing all day long.
4. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my marrow became [dry] as the droughts of summer, Selah.
5. My sin I made known to You, my iniquity I did not cover. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and You have forgiven the iniquity of my transgression forever.
6. For this let every pious man pray to You, at a time when You may be found; indeed, the flood of many waters will not reach him.
7. You are a refuge to me; protect me from distress; surround me with songs of deliverance forever.
8. I will enlighten you and educate you in the path you should go; I will advise you with what I have seen.
9. Be not like a horse, like a mule, senseless, that must be muzzled with bit and bridle when being adorned, so that it not come near you.
10. Many are the agonies of the wicked, but he who trusts in the Lord is surrounded by kindness.
11. Rejoice in the Lord and exult, you righteous ones! Sing joyously, all you upright of heart!
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
Chapter 33
This psalm teaches the righteous and upright to praise God. For the more one knows of the Torah's wisdom, the more should he praise God, for he knows and understands His greatness.
1. Sing joyously to the Lord, you righteous ones; it is fitting for the upright to offer praise.
2. Extol the Lord with a harp; sing to Him with a ten-stringed lyre.
3. Sing to Him a new song; play well with sounds of jubilation.
4. For the word of the Lord is just; all His deeds are done in faithfulness.
5. He loves righteousness and justice; the kindness of the Lord fills the earth.
6. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts.
7. He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound; He places the deep waters in vaults.
8. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world tremble before Him.
9. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it endured.
10. The Lord has annulled the counsel of nations; He has foiled the schemes of peoples.
11. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of His heart throughout all generations.
12. Fortunate is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He chose as a heritage for Himself.
13. The Lord looks down from heaven; He beholds all mankind.
14. From His dwelling-place He looks intently upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15. It is He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who perceives all their actions.
16. The king is not saved by a great army, nor a warrior rescued by great might.
17. The horse is a false guarantee for victory; with all its great strength it offers no escape.
18. But the eye of the Lord is directed toward those who fear Him, toward those who hope for His kindness,
19. to save their soul from death and to sustain them during famine.
20. Our soul yearns for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.
21. For our heart shall rejoice in Him, for we have put our trust in His Holy Name.
22. May Your kindness, Lord, be upon us, as we have placed our hope in You.
Chapter 34
This psalm tells of when David was in grave danger while at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. David acted like a madman, letting spittle run down his beard, and writing on the doors: "Achish, king of Gath, owes me one hundred thousand gold coins," leading Achish to eject him from the palace. In his joy, David composed this psalm in alphabetical sequence.
1. By David, when he feigned insanity before Avimelech,1 who then drove him away, and he left.
2. I bless the Lord at all times; His praise is always in my mouth.
3. My soul glories in the Lord; let the humble hear it and rejoice.
4. Exalt the Lord with me, and let us extol His Name together.
5. I sought the Lord and He answered me; He delivered me from all my fears.
6. Those who look to Him are radiant; their faces are never humiliated.
7. This poor man called, and the Lord heard; He delivered him from all his tribulations.
8. The angel of the Lord camps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.
9. Taste and see that the Lord is good; fortunate is the man who trusts in Him.
10. Fear the Lord, you His holy ones, for those who fear Him suffer no want.
11. Young lions may want and hunger, but those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing.
12. Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
13. Who is the man who desires life, who loves long life wherein to see goodness?
14. Guard your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.
15. Turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.
16. The eyes of the Lord are directed toward the righteous, and His ears toward their cry.
17. The wrath of the Lord is upon the evildoers, to excise their memory from the earth.
18. But when they [repent and] cry out, the Lord hears, and saves them from all their troubles.
19. The Lord is close to the broken-hearted, and saves those with a crushed spirit.
20. Many are the afflictions of a righteous person, but the Lord rescues him from them all.
21. He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.
22. Evil brings death upon the wicked, and the enemies of the righteous are condemned.
23. The Lord redeems the soul of His servants; all who take shelter in Him are not condemned.
FOOTNOTES
1.All Philistine kings are referred to by the name Avimelech (Rashi).
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 35
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• 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
• Tuesday, Adar II 5, 5776 · March 15, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 35
• והוא בהקדים לשון הינוקא בזהר פרשת בלק על פסוק: החכם עיניו בראשו
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Adar II 5, 5776 · March 15, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 145
Sanctified Objects ("Cherem")
"However, a cherem that a man shall vow to set aside for G‑d from anything he possesses, whether human or beast"—Leviticus 27:28.
Anything sanctified as cherem must be given to a priest (unless the person specified that it is "cherem to G‑d," in which case it is donated to the Temple coffers).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Selling Sanctified Objects ("Cherem")
"No cherem thing...shall be sold"—Leviticus 27:28.
Any object that is sanctified as cherem [and consequently must be given to a priest] may not be sold—even to the Temple treasurer.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
[The above-mentioned difficulties will be resolved] by clarifying first the comment of the Yenuka (quoted in the Zohar, Parshat Balak1) on the verse:2 “The wise man’s eyes are in his head.”
וכי באן אתר עינוי דבר נש כו׳, אלא קרא הכי הוא ודאי
The Zohar comments: “Where else are a man’s eyes?... Surely, then, the meaning of the verse is as follows:
דתנן: לא יהך בר נש בגילויא דרישא ארבע אמות. מאי טעמא, דשכינתא שריא על רישיה
We have learned that a man must not go four cubits while bareheaded. Why? Because the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) rests upon his head.
וכל חכם עינוהי ומילוי ברישיה אינון, בההוא דשריא וקיימא על רישיה
[Therefore,] every wise man has his eyes i.e., his interest and concern and hence also his speech [concentrated] ”in his head,“ i.e., in that light of the Shechinah which rests and abides above his head.
וכד עינוי תמן, לנדע דההוא נהורא דאדליק על רישיה אצטריך למשחא
Now, when his “eyes” i.e. his interest and his concern are there, he must know that this light kindled above his head i.e., the light that shines upon his soul requires oil.
בגין דגופא דבר נש איהו פתילה, ונהורא אדליק לעילא
For man’s body is the wick that retains the luminous flame and the light is kindled above it;
ושלמה מלכא צוח ואמר: ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר
and [thus] King Solomon cried out, saying,3 ”Let there be no lack of oil above your head.“
דהא נהורא דבראשו אצטריך למשחא, ואינון עובדאן טבאן
For the light over his head requires oil, meaning good deeds — the good deeds that man performs are the oil which supplies the light illuminating his soul,
ועל דא החכם עיניו בראשו
and for this reason “The wise man’s eyes are in his head.” — to ensure that he never lacks oil (good deeds) for this light.
עד כאן לשונו
The quotation from the Zohar ends here.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Zohar III, 187a. |
| 2. | Kohelet 2:14. |
| 3. | Ibid. 9:8. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Adar II 5, 5776 · March 15, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 145
Sanctified Objects ("Cherem")
"However, a cherem that a man shall vow to set aside for G‑d from anything he possesses, whether human or beast"—Leviticus 27:28.
Anything sanctified as cherem must be given to a priest (unless the person specified that it is "cherem to G‑d," in which case it is donated to the Temple coffers).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Sanctified Objects ("Cherem")
Positive Commandment 145
Translated by Berel Bell
The 145th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the law of ch'ramim, i.e. when a person declares something he owns to be forbidden by saying, "This is cherem," he must give that object to a kohen, because a statement of cherem which is unspecified1 goes to the kohanim. If, however, he specified that it is for G‑d,2 then it goes for the Temple fund (bedek habayis).
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "Any cherem to G‑d which a person declares from among his possessions, whether a human being or an animal [or a hereditary field, cannot be sold or redeemed]."
[The Torah] teaches us that a statement of cherem which is unspecified goes to the kohanim by saying4 [Regarding a field that is released by the jubilee year, "It becomes consecrated to G‑d;] like a field that has been made cherem, it becomes the property of the kohanim."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the eighth chapter of Erachin and the beginning of Nedarim.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Erachin, Ch. 8, Mishneh 6. There are two opinions brought regarding cheramim in which one did not specify whether they are for the kohanim or for bedek habayis. One opinion is that they go to bedek habayis and the other (brought here by the Rambam) is that they go to the kohanim.
2.
E.g. by saying, "This is cherem for G‑d."
3.
Lev. 27:28.
4.
Negative Commandment 110
Ibid. 27:21.
Selling Sanctified Objects ("Cherem")
"No cherem thing...shall be sold"—Leviticus 27:28.
Any object that is sanctified as cherem [and consequently must be given to a priest] may not be sold—even to the Temple treasurer.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Selling Sanctified Objects ("Cherem")
Negative Commandment 110
Translated by Berel Bell
The 110th prohibition is that we are forbidden from selling — even to the Temple treasurer — objects which have been declared to be cherem.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Any cherem...cannot be sold."
In the words of the Sifra, " 'It cannot be sold' — [even to] the Temple treasurer."
The cherem referred to is only one which is unspecified.2
FOOTNOTES
1.
Ibid. 27:28.
2.
Which goes to the kohanim. See P145, above. That which is dedicated to bedek habayis is already in the hands of the Temple treasurer.
• 1 Chapter: Klei Hamikdash Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
How is the forehead plate made? We make a plate of gold two fingerbreadths1wide that extends [over the forehead of the High Priest] from one ear to the other. Upon it is written, קדש לה'ה2 in two lines, קדש on the lower line and לה'ה on the upper line.3 If [the words] were written on one line it was valid. There were times when they were written on one line.4
Halacha 2
The letters would project outward. How was this done? [A craftsman] would engrave the letters on the back of the plate5 while it was pressed to beeswax6until they project.
It had holes on each of its ends. There was a strand of sky-blue wool below it that ran from hole to hole so that it could be tied with this strand at the nape [of the neck].7
Halacha 3
The cloak was made entirely of sky-blue colored wool.8 Its strands were twelve-fold. Its opening was woven, and that is where its weave began.9 It did not have an opening for his arms.10 Instead, it was divided into two flaps from below the throat and downward like all cloaks.11 It is joined only directly below the throat.
One who tears the border of the opening of the cloak is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 28:32] states: "It shall not be torn."12 This applies to all the priestly garments. One who tears them with a destructive intent is liable for lashes.13
Halacha 4
He should then bring sky-blue wool, red wool, and scarlet wool, the strands of each of these spun eight-fold. [This is necessary,] because [Exodus 39:24] states that [the pomegrantes on the cloak's] hem [should be made from strands that are] "twisted."14Thus there are twenty four threads used for the hem of the cloak.15 They should be fashioned into shapes resembling pomegranates whose mouths are not open16and hung from the cloak. He brings 72 cups with 72 clappers that are made entirely of gold and suspends them from the hems, 36 from the hem of one flap and 36 from the hem of the other flap.17 The cup with the clapper hanging in it are together called a bell. From the hems on both sides of [the flaps of the cloak are suspended series of] bells and pomegranates, bells and pomegranates.
Halacha 5
The gold that is woven in the ephod and the breastplate which is mentioned in the Torah18 was made in the following manner. A strand of pure gold was taken and placed together with six strands of sky-blue wool and [then] the seven strands were spun as one. He would do the same with one strand of gold and six of red wool, with one strand [of gold] with six of scarlet wool, and with one strand of gold with six of linen. Thus there would be four strands of gold and there would be a total of 28 strands.19
[This is reflected by Exodus 39:3]: "And they hammered out thin sheets of gold [and cut strands] to fashion into the sky-blue wool, into the red wool, into the scarlet wool, and into the linen." This teaches that there was a strand of gold woven in them.
Halacha 6
How was the breastplate made? He would weave a garment that was a work of craft20 from gold, sky-blue wool, red wool, scarlet, linen, with 28 strands, as we explained.21 It is a cubit long and zeret22 wide and it should be folded into two.23 Thus it was a square a zeret long and a zeret wide.24In it should be affixed four rows of stones as described by the Torah.25 Each stone should be square and set in a setting of gold that encompasses it from below and from the four directions.26
Halacha 7
He should engrave on the stones the names of the tribes according to their order of birth. Thus on the ruby, the name Reuben is engraved and on the jasper,27 Benjamin is engraved. At the outset, above Reuben,28 he should write [the names] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and below Benjamin,29 he should write, שבטי יה30 so that all the letters are found there.
Halacha 8
Four golden rings are made on the four corners of the breastplate. In the two upper rings from which the breastplate is suspended, two golden cords are placed.31 They are called chains. In the two lower rings that are opposite [the High Priest's] breast32 are placed two cords of sky-blue wool.33
Halacha 9
The width of the ephod is the width of a person's back from shoulder to shoulder. Its length extend from one's elbows to his feet. It has two bands extending from it on either side34 with which it is fastened. They are called the belt of the ephod. The entire garment is woven with gold, sky-blue wool, red wool, scarlet wool, and linen with 28 threads as described with regard to the breastplate.35He should sew36 to it two shoulder straps so that it will extend to [High] Priest's shoulder. He should affix to each shoulder a square37 sardonyx stone38 set in a setting of gold. The names of the tribes should be engraved on the two stones, six on one stone and six on the other39 according to the order of their birth.40 Joseph's name would be written as יהוסף.41 Thus there would be 25 letters on one stone and 25 letters on the other stone. They would be written in this manner.42
The stone on which Reuven's name was written was placed on his right shoulder and the stone on which Shimon's name was written was placed on his left shoulder. On each shoulder, he should make two rings: one above, one the top of the shoulder and one below the shoulder above the belt. The two golden cords should be placed in the the two upper rings, they are called chains.43 This is the form of the ephod.44
Halacha 10
Afterwards, he places the ends of the cords of the breastplate in the upper rings that are on the shoulders of the ephod and he should place the two strands of sky-blue wool that are on the hem of the breastplate45 into the rings that are above the belt of the ephod. The chains that are in the rings on the shoulders of the ephod should descend until they reach the upper rings of the breastplate so that they will cleave to each other and thus the breastplate will not be separate from the ephod.46Anyone who separates the breastplate from the ephod and disrupts their connection47with a destructive intent48 is worthy of lashes.49
Halacha 11
Thus when he wears the ephod together with the breastplate, the breastplate will be flat over his heart and the ephod will be behind him. The belt of theephod is tied over his heart50 below the breastplate. The two shoulders of theephod lie on his two shoulders. The two cords of gold extend down from his shoulders on either side from the shoulders of ephod to the rings of the breastplate. The two strands of sky-blue wool are tied below his elbows from the two lower rings of the breastplate to the two lower rings of the shoulders of the ephod which are above the belt.
FOOTNOTES
1.A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according toShiurei Torah. There is no measure according to Scriptural Law. The Rabbis chose a measure of two fingerbreadths, because this is the ordinary width of a High Priest's forehead.
2."Sanctified unto God."
3.The standard published text of Sukkah 5a states that God's name should be on the upper line and קדש on the lower line. Apparently, the Rambam's text of theGemara followed a different version. Alternatively, the Rambam favored the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:1) which follows the version stated. There it is explained that although the wording is opposite that of the verse, it is like a king (God's name) sitting on his throne (the word "sanctified").
4.Shabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a quote Rabbi Eliezar bar Yossi as saying: "I saw it in Rome (where it had been taken after the Temple's destruction) and the words קדש לה'ה were written in one line."
Likutei Sichot, Vol. 26, p. 200ff., explains that the fact that despite Rabbi Eliezar's testimony, the halachah is that the words should be written in two lines indicates that our Sages had received orally the tradition that this was the acceptable way of preparing the forehead plate. Accordingly, we must say that the reason the second view is accepted is not because of Rabbi Eliezar's testimony, but because there was an oral tradition that it was acceptable.
5.Exodus 39:30 states: "They engraved on it writing, [like that of] a signet ring." Now the letters of a signet ring project outward and so it was required that the letters of the forehead plate project outward. On the other hand, since the verse mentions writing, the letters could not be made using a mold (Kessef Mishneh; this rebuts the Ra'avad's objection). See Gittin 20a.
6.Beeswax was used so that it would be firm enough to support the gold and prevent it from being pierced, but flexible enough to allow it to be shaped.
7.The Ra'avad (following the line of thinking found in Rashi's commentary to the Torah) states that there was a third hole in the center of the forehead plate and a strand extending from it over the High Priest's head. This would prevent the plate from slipping down. The Rambam (and his view is supported by the Ramban in his commentary to the Torah) maintains that only two holes were made. Apparently, the plate was held in place by the pressure generated by tying it tightly.
8.As stated in Exodus 39:22.
9.As ibid. 28:32 states: "Its opening for the head shall be folded over within it. Its opening shall have a border of weaver's work."
10.The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's source for this statement. In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban also questions the Rambam's view. The Radbaz explains that were it to have had an opening for the High Priest's arms, there would have been no difference between it and the tunic.
11.It did not surround the High Priest on all sides, but instead hung down over the front and back of his body, with openings on either side. Here also, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's understanding and the Ramban supports it.
According to the Rambam's conception, the cloak bore somewhat of a resemblance to the garments worn today as a tallit kattan(except that it was much longer than those garment). Indeed, for that reason, the Radbaz questions why there was no obligation to attach tzitzit to it. He explains that since the neck portion of the garment did not extend over the High Priests' shoulders, it is not considered as a four-cornered garment.
12.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 101) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
13.If, however, he tears them with an intent to mend the article, no prohibition is involved (Radbaz).
14.And as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 14, that term implies a strand made up of eight threads.
15.Eight threads from each type of fabric.
16.Pomegranates have a crown-like bud on their top and these spheres would not.
17.See Exodus 28:33-34.
18.Ibid.:5, 15; 39:2, 8.
19.I.e., four times seven.
20.The design embroidered on it could be seen from both sides.
21.In the previous halachah.
22.Half a cubit.
23.Note the comments of the Radbaz who infers that according to the Rambam, the breastplate would be woven while elongated and then folded. Others maintain that it should be sewn folded at the outset.
Between the folds of the breastplate were placed the Urim and Tumim. See Chapter 10, Halachah 10, for a description of them.
24.As stated in ibid. 28:15-16.
25.Ibid. 28:17-20: 39:10-13.
26.As will be explained in the notes to Chapter 10, halachah 10, according to the Rambam, the stones of the breastplate were called theUrim and Tumim and, in the First Temple era, served as oracles.
27.Our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term.
28.On the ruby itself (Shmot Rabbah, the conclusion of sec. 38). Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son writes that these inscriptions were made with smaller letters so that all the names would fit on the stone. The Radbaz suggests that they were embroidered into the breastplate.
29.On the jasper itself (ibid.).
30."The tribes of God." According to Yoma 73b and other sources, the inscription was "the tribes of Jeshuron." The Jerusalem Talmud states that the inscription was "the tribes of Israel."
31.See Exodus 28:22-24. These golden cords extend from the ephod and secure the breastplate from above as explained in the following halachot.
32.For the breastplate is placed above the heart (ibid.:30).
33.To secure the breastplate to the ephod from below, as stated in Halachah 11.
34.As Exodus 25:8 states, the belt was made in the same manner as the ephod itself.
35.See Halachah 5.
36.In contrast to the other priestly garments which are woven, these shoulder straps are sewn to the ephod.
37.Kiryat Sefer suggests that the stones were rectangular rather than square, for otherwise it would be difficult to fit six lines on a square stone.
38.A crypto-crystalline quartz, related to agate with alternating red and white bands. Here also, our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term.
39.In this way, he can fulfill the charge (Exodus 28:12): "Aaron shall carry their names on his shoulders before God as a remembrance."
40.The order the Rambam chooses - as reflected in the accompanying drawing [which is also included in his commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 7:5)] - has attracted the attention of the commentaries. Although it follows the simple meaning of the verse, there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Sotah 36a-b and the Rambam's view does not follow either of the opinions mentioned there. The Kessef Mishneh, however, offers a resolution that enables the Rambam's understanding to conform to the Talmud's text.
41.Psalms 81:1 writes Joseph's name in this manner. The Radbaz states that the extra letter was added to Joseph's name, because he was a king, and it was appropriate to include the first three letters of God's name in his name.
42.The accompanying drawing is a copy of one included in the Mishneh Torah by the Rambam himself.
43.These are the same chains described in Halachah 8.
44.The accompanying drawing was copied from drawings by the Rambam that were included in the original manuscripts of theMishneh Torah.
45.See Halachah 8.
46.Since the breastplate is tied firmly from above and from below, it will not be separated from the ephod.
47.The Radbaz implies from this wording that even if the two are not separated entirely, as long as they are moved slightly, the prohibition applies.
48.If, however, his intent is to readjust their connection, there is no prohibition against separating them.
49.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 87) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 100) include the prohibition against separating the breastplate from the ephod among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
50.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the belt of the ephod was tied below the High Priest's waist. The Radbaz explains that the belt is to be positioned below the breastplate on the same level as its top. The breastplate should lie on the High Priest's heart. Nevertheless, he also explains that the Rambam's wording has to be clarified, because as stated in the following chapter (Halachot 1-2), the sash is tied over the High Priest's heart. The Radbaz therefore suggests that the sash was tied over the upper portion of the heart and the belt of the ephod slightly lower.
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 9Halacha 1
How is the forehead plate made? We make a plate of gold two fingerbreadths1wide that extends [over the forehead of the High Priest] from one ear to the other. Upon it is written, קדש לה'ה2 in two lines, קדש on the lower line and לה'ה on the upper line.3 If [the words] were written on one line it was valid. There were times when they were written on one line.4
Halacha 2
The letters would project outward. How was this done? [A craftsman] would engrave the letters on the back of the plate5 while it was pressed to beeswax6until they project.
It had holes on each of its ends. There was a strand of sky-blue wool below it that ran from hole to hole so that it could be tied with this strand at the nape [of the neck].7
Halacha 3
The cloak was made entirely of sky-blue colored wool.8 Its strands were twelve-fold. Its opening was woven, and that is where its weave began.9 It did not have an opening for his arms.10 Instead, it was divided into two flaps from below the throat and downward like all cloaks.11 It is joined only directly below the throat.
One who tears the border of the opening of the cloak is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 28:32] states: "It shall not be torn."12 This applies to all the priestly garments. One who tears them with a destructive intent is liable for lashes.13
Halacha 4
He should then bring sky-blue wool, red wool, and scarlet wool, the strands of each of these spun eight-fold. [This is necessary,] because [Exodus 39:24] states that [the pomegrantes on the cloak's] hem [should be made from strands that are] "twisted."14Thus there are twenty four threads used for the hem of the cloak.15 They should be fashioned into shapes resembling pomegranates whose mouths are not open16and hung from the cloak. He brings 72 cups with 72 clappers that are made entirely of gold and suspends them from the hems, 36 from the hem of one flap and 36 from the hem of the other flap.17 The cup with the clapper hanging in it are together called a bell. From the hems on both sides of [the flaps of the cloak are suspended series of] bells and pomegranates, bells and pomegranates.
Halacha 5
The gold that is woven in the ephod and the breastplate which is mentioned in the Torah18 was made in the following manner. A strand of pure gold was taken and placed together with six strands of sky-blue wool and [then] the seven strands were spun as one. He would do the same with one strand of gold and six of red wool, with one strand [of gold] with six of scarlet wool, and with one strand of gold with six of linen. Thus there would be four strands of gold and there would be a total of 28 strands.19
[This is reflected by Exodus 39:3]: "And they hammered out thin sheets of gold [and cut strands] to fashion into the sky-blue wool, into the red wool, into the scarlet wool, and into the linen." This teaches that there was a strand of gold woven in them.
Halacha 6
How was the breastplate made? He would weave a garment that was a work of craft20 from gold, sky-blue wool, red wool, scarlet, linen, with 28 strands, as we explained.21 It is a cubit long and zeret22 wide and it should be folded into two.23 Thus it was a square a zeret long and a zeret wide.24In it should be affixed four rows of stones as described by the Torah.25 Each stone should be square and set in a setting of gold that encompasses it from below and from the four directions.26
Halacha 7
He should engrave on the stones the names of the tribes according to their order of birth. Thus on the ruby, the name Reuben is engraved and on the jasper,27 Benjamin is engraved. At the outset, above Reuben,28 he should write [the names] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and below Benjamin,29 he should write, שבטי יה30 so that all the letters are found there.
Halacha 8
Four golden rings are made on the four corners of the breastplate. In the two upper rings from which the breastplate is suspended, two golden cords are placed.31 They are called chains. In the two lower rings that are opposite [the High Priest's] breast32 are placed two cords of sky-blue wool.33
Halacha 9
The width of the ephod is the width of a person's back from shoulder to shoulder. Its length extend from one's elbows to his feet. It has two bands extending from it on either side34 with which it is fastened. They are called the belt of the ephod. The entire garment is woven with gold, sky-blue wool, red wool, scarlet wool, and linen with 28 threads as described with regard to the breastplate.35He should sew36 to it two shoulder straps so that it will extend to [High] Priest's shoulder. He should affix to each shoulder a square37 sardonyx stone38 set in a setting of gold. The names of the tribes should be engraved on the two stones, six on one stone and six on the other39 according to the order of their birth.40 Joseph's name would be written as יהוסף.41 Thus there would be 25 letters on one stone and 25 letters on the other stone. They would be written in this manner.42
The stone on which Reuven's name was written was placed on his right shoulder and the stone on which Shimon's name was written was placed on his left shoulder. On each shoulder, he should make two rings: one above, one the top of the shoulder and one below the shoulder above the belt. The two golden cords should be placed in the the two upper rings, they are called chains.43 This is the form of the ephod.44
Halacha 10
Afterwards, he places the ends of the cords of the breastplate in the upper rings that are on the shoulders of the ephod and he should place the two strands of sky-blue wool that are on the hem of the breastplate45 into the rings that are above the belt of the ephod. The chains that are in the rings on the shoulders of the ephod should descend until they reach the upper rings of the breastplate so that they will cleave to each other and thus the breastplate will not be separate from the ephod.46Anyone who separates the breastplate from the ephod and disrupts their connection47with a destructive intent48 is worthy of lashes.49
Halacha 11
Thus when he wears the ephod together with the breastplate, the breastplate will be flat over his heart and the ephod will be behind him. The belt of theephod is tied over his heart50 below the breastplate. The two shoulders of theephod lie on his two shoulders. The two cords of gold extend down from his shoulders on either side from the shoulders of ephod to the rings of the breastplate. The two strands of sky-blue wool are tied below his elbows from the two lower rings of the breastplate to the two lower rings of the shoulders of the ephod which are above the belt.
FOOTNOTES
1.A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according toShiurei Torah. There is no measure according to Scriptural Law. The Rabbis chose a measure of two fingerbreadths, because this is the ordinary width of a High Priest's forehead.
2."Sanctified unto God."
3.The standard published text of Sukkah 5a states that God's name should be on the upper line and קדש on the lower line. Apparently, the Rambam's text of theGemara followed a different version. Alternatively, the Rambam favored the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:1) which follows the version stated. There it is explained that although the wording is opposite that of the verse, it is like a king (God's name) sitting on his throne (the word "sanctified").
4.Shabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a quote Rabbi Eliezar bar Yossi as saying: "I saw it in Rome (where it had been taken after the Temple's destruction) and the words קדש לה'ה were written in one line."
Likutei Sichot, Vol. 26, p. 200ff., explains that the fact that despite Rabbi Eliezar's testimony, the halachah is that the words should be written in two lines indicates that our Sages had received orally the tradition that this was the acceptable way of preparing the forehead plate. Accordingly, we must say that the reason the second view is accepted is not because of Rabbi Eliezar's testimony, but because there was an oral tradition that it was acceptable.
5.Exodus 39:30 states: "They engraved on it writing, [like that of] a signet ring." Now the letters of a signet ring project outward and so it was required that the letters of the forehead plate project outward. On the other hand, since the verse mentions writing, the letters could not be made using a mold (Kessef Mishneh; this rebuts the Ra'avad's objection). See Gittin 20a.
6.Beeswax was used so that it would be firm enough to support the gold and prevent it from being pierced, but flexible enough to allow it to be shaped.
7.The Ra'avad (following the line of thinking found in Rashi's commentary to the Torah) states that there was a third hole in the center of the forehead plate and a strand extending from it over the High Priest's head. This would prevent the plate from slipping down. The Rambam (and his view is supported by the Ramban in his commentary to the Torah) maintains that only two holes were made. Apparently, the plate was held in place by the pressure generated by tying it tightly.
8.As stated in Exodus 39:22.
9.As ibid. 28:32 states: "Its opening for the head shall be folded over within it. Its opening shall have a border of weaver's work."
10.The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's source for this statement. In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban also questions the Rambam's view. The Radbaz explains that were it to have had an opening for the High Priest's arms, there would have been no difference between it and the tunic.
11.It did not surround the High Priest on all sides, but instead hung down over the front and back of his body, with openings on either side. Here also, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's understanding and the Ramban supports it.
According to the Rambam's conception, the cloak bore somewhat of a resemblance to the garments worn today as a tallit kattan(except that it was much longer than those garment). Indeed, for that reason, the Radbaz questions why there was no obligation to attach tzitzit to it. He explains that since the neck portion of the garment did not extend over the High Priests' shoulders, it is not considered as a four-cornered garment.
12.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 101) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
13.If, however, he tears them with an intent to mend the article, no prohibition is involved (Radbaz).
14.And as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 14, that term implies a strand made up of eight threads.
15.Eight threads from each type of fabric.
16.Pomegranates have a crown-like bud on their top and these spheres would not.
17.See Exodus 28:33-34.
18.Ibid.:5, 15; 39:2, 8.
19.I.e., four times seven.
20.The design embroidered on it could be seen from both sides.
21.In the previous halachah.
22.Half a cubit.
23.Note the comments of the Radbaz who infers that according to the Rambam, the breastplate would be woven while elongated and then folded. Others maintain that it should be sewn folded at the outset.
Between the folds of the breastplate were placed the Urim and Tumim. See Chapter 10, Halachah 10, for a description of them.
24.As stated in ibid. 28:15-16.
25.Ibid. 28:17-20: 39:10-13.
26.As will be explained in the notes to Chapter 10, halachah 10, according to the Rambam, the stones of the breastplate were called theUrim and Tumim and, in the First Temple era, served as oracles.
27.Our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term.
28.On the ruby itself (Shmot Rabbah, the conclusion of sec. 38). Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son writes that these inscriptions were made with smaller letters so that all the names would fit on the stone. The Radbaz suggests that they were embroidered into the breastplate.
29.On the jasper itself (ibid.).
30."The tribes of God." According to Yoma 73b and other sources, the inscription was "the tribes of Jeshuron." The Jerusalem Talmud states that the inscription was "the tribes of Israel."
31.See Exodus 28:22-24. These golden cords extend from the ephod and secure the breastplate from above as explained in the following halachot.
32.For the breastplate is placed above the heart (ibid.:30).
33.To secure the breastplate to the ephod from below, as stated in Halachah 11.
34.As Exodus 25:8 states, the belt was made in the same manner as the ephod itself.
35.See Halachah 5.
36.In contrast to the other priestly garments which are woven, these shoulder straps are sewn to the ephod.
37.Kiryat Sefer suggests that the stones were rectangular rather than square, for otherwise it would be difficult to fit six lines on a square stone.
38.A crypto-crystalline quartz, related to agate with alternating red and white bands. Here also, our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term.
39.In this way, he can fulfill the charge (Exodus 28:12): "Aaron shall carry their names on his shoulders before God as a remembrance."
40.The order the Rambam chooses - as reflected in the accompanying drawing [which is also included in his commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 7:5)] - has attracted the attention of the commentaries. Although it follows the simple meaning of the verse, there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Sotah 36a-b and the Rambam's view does not follow either of the opinions mentioned there. The Kessef Mishneh, however, offers a resolution that enables the Rambam's understanding to conform to the Talmud's text.
41.Psalms 81:1 writes Joseph's name in this manner. The Radbaz states that the extra letter was added to Joseph's name, because he was a king, and it was appropriate to include the first three letters of God's name in his name.
42.The accompanying drawing is a copy of one included in the Mishneh Torah by the Rambam himself.
43.These are the same chains described in Halachah 8.
44.The accompanying drawing was copied from drawings by the Rambam that were included in the original manuscripts of theMishneh Torah.
45.See Halachah 8.
46.Since the breastplate is tied firmly from above and from below, it will not be separated from the ephod.
47.The Radbaz implies from this wording that even if the two are not separated entirely, as long as they are moved slightly, the prohibition applies.
48.If, however, his intent is to readjust their connection, there is no prohibition against separating them.
49.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 87) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 100) include the prohibition against separating the breastplate from the ephod among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
50.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the belt of the ephod was tied below the High Priest's waist. The Radbaz explains that the belt is to be positioned below the breastplate on the same level as its top. The breastplate should lie on the High Priest's heart. Nevertheless, he also explains that the Rambam's wording has to be clarified, because as stated in the following chapter (Halachot 1-2), the sash is tied over the High Priest's heart. The Radbaz therefore suggests that the sash was tied over the upper portion of the heart and the belt of the ephod slightly lower.
• 3 Chapters: Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5, Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6, Arachim Vacharamim Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class•
---------------------
Audio: Listen | Download• Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When a person consecrates his ancestral field, it is a mitzvah for him to redeem it, for the owner receives priority.1 If, however, he does not desire to, we do not compel him.
When does the above apply? In the era that the Jubilee is observed.2 For if the Jubilee arrives and he does not redeem it, it will be expropriated for the sake of the priests, as we explained.3 In the era when the Jubilee has been nullified4and it is not expropriated for the sake of the priests, but instead will ultimately be redeemed, we compel5 the owner to make an initial bid6 and it is redeemed for its worth7 like other consecrated articles. If someone who is willing to add to [the bid] to redeem it, he may redeem it. If not, we tell him: "It has come to you," and he must give what he bid. He may not make an opening bid for less than four p'rutot so that the fifth that he will add will not be less than a p'rutah.8
Halacha 2
If the owner desired to sell other fields that he owned or to borrow to redeem this field that he consecrated, he has permission to do so.9 This applies whether [he consecrated the field] during the time the Jubilee is observed or when it is not observed. He is given precedence over others. Similarly, if he desired to redeem half of it, he may. This contrasts with the laws that apply when one sells a field to an ordinary person.10 This is the greater stringency that applies with regard to ordinary property [and not] to the Temple treasury.
Halacha 3
When a person consecrates his home,11 a non-kosher12 animal,13 or other property, they are evaluated for their worth, whether it be high or low.14 If the person who consecrated them, his wife, or his heirs15 redeem them, they must add a fifth. We compel the owner to make the first bid. The money is set aside for improvements to the Temple.
[The above] applies whether the house was from a walled city or from an unwalled habitation, [the owner] may redeem it at all times.16
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply if] another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. If the home was within a walled city and it remained in the possession of the redeemer for twelve months, it becomes his property forever.17 If the home was located in an unwalled habitation and the Jubilee arrived while it was in the possession of the redeemer, it returns to its owner in the Jubilee.18
Halacha 5
When a person consecrates an unblemished19 kosher animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple,20 he has transgressed a positive commandment.21[Nevertheless,] the deed he performed is of consequence and sanctity is conveyed upon [the animal]. It is redeemed even though it is unblemished.22 The priest establishes its worth,23 and the money is given for improvements to the Temple. The person who redeems it, redeems it only for the sake of offering it on the altar for the type of sacrifice for which it is fitting.24 [This is required, because] any [consecrated entity] that is fit for the altar is never released from [the obligation to be sacrificed on] the altar.
Halacha 6
What is the source that teaches that it is forbidden to consecrate unblemished animals for the improvement of the Temple? [Leviticus 22:23] states: "An ox or a sheep that has irregularly sized limbs or unsplit hoofs, it shall be [consecrated] as a donation." According to the Oral Tradition,25 we have learned that [the term] "donation" implies that it is consecrated for improvements to the Temple. Similarly, the situation indicates that it was consecrated only for its worth, for a blemished animal is not offered on the altar. [This is denoted by the term] "it," i.e., it26 is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, but an unblemished animal should not be consecrated as a donation for improvements to the Temple. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.27
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when a person] consecrates an animal without making any specifications or consecrates his property without making any specifications: We survey all the unblemished animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. The males should be sold for the purpose of burnt offerings28 and offered as burnt offerings. The females29 are sold for the purpose of peace offerings and offered as peace offerings.
The proceeds [of the sales] should be given for improvements to the Temple. For unless explicit specification is made, all consecrated articles are for the sake of the improvement of the Temple. Concerning this [Leviticus 27:9] states: "If it is an animal which can be offered as a sacrifice to God, all parts of it that you can give to God shall be holy." Implied is that every entity that is fit to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar should be offered [on the altar].
Halacha 8
When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them were wine, oil, fine flour, and doves that are fit to be offered on the altar, they should be sold for the purpose of [offerings that employ them] and they should be offered. The money should be used to purchase male animals that should be brought as burnt offerings.30
Halacha 9
Why should the proceeds from these sales be used to bring burnt offerings and the proceeds from the sale of an unblemished animal be used for improvements to the Temple?31 [The rationale is that] when an animal is consecrated to the altar suffers a [disqualifying] blemish, there is a concept of it being redeemed, as will be explained.32 When, by contrast, fine flour, wine, oil, and doves become unfit [for the altar], there is no concept of redeeming them.33 [This is derived from Leviticus 27:11-12 which] states: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest and the priest shall evaluate it]." [Implied is that] any entity that is stood [before a priest] and evaluated may be redeemed. If any entity is not to be stood [before a priest] and evaluated, it may not be redeemed.
Halacha 10
When a person consecrates his possessions without making any specifications and among them was incense which is given to the craftsmen for their wages until they return and purchase it, as we explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,34 it should be given to the craftsmen for their wages as is done with the remainder of the incense. These guidelines are also followed when one of the spices used in the incense offering is found among his possessions.35
Halacha 11
When a person consecrates an unblemished animal [as a sacrifice to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished36 and was disqualified, it should be evaluated and redeemed. Concerning this, [Leviticus 27:11] states: "When any impure animal37 of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, you shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" He should bring another sacrifice equivalent to it with its money.
Halacha 12
Whenever a person consecrates an animal in its lifetime - whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one, whether it was consecrated for the sake of the Temple treasury,38 it was consecrated to be offered on the altar and it became blemished,39 or it is an unblemished animal which is fit to be offered as a sacrifice as will be explained,40 it must be stood [before the court] for evaluation, as implied by the phrase: "You shall have the animal stand [before the priest....]" Therefore, if the animal died before it is evaluated and redeemed, it should not be redeemed. Instead, it should be buried.41 If, however, a person consecrated a slaughtered animal or an animal carcass for the sake of improvements to the Temple, it should be redeemed like other movable property.
Halacha 13
[In the above situation,] if one slaughtered [the animal, slitting] the two organs42 [necessary for the slaughter to be acceptable] or slit the majority of these organs43 but the animal is still making convulsive movements, it is considered as alive with regard to all matters.44 It may be evaluated and [the provisions implied by the phrases:] "You shall have.... stand and... shall evaluate" apply until it dies.45
Halacha 14
When a person consecrates the worth of an unblemished animal,46 the body of the animal becomes consecrated.47 What is implied? When a person says: 'The worth of this animal is consecrated to the altar,' the animal itself should be sacrificed.
When one consecrates the worth of one of its limbs or organs, saying: 'The worth of the feet of this cow are consecrated to the altar,' there is an unresolved question: Does the sanctity spread throughout the animal or not?48 Therefore it should be sacrificed and not redeemed.
Halacha 15
What should be done?49 We sell it in its entirety to a person who will offer it as a sacrifice.50 The proceeds of the sale are not consecrated with the exception of those of that particular limb.51 If the limb or organ [consecrated] was of vital importance [to the animal], the sanctity [is considered to] spread throughout the entire animal.52
Halacha 16
[Different rules apply if] the animal [consecrated] was blemished and unfit to be offered as a sacrifice. When one consecrates one of its limbs or organs - whether it is one of vital importance or not - only that limb becomes consecrated.53
What is implied? A person said: 'The worth of the foot of this cow...' or 'The worth of its heart is consecrated to the altar,' he and the Temple treasury own it in partnership.54
Halacha 17
Similarly, if a person says: 'The head of this servant...' or 'The heart of this donkey is consecrated to the altar,' [he is liable only for the worth of the limb or organ mentioned].55 Similarly, if he says: 'My head is consecrated to the altar,' he is liable only for the worth of his head.56 We see how much that limb or organ is worth and he must bring a sacrifice for that amount.
Halacha 18
When does the above apply? With regard to animals consecrated to the altar. If, however, a person says: 'The head of this donkey...' or 'Its liver is consecrated,' or 'The head of this servant' or 'His liver is consecrated,'57since his life is dependent on that organ, he is liable for its entire worth. For whenever an entity is consecrated for improvements to the Temple, the consecration involves the entity's worth.58
Halacha 19
When a person says: 'I pledge my airech to the altar,' he must bring sacrifices of the value of his airech.59 If he is not financially capable of giving his entireairech,60 there is an unresolved question: Is his evaluation appraised according to his financial capacity for he made his pledge using the termairech or do we not appraise his financial capacity since he made his vow to the altar?61
Similarly, when a person consecrates his ancestral field to the altar, it should be redeemed and the proceeds should be used to purchase burnt offerings for the altar. There is an unresolved question: Should it be redeemed according to the fixed airech established for it62 or should it be redeemed according to its value, since he made his vow to the altar?63 In all these and similar instances, we rule stringently.64
FOOTNOTES
1.
Arachin 27a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:27.
2.
See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:3, 8-10 which explains that the Jubilee years is observed only when the entire Jewish people live in the Holy Land. Hence when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were exiled - decades before the destruction of the First Temple - the observance of the Jubilee no longer had the status of Scriptural Law.
3.
Chapter 4, Halachot 19-20. Since either the person who redeems it or the priests will pay for it, the Temple treasury will ultimately receive its due. Hence, there is no need to compel the owner to redeem it.
4.
As evident from Chapter 8, Halachah 8, this refers to a time when the Temple is standing, but the Jubilee year is no longer observed.
5.
Were the person not to be compelled, it is possible that the Temple treasury would not receive its due (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad differs and states that the person is not compelled to redeem his field, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehjustify the Rambam's understanding.
6.
The owner is compelled to make the initial bid, because he is required to add a fifth and thus the Temple treasury will be profiting more than if another person would offer the same price. Also, we assume that since it was his property, he is attached to it and will pay more to repossess it (Arachin 27a).
7.
I.e., for the price people are willing to pay, not for the standard value decreed by the Torah. Since the laws pertaining to arechimare taught as a single unit in the Torah and all the particulars do not apply, this fundamental factor is also not applied.
8.
For anything less than a p'rutah is not financially significant.
9.
Since a field that he consecrated will never return to him if he does not redeem it, he is given a greater opportunity to do so (Arachin30a).
10.
In which instance, these restrictions do apply. See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 11:17-18; 12:2.
11.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 354) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
12.
The laws involving kosher animals are found in Halachot 5-7.
13.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 353) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
14.
This - and not a standard value - is what the person must pay. The Torah established a standard value only for humans and fields.
15.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, and notes.
16.
I.e., as long as another person has not redeemed it first. As stated in Hilchot Shemitah V'Yoval, ch. 12, there is a difference in the relevant laws with regard to the sale of such dwellings to private individuals. A home in a walled city must be redeemed from a private purchaser within a year. Otherwise, it becomes his property forever. These restrictions do not apply with regard to a home in an unwalled habitation.
17.
I.e., it does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee. It is as if the purchaser acquired the field from the owner.
18.
As would be the law had he purchased it from him directly.
19.
I.e., were the animal to have a blemish that disqualifies it from being offered as a sacrifice, these laws would not apply.
20.
As obvious from Halachah 7, this applies when he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for this purpose.
21.
As stated in the following halachah.
22.
In contrast to an animal consecrated as a sacrifice which is redeemed only when it is blemished. See Halachah 11.
23.
See Halachah 12. The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 8, Halachah 2, the Rambam mentions that a priest is required to participate in the evaluation of humans and fields, but not in that of movable property. He makes no mention of the evaluation of animals. There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter inSanhedrin 15a.
24.
I.e., depending on the type and gender of the animal it is fitting for some sacrifices and not others.
25.
See temurah 7b.
26.
A blemished animal like those mentioned in the verse.
27.
I.e., although the prohibition is of Scriptural origin, since the Torah did explicitly forbid it by saying: "Do not consecrate an unblemished animal for this purpose," it is not considered as the transgression of a negative commandment. Temurah 7b states that a negative commandment is also involved. Nevertheless, based on our Sages' statements in the Sifra, the Rambam considers that passage as merely anasmachta, the derivation of support for a concept by the Rabbis and not a Scriptural prohibition.
28.
Although they could also be used for other types of sacrifices, it is preferable to offer them as burnt offerings.
29.
Which may not be brought as burnt offerings.
30.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this issue, offering a different interpretation of the Rambam's source, Shekalim 4:7-8. The Radbaz explains the rationale behind the Rambam's ruling. Since animals can be redeemed, we assume that he consecrated them with the intent that they be redeemed and the money given for improvements to the Temple building. Since these other items cannot be redeemed, by contrast, we assume that from the outset, his intent was that they be consecrated for the sake of the altar alone. These concepts also apply with regard to Halachah 9.
31.
As stated in Halachah 7.
32.
See Halachah 11.
33.
The Ra'avad notes that fine flour, wine, and oil may be redeemed if they became impure before being placed in a consecrated vessel. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since they cannot be redeemed once they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, that is most significant. For until they have been placed in a consecrated vessel, they have not been sanctified in a complete sense. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 6:4-5.
34.
As explained in Hilchot Shekalim 4:12, in every year that is not a leap year, there is a certain amount of incense left over. For 365 portions were prepared for daily offerings and there are either 353, 354, or 355 days in such a year. Thus there were extra portions left over. The holiness associated with these portions of incense was then transferred to money and that money used to purchase burnt offerings. Afterwards, the portions of incense would be given to the craftsmen who prepare the incense as their wages. They would then sell this incense back to the Temple treasury, so that it would be purchased back with the funds designated for communal sacrifices for the new year.
This halachah is speaking about an instance where one of those craftsmen consecrated the incense in his possession to the Temple treasury. It should be given to other craftsmen as their wages and then purchased back as above.
35.
I.e., it should be given to the craftsmen as part of their wages and then purchased with the money designated for the purchase of communal sacrifices.
36.
I.e., a blemish that will not become healed (Radbaz).
37.
Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach1:10.
38.
As explained in Halachah 5.
39.
After its consecration. The laws applying to the consecration of a blemished animal are the same as those applying to other movable property. See the gloss of the Ra'avad.
40.
Some commentaries suggest emending the wording of the text and having it read 'as was explained,' i.e., referring to Halachah 5. The Merkevet HaMishneh suggests that the text should be left as is and that the reference is to Chapter 6, Halachah 8, which refers to consecrating to the Temple treasury an animal that was already designated as a sacrifice.
41.
For the holiness that rested upon a consecrated animal cannot be transferred to money after its death. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Temurah 7:3). Instead, it must be buried so that no one will make use of it.
42.
The windpipe and the esophagus. These are referred to as 'the signs' of ritual slaughter. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.
43.
For that is sufficient for the slaughter to be acceptable (ibid.).
44.
Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1.
45.
The commentaries note that according to the Rambam, this applies even if the animal is incapable of standing unsupported. There are, however, other authorities who differ; see Shitah Mekubetzet (Bava Kama 76a).
46.
I.e., the person desired that the animal be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed.
47.
Since the animal is fit to be sacrificed, it is dedicated to the altar and should be sacrificed itself (Temura 19b).
48.
Based on Temurah 11b, the Or Sameachexplains that were a person to consecrate the limb itself, there is no question that the sanctity would spread throughout the entire animal. The question is since the person did not consecrate the limb itself, merely its worth, do we make two extensions: from the worth of the limb to the limb itself and from the limb to the entire body. There are, however, those who note that in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:2, the Rambam does not accept the principle that the sanctity spreads from a limb or organ throughout the entire animal unless the limb or organ is of vital importance.
49.
For we cannot require the donor to sacrifice the entire animal (for perhaps it did not become consecrated), nor may allow him to regard it as his personal property (for perhaps it did).
50.
As the commentaries to Temurah 11b explain, there is a difficulty when one limb of an animal was consecrated and another person purchases it to offer it as a sacrifice, for it is as if the person offering the sacrifice is offering an animal lacking a limb. For that limb was not consecrated by him, but by the original donor. They explain that this is referring to an instance where the purchaser pledged to purchase a burnt offering of a certain value and the animal is worth that amount, even without the limb in question. See Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 15:2.
51.
We follow the principle that when there is a question concerning ownership, one who desires to expropriate property (in this instance, the Temple treasury) from a colleague (the donor), must prove the validity of his claim. Since that is not possible (because the question is unresolved), the donor may retain the proceeds from the portion of the animal that was not consecrated.
52.
Since the animal could not live without that limb, consecrating it is equivalent to consecrating the entire animal.
53.
Since the animal is unfit to be sacrificed, we do not say that the sanctity spread throughout the entire animal.
54.
The animal should be sold and the proceeds from the sale of that limb or organ used to purchase a burnt offering.
55.
Since neither a donkey or a servant is fit to offer on the altar, the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply.
56.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that a person's severed head is of no monetary value whatsoever, for it is forbidden to benefit from any portion of a corpse. And seemingly, if we would evaluate his head separately, it would be considered as equivalent to his entire worth, for of what worth is a person without a head? Hence, the Temple treasury should be the sole owner without leaving any portion for the person himself. Therefore the Ra'avad suggests that the intent of saying that they are partners is that the consecrated entity's value is divided in half.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Talmud clearly mentions evaluation in that passage and therefore, does not accept the Ra'avad's view. How is a head evaluated? The Kessef Mishneh explains that we consider the tasks the servant or the person performs. To the extent he is involved with those that require intellectual activity, his head is worth more. If, by contrast, his activity is primarily physical, his head is worth less.
The Radbaz maintains that if a limb or organ is of vital importance to the animal or person, the value is divided in half as the Ra'avad states. The Rambam speaks of evaluating the worth of the organ only when it is not of vital importance.
57.
I.e., for improvements to the Temple, for as stated in Halachah 7, whenever a person consecrates an entity without explicitly stated the purpose for which it was consecrated, we assume that it was consecrated for improvements for the Temple.
58.
Since the animal or person would not be worth anything without this organ, there is no difference between the worth of that organ and the worth of the entire entity.
The difference between this instance and those mentioned in the previous halachot is that the previous halachot involve limbs or organs explicitly consecrated to be offered on the altar. Thus that is all that may be done with them. Even when an article itself may not be sacrificed on the altar and hence, we understand that the person is referring to the value of the article, since he is singling out that limb or organ, we consider his intent to be that its individual value be offered on the altar.
In those instances, the holiness is focused on the physical substance of the limb or organ. Its value is only a substitute for that physical substance. Hence, we look it at as a particular and not part of the person or animal as a whole. In the instances referred to by this halachah, from the outset, we are concerned with value. Hence, we consider the value of the limb or organ in a more encompassing manner.
59.
I.e., the fixed amount required by Torah law, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.
60.
In which instance, were we speaking about a person who pledged his airech, he would be required to pay according to his financial capacity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.
61.
And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).
62.
A shekel and a pundiyon for each year until the Jubilee, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachot 2, 5.
63.
And there are no other instances where a pledge to the altar can be fulfilled by giving less that the article's worth (Arachin 5a).
64.
And the Temple treasury is always given the benefit of the doubt. If the airech is more, the donor must pay the airech. If the worth is more, he must pay the worth.
Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Whether a person says: 'This1 is consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple,' 'This is a dedication offering2 for the sake of improvements to the Temple,' or 'This is a dedication offering for the sake of Heaven,' or he [makes] similar [statements] with regard to his property as a whole,3 saying that it is all consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple, as a dedication offering for the sake of improvements to the Temple, or as a dedication offering for the sake of Heaven, [the property] should be given for improvements to the Temple. If, however, he said [that the property should be given] as a dedication offering without making any specifications, it should be given to the priests,4 for unspecified dedication offerings are given to the priests,5 as [Numbers 18:14] states: 'All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.
Halacha 2
A person may make a dedication offering from his cattle, his sheep, his Canaanite servants6 and maid-servants, and his ancestral fields.7 He should not, however, designate all of his cattle, all of his servants, all of his fields, nor all of any type of movable property that he owns as a dedication offering, as [implied by Leviticus 27:28]: 'From everything that he owns.'8 If he gives all he owns from a particular type of property as a dedication offering, even if he gives everything he owns as a dedication offering, his gift is binding. [This applies] whether he designates the dedication offering for the priests or for the improvement of the Temple.
Halacha 3
When a person gives all of his property as a dedication offering or consecrates it, we take everything that he owns, even the tefillin on his head. Needless to say, [this includes] his tools and his clothes,9 for he consecrated or gave as a dedication offering all of his possessions.
Halacha 4
What is the difference between dedication offerings designated for priests and those dedicated to Heaven? Dedication offerings to Heaven become consecrated property and must be redeemed for their worth.10 The payment is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple and then the possessions become ordinary property. Dedication offerings designated for the priests, by contrast, can never be redeemed.11Instead, they are given to the priests liketerumah. Concerning dedication offerings designated for the priests, [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'It shall neither be sold,12 nor redeemed,'13 i.e., it shall neither be sold to another person,14 nor redeemed by the owner.
Halacha 5
Whether a person designates land or movable property as a dedication offering, it is given to a priest15 in the watch16 serving at the time that the dedication offering was designated.
As long as a dedication offering for the priests is in the homes of the owner, it is like consecrated property in all regards,17 as [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'All dedication offerings are consecrated as holy unto God.' Once it is given to the priests, it is considered as ordinary property, as [Numbers 18:14] states: 'All of the dedication offerings from the Jewish people will be yours.'
Halacha 6
If a priest has a field that was a dedication offering [or an ancestral field]18that he acquired after the Jubilee19 and he designates it as a dedication offering, it is considered as a dedication offering and should be given to his brethren, the priests, as [implied by Leviticus 27:21], 'It will become the priest's, [like his] ancestral property.' This teaches that a field [designated] as a dedication offering that [a priest acquires] is like an ancestral field owned by an Israelite.20 If he designates it as a dedication offering, it becomes sanctified immediately.
Halacha 7
When a priest sells a field that he [had acquired after it was designated as] a dedication offering and then the purchaser consecrates it - even if the purchaser was the original owner who designated it as a dedication offering21- it is like [the consecration of] acquired property22 and it returns to the priest who sold it in the Jubilee year.23
Land or movable property that belongs to the priests or the Levites,24 by contrast, may not be designated as a dedication offering.25 [The rationale is that] with regard to the fields [granted to them, Leviticus 25:34] states: 'For it is an eternal inheritance for them,'26 and an association is established between movable property and land with regard to dedication offerings, as [Leviticus 27:28] states: 'from anything he owns... and from his ancestral field."
Halacha 8
When a person consecrates [animals that] had been consecrated [to be offered] on the altar for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the [second] consecration is of consequence.27 The animal should be evaluated and redeemed and its worth given for the sake of improvements to the Temple. [Afterwards,] it should be offered for the purpose for which it was originally consecrated.28
When, however, a person consecrates [animals that] had been consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple [with the intent that they be offered] on the altar, saying: 'This is a burnt offering,' or '...a peace offering,' or he designates them as a dedication offering to the priests, his act is of no consequence.29 For [animals that] had been consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple cannot be consecrated [to be offered] on the altar or designated as dedication offerings, because a person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.30
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
When a person consecrates [an animal designated as] a burnt offering for the sake of improvements to the Temple, only [its evaluation by] the Temple treasurers holds back [its slaughter].37 According to Rabbinic decree, however, it should not be slaughtered until it is redeemed.38 Therefore,39 if he transgressed and slaughtered it [before it was redeemed], it is acceptable.40
Halacha 11
A person may designate as a dedication offerings - whether set aside for the priests or for improvements to the Temple - [animals consecrated as] sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity41 or sacrifices of a lesser decree of sanctity.42If he was liable to replace these sacrifices,43 he must pay their value44whether to the priests or for the sake of improvements to the Temple. After they are redeemed, he should then offer the sacrifices for their original purposes.
Halacha 12
What is the redemption process [when a person] vowed [to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice]45and then designated it as a dedication offering?46 We evaluate how much a person would be willing to give for the right of sacrificing this animal as a burnt offering even though he is not liable to do so.47 Whoever gives this amount48 may offer this animal [for the sacrifice] for which it was originally pledged.
Halacha 13
When an Israelite designates a firstborn animal - whether unblemished or blemished49 - as a dedication offering for the sake of heaven, the designation takes effect.50 Needless to say, if the priest designates it as a dedication offering for the sake of heaven after it enters his domain, [the designation takes effect].51
Halacha 14
How is it to be redeemed? We evaluate how much a person would be willing to give for the right for this firstborn to be his so that he will have the right to give it to whichever priest he desires, to his relative or his friend. Whoever gives this amount52 may take the firstborn and give it to whichever priest he desires. The money is given for the sake of improvements to the Temple.
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When a person consecrates his [half-]shekel56 for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration is binding.57 If one consecrates bikkurim58 for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration does not take effect.59 If, however, the priest [to whom the bikkurim are given] consecrates them after they enter his domain, the consecration is binding.60
Halacha 17
When a person designates half of his servant or half of his maid-servant as a dedication offering, he and the priests are joint owners.61 If, however, he consecrates half his servant and designates half his servant as a dedication offering to Heaven, he is consecrated entirely, as we explained.62 Whenever one consecrates his Canaanite servant or maid-servant or consecrates all of his property and he owns servants, their physical person becomes consecrated Therefore it is forbidden to benefit from them63 until they are redeemed.64
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
When one consecrates his servant's hands,67 anything he earns beyond what is required for his sustenance is consecrated.68
How should this servant sustain himself? He should borrow the money [required for his sustenance], work, and repay the debt. [This is allowed] provided he always works for less than a p'rutah and pays it. For if he earned an entire p'rutah, it would be acquired by the Temple treasury as soon as he earned it.69
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
A person cannot consecrate an entity that does not belong to him.72
What is implied? If he designates his son, his daughter, his Hebrew servant, or Hebrew maid-servant, or a field he acquired as a dedication offering, they do not become dedication offerings. For a person cannot consecrate an entity when its physical person or substance is not his.73
Halacha 22
A person may not consecrate an entity that is not in his domain.
Halacha 23
When does the above apply? With regard to movable property. [Different rules apply] to landed property that was stolen and [the thief] denied [having taken it].76 If [the original owner] could have the land expropriated through legal process,77 he has the right to consecrate it even though he has not yet expropriated it. For the land itself is always considered in the domain of its [legitimate] owners.78
Halacha 24
When a person steals from his colleague and the [original] owner does not despair [of recovery],79 neither of them can consecrate it. [The robber cannot,] because the article does not belong to him and [the owner cannot,] because it is not in his possession. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 25
[The following laws apply when] a person was selling squash, eggs, or the like and a [prospective] purchaser comes, takes one, and then departs. If the price of each particular article is fixed, it is as if a price was established,80 and the seller cannot consecrate this squash, for it is not in his domain.81 If the price is not fixed and he consecrated it, it is consecrated, because it is still in his domain,82 for [the prospective purchaser] did not take it with the intent to steal it.
Halacha 26
A person cannot consecrate an article that has not yet come into existence.83
What is implied? [If a person says:] "What my net will bring up from the sea is consecrated" or "The fruit my field will produce is designated as a dedication offering," his words are of no consequence.
Halacha 27
Halacha 28
Similarly, when a person consecrates the work to be produced by his wife's hands, she may work and partake [of her earnings]. The remainder is not consecrated.86 If he tells her: "May your hands be consecrated to their Maker," since they are under lien to him,87 [the profits of] all of the work that she produces are consecrated. To what can this be compared? To one who says: "This tree is consecrated," in which instance all the fruit it produces is consecrated.88 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 29
When a person tells a colleague: "The field that I will sell you89 will be consecrated when I buy it back from you," the consecration takes effect when he buys it back.90 [The rationale is that] it is in his possession [originally] and he has the possibility of consecrating it.91
[If one tells a colleague:] "The field that I entrusted to you as security92 will be consecrated when I redeem it from you," the field becomes consecrated when he redeems it. [The rationale is that] he has the potential to redeem it.93 [The consecration is effective] even if it was given as a security for a fixed time,94because he has the potential to redeem it after that time.
Halacha 30
Halacha 31
It appears to me97 that even though a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not come into being, if he says: "I pledge to consecrate it," he is obligated to consecrate it when it will come into being to [fulfill] his vow. If he does not consecrate it, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "Do not delay in paying it" and "He shall not desecrate his word" and [fails to fulfill the positive commandment:] "He shall act in accordance with all that he uttered with his mouth" as is true with regard to all other vows.98
Halacha 32
What is implied? [When a person] says: "I pledge to consecrate everything that my net will bring up from the sea," "I pledge to give the fruit produced by this field to the poor," "I pledge to designate as a dedication offering - or give for the sake of captives - all of my earnings of this year," or makes any statement of this like, he is obligated to give and/or perform what he pledged when the article comes into his possession. For these and all similar statements are vows, not acts of consecration.99
Halacha 33
Support for this can be drawn from the statements of Jacob our Patriarch [Genesis 28:22]:100 "And everything that You will give me, I will tithe." And [later, ibid. 31:13]101 states: "Where you took a vow."102 And103 when a person says: "I will not depart from this world until I become a nazirite," he is obligated to observe a nazirite vow104 although he did not actually take such a vow. Since he said that he would take a nazirite vow, he is obligated to observe those restrictions. This law parallels that. It is appropriate to rule in this manner.
Halacha 34
A consecration that is made in error is not binding.105
What is implied? If one says: "When a black ox will go out of the building first, it will be consecrated," should a white ox go out [first], it is not consecrated.106[If he says:] "When a gold dinar comes into my hand first, it is consecrated," should a silver [dinar] come up, it is not consecrated. [If he says:] "When a barrel of wine comes into my hand first, it is consecrated," should a barrel of oil come up, it is not consecrated. [This applies] whether wine is more expensive than oil107 in that place or oil is more expensive than wine.108
If he attempts to extend the consecration to a second entity, saying: "[The status of] this is the same as [that of] the other," the second is consecrated.109 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Any specific entity.
2.
This term is being used for the Hebrew termcherem. Cherem implies the removal of an entity from one framework of reference and its inclusion in another. Similarly, in this instance, the property is being taken from the realm of private, personal possessions and being sanctified (see the gloss ofHaKtav VeHaKabalah to Leviticus 27:29). It must, however, be emphasized that the termcherem has negative connotations, meaning 'a ban' and the root has the connotation 'absolute destruction.' In that context, in hisLiving Torah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan interprets the term is meaning 'declare taboo,' i.e., banned from ordinary mortal use and hence, designated for the Temple treasury or the priests.
3.
As stated in Halachah 2, a person should not dedicate all of his possessions. Nevertheless, if he chooses to do so, his statements are of consequence.
4.
The differences between the two types of dedication offerings mentioned are described in Halachah 4. To which priests the property is given is described in Halachah 5.
5.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages (Arachin 28b) and it appears that the conclusion of the Talmud is that if no specification is made, dedication offerings should be given for improvements to the Temple. Indeed, Rashi (Beitzah 36b) and others rule in this manner. The Or Sameachsuggests that the Rambam's source isEzekiel 44:29 which states: 'All the dedication offerings from the Jewish people shall be yours.'
6.
But not his Hebrew servants. See Halachah 21 and notes.
7.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 145) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 357) include the laws governing dedication offerings among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
8.
I.e., the dedication offering must be 'from what he owns,' i.e., implying that he is giving a portion of what he owns, but not all that he owns. The rationale for this ruling is explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 13.
9.
I.e., in contrast to a person who pledges anairech who is allowed to retain ownership of his basic necessities, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachot 14-17.
10.
I.e., until they are redeemed - by the owner or by another person - they are the property of the Temple treasury and it is forbidden to benefit from them or use them for mundane purposes.
11.
I.e., the owner loses all rights to them. They become the property of the priests, able to be used for whatever purposes the priest who receives the property desires, as explained in the following halachah.
12.
I.e., before it is given to the priest. Once it is given to the priest, he may sell it if he so desires.
13.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 110-111) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 358-359) include both the prohibitions against selling and redeeming property designated as a dedication offering among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
14.
The Rambam's apparent source is the Sifra, but the version of the standard text of theSifra speaks of a prohibition against selling the property to the Temple treasurer. There are those who maintain that the Rambam followed a version of the Sifra with a different reading. Significantly, however, in his Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the prohibition as forbidding the sale to the Temple treasurer.
15.
The implication appears to be that, liketerumah, the donor has the right to give the dedication offering to the priest of his choice from the watch. It is not divided among all the priests of the watch. See Arachin 28a.
16.
As stated in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 24, there were 24 priestly watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week at a time according to a rotating cycle.
17.
They may not be used by the former owner for his own purposes and the prohibition ofmeilah, misappropriating consecrated property, applies.
18.
Our translation follows the commentary of the Kiryat Sefer. The version of the standard published text (which reflects that of authentic manuscripts and early printings) would be literally translated as 'When a priest possesses a field that was designated as a dedication offering which he acquired after the Jubilee.' We prefer the version of the Kiryat Sefer, because there is no connection between the Jubilee year and a priest's acquisition of dedication offerings.
19.
See Chapter 4, Halachot 19, 24.
20.
I.e., just like an ancestral field belonging to an Israelite is given to the priests, so too, a field owned by a priest that is designated as a dedication offering is given to the priests.
21.
Since he was the original owner, one might think that the laws that apply when one consecrates an ancestral field would apply. This is not the case, because once he designated it as a dedication offering, it became the property of the priest.
22.
Which, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 26, returns to its original owner. In that instance, as in this halachah, the person who consecrated it did not have everlasting ownership of it. Hence, he cannot consecrate the field forever.
23.
For once it is given to him, the priest is considered its owner for all time.
24.
This ruling was a matter of question for the Rambam. There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages. The standard published test of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 8:5) indicates that he favored the view that maintains that this only applies to priests. Rav Kapach maintains that this is an error and his ruling there is - as stated here - that it applies to both priests and Levites.
25.
I.e., if they make such a dedication, it is of no consequence.
26.
I.e., their landed property is theirs forever. It cannot be given as a dedication offering, because a dedication offering is given to a priest as his private property. Hence there would be no advantage in his making such an offering (Rashi, (Arachin 28a).
Thus there is obviously a difference between land or movable property that belongs to a priest and property that he acquired because it was designated as a dedication offering, as stated in Halachah 6. The rationale is that property that a priest owns as an ancestral heritage is essentially his. On the other hand, property that he acquired because it was designated as a dedication offering is not essentially his. Hence, it can be given to other priests as a dedication offering.
27.
The rationale is that consecrating an animal for the sake of improvements to the Temple is like taking a vow to pay its value to the Temple treasury. Hence, such a vow can be taken even if the animal is already consecrated.
28.
For the second consecration and the redemption do not effect its original status.
29.
Tosafot (Temurah 32a) explains the difference between the two instances as follows: The owner of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice still shares a connection to it. For if it is blemished, he must redeem it and replace it. In contrast, once an animal is consecrated to the Temple treasury, it leaves the owner's domain entirely.
30.
And once an animal has been consecrated to the Temple treasury, it is not the owner's unless he redeems it.
31.
For the sake of improvements to the Temple. Whether he states this explicitly or not, it is consecrated for that purpose as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7, unless he explicitly states that he is consecrating it for another purpose.
32.
Because the consecration did not take effect yet. The Or Sameach notes that the Rambam's apparent source, the Tosefta(Temurah 3:1), states that it is permitted to partake of the animal that was slaughtered and questions why the Rambam does not rule accordingly. He explains that the Rambam considers the person who consecrated the animal equivalent to an apostate for by slaughtering the animal, he prevents his vow from being fulfilled. As stated in Hilchot Shechitah 4:14, there are certain conditions necessary for slaughter performed by such a person to be successful.
33.
Since the original consecration has not yet taken effect, he may still consecrate it for another purpose.
34.
I.e., if the animal does not die within 30 dies, retroactively, the consecration will take effect from the time of his statements.
35.
Since the consecration of the animal will ultimately take effect, it may not be used for mundane purposes unless it is evaluated by the court. That evaluation may not be performed when the animal is dead (Lechem Mishneh).
36.
Since retroactively, the animal will become consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple, the consecration as a sacrifice is not of consequence, as stated in Halachah 8.
37.
I.e., this evaluation is necessary to establish the extent of his obligation, but nothing more. We do not require him to wait until he actually redeems the animal. The Radbaz explains that there are commentaries that if the animal was not redeemed the Temple treasurers are required to be present at the offering of the animal, because the owner of a sacrifice must be present when it is offered. The Rambam does not, however, require the treasurers' presence.
38.
For the Sages decreed that the animal be considered as if its body has become consecrated.
39.
I.e., because the requirement to wait until its redemption is Rabbinic in origin.
40.
Rashi (Temurah 32a,b) states that in such an instance, the person is not required to pay anything for the dedication offering, because the animal was never evaluated.
41.
Burnt offerings, sin offerings, or guilt offerings.
42.
All other sacrifices.
43.
I.e., he pledged to bring an offering of a particular type. Afterwards, he designated an animal to be offered to fulfill his pledge. If the animal is lost or stolen, he is required to supply another animal.
44.
Since he is obligated to replace his sacrifices, he is required to redeem the consecrated animal.
45.
E.g., he said: "I will bring this animal as a burnt offering." In this instance, if the animal dies or is stolen, he is not required to replace it with another animal.
46.
I.e., one might think that since the animal itself is already designated as a sacrifice and the person is not required to replace it if stolen, it is no longer his, and he does not have the right to consecrate it at all.
47.
I.e., since the person could in fact bring the sacrifice, we evaluate how much that right is worth to a person.
48.
Since the person who consecrated the animal is not obligated to replace it, we do not require him to redeem it and offer it. Instead, anyone who desires to pay the estimated amount has the right to do so.
49.
An unblemished firstborn animal is offered as a sacrifice and a priest is given the right to partake of it, while a blemished one must be given to a priest to use as his private property.
50.
And the animal must be redeemed as stated in the previous halachah.
51.
This is speaking about a firstborn animal with a blemish. It becomes the priest's private property, as stated in Hilchot Bechorot 1:3. Hence, there is no question that he has the right to do as he pleases with it.
52.
I.e., we do not require the person who consecrated the animal to redeem it.
53.
See Leviticus 27:32; Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 6, for a description of this offering.
54.
In which instance, we follow the principles stated in Halachah 12. A price to be paid to offer the sacrifice is established. Anyone willing to pay that price may redeem the animal.
55.
I.e., if the animal selected to be sacrificed as a tithe offering dies or is stolen, he is not required to offer another animal in its place.
56.
The Rambam is referring to the half-shekelevery male is required to give to purchase his share of the communal offerings. SeeHilchot Shekalim, chs. 1-3.
57.
This is parallel to the law mentioned in Halachah 11, that a person may consecrate animals designated as sacrifices.
58.
The first fruits that were brought to the Temple and then given to the priests. See Exodus, ch. 23; Deuteronomy, ch. 26,Hilchot Bikkurim, chs. 1-4.
59.
For the bikkurim are not his, but rather the property of the priest.
60.
The bikkurim become the priest's private property (ibid. 4:14). Hence he may do with them whatever he desires.
61.
I.e., for the portion given to the priest becomes his private property.
62.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18, when a person consecrates a limb or an organ on which an animal's life depends, the entire animal becomes consecrated. Here, too, the servant cannot live with only half his body.
63.
Nevertheless the prohibition against meilah, misappropriating sacred property, do not apply. See Hilchot Meilah 5:10.
64.
I.e., they are sold to others and the proceeds of the sale are used for the sake of improvements to the Temple.
65.
For freeing them might create the impression that they were treating consecrated property with disdain and not seeking its full worth.
66.
In which instance, they will receive the market value of the servant.
67.
What the owner is attempting to do is to consecrate the servant's earnings. That, however, is not possible, for a person is unable to consecrate an entity that has not come into existence already (see Halachah 26). Therefore, he consecrates the servant's hands, for they do exist, and thus any earnings they produce become consecrated (Radbaz). Note the parallel in Halachah 28.
68.
A servant's master is not liable to provide for his sustenance (Hilchot Avadim 9:7). Hence that money must be taken from the servant's earnings. Nevertheless, since his earnings are consecrated, the process the Rambam continues to explain should be followed.
69.
Tosafot, Gittin 12b, explains that even a sum less than a p'rutah can be consecrated. (See Hilchot Meilah 7:8.) Nevertheless, the owner had the intent that this amount not be consecrated so that the servant would be able to sustain himself.
70.
The price that would be paid if he was sold as a servant in the marketplace.
71.
A servant is considered as property and consecrating him makes him the property of the Temple treasury. Hence it is entitled to all of his earnings. This does not apply with regard to a free man.
72.
Bava Kama 69b derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 27:14: "When a person will consecrate his house." Just as his house is his own, so too, everything he consecrates must be his own.
73.
All of the four types of people mentioned above are considered as independent personalities. Although a father and owner possess certain rights with regard to the earnings of these individuals, he does not own their physical persons. This applies even to his children who are beneath the age of majority (Arachin 28a). Similarly, a field that one acquires is never totally his, for he must return it to its original owners in the Jubilee.
74.
For there is no way that they could regain possession of it immediately. Nor may the watchman consecrate it, because it does not belong to him.
75.
I.e., although it is in the physical possession of the watchman, it is still considered as belonging to - and able to be secured by - the owner. See Halachah 25 and notes.
76.
And instead, claimed to be the legitimate owner.
77.
Proving his ownership through the testimony of witnesses or through a valid deed of title.
78.
This is a principle applicable in many aspects of Jewish business law. Land can never be stolen and is always considered as being in the possession of the person who has title to it. See Bava Metzia 7a.
79.
Even if the owner despairs of the recovery of the article, it is not desirable for the thief to consecrate it. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach5:7.
80.
Since a standard price for each article was established and the articles were left for sale, we assume that as soon as the person took the article, he committed himself to the purchase and hence, the sale is completed.
81.
For it is as if it was already sold.
82.
Since the price has to be established, until it is established, the sale is not complete. And until the sale is complete, the article is considered as belonging to the seller. Hence, the prospective purchaser is considered as the watchman of an entrusted article and the law stated in the final clause of Halachah 22 applies. Indeed, Bava Batra88a mentions this instance and from it, the law stated in Halachah 22 is derived.
83.
Kiryat Sefer explains the rationale for this ruling: Since the object has not come into existence as of yet, it is not in his domain. And, as stated in Halachah 22, a person cannot consecrate an article that is not in his domain.
84.
Needless to say, this applies when the person never owned the field he seeks to consecrate. By mentioning this instance, the Rambam (and his source, Ketubot 58b) emphasize that even though the person originally and ultimately owned the field, since he did not own it at the time he consecrated it, the consecration is not effective.
85.
The Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 258:15 emphasizes that his statement is not even considered a vow, because the wording used does not have the implication of a vow. See Halachah 31 which speaks of this issue. Note, however, the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Mechirah 22:15.
86.
I.e., the consecration is not effective, because the fruits of the woman's labor did not exist at the time her husband sought to consecrate them.
87.
As stated in Hilchot Ishut 12:3, all of the proceeds of the work a woman performs belong to her husband.
88.
For although the fruit did not exist at the time of the original consecration, the tree did. And once the tree is consecrated all the fruit it produces is consecrated. Similarly, the woman's hands exist at the time the consecration was made, and as a result, all the products of her work are consecrated.
Rabbenu Nissim does not accept the Rambam's ruling. He explains that although our Sages ordained that the profits from a woman's labor should be given to her husband, those profits are given in exchange for his support of her. If she desires, she has the right to withdraw from the arrangement, decline his support, and keep her earnings. Since she has this right, her hands are not on lien to her husband, and he cannot consecrate them. TheShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 81:1) follows the Rambam's view, while the Rama quotes that of Rabbenu Nissim.
89.
I.e., at the time he makes this statement it is in his possession.
90.
Even though he does not make a second statement, it becomes consecrated if and when he repurchases it.
91.
Thus the fact that he sells it to another person in the interim does not detract from the consecration.
92.
For a loan.
93.
Even though the field was not in his possession at the time he made his statement, since he had the right to redeem it, it is considered as if it were.
94.
And during that time, he did not have the right to redeem it.
95.
Although the house is the tenant's for the duration of the rental period, since ultimately it belongs to the owner, his consecration takes precedence over the rental agreement. For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 14, consecration takes precedence over other obligations.
Although as implied by the previous halachah, the owner could not consecrate a field given as security while it was in the possession of the lender, he has a greater right to the land in this instance. In the previous case, the field will not return to him unless he pays the loan, while in this instance, the home will return to him at the end of the rental period without payment. Hence he is considered to have greater rights over it and is given the right to consecrate it (Radbaz).
96.
He may, however, avoid the prohibition by paying his rent to the Temple treasury (Arachin 21a).
97.
This phrase indicates a law that the Rambam derived through the process of deduction without an explicit prior Rabbinic source.
98.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 1; Hilchot Nedarim1:4-5, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:13.
99.
I.e., were the person to have the intent to consecrate the article with this statement, the consecration would not be effective, because the article does not yet exist. He is not, however, consecrating the article, merely pledging to do so in the future. See also Hilchot Mechirah 22:15. On his notes to that source, the Ra'avad differs and maintains that for the statement to be considered a pledge, it must be worded in that matter. See Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Choshen Mishpat 212:7).
100.
After his vision of the ladder extending to heaven. He was speaking of "what You will give me," i.e., possessions that he would acquire in the future.
101.
When Jacob tells his wives of the message the angel gave him to return to Eretz Yisrael.
102.
I.e., the pledge he made is considered as a vow.
103.
The Radbaz explains that the second proof is necessary, because one might say that Jacob's reference to his vow refers to his statement: "And the Lord will be my God."
104.
See Hilchot Nazir 1:4 which states that he must observe the nazirite restrictions immediately, because he does not know how long he will live and he is required to fulfill his pledge before he dies.
The Ra'avad accepts the support from Jacob's statement, but not that from the nazirite's pledge, bringing two objections:
a) at present, it is within his potential to carry out the nazirite vow. Hence, the comparison to an entity that has not yet come into existence is not appropriate.
b) Since the person does not know when he will die, it is as if he has committed himself to observe the vow immediately. The Radbaz brings support for the Rambam's position.
105.
Just like a vow made in error is not binding (Hilchot Nedarim 8:3).
106.
I.e., we assume that his mention of a black ox was deliberate and intended to be a stipulation, not merely a statement of his supposition of what would happen.
107.
In which case, we might say that he would accept the change, because he will be saving money.
108.
In which case, we might say that he would accept the change, because he will be bringing a more attractive offering.
109.
This ruling has amazed the commentaries, because if the first entity does not become consecrated, how can the second? Seemingly, its consecration is dependent on that of the first.
The Radbaz seeks to explain that the second consecration is dependent not on the status of the initial article, but the intent of the donor who sought to consecrate it. He admits, however, that the interpretation is forced. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this clause is referring to a different concept entirely. If he had an article that was consecrated and extended its holiness to another article unintentionally, that article is consecrated.
Arachim Vacharamim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
Consecrated articles1 may not be redeemed with land, nor with servants, for an equation was created between servants and land,2 nor with promissory notes for their physical substance is not of financial worth.3 [This is derived from the expression:]4 "And he shall give the silver." [This includes] silver and other movable property that is worth silver,5 even bran.6
Halacha 2
Whenever a person redeems his consecrated property, he must add an additional fifth. The person who consecrated the property himself, his wife, or his heirs must all add a fifth, as we explained.7 This fifth must also only be movable property. The fifth itself becomes like the consecrated property and the same laws apply to them both.
Halacha 3
When a person redeems his consecrated articles, [failure to pay] the additional fifth does not hold back [the redemption]. Once the person paid the principal, the consecrated article is considered as an ordinary article and it is permitted to benefit from it [according to Scriptural Law]. According to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to benefit from it until one pays the additional fifth, lest one be negligent and fail to pay it. Nevertheless, on the Sabbath, [our Sages] gave one permission to partake [of a consecrated article that was redeemed] although the fifth was not paid for the sake of the enjoyment of the Sabbath.8 [Another reason for leniency is that] it is being demanded by the Temple treasurers.9
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply with regard to animals] consecrated for the sake of [sacrifice on] the altar which were [disqualified by] a blemish:10 If the person who consecrated it redeems it, he must add an additional fifth11 as is the rule with regard to other consecrated articles.12 The person who consecrated it for his own purposes is the one obligated to add a fifth, not the one who derives atonement through the [sacrifice after] it was redeemed.13
[One is] obligate to add a fifth [when redeeming the article that was] consecrated originally, but one [need] not add a fifth [when redeeming an article] whose consecration was a derivative,14 as [implied by Leviticus 27:15]: "If the one who consecrated [it] will redeem his home, he must add a fifth." [The verse mentions] "one who consecrated," and not one who extends that holiness.
Halacha 5
Accordingly, if one transferred the holiness of a [consecrated] animal - whether one consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple15 or one consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar that became blemished16 - to another animal or exchanged an animal consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar,17 When he redeems the second animal to which he transferred the holiness or which he exchanged for the sacrificial animal, he is not required to add a fifth.
Halacha 6
There is an unresolved doubt [in the following situation]: A person set aside a guilt offering for the sake of his atonement and it became blemished. He added a fifth to its value and transferred its holiness to another animal and received atonement by [sacrificing] another guilt offering.18 As explained in the appropriate place,19 [the animal to which the holiness was transferred] is left to pasture [until it becomes blemished and then its holiness transferred to a third animal which is sacrificed as a burnt offering.20 The question is:] Are we required to add a fifth [when redeeming that animal], because it is a burnt offering, it involves another body21 and is consecrated for a different purpose? Or are we not so required because its [holiness] stems from the initial consecration for which a fifth was already added.22
Halacha 7
The concept of exchanging an animal23 does not apply with regard to animals consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. For the Torah dealt with the concept of exchanging holiness only with regard to [animals] consecrated for [sacrifice on] the altar.24
What is implied? If a person had an ordinary animal and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple before him. If he said: "Let this one be substituted for this one" or "Let this one be exchanged for this one," his statements are of no consequence.25 If, however, he says: "This one is in place of this one" or "The holiness of this one is transferred to this one,"26 his statements are binding. The first animal returns to ordinary status and [its holiness] becomes attached to the second.
Halacha 8
The initial and preferred manner is that both [animals] consecrated for the sake of the improvement of the Temple and entities consecrated for the sake of the altar that became blemished should be redeemed only for their worth. If one transgressed and redeemed them for less than their worth, even if one redeemed consecrated property worth 100 dinarim with an article worth ap'rutah,27 the article is redeemed.28 It is considered as ordinary property and one is permitted to benefit from it. According to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth29 and the person redeeming it is obligated to make up the monetary difference.
Halacha 9
What is implied? A person had an animal consecrated [to be offered on] the altar and it became blemished. If it is worth ten [zuz] and there is an ordinary animal worth five and he says: "The holiness of this one is transferred to this," it is redeemed and its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. He must, however, pay the additional five [to the Temple treasury]. In the same way, [if a similar transfer was made] when the first animal was consecrated to the Temple treasury, its status becomes that of an ordinary animal. It may be shorn and put to work30 and the second animal assumes its [consecrated status] according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it is necessary to evaluate its worth to see whether the one to which its holiness was transferred was of equivalent value. If not, he must make up the monetary difference.
Halacha 10
If three people evaluated [the two animals involved] and said they were of equivalent value, the evaluation is not nullified even if 100 come afterwards and say that the animal that was consecrated was more valuable. Since the evaluation [of the animal's] worth is a Rabbinic requirement, our Sages were not strict with regard to it. If, however, two people made the original evaluation and then three people came and say that even the slightest advantage was taken of the Temple treasury,31 [the animal] is reevaluated.
Halacha 11
We do not redeem consecrated articles with a rough estimation instead, their worth is carefully evaluated, as we explained.32 If one redeemed a consecrated article [after making merely a rough estimation], the Temple treasury is given the upper hand.
What is implied? One says: "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated33be transferred to this cow" or "May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment," the consecrated article is redeemed and the Temple treasury is given the upper hand. If the second article is worth more than the first, the Temple treasurers take it and remain silent. If it is not worth the value of the first, [the redeemer] must pay the difference as we explained34 and he must add a fifth.
If, however, he said: May the holiness of this garment that is consecrated be transferred to this garment that is worth ten selaim" or "May the holiness of this cow that is consecrated be transferred to this cow that is worth tenselaim," he is required to add a fifth and must give two and a half selaim.35[The rationale is that] he redeemed it at a fixed price. It is not necessary to add a fifth when redeeming the second animal, as we explained.36
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when a person] redeems an article from the Temple treasury. If he drew the article into his possession37 when it was worth amaneh,38 but did not pay the money until it appreciated to 200, he must pay 200. [This is indicated by the expression:]39 "And he will pay the money and it will become his." It becomes his when he pays the money.40
If he drew it into his possession when it was worth 200, but did not pay the money until it depreciated to a maneh, he must pay 200. For the legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.41 He acquired it through drawing it into his possession and became liable for its value then.
Halacha 13
If he redeemed it at 200 and paid the money42 and did not draw into his possession until it depreciated to a maneh, he is considered to have acquired it when he paid the money.43 He should draw his article into his possession and the Temple treasury acquires the 200.
If he redeemed it at a maneh and paid the money, but did not draw it into his possession until it appreciated to 200, the redemption is allowed to stand. He is only required to pay the maneh that he paid already. In this instance, we do not say: The legal power of the Temple treasury should not be less than that of an ordinary person.44 [The rationale is that] even an ordinary person would not be able to retract unless he receives the admonition mi shepara, as will be explained in the appropriate place.45 And it is not proper to administer the admonition mi shepara to the Temple treasury.
Halacha 14
When a person consecrates all of his possessions and he is liable to [pay the money due his] wife [by virtue of her] ketubah or promissory notes [owed to] creditors, the woman may not collect [the money due her by virtue of her]ketubah from the Temple treasury, nor may a creditor collect the debt due him. The rationale is that consecration absolves prior liens.46 [Nevertheless,] when the Temple treasury sells his property and the field loses its consecrated status, the creditor and his wife may collect it from the redeemer, for the lien remains on this landed property.47
Halacha 15
To what can this be compared? To two purchasers. [One bought the property from a woman's husband and the other from the first purchaser. The woman] wrote to the first [purchaser] "I have no claim against you."48 [After] he sells it to the second person, she may expropriate the money due her from him.49
Halacha 16
How is this land redeemed?50 We administer an oath to the woman or the creditor first as is the process whenever one seeks to expropriate property that is on lien.51 Afterwards, we publicly announce its sale for 60 days in the morning and in the evening, as we explained.52 We say:53 How much a person will desire to give for this field in order to pay the woman [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah or the creditor his debt? A purchaser redeems it and acquires it even for a dinar,54 so that it is not said that consecrated property was released without being redeemed. Then the redeemer comes and gives the woman [the money due her by virtue of] herketubah or the creditor his debt. [This applies] even if the debt was 100 [zuz] and the field worth only 90, [for] the person who redeems it does so for this sake.
If, however, the debt was twice the value of the field, e.g., the field was worth 100 and it was on lien to a debt or a woman's ketubah for 200, we do not redeem it with the intent of paying the debt or [the money due the woman by virtue of] her ketubah. Instead, it is redeemed unconditionally,55 for if such a stipulation was required to be made, it would not be redeemed at all.
Halacha 17
When a person consecrates all of his property, divorces his wife, and [leaves her to] collect [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah from the one who redeems [his landed property] from the Temple treasury, she cannot collect [the debt] until he takes a vow,56 forbidding her to benefit from him. [This is a safeguard instituted,] lest an attempt be made to deceive the Temple treasury.57 We do not say that were he to desire [to nullify the consecration of his property], he should say: "I consecrated it in error," and ask a sage [to nullify] his consecration [in which instance, his property] would return to him.58
Halacha 18
Similarly, after59 consecrating his property, a person's word is not accepted if he says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so" or "This utensil belongs to so-and-so."60 [In this instance, we fear that] he is attempting to deceive the Temple treasury.61 Even if the creditor has a promissory note, he cannot use it to expropriate [the property from the Temple treasury].62 Instead, he must collect his due like the other creditors due, as explained.63
Halacha 19
When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy person. If, by contrast a mortally ill person consecrates all of his property and at the time he consecrates it says: "I owe a maneh to so-and-so," his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] a person will not try to deceive the Temple treasury at the time of his death and sin for the sake of others, for he is going to die.64Therefore if he says: "Give [the creditor his debt]," [the creditor] may collect it without having to take an oath.
If he did not say: "Give [the creditor...]," we do not give him this money unless he has a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. [In that instance,] he may collect [his debt] from the Temple treasury, because of the statements [the debtor made] on his deathbed.65 If he said to give [the money to the creditor] after he consecrated [his property],66 we do not heed his statements. Instead, this person is considered like other creditors. If the authenticity of his promissory note is verified, he must take an oath.67 He may then expropriate [the property] from the one who redeems it, but not from the Temple treasury.68
Halacha 20
We do not take heed of a rumor that says that a certain person declared all of his property ownerless, consecrated it, or made it a dedication offering unless there is clear proof69 [of its validity].
FOOTNOTES
1.
Articles which a person consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple.
2.
This applies not only in this context, but also in many other areas of Jewish business law. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:4; Hilchot Geneivah2:2, et al.
3.
A promissory note itself is not worth money. It is valuable because of the debt that it records.
4.
There is no such verse in the Tanach. The Rambam is referring to wording used by our Sages in Kiddushin 5a. They are also referring to a verse, but have shortened and edited Leviticus 27:19.
5.
This principle also applies in many aspects of Jewish business law. Objects that are worth silver may be used for the same purposes as silver (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon8:10).
6.
I.e., an object of minimal value.
7.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 5; Chapter 5, Halachah 3, and notes. As explained there, we are speaking of a fifth of the new total, a fourth of the original amount.
8.
Our Sages did not desire that his failure to pay the fifth prevent him from partaking of the entity, for this would reduce his Sabbath pleasure.
9.
Since the treasurers demand payment of the fifth the person is not likely to forget. Nevertheless, this rationale itself is not sufficient reason for leniency. Hence, during the week, when the mitzvah of delighting in the Sabbath does not apply, the treasurers' reminder is not sufficient reason to permit use of the entity (see Bava Metzia 54a).
10.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 11, which speaks of the redemption of such animals.
11.
This is reflected by Leviticus 27:13.
12.
See Halachah 2.
13.
I.e., if a person was obligated to bring a sacrifice and a colleague set aside an animal from his own resources for him to offer, that person required to bring the sacrifice is not required to pay an additional fifth if he redeems the animal.
14.
I.e., it was consecrated in the process of redeeming another article, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah. See Halachah 11 for details regarding the redemption of an article by transferring its holiness to a second article.
15.
In which instance, it must be redeemed whether blemished or unblemished. See Chapter 5, Halachot 5 and 12; see alsoHilchot Temurah 1:12.
16.
Since it is blemished, it is necessary to redeem it, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 11-12.
17.
The Rambam is speaking about a practice,temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1).
18.
Because the animal to which the holiness was transferred was lost or unable to be used for a sacrifice for other reasons.
19.
Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:14-15.
20.
For he is no longer obligated to bring a guilt offering, but must offer the worth of the animal as a sacrifice.
21.
I.e., it is not the same animal that was originally consecrated. Our translation represents a slight variation from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah that was made based on authentic manuscripts and early printings.
22.
Hence although the person is not obligated to pay the additional fifth, if the Temple treasurer seizes it, he cannot be required to relinquish it.
23.
The Rambam is speaking about a practice,temurah, that involves transferring the holiness of an animal consecrated as a sacrifice to another animal. Leviticus 27:10states that it is forbidden to make such an exchange, but if one does so both the animal originally consecrated and the one exchanged for it remain consecrated (ibid.:33; see Hilchot Temurah 1:1).
24.
Temurah 13a relates that the concept oftemurah, exchange, applies only with regard to sacrifices and an animal consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple is not considered a sacrifice.
25.
For these expressions imply temurah, exchange.
26.
I.e., using statements that indicate that he desires to redeem the animal and not exchange it.
27.
A coin of minimal worth.
28.
With regard to transactions between men, the laws of ona'ah (unfair gain) apply and a transaction can be nullified if it is sold for more or less than a sixth of its value (Hilchot Mechirah 12:4). These principles do not apply, however, with regard to consecrated property.
29.
I.e., to carefully evaluate its worth. See Halachah 11.
30.
While it is consecrated, both of these activities are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Meilah 1:12).
31.
With regard to transactions between private individuals, by contrast, as long as the difference between the article's value and the price for which it is sold is less than a sixth, the transaction is allowed to stand (Hilchot Mechirah 12:3).
32.
See Halachah 8.
33.
We are speaking about a cow consecrated for the sake of improvements to the Temple. If it were consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, even after its holiness were transferred to another animal, it would remain consecrated itself (Radbaz).
34.
See Halachah 8.
35.
As mentioned above, the fifth is one fifth of the new total including the fifth and the amount for which the article is redeemed. Since he stated the value of the article he was giving as ten selaim, the value of the fifth is calculated accordingly even though he is paying more than would actually have been required.
36.
Halachah 4.
37.
Performing meshichah, an act that would complete the kinyan (formal act of acquisition) of the article.
38.
100 zuz.
39.
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, the Rambam is not referring to an explicit verse in the Torah, but rather our Sages' restatement of the relevant verses inKiddushin 28b.
40.
And not when it enters his possession. Hence, he must pay the value at the time he redeems it.
41.
See Hilchot Mechirah 9:2. As mentioned above, when an ordinary person completesmeshichah, the transaction is completed and he must pay its price then. When it lost value, it was already in his possession.
42.
One might ask: Why must he actually pay the money? Seemingly the very fact that he pledged to redeem it from the Temple treasury at 200 should be sufficient to make him liable in accordance with the principle (Kiddushin 28b, et al): "A person's statements to the Temple treasury are equivalent to an ordinary person drawing the article into his possession." The Radbaz explains that in this instance, that principle is not applied, because it is possible to say that the pledge was made in error. He did not expect that the article would depreciate in value. Hence, unless he paid the money, he is not liable for the higher sum.
43.
And the depreciation is considered to have taken place in his possession as above.
44.
Since the transaction is not completed until the purchaser draws it into his possession, with regard to ordinary transactions, the purchaser would have the right to nullify the transaction. Nevertheless, were he to do so, he is liable to have the admonition mi shepara administered to him by the court (Hilchot Mechirah 7:1). As the Rambam continues to explain, it is not appropriate to have this admonition administered to the Temple treasurers.
45.
With regard to this admonition, ibid.:2 states: "He is cursed in court and told: 'May He who exacted retribution from the generation of the Flood, the generation of the Dispersion, the inhabitants of Sodom and Amorah, and the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, exact retribution from a person who does not keep his word.'
46.
I.e., were the person to sell all his possessions to a private person, his wife and his creditors would be able to collect their due from the landed property in his domain. Since the property becomes the possession of the Temple treasury, those obligations temporarily need not be met.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the liens are in effect even when the property is in the possession of the Temple treasury. Our Sages' statement (Ketubot 59b) that consecration absolves prior liens applies only with regard to the consecration of articles that themselves will be used for the Temple or its sacrifices, not articles to be sold and the proceeds used.
One of the practical differences between the Rambam's position and that of the Ra'avad is whether a person will be liable for me'ilah, misappropriating consecrating property, for benefiting from this property. In Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 18:7, the Rambam states similar ideas as in this halachah. In his gloss to that halachah, the Maggid Mishneh takes issue with the Rambam. Although, here, in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro defends the Rambam's position in hisShulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 117:7), it appears that he accepts the other view. TheTur and the Rama explicitly state that the Ra'avad's position should be followed.
47.
I.e., the property is redeemed with the awareness that it is under lien and that lien will ultimately be collected. Its price is calculated accordingly, as stated in Halachah 16.
48.
She had the right to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from this property, but she agreed not to press her claim against this individual.
49.
For the field remains on lien to her. The promise she gave the first purchaser is not binding with regard to the second.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point as well, maintaining that the woman does not have the right to expropriate the property from the second purchaser. For by purchasing the field, he purchased every right that the first purchaser had. Moreover, if forced to pay the woman, he could seek reimbursement from the first purchaser or nullify the sale. In his gloss to Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 19:8, the Maggid Mishneh supports the Ra'avad's view. The Kessef Mishneh, however, defends the Rambam's position.
50.
Since it is on lien, obviously, no one will desire to pay its actual worth.
51.
As stated in Hilchot Ishut 16:10,20 andHilchot Malveh ViLoveh 22:10, we do not expropriate the field for the wife or the creditor until he or she takes an oath while holding a sacred object that the debt was not collected, waived, or sold to another person.
52.
Chapter 3, Halachah 20; Chapter 4, Halachah 27.
53.
Our translation is based on manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.
54.
Although the initial preference is that consecrated property be redeemed for its full value (Halachah 8), that is not feasible in the present instance. Instead, the person is allowed to pay any sum he desires, for his profit may be small after paying the debt. Indeed, as the Rambam continues, he may even suffer a loss.
55.
And the lien on the field is ignored.
56.
This vow must be taken conditional to the consent of people at large. In this way, it can never be nullified. Note a parallel in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:9.
57.
I.e., he would remarry her and retake possession of a portion of his property in this way. See Hilchot Ishut 17:9-10. Arachin23a emphasizes that we are speaking about a healthy man. If a person on his death bed divorces his wife so that she will not have to undergo yibbum, he is not required to take such an oath, for we do not suspect that a person on his death bed will try to deceive the Temple treasury. See Halachah 19.
58.
For a consecration made in error can be nullified, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 34.
59.
If, however, he made such statements before consecrating his property, his word is accepted (Radbaz).
See the Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat255:5) who elaborates on the concept that even if he makes this statement directly after consecrating his property, it is not accepted. As support, he cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:1 where the Rambam writes that after a person consecrates an animal, even if he seeks to retract his consecration immediately, he cannot. The Radbaz (see his gloss to the following halachah) supports this view. TheKessef Mishneh, however, maintains that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it.
60.
I.e., the person claims to be holding it as an entrusted article.
61.
And prevent a certain portion of his property from having to be redeemed.
62.
For as stated in Halachah 14, consecration lifts liens on property.
63.
See Halachah 16.
64.
At such a time, when he will not derive any worldly benefit from sinning and is conscious of the retribution he will receive in the world to come, he will certainly not seek to deceive the Temple treasury.
65.
I.e., his acknowledgement of the debt. If, however, the creditor does not have a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, he cannot collect the debt, even though the debtor acknowledged it on his deathbed. The rationale is that (as stated in Hilchot To'ain ViNitan 6:7), a person is wont to state that he owes money even if he in fact does not so that his sons do not think of themselves as rich. His estate is not bound by these statements unless, as stated above, he explicitly instructed that the debt be paid or the creditor has a promissory note that has been verified. Even though in this instance, the money will be going to the Temple treasury and not to his sons, a similar rationale can still be applied. We say that he is admitting the debt so that people will not think of him as a person who hoarded money throughout his life (Sefer Meirat Einayim 255:12).
66.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, stating that the word of a person on his deathbed is accepted even he makes his statements after consecrating the article. For at the time he consecrates an article, the statements of a healthy person are also accepted.
In view of this objection, the Radbaz explains that there are three different time frameworks:
a) before the consecration is made - in which instance the statements of both a healthy man and one on his deathbed are accepted;
b) immediately after (toch k'dei dibbur) the consecration is made - in which instance the statements of a healthy man are not accepted and those of one on his deathbed are;
c) some time after the consecration is made - in which instance neither the statements of a healthy man nor those of one on his deathbed are accepted.
The Kessef Mishneh follows the same basic thrust in interpreting the Rambam, but differs regarding one point, maintaining that a healthy person can also retract his statement directly after making it. The difference between a healthy person and one on his deathbed is that when a person is on his deathbed, his word is accepted as long as he is still speaking of the deposition of his property even though it is not directly after he consecrated it.
67.
That he has not received payment for the debt.
68.
As stated, in Halachot 14, 16. The Ra'avad adds that if we are speaking about an entrusted article which the dying man acknowledged having received for safekeeping, it is returned to its owner without being redeemed. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily differ on this point.
69.
Through the testimony of witnesses or a contract that has been verified.
• English Text | Video Class•
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Adar II 5, 5776 · 15 March 2016
Friday Adar Sheini 5 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: P'kudei, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 29-34.
Tanya: To quote, by (p. 157)...quotation ends here. (p. 157).
Studying Talmud and related works, studying Chassidus, and actual avoda, are all imperative. Not only can there be no thought of one superseding or being superseded by the other, on the contrary, their relationship is symbiotic, mutually enriching: An ignorant person cannot be a chassid,1 so the study of Talmud and halacha is an absolute necessity. Who is a chassid? He who conducts himself with piety toward his Creator,2 so there must be the study of Chassidus, and the ultimate purpose of all study is, after all, actual avoda.
FOOTNOTES
1.Avot 2:5.
2.The simple meaning: One who serves G-d beyond the requirements of the law, b'hidur, performing Torah and mitzvot with more depth, more vitality; for this, study of Chassidus is essential. (See also Kislev 14, for a more profound, mystical meaning of "Who is a chassid etc...").
• Daily Thought:
The World at Your Feet
Why are the lives of the sages filled with miracles?
Because they open their minds to truth and labor over it day and night. They are the awakened mind of the cosmos—through them the Infinite Light enters this world.
So, of course, nature bows to them, the angels wait upon them, and everything is arranged to serve their mission.
And so it is with any one of us who seeks the truth and clings to it with heart and soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment