Candle Lighting
Light Holiday Candles after nightfall ––:––
Torah Reading
Pesach Day 1 / Shabbat: Exodus 12:21-23 Moses assembled all the elders of Israel. He said, “Select a lamb for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the bowl of blood and smear it on the lintel and on the two doorposts. No one is to leave the house until morning. God will pass through to strike Egypt down. When he sees the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, God will pass over the doorway; he won’t let the destroyer enter your house to strike you down with ruin.
24-27 “Keep this word. It’s the law for you and your children, forever. When you enter the land which God will give you as he promised, keep doing this. And when your children say to you, ‘Why are we doing this?’ tell them: ‘It’s the Passover-sacrifice to God who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt when he hit Egypt with death but rescued us.’”
The people bowed and worshiped.
28 The Israelites then went and did what God had commanded Moses and Aaron. They did it all.
29 At midnight God struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sits on his throne, right down to the firstborn of the prisoner locked up in jail. Also the firstborn of the animals.
30 Pharaoh got up that night, he and all his servants and everyone else in Egypt—what wild wailing and lament in Egypt! There wasn’t a house in which someone wasn’t dead.
31-32 Pharaoh called in Moses and Aaron that very night and said, “Get out of here and be done with you—you and your Israelites! Go worship God on your own terms. And yes, take your sheep and cattle as you’ve insisted, but go. And bless me.”
33 The Egyptians couldn’t wait to get rid of them; they pushed them to hurry up, saying, “We’re all as good as dead.”
34-36 The people grabbed their bread dough before it had risen, bundled their bread bowls in their cloaks and threw them over their shoulders. The Israelites had already done what Moses had told them; they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold things and clothing. God saw to it that the Egyptians liked the people and so readily gave them what they asked for. Oh yes! They picked those Egyptians clean.
37-39 The Israelites moved on from Rameses to Succoth, about 600,000 on foot, besides their dependents. There was also a crowd of riffraff tagging along, not to mention the large flocks and herds of livestock. They baked unraised cakes with the bread dough they had brought out of Egypt; it hadn’t raised—they’d been rushed out of Egypt and hadn’t time to fix food for the journey.
The Passover
40-42 The Israelites had lived in Egypt 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, God’s entire army left Egypt. God kept watch all night, watching over the Israelites as he brought them out of Egypt. Because God kept watch, all Israel for all generations will honor God by keeping watch this night—a watchnight.
43-47 God said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the rules for the Passover:
No foreigners are to eat it.
Any slave, if he’s paid for and circumcised, can eat it.
No casual visitor or hired hand can eat it.
Eat it in one house—don’t take the meat outside the house.
Don’t break any of the bones.
The whole community of Israel is to be included in the meal.
48 “If an immigrant is staying with you and wants to keep the Passover to God, every male in his family must be circumcised, then he can participate in the Meal—he will then be treated as a native son. But no uncircumcised person can eat it.
49 “The same law applies both to the native and the immigrant who is staying with you.”
50-51 All the Israelites did exactly as God commanded Moses and Aaron. That very day God brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, tribe by tribe.
Pesach Day 1 / Shabbat: Numbers 28:17-22 “For seven days, eat only unraised bread: Begin the first day in holy worship; don’t do any regular work that day. Bring a Fire-Gift to God, a Whole-Burnt-Offering: two young bulls, one ram, and seven male yearling lambs—all healthy. Prepare a Grain-Offering of six quarts of fine flour mixed with oil for each bull, four quarts for the ram, and two quarts for each lamb, plus a goat as an Absolution-Offering to atone for you.
23-24 “Sacrifice these in addition to the regular morning Whole-Burnt-Offering. Prepare the food this way for the Fire-Gift, a pleasing fragrance to God, every day for seven days. Prepare it in addition to the regular Whole-Burnt-Offering and Drink-Offering.
25 “Conclude the seventh day in holy worship; don’t do any regular work on that day.
Pesach Day 1: Joshua 3:5 Then Joshua addressed the people: “Sanctify yourselves. Tomorrow God will work miracle-wonders among you.”
6 Joshua instructed the priests, “Take up the Chest of the Covenant and step out before the people.” So they took it up and processed before the people.
7-8 God said to Joshua, “This very day I will begin to make you great in the eyes of all Israel. They’ll see for themselves that I’m with you in the same way that I was with Moses. You will command the priests who are carrying the Chest of the Covenant: ‘When you come to the edge of the Jordan’s waters, stand there on the river bank.’”
Joshua 5:2-3 At that time God said to Joshua, “Make stone knives and circumcise the People of Israel a second time.” So Joshua made stone knives and circumcised the People of Israel at Foreskins Hill.
4-7 This is why Joshua conducted the circumcision. All the males who had left Egypt, the soldiers, had died in the wilderness on the journey out of Egypt. All the people who had come out of Egypt, of course, had been circumcised, but all those born in the wilderness along the way since leaving Egypt had not been. The fact is that the People of Israel had walked through that wilderness for forty years until the entire nation died out, all the men of military age who had come out of Egypt but had disobeyed the call of God. God vowed that these would never lay eyes on the land God had solemnly promised their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. But their children had replaced them. These are the ones Joshua circumcised. They had never been circumcised; no one had circumcised them along the way.
8 When they had completed the circumcising of the whole nation, they stayed where they were in camp until they were healed.
9 God said to Joshua, “Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt.” That’s why the place is called The Gilgal. It’s still called that.
10 The People of Israel continued to camp at The Gilgal. They celebrated the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month on the plains of Jericho.
11-12 Right away, the day after the Passover, they started eating the produce of that country, unraised bread and roasted grain. And then no more manna; the manna stopped. As soon as they started eating food grown in the land, there was no more manna for the People of Israel. That year they ate from the crops of Canaan.
13 And then this, while Joshua was there near Jericho: He looked up and saw right in front of him a man standing, holding his drawn sword. Joshua stepped up to him and said, “Whose side are you on—ours or our enemies’?”
14 He said, “Neither. I’m commander of God’s army. I’ve just arrived.” Joshua fell, face to the ground, and worshiped. He asked, “What orders does my Master have for his servant?”
15 God’s army commander ordered Joshua, “Take your sandals off your feet. The place you are standing is holy.”
Joshua did it.
Jericho
6:1 Jericho was shut up tight as a drum because of the People of Israel: no one going in, no one coming out.
Joshua 6:27 God was with Joshua. He became famous all over the land.
Today's Laws & Customs:• Passover Torah Readings
Click here for a summary of the Passover Torah readings.
• Prayer for Dew ('Tal')
The month of Nissan marks the ends of the "season of rains" in the Holy Land. Beginning with the Mussaf prayer of the 1st day of Passover, we omit the passage in our prayers praising G-d's greatness as a provider of rain (Mashiv haruach umorid hageshem), substituting it with the words Morid hatal ("Who brings down dew").
Link: Winter
• Begin Omer Count Tonight
"And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Shabbat, from the day on which you bring the Omer offering, seven complete weeks they shall be; until the morrow of the seventh week, you shall count fifty days..." (Leviticus 23:15)
The "morrow of the Shabbat" referred to in this verse is the 16th of Nissan--the 2nd day of Passover, which begins tonight at nightfall. On this day, the "Omer Offering"--which included matzahs baked from the new crop of barley harvested that very day--was brought in the Holy Temple. (No grain from new harvest was allowed to be eaten before the Omer offering was brought.) Thus 16th of Nissan also commences the 49-day "Counting of the Omer", which retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer. The 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai. Tonight we count: "Today is one day to the Omer."
Tonight's Sefirah: Chessed sheb'Chessed -- "Kindness in Kindness"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod,Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
See also: "Sefirah" Mourning Practices
• 2nd Seder Tonight
Outside of the Holy Land, biblical festivals are observed for an extra day. So in addition to thePassover Seder conducted last night for the 1st day of Passover, a second Seder is conductedtonight, when the 2nd day of Passover begins (on the Jewish Calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening).
Links:
www.Passover.net includes a Seder guide, text of the Haggadah, in-depth studies, and more
The Seder Wizard is a step-by-step guide to conducting the Seder
Today in Jewish History:
• "Covenant Between the Parts" (1743 BCE)
On the 15th of Nissan of the year 2018 from creation (1743 BCE) G-d forged a special covenant with Abraham in which the destiny of the Jewish people was foretold: the Holy Land was bequeathed to them as their eternal heritage, but first they would have to experiencegalut--exile and persecution. "And He said to Abram: 'Know surely that your descendents shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will be enslaved to them, and they will afflict them four hundred years... and afterwards they shall come out with great wealth.' And when the sun went down and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace and a burning torch which passed between those pieces... On that day G-d made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'To your seed I have given these land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates'" (Genesis 15:13-18).
Links:
The Covenant Between the Parts
Great Wealth
Sparks
• Abraham Battles Four Kings (1738 BCE?)
When Lot was taken captive by the four kings who conquered the "five cities of the plain" (Sodom, Gomorra, Admah, Zevoim and Zoar), Abraham, aided only by a small band of loyal servants, went to battle to rescue his nephew; "the night divided for them, for him and his servants, and they defeated them, pursuing them to Hovah, which is to the left of Damascus... And he recovered all the property; also his kinsman, Lot, and his property were recovered, and also the women and the people" (Genesis 14:15-16).
Link: Abraham's battle
• Angels Visit Abraham (1714 BCE)
On the 3rd day following his circumcision at age 99 (see "Today in Jewish History" for Nissan 13) three angels visited Abraham: Rephael healed him, and Michael informed Abraham and Sarah that, in exactly one year, a son will be born to them. (The third angel, Gabriel, proceeded to Sodom to destroy the wicked city).
Link:
More on Angels
• Isaac Born (1713 BCE)
"G-d remembered Sarah as He had said; and G-d did to Sarah as He had spoken. And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which G-d had spoken to him... Abraham was a hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born to him. And Sarah declared: 'G-d has made laughter for me, so that all that hear will laugh ('yitzchak') with me'" (Genesis 21:1-6).
Links:
The Resemblance
Learning to Laugh
• Jacob Wrestles with Esau's Angel (1556 BCE)
"And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him. And he (the angel) said, 'Let me go, for dawn is breaking,' but he (Jacob) said, 'I will not let you go unless you have blessed me.' So he said to him, 'What is your name?' and he said, 'Jacob.' And he said, 'Your name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for you have contended with G-d and with men, and have prevailed'" (Genesis 32:25-29). It was the eve of Nissan 15.
The next morning, Jacob confronted Esau in the flesh. Esau, who had come with a band of armed men with the intention to kill his brother, "ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept". Esau invited Jacob to join him in his mountain kingdom of Se'ir, but Jacob replied, "Please, let my lord go on ahead before his servant; and I will lead on slowly, according to the pace of the cattle that goes before me and the children, until I come to my lord to Se'ir" -- a promise yet to be fulfilled (ibid., 33:4-14).
Links:
Wrestling with Angels
Facing Reality
Why Does Esau Hate Jacob?
• Moses at Burning Bush (1314 BCE)
On the 15th of Nissan of the year 2447 from creation (1314 BCE) -- exactly one year before the Exodus -- Moses was shepherding the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, at the foot of Mount Sinai, when G-d appeared to him in a "thornbush that burned with fire, but was not consumed" and instructed him to return to Egypt, come before Pharaoh, and demand in the name of G-d: "Let My people go, so that they may serve Me." For seven days and seven nights Moses argued with G-d, pleading that he is the wrong person for the job, before accepting the mission to redeem the people of Israel and bring them to Sinai.
Links:
Moses at the Burning Bush
I Am
• The Exodus (1313 BCE)
At the stroke of midnight of Nissan 15 of the year 2448 from creation (1313 BCE), 210 years after Jacob settled in Egypt and 430 years after the "Covenant Between the Parts," G-d visited the last of the ten plagues on the Egyptians, killing all their firstborn. Earlier that evening, the Children of Israel conducted the first "seder" of history, eating the roasted meat of the Passover offering with matzot and bitter herbs, and sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice on their doorposts as a sign that G-d will "pass over" their homes when inflicting the plague upon the Egyptians. Pharaoh's resistance to free them was broken, and he virtually chased his former slaves out of the land. Several million souls--600,000 adult males, plus the woman and children, and a large "mixed multitude" of non-Hebrews who joined them -- left Egypt on that day, and began the 50-day trek to Sinai and their birth as G-d's chosen people.
Links: 19 Flavors of Freedom; Exploring Passover
• Queen Vashti Executed (366 BCE)
On the seventh day of his royal feast (see Jewish history for 9 Nissan), King Achashverosh demanded that the Queen Vashti appear unclothed to display her beauty before all the attending guests. When Vashti refused this obscene request, the king had her executed.
Her ignominious death on Shabbat was divine retribution for her penchant to force Jewish girls to work on Shabbat, and paved the way for Esther to become queen and save the Jewish nation from Haman's plot.
Links:
The Death Verdict
Mordechai and Esther
• Daniel in Lions' Den (372 BCE)
Daniel was cast into a den of hungry lions by Darius I of Persia for violating a royal edict that no man may pray to any god save the king for 30 days. Miraculously, the lions did not touch him, and he emerged from the den unscathed (Daniel 6:5-29).
Links: Monotheism in Rostov; more on Mesirat Nefesh (self sacrifice)
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei, 7th Portion Leviticus 18:22-18:30 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 18
22You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination. כב וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תּֽוֹעֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא:
23And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity. כגוּבְכָל־בְּהֵמָ֛ה לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ֖ לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה לֹא־תַֽעֲמֹ֞ד לִפְנֵ֧י בְהֵמָ֛ה לְרִבְעָ֖הּ תֶּ֥בֶל הֽוּא:
this is depravity: Heb. תֶּבֶל, an expression denoting prostitution, sexual immorality, and adultery. Similarly, “and My wrath, because of their depravity (תַּבְלִיתָם).” (Isa. 10:25) Another explanation of תֶּבֶל הוּא : An expression which denotes mingling (בּלל) and mixing up; [here, it refers to the perverted mingling of] human seed and animal seed.
תבל הוא: לשון קדש וערוה וניאוף, וכן ואפי על תבליתם (ישעיה י כה). דבר אחר תבל הוא לשון בלילה וערבוב, זרע אדם וזרע בהמה:
24You shall not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations, whom I am sending away from before you, have defiled themselves with all these things. כדאַל־תִּטַּמְּא֖וּ בְּכָל־אֵ֑לֶּה כִּ֤י בְכָל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ נִטְמְא֣וּ הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ מִפְּנֵיכֶֽם:
25And the land became defiled, and I visited its sin upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. כהוַתִּטְמָ֣א הָאָ֔רֶץ וָֽאֶפְקֹ֥ד עֲוֹנָ֖הּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וַתָּקִ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֶת־יֽשְׁבֶֽיהָ:
26But as for you, you shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, and you shall not do like any of these abominations neither the native, nor the stranger who sojourns among you. כווּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם אַתֶּ֗ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י וְלֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה הָֽאֶזְרָ֔ח וְהַגֵּ֖ר הַגָּ֥ר בְּתֽוֹכְכֶֽם:
27For the people of the land who preceded you, did all of these abominations, and the land became defiled. כזכִּ֚י אֶת־כָּל־הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֣ת הָאֵ֔ל עָשׂ֥וּ אַנְשֵֽׁי־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לִפְנֵיכֶ֑ם וַתִּטְמָ֖א הָאָֽרֶץ:
28And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you. כחוְלֹֽא־תָקִ֤יא הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם בְּטַמַּֽאֲכֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑הּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר קָאָ֛ה אֶת־הַגּ֖וֹי אֲשֶׁ֥ר לִפְנֵיכֶֽם:
And let the land not vomit you out: This can be compared to a prince who was fed obnoxious food, which could not stay in his intestines; so he vomited it out. Likewise, the Land of Israel cannot retain transgressors [and thus, it vomits them out]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:123] The Targum rendersוְלֹאתָקִיא, as: וְלֹא תְרוֹקֵן as:, denoting “emptying out” (רִקּוּן), i.e., the Land empties itself of the transgressors.
ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם: משל לבן מלך שהאכילוהו דבר מאוס, שאין עומד במעיו אלא מקיאו, כך ארץ ישראל אינה מקיימת עוברי עבירה. ותרגומו ולא תרוקין, לשון ריקון, מריקה עצמה מהם:
29For anyone who commits any of these abominations, the persons doing so shall be cut off from the midst of their people. כטכִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ הַנְּפָשׁ֥וֹת הָֽעֹשׂ֖ת מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽם:
the people doing so: הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשׂת. [Since the verse begins, “anyone who does,” it should have used the singular form here. By using the plural, “the people doing so,”] it means both the male and female [involved in the act]. — [B.K. 32a]
הנפשות העשת: הזכר והנקבה במשמע:
30And you shall observe My charge, not to commit any of the abominable practices that were done before you, and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord your God. לוּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֗י לְבִלְתִּ֨י עֲשׂ֜וֹת מֵֽחֻקּ֤וֹת הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹת֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נַֽעֲשׂ֣וּ לִפְנֵיכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִטַּמְּא֖וּ בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
And you shall observe My charge: This [clause come] to admonish the courts regarding the matter. — [Torath Kohanim 18:151]
ושמרתם את משמרתי: להזהיר בית דין על כך:
and you shall not become defiled by them. I am the Lord, your God: But if you do become defiled,“ [says God,] ”I am not your God, and you will be cut off from Me. What benefit will I have from you? Moreover, you will deserve annihilation.“ Therefore, it says, ”I am the Lord, your God." - [Torath Kohanim 18:151]
ולא תטמאו בהם אני ה' אלהיכם: הא אם תטמאו, איני אלהיכם, ואתם נפסלים מאחרי, ומה הנאה יש לי בכם, ואתם מתחייבים כלייה, לכך נאמר אני ה' אלהיכם:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 77 - 78• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 77
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 by Asaph, a psalm.
2. [I raise] my voice to God and cry out; [I raise] my voice to God and He will listen to me.
3. On the day of my distress I sought my Lord. My wound oozes at night and does not abate; my soul refuses to be consoled.
4. I remember God and I moan; I speak and my spirit faints, Selah.
5. You grasped my eyelids; I am broken, I cannot speak.
6. I think of olden days, of ancient years.
7. During the night I recall my music, I meditate with my heart, and my spirit searches:
8. Is it for eternity that my Lord forsakes [me], nevermore to be appeased?
9. Has His kindness ceased forever? Has He sealed the decree for all generations?
10. Has God forgotten mercy? Has He in anger restrained His compassion forever?
11. I said, "It is to ter- rify me that the right hand of the Most High changes.”
12. I remember the deeds of Yah, when I remember Your wonders of long ago.
13. I meditate on all Your works, and speak of Your deeds.
14. O God, Your way is in sanctity; what god is as great as God?
15. You are the God Who works wonders; You make Your might known among the nations.
16. You redeemed Your people with a mighty arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah.
17. The waters2 saw You, O God, the waters saw You and trembled; even the deep shuddered.
18. The clouds streamed water, the heavens sounded forth, even Your arrows flew about.
19. The sound of Your thunder was in the rolling wind; lightning lit up the world; the earth trembled and quaked.
20. Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; and Your footsteps were not known.3
21. You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument(Metzudot).
2.Of the Red Sea.
3.The waters returned to cover the trail.
Chapter 78
This psalm recounts all the miracles that God wrought for Israel, from the exodus of Egypt to David's becoming king over Israel.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Listen, my people, to my teaching; incline your ear to the words of my mouth.
2. I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles of long ago;
3. that which we have heard and know [to be true], and that our fathers have told us.
4. We will not withhold from their children, telling the final generation the praises of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders He has performed.
5. He established a testimony in Jacob, and set down the Torah in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to make known to their children,
6. so that the last generation shall know; children yet to be born will rise and tell their children,
7. and they shall put their hope in God, and not forget the works of the Almighty; and they shall guard His commandments.
8. And they shall not be like their fathers, a wayward and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart straight, and whose spirit was not faithful to God.
9. The children of Ephraim, armed archers, retreated on the day of battle.2
10. They did not keep the covenant of God, and refused to follow His Torah.
11. They forgot His deeds and His wonders that He had shown them.
12. He performed wonders before their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.3
13. He split the sea and brought them across; He erected the waters like a wall.
14. He led them with a cloud by day, and all night long with the light of fire.
15. He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them to drink as if from the abundant depths.
16. And He brought forth flowing waters from the rock, and caused waters to descend like rivers.
17. Yet they again continued to sin against Him, to provoke the Most High in the parched land.
18. And they tested God in their hearts, by requesting food for their craving.
19. They spoke against God; they said, "Can God set a table in the wilderness?
20. True, He hit the rock and waters flowed, streams gushed forth; but can He also give bread? Will He prepare meat for His people?”
21. And so the Lord heard and was enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob; wrath, too, flared against Israel.
22. For they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation,
23. [though] He had commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven.
24. He had rained upon them manna to eat, and given them grain of heaven.
25. Man ate the bread of angels; He sent them [enough] provisions to satiate.
26. He drove the east wind through the heaven, and led the south wind with His might.
27. He rained meat upon them like dust, winged birds like the sand of seas;
28. and He dropped them inside His camp, around His dwellings.
29. And they ate and were very satiated, for He brought them their desire.
30. They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths,
31. when the wrath of God rose against them and slew their mighty ones, and brought down the chosen of Israel.
32. Despite this, they sinned again, and did not believe in His wonders;
33. so He ended their days in futility, and their years in terror.
34. When He slew them they would seek Him, they would return and pray to God.
35. They remembered that God is their rock, God the Most High, their redeemer.
36. But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and deceived Him with their tongue.
37. Their heart was not steadfast with Him; they were not faithful to His covenant.
38. Yet He is compassionate, pardons iniquity, and does not destroy; time and again He turns away His anger, and does not arouse all His wrath.
39. He remembered that they were but flesh, a spirit that leaves and does not return.
40. How often they provoked Him in the desert, and grieved Him in the wasteland!
41. Again and again they tested God, and sought a sign from the Holy One of Israel.
42. They did not remember His hand, the day He redeemed them from the oppressor;
43. that He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan.
44. He turned their rivers to blood, and made their flowing waters undrinkable.
45. He sent against them a mixture of beasts which devoured them, and frogs that destroyed them.
46. He gave their produce to the grasshopper, and their toil to the locust.
47. He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with biting frost.
48. He delivered their animals to the hail, and their livestock to fiery bolts.
49. He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, rage, and affliction; a delegation of messengers of evil.
50. He leveled a path for His anger, and did not spare their soul from death; He delivered their animals to pestilence.
51. He struck every firstborn in Egypt, the first fruit of their strength in the tents of Ham.4
52. He drove His nation like sheep, and guided them like a flock in the desert.
53. He led them in security and they did not fear, for the sea covered their enemies.
54. And He brought them to the boundary of His holy place, this mountain which His right hand acquired.
55. He drove out nations before them, and allotted them an inheritance [measured] by the cord; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
56. Yet they tested and defied God, the Most High, and did not keep His testimonies.
57. They regressed and rebelled like their fathers; they turned around like a deceptive bow.
58. They angered Him with their high altars, and provoked Him with their idols.
59. God heard and was enraged, and He was utterly disgusted with Israel;
60. And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shilo, the Tent where He had dwelled among men.
61. He put His might into captivity, and His glory into the hand of the oppressor.
62. He delivered His nation to the sword, and was enraged with His inheritance.
63. Fire consumed His young men, and His maidens had no marriage song.
64. His priests fell by the sword, and their widows did not weep.5
65. And the Lord awoke like one who had been asleep, like a warrior shouting [to sober himself] from wine.
66. He beat His enemies into retreat, and dealt them eternal disgrace.
67. He was disgusted with the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim.
68. He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loves.
69. And He built His Sanctuary [permanent as] the heavens; like the earth, He established it forever.
70. And He chose David His servant, and took him from the sheep corrals.
71. From following the nursing ewes, He brought Him to shepherd His nation Jacob, Israel His inheritance.
72. And he tended them with the integrity of his heart, and led them with the skill of his hands.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
2.The Ephraimites escaped Egypt before the other tribes, but were defeated when trying to enter the land of Canaan.
3.Capital of Egypt (Radak).
4.Progenitor of the Egyptians.
5.They died before being able to weep (Targum).
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5776 · April 23, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41
• But what of one who finds it impossible to arouse even a feeling of intellectual awe of G‑d? — The Alter Rebbe will now go on to say that since this individual, too, meditates upon the above-mentioned concepts, and, furthermore, his intent during the study of Torah and the performance of mitzvot is to serve G‑d, these activities are therefore also deemed to constitute a completely valid form of service.
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5776 · April 23, 2016
והנה אף מי שגם במוחו ומחשבתו אינו מרגיש שום יראה ובושה
Furthermore, even in the case of an individual who even in his mind and thought feels no fear or shame,
I.e., an individual who is not moved by his contemplation of G‑d uniquely bestowing His Kingdom upon him, and furthermore, is not moved by the consideration that G‑d is scrutinizing him to see if he is serving Him as is fitting,
מפני פחיתות ערך נפשו ממקור חוצבה ממדריגות תחתונים די׳ ספירות דעשיה
on account of the limited grade of his soul, originating in the lower degrees of the Ten Sefirot of Asiyah,
The soul of this individual derives from Asiyah, the lowest of the Four Worlds. Moreover, within this World itself, it originates from the lowest degrees of the Ten Sefirot that span it. Since his soul stems from such a lowly level, he finds it impossible to reveal within himself a sensitivity to G‑dliness, to experience even an intellectual fear of G‑d.
אף על פי כן מאחר שמתכוין בעבודתו כדי לעבוד את המלך, הרי זו עבודה גמורה
nevertheless, since he is intent in his service to serve the King, this is unequivocally a complete service.
כי היראה והעבודה נחשבות לשתי מצות במנין תרי״ג, ואינן מעכבות זו את זו
For fear and service are accounted as two commandments of the total of 613, and they do not exclude each other.
Thus, although this individual fails to fulfill the command of fearing G‑d, for fear must be felt in one’s heart and at the very least in one’s mind, he is nevertheless able to fulfill the precept of divine service by studying Torah and performing the commandments with the intention that he is thereby serving G‑d, his King.
After all this has been said, the Alter Rebbe will now say, that although this person fails to experience the fear even in his mind, yet since he thinks about those ideas which should evoke fear, he is fulfilling the command of fearing G‑d.
ועוד, שבאמת מקיים גם מצות יראה במה שממשיך היראה במחשבתו
Furthermore, as a matter of fact, he not only fulfills the obligation of service, he also fulfills the commandment of fearing [G‑d] by introducing the fear into his thought — by thinking about it and seeking to arouse it,
כי בשעה ורגע זו, על כל פנים, מורא שמים עליו, על כל פנים כמורא בשר ודם הדיוט לפחות, שאינו מלך, המביט עליו
for at this hour and moment, at any rate, there rests upon him the fear of heaven, at least like one’s fear in the presence of an ordinary mortal, even not a king, who is watching him,
שנמנע בעבורו מלעשות דבר שאינו הגון בעיניו
when he would refrain from doing anything unseemly in the other’s eyes.
שזו נקראת יראה, כמו שאמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לתלמידיו: יהי רצון שיהא מורא שמים עליכם כמורא בשר ודם כו׳
This — even this simple expression of fear — is termed fear; as Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said to his disciples:1 “May it be G‑d’s Will that the fear of heaven be upon you like the fear of a human being.”
Whereupon his disciples protested: “No more than this?!”
תדעו כשאדם עובר עבירה, אומר: שלא יראני אדם כו׳
He responded that the proof that this is indeed a true form of fear is as follows: “...For you know that when a person commits a sin, he says [to himself]: ‘May no one see me!’...”
Such fear, held Rabbi Yochanan, would ensure that they refrain from sinning.
At any rate, we note that this manner of fear is duly designated as “fear of heaven,” because it distances a person from sin. Accordingly, attaining this level of fear through meditation amounts to a proper fulfillment of the command to fear G‑d.
רק שיראה זו נקראת יראה תתאה ויראת חטא, שקודמת לחכמתו
Such fear, however, is termed yirah tata‘ah (“lower-level fear”) and yirat chet (“fear of sin”), which precedes wisdom;2 i.e., it is only a lower level of fear, a fear of transgressing, rather than a fear of G‑d Himself,
For “wisdom” is an appelation for the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot, inasmuch as3 “the ultimate purpose of wisdom is repentance and good deeds.” This lower level of fear is therefore considered a prelude to Torah and mitzvot. And, indeed, in this spirit our Sages state:4 “If there is no fear, there is no wisdom.”
Conversely,5 however, our Sages also state:6 “If there is no wisdom, there is no fear,” which would seem to imply the very opposite — that wisdom precedes fear.
In fact there is no contradiction between the two statements. For there are two levels of fear: (a) yirah tata‘ah, the lower level of fear, and (b) yirah ila’ah, the higher level of fear.
The lower level of fear is a necessary prelude to “wisdom”, to the proper fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot. The higher level of fear, however, can only be attained after “wisdom”, i.e., after the proper performance of Torah and mitzvot. Hence, “If there is no wisdom, there is no fear.”
ויראה עילאה הוא ירא בושת כו׳
while the higher fear is a “shamefaced fear,” i.e., the state of being abashed and overawed in G‑d’s presence.
דאית יראה ואית יראה כו׳
For there are two kinds of fear... — the lower level of fear which leads to the performance of Torah and mitzvot, and the higher level of fear which results from the proper performance of Torah and mitzvot.
אבל בלי יראה כלל, לא פרחא לעילא באהבה לבדה, כמו שהעוף אינו יכול לפרוח בכנף אחד
Without any fear at all, however, it i.e., one’s fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot does not soar on high to the supernal Sefirot through love alone, just as a bird cannot fly with one wing,7
דדחילו ורחימו הן תרין גדפין כמו שכתוב בתיקונים
for fear and love are the two wings (as stated in Tikkunei Zohar).
The spiritual wings of love and fear of G‑d elevate the Torah and mitzvot performed under their impetus to the supernal Sefirot, as explained in the previous chapters. When one lacks a fear of G‑d and acts only out of love, he is operating with only one “wing”, thus making it impossible for his Torah and mitzvot to soar on high.
וכן היראה לבדה היא כנף אחד, ולא פרחה בה לעילא, אף שנקראת עבודת עבד
Similarly, fear alone is but one wing, and [one’s service] cannot ascend with it on high, even though it is termed the “service of a servant,” duly motivated by awe, or fear,
וצריך להיות גם כן בחינת בן
for there must also be [the service characteristic of] a “son”, i.e., service motivated by love,
לעורר האהבה הטבעית על כל פנים המסותרת בלבו, שתהא בהתגלות מוחו על כל פנים
in order to awaken at least the natural love for G‑d that is hidden in one’s heart, so that he should at least become conscious of it in his mind,
לזכור אהבתו לה׳ אחד במחשבתו וברצונו לדבקה בו יתברך
to recall his love of the One G‑d in his thought, and in his desire to cleave to Him. This recollection of his hidden love for G‑d should arouse within him a desire to cleave to Him.
וזאת תהיה כוונתו בעסק התורה או המצוה הזו
This should be his intent when occupying himself with the Torah, or with the particular commandment he is about to perform, viz.,
לדבקה בו נפשו האלקית והחיונית ולבושיהן כנ״ל
that his divine soul as well as his vivifying soul, together with their “garments”, shall cleave to Him, as has been explained above.
In summary: a Jew’s divine service must embrace both that of a son who serves his father out of love, and that of a servant who serves his master out of fear and awe.
FOOTNOTES
1.Berachot 28b.
2.See Avot 3:9.
3.Berachot 17a.
4.Avot 3:17.
5.See beginning of ch. 43, where this subject is treated in greater detail.
6.Avot 3:17.
7.The Rebbe notes that this does not contradict the statement of the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 39:8, quoted in Tosafot, Shabbat 49a, s.v. כנפיה), that when a dove is tired it “flies with one wing,” indicating that a bird can indeed fly with only one wing.
There is no contradiction, because the Midrash concludes with the words, “(it flies with one) and rests with one”; the bird possesses both wings. Here, however, the Alter Rebbe is describing a situation where the individual possesses only a love of G‑d and lacks fear of Him; he thus completely lacks the second “wing”.
Furthermore, according to the Midrashic text and commentary of the Matnot Kehunah, although the dove is mostly flying with one wing it also makes use, albeit minimal use, of the second wing as well; even a dove cannot fly with just one of its two wings.
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5776 · April 23, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 94
Burning the Fats of a Blemished Animal on the Altar
"Nor shall you make a fire offering of them"—Leviticus 22:22.
It is forbidden to burn the fats of an animal with a permanent blemish on the altar.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Burning the Fats of a Blemished Animal on the Altar
Negative Commandment 94
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 94th prohibition is that we are forbidden from burning the fats of a blemished animal [on the altar].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not place any of them on the altar as a burnt-offering." The Sifra says, "The verse, 'Do not place any of them as a burnt-offering,' refers to the fats. The phrase, 'Do not place,' implies [that a prohibition exists only if one burns] all of them. How do I know [that it is prohibited to burn] even some of them? This is derived from the phrase, 'any of them' — i.e. even some of them." It is therefore clear that one who sacrifices a blemished animal transgresses four prohibitions [N91-94].
But this is true only if we count burning the fats as a single prohibition. However, if we would count burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats as two prohibitions, as this Sage does here, you would have a total of five prohibitions. This is because he considers "some" of the fats to be one thing, and "all" of them to be something else, as he said, "even any of them."
This is so even though it [burning the fats] is essentially one prohibition, because this Sage holds that one is lashed for [each element of] a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition].2 Therefore the Sifra says, "One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions: designating, slaughtering, sprinkling the blood, burning the fats, and burning a portion of the fats."
The Gemara says in Temurah,3 "In a case of one who brought the limbs of a blemished animal to the altar — Abaye says he is lashed separately for burning 'all' and for burning 'some.' Rava says, we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus." The Gemara then presents a contradiction: "But it says, 'One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions,' which shows that we do give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus! This disproves Rava!"4
This discussion shows that [the Sifra] counts them as five prohibitions because of the opinion that we give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, and therefore the prohibitions of burning "all" and "some" are counted separately. As is well known, this is Abaye's opinion in all cases, as we explained in the Ninth Principle that preceded this work. But according the Rava, who holds that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, one would receive only one set of lashes for burning the fats, as we explained.
We have already explained that the final law is that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, as explained in tractate Sanhedrin5 and as we demonstrated in the Ninth Principle. Therefore, there are only four prohibitions, as indicated by Scripture, and one who designates and offers a blemished animal receives four sets of lashes for these four prohibitions, as we explained.
All these prohibitions refer to animals which are permanently blemished, as the verse6 enumerates, [an animal with] "an overgrown7 limb or unsplit hoof8 ...or genitals which are crushed, mashed,9 detached or severed10..." — which are all permanent blemishes.11
All animal blemishes, both permanent and temporary, are explained in the sixth chapter of Bechoros. The laws regarding these four prohibitions dealing specifically with sacrificing a blemished animal are explained in various passages in tractates Zevachim and Temurah.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.As the Rambam explains below, and at length in the Ninth Introductory Principle, there is a disagreement in the Talmud regarding a lav she'b'klalus, an "inclusive prohibition," or a prohibition that has several elements. The Torah prohibits a Nazirite, for example, from eating grape skins and grape pits. If he eats both, how many sets of lashes does he receive? According to Abaye, he receives two sets, but according to Rava, only one set, because he rules that we do not give lashes separately for each element of a lav she'b'klalus. (In our versions of the Talmud, the positions of Abaye and Rava are reversed. See Kapach, 5731, note 66.)
In our case of burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats, Abaye would dictate two sets of lashes, and Rava one set. Therefore, the Rambam says, the Sifra counts five prohibitions in accordance with Abaye's view. However, since the law is like Rava, there are only four prohibitions.
3.7b.
4.The Talmud answers this apparent contradiction, and, as the Rambam concludes below, the law is that there are four prohibitions.
5.63a.
6.Lev. 22:23-24.
7.See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 7:9, and notes 58, 59 in Rambam L'Am, 5723, ibid.
8.See Bechoros 40a. See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, ibid., where this blemish is apparently omitted, or perhaps explained in a different fashion.
9.Ibid. See note 48.
10.Ibid. See notes 49, 50, 52, 53.
11.In Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5, as well as in N95 below, the Rambam rules that these prohibitions apply to an animal with a temporary blemish as well. See Kapach 5731, note 70.
Negative Commandment 95
Sacrificing Animals with Temporary Blemishes
"You shall not sacrifice to G‑d, your G‑d, any ox or sheep in which there is a blemish"—Deuteronomy 17:1.
It is forbidden to offer as a sacrifice an animal with a temporary blemish.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Sacrificing Animals with Temporary Blemishes
Negative Commandment 95
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 95th prohibition is that we are forbidden from sacrificing an animal with a temporary blemish.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement in Deuteronomy,1 "Do not sacrifice to G‑d your L‑rd any ox, sheep that has a blemish." The Sifri2 explains that this verse refers to a temporary blemish.
The penalty for transgressing this prohibition by bringing the animal as an offering is also lashes.3
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 17:1.
2.Our versions of the Sifri do not have this statement. See Heller, 5706, who points to "the Sifri that is called 'Midrash Tannaim.'"
3.
See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5.
Negative Commandment 96
Sacrificing Blemished Animals Presented by Non-Jew
"And from a foreigner's hand you may not offer the bread of your G‑d from any of these"—Leviticus 22:25.
It is forbidden to offer as a sacrifice an animal with a blemish that is presented by a non-Jew.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Sacrificing Blemished Animals Presented by Non-Jew
Negative Commandment 96
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 96th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering blemished animals that are brought by non-Jews. We should not say, "since he is not Jewish, it may be offered even if blemished."1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not offer any such animal as a sacrifice to your G‑d, [even if it is] presented by a non-Jew."
One who transgresses and brings it as an offering is also punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Non-Jews are allowed to bring sacrifices to G‑d even outside the Temple, and they can even offer blemished animals. This prohibition teaches that if they bring the animal to the Temple, it must conform to the requirements of all Temple animals, and blemished animals are therefore invalid.
2.Lev. 22:25.
Negative Commandment 97
Causing a Blemish in an Animal that was Designated for Sacrifice
"No blemish shall be in it"—Leviticus 22:21.
It is forbidden to cause a blemish to an animal designated for sacrifice [making it unfit for sacrificial use].
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Causing a Blemish in an Animal that was Designated for Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 97
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 97th prohibition is that we are forbidden from causing a blemish in a sanctified animal. This is known as being matil mum bakodshim, and the punishment for doing so is lashes — upon condition that the Temple is standing and it therefore could be sacrificed, as explained in tractate Avodah Zorah.1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "It shall not have any blemish in it."
The Sifra says, "The verse, 'It shall not have any blemish in it,' means that one may not place a blemish in it."
FOOTNOTES
1.13b.
2.Lev. 22:21.
Positive Commandment 86
Redeeming a Blemished Offering
"However, as per your every desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in all your cities, according to the blessing of G‑d, your G‑d"—Deuteronomy 12:15.
We are commanded to "redeem" any animal consecrated for sacrificial use. The animal is then relieved of its holiness and may be eaten. [The redemption money is used to purchase a new animal for sacrifice.]
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Redeeming a Blemished Offering
Positive Commandment 86
Translated by Berel Bell
The 86th mitzvah is that we are commanded to redeem sanctified animals that develop a blemish, whereupon they become like regular animals and may be slaughtered and eaten.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants, so that you will be able to eat the meat that G‑d gives you as His blessing."
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants,' speaks of sanctified animals that have become invalid and were subsequently redeemed."
The details of this mitzvah of redeeming sanctified animals are explained in tractates Bechoros2 and Temurah,3 and a number of places in Chullin,4 Erachim,5 and Me'ilah.6
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:15.
2.15a.
3.32a.
4.130a.
5.4-5.
6.19b.
• 1 Chapter: Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to offer the incense1 offering2 on the Golden Altar3 in the Sanctuary twice each day, in the morning and in the afternoon, as [Exodus 30:7] states: "And Aaron shall burn on it the incense of fragrant spices."
Halacha 2
How much [incense] was offered every day? [An amount that] weighed 100dinarim,6 50 in the morning and 50 in the afternoon.
Halacha 3
When the incense is offered in the Sanctuary every day,9 all of the people depart from the Sanctuary and from [the area] between the Entrance Hall and the altar. No one should be there until [the priest] who offers the incense offering departs. Similarly, at the time when [a priest] enters [to sprinkle] the blood of a sin-offering that is offered inside [the Temple],10 everyone departs from from [the area] between the Entrance Hall and the altar until he departs, as [Leviticus 16:17] states: "And no person should be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to atone in the holy place." [This is] a general principle11[applying] to all atonement [made] in the holy place: No [other] person should be there.
Halacha 4
What is the order of the offering of the incense offering each day? [The priest] who merited12 to remove the ashes from the inner altar enters [the Sanctuary] [holding a] consecrated vessel called a teni.13 It was gold14 and would contain two and a half kabbin.15 He would place the teni on the ground in front of him and scoop up the ashes and the coals on the altar with his hands16 and deposit them in the teni. At the end, he would sweep off the remainder into it. He would leave [the teni] in the Sanctuary and depart.17
The one who merited to bring the incense offering18 would take a vessel filled to overflowing with incense. [The vessel] had a cover and was called abezech.19 He would place the bezech in another vessel that was called a kaf. He would cover the kaf with a small cloth and hold the kaf in his hand. [Another priest]20 would enter [the Sanctuary] with him holding a fire-pan with fire.21
Halacha 5
How does he collect the coals with the fire-pan? He takes a silver fire-pan22and ascends to the top of the altar and moves the coals to the side,23taking the coals that have been consumed by the fire in the second array24and descends and places them into a golden fire-pan.25 If a kab or less of the coals have become scattered [on the ground],26he should sweep them into the channel [for the outflow].27 On the Sabbath, he should cover them with thepisachter.28 If more than a kab become scattered, he should collect more with the fire-pan.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
[The priest] who removed the ashes from the inner altar31 would proceed before them, he would take the teni that contained the ashes from the altar,32prostrate himself33 and depart. [The priest] holding the fire pan would array the coals on the surface of the inner altar, spreading them out with the bottom of the fire-pan. [He would then] prostrate himself and depart.
The one holding the kaf would remove the bezech from the kaf and give it to a friend or relative.34 He checks if some of the incense spilled out [from thebezech] into the kaf. His friend or relative places the incense that spilled and that which is in the bezech in his hands. [He then] prostrates himself and depart.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
The priest who offers the incense does not offer it until the overseer37 tells him: "Offer the incense." If the High Priest is the one offering the incense, the overseer says: "My sir, High Priest,38 offer the incense." After he says this, all of the people depart [from the area in front of the Temple Building].39 He then offers the incense, prostrates himself and departs.
Halacha 10
The removal of the ashes from the lamps of the Menorah and their kindling40in the morning41 and the afternoon is a positive commandment,42 as [Exodus 27:21] states: "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it." The kindling of the lamps supersedes [the prohibitions of forbidden labor] on the Sabbath43 and [the restrictions of] ritual impurity,44 as do the [other] sacrifices that [are offered at] a fixed time,45 as [ibid.:20] states: "To raise up a continuously [burning] lamp."
Halacha 11
How much oil should be put in each lamp? Half a log.46 [This is implied by the phrase (ibid.:21):] "From the morning until the evening," Implied is that one must use a measure of oil that will enable it to burn from the afternoon until the morning.47 The Menorah may be dedicated only with the kindling of the seven lamps in the afternoon.
Halacha 12
What is meant by the expression "the removal of the ashes of the Menorah"?48 Every lamp that has burnt out should have its wick and its [remaining] oil removed and it should be cleaned. The priest should place another wick and other oil in it, using the half log measure. [The wick and oil he removed] should be placed in the ash-heap near the [outer] altar together with the ashes removed from the inner alter and the outer altar.49 He should kindle [any] lamp that was extinguished. Kindling the lamps is what is meant by the termhatavah.50When one discovers a lamp that has not been extinguished, he should restore it.51
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
All of the substances that are forbidden to be used as wicks on the Sabbath59are forbidden to be used [as wicks] in the Temple for the Menorah.60 [This is derived from Exodus 27:20 which] states: "To raise up a continuously [burning] lamp." The flame must rise up on its own.61
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
Whenever one of the lamps of the Menorah was extinguished, we kindle it from another lamp as we explained.64
What is the order in which they were kindled? [The priest] who merited to remove the ashes of the Menorah enters the Sanctuary65 carrying a vessel referred to as a kuz. It was made of gold and resembled a large pitcher. He would place the wicks that were extinguished and the oil that remained in the lamp in it.66 He would then kindle five lamps and leave the kuz on the second step of the three steps positioned before [the Menorah]67 and depart. Afterwards,68 he would reenter and kindle two lamps, take the kuz in his hand, prostrate himself, and depart.
Halacha 18
It is a positive commandment to offer the chavitin69 offering of the High Priest each day,70 half in the morning together with the continuous offering of the morning and half in the afternoon together with the continuous offering of the afternoon. Kneading [these cakes] and baking them supersede [the prohibitions of forbidden labor] on the Sabbath and [the restrictions of] ritual impurity, as do the [other] sacrifices that [are offered at] a fixed time,71 as [implied by Leviticus 6:14 which] states [that these cakes must be] tufinei[which allows for the interpretation that they must be] naeh, "attractive," i.e., and thus not baked on the preceding day.72 Moreover, were they to have been baked on the preceding day, they would have been disqualified by the passage of the night,73 for the deep frying pan74 is one of the sacred utensils, as we explained.75
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
When a [High] Priest offered half [of the cakes] in the morning and then died, or became impure,78 or contracted a disqualifying physical blemish79 and another [High] Priest was appointed in his stead,80 [the latter] should not bring half an isaron81 [of flat cakes] from home [in the afternoon]. Nor should he bring the half an isaron [remaining] from [the offering of] the first [High Priest]. Instead, he should bring a complete isaron.82 Half is offered and half is destroyed.83
Halacha 21
Thus two half [esronim] will be offered and two will be destroyed. The two halves that will be destroyed should be left until their form is no longer recognizable84 and then be taken out to the place of burning. The same laws apply if the half [of a High Priest's offering that was set aside until] the afternoon was lost or became impure.85
Where should they be burnt? In the Temple Courtyard.86
Halacha 22
If the High Priest died in the morning after he offered the half of an isaron and another [High] Priest was not appointed, the heirs of the first should bring an entire isaron as atonement for the first. It was also offered complete.87
If the High Priest died in the morning before offering [the chavitin] and another [High] Priest was not appointed in his stead, [his heirs] should offer a complete isaron in the morning and a complete isaron in the afternoon.88 [The amount of] oil and the frankincense offered with it should not be doubled even though [the amount of] flour is doubled.89 Instead, three lugim of oil and a handful of frankincense is set aside for them, a log and half of oil and half a handful of frankincense for the isaron of the morning90 and a log and half of oil and half a handful of frankincense for the isaron of the afternoon.
FOOTNOTES
1.
See the description of the way in which the incense offering was prepared in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, ch. 2.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 28) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 103) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. Preparing the incense for the offering is not considered as a mitzvah (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 10). Significantly, the Ramban (Hosafot to the negative commandments) maintains that the morning incense offering and the afternoon one should be considered as separate mitzvot.
3.
See the description of the Golden Altar inHilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:17.
4.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:4), the Rambam writes that it was rare that the priests willfully omitted offering the incense offering, because offering it brought blessings for prosperity.
5.
Note the contrast to the daily offering (Chapter 1, Halachah 12).
6.
A dinar is approximately 4 grams in modern measure.
7.
For the altar itself need not be there for the offering to be acceptable. Note the parallel inHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 19:15.
8.
From the exegesis of Leviticus 6:3, Yoma45b derives that the limbs of a sacrifice that fly off the altar should be returned to it, but not the grains of incense. The grain should be entombed (Radbaz).
9.
The Kessef Mishnehstates that this phrase is making a distinction between the incense offering brought each day and that brought on Yom Kippur. Since the latter offering is brought into the Holy of Holies, it is necessary to depart only from the Temple Building. One may remain in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. SeeHilchot Avodat Yom Kippurim 4:2.
10.
This refers to the bull brought by a High Priest as a sin-offering, the bull brought as atonement for a law forgotten by the High Court, and the goats that are brought to atone for idolatry (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:13).
11.
This translates the Talmudic term binyan av. Note the Radbaz who explains that althoughYoma 44a appears to derive this concept through the exegetical method referred to as a gezeirah sheveh (a textual association), the intent is really a binyan av.
12.
I.e., who was chosen in the lottery, as described in Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
13.
The term is used in several contexts in the Talmudic literature to refer to a metal container. In his gloss to Tamid 3:6, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura states that it has the same root as the word tene used byDeuteronomy 26:2 to refer to the container used to carry the first fruits.
14.
As a sign of wealth and prosperity. SeeHilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:19.
15.
A kab is 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torahand 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.
16.
They were already burnt out and there was no danger of him being burnt.
17.
Yoma 21a states this was done so because of the miracle that occurred. To explain: Our Sages relate the ashes from the Menorahand from the Golden Altar would be miraculously swallowed up in their place each day. In order not to require God to perform this miracle twice each day, the ashes from the Golden Altar would be put aside until those from the Menorah were collected. See Halachah 12.
18.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 7; Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
19.
In his translation of the Torah, Onkelos translates the word kaf, generally translated as "spoon," as bezech. Both the kaf and thebezech were utensils resembling ladles, i.e., they had a receptacle and a long arm leading to it.
20.
The one who merited to remove the ashes from the altar, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5.
21.
I.e., with burning coals, as explained in the following halachah.
22.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid5:5), the Rambam writes that this fire-pan would hold four kabbim.
23.
The Rambam's statements are based on his text of the Mishnah (Tamid 5:5). Apparently, the Ra'avad had a slightly different version.
24.
See Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 8.
25.
This fire-pan would hold three kabbim [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. Yoma 45a explains that gathering the coals would damage the fire-pan slightly and over time, it would have to be replaced. Hence rather than damage a golden one, the Sages took the financial needs of the Jewish people into consideration and did not require that a golden one be used each day.
26.
Since the golden fire-pan was smaller than the silver one, it was natural that this would occur (ibid.).
27.
As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11, there was a channel for outflow that ran through the Temple Courtyard. The priest would sweep the coals there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. The Radbaz questions why the priest would be allowed to intentionally extinguish the coals. Perhaps his question can be answered on the basis of Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 8:9 which states that these coals no longer have any holiness.
28.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that in his Targum (Exodus 27:3), Onkelos uses the termpisachter for the Hebrew sir, meaning "pot."
29.
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:20.
30.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.
31.
Tamid 6:1 states that he would be accompanied by the priest who would clean the Menorah. The Rambam does not mention this point, because it is not germane to the discussion at hand.
32.
Which he had left previously in the Temple Sanctuary, as stated in Halachah 4.
33.
As appropriate for one who completed his Temple service and depart.
34.
I.e., thus four priests would enter: a) one to clean the altar; b) one to place the coal on it; c) one to pour incense into the hands of the priest who would offer it; and d) one to offer the incense on the coals (Radbaz).
35.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the incense offering would be given to a priest who never offered it previously. Hence he would not be experienced and required these warnings (Radbaz).
36.
I.e., the person offering the incense stands to the east of the altar. He should begin pouring the incense on the western side of the altar. Otherwise, he will have to lean over the altar while the incense is burning and he could be burned in this manner.
37.
Rashi (Yoma 28a) maintains that this term refers to the segen, the High Priest's assistant. Tosafot maintains that it refers to the priest who apportions the Temple service by lottery. From Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:16, it is obvious that the Rambam accepts Rashi's view.
38.
I.e., as expression of deference.
39.
As stated in Halachah 3.
40.
See Halachah 12 which describes what this service entails.
41.
The Rambam's view that the Menorah was kindled both in the afternoon and the morning is not accepted by all authorities. Many maintain that it was kindled only in the afternoon. And there is an intermediate view that one (or two) lamps also burned during the day.
42.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 98) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
43.
Although kindling light is usually forbidden on the Sabbath, in this instance it is permitted.
44.
If the majority of priests or sacred utensils are impure, the Menorah may still be kindled.
45.
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10.
46.
172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon Ish.
47.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 2:2) maintains that since the summer nights are longer than the winter nights, the priests would compensate for that by using thicker wicks in the winter and thinner ones in the summer. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3), however, the Rambam writes that a medium sized wick was used at all times. The Radbaz explains that position, stating that if some oil was left over, it was not significant, for the Temple sacrifices should be offered in a spirit of wealth and prosperity.
48.
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Me'ilah 3:4) where the Rambam writes that deshenmeans "ash" and the remainder of the wicks and the coals produced are considered as ash.
49.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 12.
50.
Other authorities interpret hatavah as referring to the cleaning of the lamps. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:9), the Rambam explains that this term means "the cleaning of the lamps, rekindling what was extinguished, and changing their wicks." See also Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:7 where it appears that the Rambam interprets this term as meaning cleaning and preparing theMenorah.
As the Kessef Mishneh mentions, many other commentaries follow the approach of Rashba (Responsa 79 and 309) who maintains that the term hatavah means only the cleaning and preparing of the Menachot. This difference of opinion regarding the definition of this term is dependent on a larger issue. Were all the lamps kindled in the morning or not? As mentioned in Halachah 10, the Rambam maintains that they were. The Rashba and those who follow his approach differ. Accordingly, they differ in their interpretation of Exodus 30:7"when he performs hatavah for the lamps, he shall offer the incense." According to the Rambam, this refers to the kindling of the lamps, while according to the Rashba, this refers only to cleaning them.
Exodus 30:8 uses a different term for kindling the lamps at night (as the Rashba states in support of his approach). Perhapshatavah can refer only to the rekindling of the lamps in the morning as indicated by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah cited above. See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh.
51.
I.e., add oil so that it will burn until nightfall.
52.
As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:8, the Rambam maintains that the Menorahwas positioned from north to south. Accordingly, this refers to the center lamp that was positioned opposite the Holy of Holies. Others differ, maintaining that theMenorah is positioned from east to west and the term "western lamp" refers to the second lamp from the east which is "western" in relation to the more eastern one.
53.
Yoma 45b derives this concept fromLeviticus 6:6 which reads "A continuous fire shall burn on the altar." Using the rules of Biblical exegesis, our Sages explain that the verse can be interpreted. Whenever a continuous fire will burn - and the Menorah is also referred to as a continuous fire - it shall be kindled from the altar.
The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and maintains that when possible, even the western lamp should be kindled from the other lamps of the Menorah. Only when there is no alternative, it should be kindled from the altar. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, give support for the Rambam's view.
54.
Indeed, as stated in the following halachah, it is desirable to do so rather than use another candle.
55.
With tweezers. This was possible, because the wicks were long.
56.
The Radbaz suggests that each lamp would be kindled from the lamp next to it. Thus one would not have to stretch any of the wicks that far.
57.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:6-7.
58.
Even if one would light the ordinary lamp from the lamp of the Menorah, it would be unacceptable, because it is not respectful to light an ordinary lamp from the lamp of theMenorah (Kessef Mishneh, based onMaggid Mishneh, Hilchot Chanukah 3:9).
59.
See Hilchot Shabbat 5:5. The substances mentioned there are unacceptable, because they do not allow for a steadily burning flame. Instead, the flames they produce sputter.
60.
They may, however, be used for other purposes, e.g., as wicks for the lanterns used to illuminate the Temple Courtyard during the Simchat Beit HaShoevahcelebrations (Shabbos 21b).
61.
This excludes substances which will prevent the fire from ascending smoothly on its own.
62.
The limbs of the sacrifices would be brought up to the altar and the incense offering was brought, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachot 3-4.
63.
By extending the duration of time in which this service is performed, it will be noticed by all those present [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:9)].
64.
Halachah 13.
65.
The lottery through which this priest is selected is described in Chapter 4, Halachah 6. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, this priest would enter the Sanctuary together with the priest who removed the ashes from the inner altar. The Rambam does not mention that fact here, because it is not a point of present concern.
66.
The wicks and oil were placed in the ash-pile near the outer altar as stated in Halachah 12. The commentaries have questioned the intent of the gloss of the Radbaz.
67.
As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:11, there was a stone positioned before theMenorah into which three steps were carved. The priest would stand on it while cleaning and kindling the Menorah.
68.
I.e., after the limbs were brought up to the altar as stated above.
69.
This offering resembled flat cakes. The Rambam describes their preparation inHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2-4.
70.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 40) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 136) count this as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
71.
See the notes to Halachah 10, for details concerning the above.
72.
For day-old cakes are not attractive.
The Radbaz asks: Since the chavitinoffering is considered one of the communal offerings, why is it necessary to add this and the subsequent rationale. He explains that they are valuable for the lessons that they teach independent of the concept they are quoted to support.
73.
For an article kept in a sacred vessel overnight is disqualified.
74.
The Lechem Mishneh questions why the Rambam speaks of the deep frying pan when in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:3, he states that the High Priest's offering was prepared using the flat frying pan.
75.
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23. Both the flat and deep frying pans are mentioned there.
76.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, op. cit.
77.
But instead, must be performed on Friday.
78.
Although Halachah 18 stated that the offering of the chavitin supersedes the restrictions of ritual impurity, that refers to an instance when the majority of the Jewish community, the majority of the priests, or the majority of the Temple utensils are impure. In this instance, only the High Priest is impure and that difficulty can be remedied by temporarily appointing another in his place (Radbaz).
79.
These latter two instances are not mentioned in Menachot 50b, the source for the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, the concept follows logically, because in these states, the High Priest cannot serve (Radbaz).
80.
In the latter two instances, if and when the first High Priest regains ritual purity or is healed from his blemish, he is restored to his position (ibid.).
81.
I.e., half the measure required to make the flat-cakes for the entire day, the measure required for the afternoon offering.
82.
From his own property.
83.
As explained in the following halachah.
84.
This term is interpreted to mean that they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight. They cannot, however, be destroyed immediately, because since the disqualifying factor is not integral to the sacrificial food itself, destroying them would be an act of disrespect.
85.
I.e., the High Priest must bring a completeisaron and half is offered and half is destroyed.
86.
To the east of the altar, as stated in the notes to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.
87.
Menachot 51b derives this concept fromLeviticus 6:15: "The priest... from his sons should offer it," i.e., his heirs should offer it, the entire offering, bringing it in his place.
88.
Menachot, op. cit., derives this concept from the fact that the prooftext states "It shall be offered on the pyre in its entirety."
89.
For there is a verse requiring the doubling of the flour and no such verse with regard to the oil and the frankincense (Menachot, op. cit.).
90.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2,4.
• 3 Chapters: Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2, Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3, Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• ssurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5776 · April 23, 2016• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• ssurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4 There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5 if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6 d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7 e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11 a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12 k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13 m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14 n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short.
To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15 If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.
Halacha 5
s) A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16 u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the termkalut mentioned in the Torah;17 w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,
Halacha 6
All of the 73 blemishes18 listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19 Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20 Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21 Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22 nor sacrificed.23
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39 For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40 Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41 [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42
Halacha 11
If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43 [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed atereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44 Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45 Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47 An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48we count from the time it stopped seeing.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54 an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55 They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56 and [the animal] should be neither offered,57 nor redeemed.58
Halacha 15
What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59 Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60 If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.
Halacha 16
There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal61 after they despaired of its recovery,62 there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore63 he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.64
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple.
2.
From being offered as a sacrifice.
3.
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
4.
See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified.
5.
If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef Mishneh).
6.
If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b).
7.
Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6.
8.
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an alternate meaning, the animal's teeth.
9.
If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes.
10.
I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen.
11.
Compare to Halachah 8.
12.
Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
13.
I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)].
14.
Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish.
15.
The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11 which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is considered such a limb; the ribs are not.
16.
See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11.
18.
The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
19.
These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13.
20.
Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes."
21.
Which would disqualify it in its own right.
22.
Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice.
23.
Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice.
24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed.
25.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4.
26.
Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal.
27.
And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not.
28.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
29.
The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
30.
If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2.
31.
Compare to Halachah 4.
32.
Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed.
33.
For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish.
34.
At which point, it can be redeemed.
35.
For its blemish did not disqualify it.
36.
It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6.
37.
Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
38.
An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten.
39.
See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin.
40.
The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God.
41.
For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain.
42.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11.
43.
I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1.
If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz).
44.
See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal as tereifah.
45.
See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash7:11.
46.
And his hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general principle in Torah Law. SeeHilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al.
47.
Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
48.
In the midst of the above period.
49.
Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
50.
In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh.
51.
I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order.
52.
In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried.
53.
Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3).
54.
Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value.
55.
I.e., the two month and a half periods.
56.
All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment.
57.
For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed.
58.
For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed.
59.
But not at the appropriate time of year.
60.
It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable.
61.
Thus if the redemption was valid, the article used to redeem the animal is consecrated and the person who benefited from it transgressed. If, however, the redemption was not valid, the article is not given that status and hence, there is no transgression involved.
62.
I.e., even if the benefit was derived after they despaired of its recovery in which instance, it was definitely permanently blemished, since it was redeemed before that time, the situation is still questionable as explained.
63.
I.e., because the matter is unresolved.
64.
See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:5; Hilchot Shegagot9:11. As will be explained in the notes to those halachot, it is not necessary to bring a sacrifice conditionally, stipulating: "If I transgressed, this will serve as atonement for my transgression, and if I did not transgress, it will be considered a free-will offering" (Radbaz).
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Blemishes1 do not disqualify a fowl [as a sacrifice]. This applies both with regard to a male and to a female in the instance of a fowl, for the expression [Leviticus 22:18] "a perfect male" was stated only with regard to an animal.2
When does the above apply? With regard to small blemishes. Nevertheless, if the wing of a fowl became dried out, its eye was lost,3 or its foot was cut off, it is forbidden to [be offered on] the altar, for an animal that is lacking a limb is never offered.4 Similarly, if it incurred one of the factors that cause it to be deemed tereifah and forbidden to be eaten, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.5
Halacha 2
Small6 turtle-doves and large ordinary doves are unacceptable as [can be inferred from Leviticus 1:14]: "from the turtle doves and the children of the doves."7When it begins to sprout yellow feathers,8 it is unacceptable for both species.9
Until when are young ordinary doves acceptable? As long as when one pulls out [a feather from] the wing, the place from which it was pulled out will fill with blood. Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue.
Halacha 3
Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum10or anandrogynus,11 they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: "a perfect male" and "a perfect female." [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl12 which is a tumtum or anandrogynus is unacceptable for the altar.13
Halacha 4
Similarly, a hybrid animal, one born through Caesarian section, and one that is lacking in age are unacceptable even if they are unblemished. [These are all excluded through the exegesis of Leviticus 22:27]: "An ox, a lamb, and a goat..." - [this implies] each of the species must be separate; an animal should not be a hybrid between a lamb and a goat. "When it gives birth..." - this excludes one born through Caesarian section.14 "It will be seven days..." - This excludes one that it is lacking in age.15 "Together with its mother" - This excludes an "orphan," i.e., an animal born after its mother was slaughtered.16
Halacha 5
An animal which looks like a different species is unacceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar even though it is not a hybrid. What is implied? A ewe gave birth to an animal that resembled a goat or a she-goat gave birth to an animal that resembled a lamb. Even though it has some of the signs of its own species, it is unacceptable like an animal that has a permanent blemish. For there is no blemish greater than a change [in appearance].
Halacha 6
Similarly, an animal that had relations with a person,17 which was sodomized,18 which was set aside for pagan worship,19 or which was worshipped,20 even though it is permitted to be eaten,21 is unacceptable as a sacrifice for the altar. [This is derived as follows: When describing animals unfit for sacrifices, Leviticus 22:25] states: "For their perversion is in them." [Implied is that] any [animal] characterized by perversion is forbidden. With regard to forbidden [sexual behavior, Genesis 6:12] states: "For all flesh has perverted [its path]."22 With regard to pagan worship, [Exodus 32:7] states: "For your nation has perverted itself." Similarly, an animal or fowl which killed a person are considered equivalent to one that had relations with a person or which was sodomized and they are unacceptable for the altar.23
Halacha 7
It appears to me that even though all of these types of animals are unfit to be brought as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered them as a sacrifice, he is not worthy of lashes according to Scriptural Law, because the prohibition [against using these animals as sacrifices] is not explicitly stated in the Torah. An animal given as a present to a harlot or exchanged for a dog are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. One who offers a sacrifice from either of them or from both together is liable for one set of lashes, 24 as [Deuteronomy 23:19] states: "Do not bring a present to a harlot or the exchange of a dog [to the house of God]." Why is one liable for only one set of lashes for them both? Because they are both mentioned in one prohibition.
Halacha 8
It is a positive commandment25 to offer all of the sacrifices26 from the eighth day [of their lives] and onward, as [Leviticus 22:27] states: "It will be together with its mother for seven days and on the eighth day and onward, it will be desirable." Throughout these seven days, it is called lacking in age.27
Halacha 9
Turtle-doves that have not reached the stage of development when they are fit for sacrifice30 and young doves that matured beyond the appropriate stage31are all considered as blemished [animals].32 One who offers them is not liable for lashes,33 even though the sacrifice is invalid and is not acceptable.
Halacha 10
One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood,34 for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold35 and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires.36 It is not considered like a blemished animal,37 for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.38
When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog,39 it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish.40 Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.41
Halacha 11
Thus there are fourteen types of animals that are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar: a blemished animal, one that is not choice,42 one that is lacking an internal organ,43 a tereifah, a hybrid, one born from Caesarian section, one that had relations with a person, one that was sodomized, one that killed a person, one that was worshipped, one set aside for pagan worship, one given to a harlot as her fee, one exchanged for a dog, one which is lacking in age.
Halacha 12
All of the animals which are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar are forbidden regardless of the proportion in which they are intermingled. Even if one of them becomes mixed together with ten thousand,44 they are all disqualified and unacceptable for the altar.45
In all instances, the offspring [of these unacceptable animals] are acceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar, with the exception of the offspring of an animal that was sodomized, worshipped, set aside for worship, or which killed a person. The offspring of these animals are forbidden for the altar as they are.46
Halacha 13
When does the above47 apply? When the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person while it was pregnant, in which instance, the offspring was together with it when it became disqualified and was considered as one of its limbs.48 If, however, it became pregnant after the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person, its offspring is acceptable for the altar.49 Even if an animal was sodomized while it was consecrated and then it became pregnant, [the offspring is acceptable]. Needless to say, the offspring is acceptable if [the mother] was sodomized while it was of ordinary status and then it was consecrated and became pregnant. Similarly, a chick born from an egg from a tereifah is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar.50
Halacha 14
When a person bows down to standing grain, its kernels are permitted to be used for meal offerings, for their [form] has changed. They resemble the offspring of animals forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.51 Similarly, an animal that was fattened with vetch from a false deity is permitted [as a sacrifice] for the altar, for the [form of the vetch] has changed.52
Halacha 15
[Animals for] any of the sacrifices may be purchased from gentiles.53 We do not suspect that [the animal] had relations with a person, had been sodomized, set aside for pagan worship, or worshipped unless it is known that it was disqualified. [Support for this concept can be brought from I Samuel 15:16:] "From the Amalekites, they were brought, for the people had mercy on the prime quality sheep and cattle, to sacrifice [them] to God your Lord."54
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., those outlined in the previous chapter.
2.
I.e., with regard to an animal, there are sacrifices which require a male and others which require a female. Such distinctions are not made with regard to sacrifices brought from fowl. All sacrifices are acceptable whether one brings a male or a female. SeeHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8.
3.
The commentaries explain that the fact that the fowl lost its sight is not enough to disqualify it. It must be as if the eye has been removed.
4.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.
5.
See ibid.:10.
6.
I.e., young, underdeveloped birds. They are considered as "lacking in age" (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8).
7.
We have translated the verse literally so that the source for the concept derived is clear. None of the other animals prescribed for sacrifices are described as b'nai, "the children of." By using that term, the Torah sought to imply that the birds must be young and underdeveloped.
8.
An intermediate stage of development.
9.
It is unacceptable for turtle-doves, because such a fowl is still considered in its preliminary stages of development. It is not mature yet. Yet it is unacceptable for ordinary doves, because such a fowl has developed beyond its initial stages.
10.
An animal whose sexual organs were covered by a mass of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined.
11.
An animal with both a male and female sexual organ.
12.
Which could be offered if it possessed a blemish.
13.
Even though it makes no difference if a fowl is male or female, it must be definitely a male or definitely a female.
14.
For Caesarian section is not considered as "birth."
15.
See Halachah 8.
16.
I.e., the mother was pregnant. It was slaughtered and the fetus was removed alive from its womb and then consecrated as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that since this animal is also born through Caesarian section, it is not mentioned as a separate category in the first clause of this halachah and in Halachah 11.
17.
Either a male or a female. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3.
18.
In Chapter 4, Halachah 2, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim8:1), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation where the forbidden sexual act was observed by only one witness, by the owners, or the animal was consecrated before being brought to court, or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If, however, the forbidden sexual act was performed by a Jew and observed by two witnesses, once the matter was ruled upon by the court, the animal must be executed and is certainly unacceptable as a sacrifice. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 3,5 for more details regarding the disqualification of such an animal.
19.
Even if it had not been used for such worship as of yet. See Chapter 4, Halachah 4, which explains when such an animal is disqualified. As the Radbaz explains in his gloss to that halachah, this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
20.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
21.
This refers even to an animal that was worshipped or set aside for pagan worship, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1.
22.
The commentaries to that verse explain that its intent is that even animals were mating with partners from different species. It is, however, unlikely that this is the Rambam's intent in citing that prooftext. Most probably, the intent is that only animals that shared relations with humans are forbidden.
23.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, for more particulars concerning this category.
24.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 100) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 571) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the prohibition involves two subjects, not one, it is still considered as only one prohibition. See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, for more details on why the two prohibitions are considered as one mitzvah.
25.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 60) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 293) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
26.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger postulates that this mitzvah applies only with regard to animals. Young doves, by contrast, may be offered even before their eighth day of life. This conclusion can be derived from the Rambam's wording in the following halachah and in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 3:10 which allows a chick to be slaughtered for food even on the day of its birth.
27.
See ibid. 1:11-12 for more particulars. There the Rambam states that it is preferable to offer a sacrifice after it is at least one month old.
28.
The Rambam adds this explanation, because in contrast to the disqualifying factors mentioned in Halachah 7, this factor is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).
29.
As can be inferred from the prooftext cited.
30.
See Halachah 2 which explains when these doves are fit to be offered.
31.
That same halachah explains when these doves become unacceptable.
32.
See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:7-9 which mentions other time factors that render an animal unfit to be sacrificed.
33.
There is no specific prohibition forbidding such offerings. Instead, the manner in which the positive commandment is stated in the Torah makes it clear that a younger fowl is prohibited, as stated in the previous halachah.
34.
Since these types of animals are not acceptable as sacrifices as explained in the previous halachot, the consecration is not effective.
35.
Immediately; there is no need that one wait until the animal is blemished.
36.
The Ra'avad emphasizes that the person's words are not entirely of no consequence. Instead, the animal must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. This, he explains, applies only when the person states: "This animal is consecrated to the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," his words are of no consequence and no holiness is attached to it at all.
37.
I.e., if an animal with a blemish is consecrated, the animal itself becomes holy. Also, the one who consecrates it is liable for lashes (Radbaz).
See also Hilchot Temurah 1:14, 3:5, when one desires to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a blemished animal, the transfer is effective and the blemished animal is considered as consecrated. This does not apply with regard to these animals.
38.
Were it to be unblemished. Therefore even when it is blemished, the holiness of an animal can be transferred to it.
39.
Which are all unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachot.
40.
For ultimately, it will come of age, and then be acceptable for sacrifice.
41.
In Halachah 8. There the Rambam states that one who offers such a fowl is not liable. From that, we can infer that one who consecrates it is also exempt.
42.
As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
43.
As explained ibid.:11.
44.
And the forbidden animal cannot be identified. Note the parallels in HilchotPesulei HaMukdashim 6:2.
45.
Zevachim 73a,b states that the rationale is that animals are important and therefore are never nullified in a mixture. The Sages then ask: Let us have the herd in which the animal is mixed moved and then we will follow the principle: Whenever one is separated, we consider it to have separated from the majority (which in this instance is permitted). They reply that this is not done because of a Rabbinical decree, lest an animal be removed from the mixture while it is at rest.
46.
Temurah 30b states that it is disrespectful to offer an animal that has been associated with such a transgression as a sacrifice. From the following halachah, it appears that the rationale is that it is considered to have actually taken part in the transgression.
47.
The disqualification of the offspring in those four instances.
48.
In keeping with the principle (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:12; Temurah, loc. cit.): "A fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother."
49.
For in that instance, the animal was brought into being by two factors, one of which is associated with a source forbidden as a sacrifice (the mother) and another (the father) which was not (ibid.).
50.
For a chick is an entirely new entity that was not directly associated with the forbidden animal (ibid. 31a).
51.
As mentioned in the previous halachot. I.e., just as the offspring is the product of the forbidden animal, the flour is the product of the grain. See Avodah Zarah 46b-47a.
52.
In this instance, it is not even remotely connected to the forbidden entity. SeeTemurah, loc. cit.
53.
Similarly, an animal brought by a gentile to sacrifice as a burnt offering is acceptable (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2).
54.
King Saul gave this explanation to the prophet Samuel after failing to destroy the herds of the Amalekites. Although that excuse was rejected, it was rejected only because God had explicitly stated that the Amalekites' herds must be destroyed. Had there not been such a command, presumably they - and by extension, animals belonging to any other gentile nation - would have been acceptable.
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses.3 It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh.4 Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent5 or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present.6 If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 3
When sport was made with an animal and it was trained to gore until it killed a person, it is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar, because it is considered as having been compelled against its will.7
An animal is not disqualified because it had relations with a person or because it was sodomized unless the male who sodomized it was nine years old.8Whether it was sodomized by a Jew, a gentile,9 or a servant, since it was sodomized by a human, it is disqualified. If a human was the recipient of sex from an animal, [the animal] is not disqualified unless the female with whom it had relations was three years old10 or the male with whom it had relations was nine years old.11
Halacha 4
When is an animal or a fowl disqualified because it was set aside for pagan worship?12 When the priests perform a deed with it, e.g., they shear it or work with it for the sake of pagan worship. With words alone, by contrast, it is not considered as set aside for pagan worship, for an entity cannot be consecrated to a false deity.13
Halacha 5
An animal that had relations with a person or that was sodomized becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] for the altar whether it belongs to the person with whom it shared relations or it belongs to a colleague14 and regardless of whether those relations were carried out under compulsion or voluntarily, whether they were willful or inadvertent, or whether they were performed before [the animal was] consecrated or afterwards.15
When, by contrast, an animal is set aside for pagan worship, it becomes disqualified if it belonged to the person who set it aside and he set it aside for pagan worship before he consecrated it as a sacrifice. If, however, one set aside an animal belonging to a colleague16 or [even] his own animal after he consecrated it as a sacrifice,17it is permitted [to be offered as a sacrifice].18[The rationale is that] a person cannot set aside an entity that does not belong to him [for pagan worship].19
Halacha 6
[When an animal] has been worshipped as a false deity, it is forbidden [as a sacrifice] whether one served his own animal or one belonging to a colleague,20 whether he acted under compulsion or voluntarily, willfullly or inadvertently, whether he did so before the animal was consecrated or afterwards. [In the latter instance,] it should be left to pasture until it becomes permanently blemished and then it should be redeemed, as we stated.21
When an animal is worshipped, it and everything upon it22 are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. For it is forbidden to benefit from all coverings of entities worshipped as false deities.23 If, however, [an animal has merely been] set aside for pagan worship, it is forbidden, but the entities on it are permitted [as sacrifices for the altar].24
Halacha 7
When a person bows down to a mountain, although he may benefit from it,25its stones are forbidden to [be used as part of] the altar.26 Similarly, when one bows down to a flowing stream in his land,27 its water is invalid28 for use as a libation.29
[Even though] an asherah30 has been nullified,31 one should not bring logs from it for the arrangement of wood on the altar.32 Similarly, when one bows down to an animal, just as it is disqualified [as a sacrifice] for the altar, its wool is disqualified for use in the priestly garments,33 its horns are disqualified for use as trumpets,34 its thighs are disqualified for use as flutes,35 and its intestines as strands [for the lyres].36 Everything is unacceptable.37
Halacha 8
Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it.38
What is meant by a present given to a harlot?39 When one tells a harlot, "This entity is given to you as your wages."40 This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man41 as an ervah42or by a negative commandment.43 If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest.44Similarly, if a person's wife is a niddah,45 a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.46
Halacha 9
If a man married one of the women forbidden to him because of a negative commandment,47 whatever he gives her for the sake of intimate relations is considered as "the present [of a harlot]"48 and is forbidden [to be offered as a sacrifice]. A present given [by a male to] a male [for the purpose of intimacy] is forbidden [as a sacrifice].49 If a woman gives a present to a male for the purpose of intimacy, [it is not considered] "a present [of a harlot]" and is permitted [as a sacrifice].50
Halacha 10
When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an article for you. In return for it, have your [Canaanite] maidservant spend the night with my Jewish bondsman," it is considered "a present [of a harlot]."51 [The above applies] provided [the Jewish bondsman] does not have a wife and children. If, however, he does have a wife and children, he is permitted [to engage in intimacy] with a Canaanite maidservant, as will be explained.52 This also applies if one tells a harlot:53 "Here is an article for you. In return for it, engage in relations with so-and-so who is Jewish." [The present is considered as] "a present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 11
If a person made an agreement to give a harlot one lamb and [instead,] he gave her many - even if he gave her 1000 - they are considered as "presents [to a harlot]"54 and are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
If he gave her a present and did not engage in relations with her, but told her: "Let this be in your possession until I engage in relations with you," it becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] when he engages in relations with her.55 If she had it sacrificed before he engaged in relations with her, it is acceptable56 and if she was obligated to bring a sacrifice, she has discharged her obligation, provided when he gave it to he told her: "When you accept my [proposition], you acquire it from the present time."57 If he did not tell her so, [it is not acceptable] because she cannot bring an article that does not belong to her58 as a sacrifice.
Halacha 12
If she took the initiative and consecrated it [for a sacrifice] before he entered relations with her and afterwards, he engaged in relations with her [before it was sacrificed], there is an unresolved doubt59 whether it is considered "the present [of a harlot"] - because he engaged in relations with her before it was sacrificed - or whether it is not considered as such, since she consecrated it before relations.60 Hence, it should not be sacrificed,61 but if it is sacrificed, it is acceptable.62
Halacha 13
If he engaged in relations with her, but did not give her anything, and then afterwards - even many years afterwards - he gave it to her, it is considered "the present [of a harlot"].
When does the above apply?63 With regard to a gentile woman64 whom he told: "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb," for she does not have to draw it into her domain [to acquire it]65 or with regard to a Jewish woman when the lamb was left in her courtyard and he told her: "If I do not give you money on this day, [the lamb] is yours."66 If, however, he told her : "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb" without any further explanation and then engaged in relations and sent her the lamb afterwards, it is permissible [to be sacrificed; it is not considered] "the present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 14
Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money67 and she bought a sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
If he gave her grain and she had it made into fine flour; [he gave her] olives and she had oil made from them; [he gave her] grapes, and she had wine made from them, they are acceptable, because their form has changed.68
If he gave her a consecrated animal as her present, it does not become forbidden to the altar.69 Even if he designated her as one of those to eat from his Paschal sacrifice70 or his festive offering71 as a present, the consecrated animals are not disqualified, for the Temple already acquired them at the time they were consecrated.72 Similarly, if he gave her an entity that did not belong to him, he did not disqualify it, for a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be forbidden unless the owner despairs of its recovery.73
If, however, he gave her doves, even though they are consecrated, they can be considered as "a present to a harlot." This concept was conveyed as part of the Oral Tradition.74
Halacha 16
What is meant by "an exchange for a dog"?75 A person tells a colleague: "Take this lamb in exchange for this dog." Similarly, if he exchanged a dog for several animals or fowl, they are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 17
When two partners divided [their goods], one took ten lambs and one took nine lambs and a dog, [the lambs] that are with the dog are permitted [as sacrifices], but [there are restrictions with regard to] the ten given in exchange for them. If the value of one of them is equivalent to the value of the dog or greater, it should be set aside and it [alone] is considered as "the exchange [for a dog]." The remainder are permitted [as sacrifices]. If the value of each of them is less than the value of the dog, they are all forbidden.76
Halacha 18
If [the entity given in] exchange [for the dog] underwent a change, for example, he exchanged a dog for wheat and ground it into flour, it is permitted.77
The present [given] to a dog78 and an exchange given for a harlot79are permitted. "A present to a harlot" and "the exchange for a dog" are permitted to be given to the Temple, for they undergo a change.80 The actual substance of a present [to a harlot] should not be used as beaten metal for the Temple, as [implied by Deuteronomy 23:19]: "For every vow," [which is interpreted81] as including sheet metal.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam does not mention an animal that had relations with a person, for that is not possible with regard to a fowl.
2.
The Rambam mentioned this concept in the previous chapter. In this chapter, he outlines the details of these restrictions. The point of this halachah is that the restrictions apply to a fowl as well as to an animal.
3.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:16; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:1.
4.
Even if slaughtered according to Jewish Law (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:22; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9).
5.
In matters of financial law, the testimony of one witness is of consequence only that it can require an oath to be taken.
6.
Similarly, the testimony of a person regarding his own property is of no consequence.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam mentions two other instances where this law applies: the animal was consecrated before being brought to court or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile.
7.
See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:5 which explains that such an animal is not executed, because Exodus 21:28 requires such a punishment: "When an ox gores...," i.e., that it does so on its own initiative, and not when it was prompted to gore.
See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 3, Halachah 5, where he states that such an animal should be forbidden to the altar under all circumstances just like a sodomized animal is.
8.
For relations with a male are not significant until that age (Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 1:16; et al).
9.
See Hilchot Melachim 9:5-6 which states that although a gentile is liable to be executed for engaging in sexual relations with an animal, the animal itself is not executed. Nevertheless, involvement in the transgression disqualifies it as a sacrifice.
10.
See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:8, et al, where it is explained that until a girl is three years old, sexual relations with her are not significant.
11.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on the latter point, noting that the ages the Rambam mentions are relevant with regard to the punishment of execution by stoning. Nevertheless, he argues that since the animal is disqualified from being offered as a sacrifice, because it becomes offensive to offer it after it engaged in forbidden relations, that concept would seemingly apply regardless of the age of the human with whom it engaged in those relations. Moreover, since the animal derived pleasure, the sexual activity should be considered significant. The Kessef Mishnehjustifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what is significant here is the halachic definition of sexual relations, not the pleasure the animal experiences. Since halachicly, the act is not considered as sex, the animal is not forbidden.
12.
The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
13.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that if one designated an animal as a false deity, that is sufficient to cause the animal to become repugnant and forbidden as a sacrifice, even if a deed is not performed. The Radbaz brings support for the Ra'avad's ruling from Isaiah 30:22 which when speaking about making the covering of idol's impure uses the expression: "Tell it: 'Be gone,'" implying that "telling it," i.e., speaking is sufficient to cause an article to be considered as an idol.
The difference between the Rambam's view and that of the Ra'avad results from a variation in the text of Temurah 29a. According to the Rambam, the passage is speaking about an animal dedicated to the service of a false deity, while according to the Ra'avad, it refers to an animal intended to be worshiped as a false deity. (The standard printed text supports the Rambam's version, although Rashi mentions the other version as well.). The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice only when it is forbidden to benefit from it. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim8:1, whether an animal is designated to be worshipped or as a sacrifice to a false deity, it does not become forbidden until a deed is performed. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the prohibition against benefiting from the animal is different from the prohibition against offering the animal as a sacrifice. More stringent rules apply in the latter context.
14.
The Radbaz states that in an instance where two witnesses did not observe the transgression (as stated in Halachah 2), the person who engaged in relations with the animal is not at all liable to its owner financially, for he is not prohibited against benefiting from the animal.
15.
In contrast to an animal which kills which is not disqualified if it was goaded into killing (see Halachah 3), an animal that engaged in relations with a human is disqualified in all instances. Since the act causes it to be considered loathsome, the circumstances under which the act was performed are of no consequence.
16.
This applies even (as stated in the previous halachah), he performed a deed indicating that the animal was set aside for pagan worship (Radbaz).
17.
For once he consecrated it as a sacrifice, it is as if it no longer belongs to him.
18.
Since a transgression has not been performed with it as of yet, it is not considered as loathsome (Radbaz).
19.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim (and in many other sources) a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
20.
The Ra'avad quotes Avodah Zarah 54a which states that the above restriction applies only when one performs a deed with the article he worshipped. From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, it is apparent that he maintains that the principle that a person cannot cause property that does not belong to him to be forbidden to be used applies even if he actually worships the article as a false deity and even when he performs a deed. The Rambam here is speaking about causing the article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to the altar and for that, a deed is not necessary.
21.
Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Since the animal was consecrated, it cannot be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed and it cannot be redeemed until it is blemished.
22.
Any garments or ornaments used to adorn the false deity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Teumrah 6:1), the Rambam explains the reason for this restriction is that the ornaments were worshipped together with the false deity.
23.
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:7.
24.
Since they have not been worshipped, one is permitted to benefit from them and they may even be used as sacrifices [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
25.
See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 which states that "Any article that was not touched by human hands or made by man will is permitted to be used even though it was worshipped as a false deity."
26.
Or any other part of the Temple building (Radbaz). As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16, the altar was made with whole stones, both large and small over which is poured a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead. In the above instance, since the stones were taken from a mountain that was worshipped, it is inappropriate for them to be used for the altar.
27.
Implied is that if the water is not his own, it may be used even as a libation even though it was worshipped (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Radbaz notes that no such leniency is granted with regard to the stones mentioned in the previous clauae. He differentiates between the two as follows: The water of a spring is constantly flowing. Thus the water that was worshipped is not the same water that will be used for the libation. The stones of the mountain, by contrast, were worshipped themselves. Hence even though they are not a person's private property, they may not be used for the Temple.
28.
In this instance as well, an ordinary person is permitted to use the water, but it is inappropriate to be used for the altar.
29.
I.e., the water libation offered during the Sukkot holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-10.
30.
A tree that is worshipped. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:3, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3; et al.
31.
In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8, the Rambam writes that once a gentile nullifies the connection of a worshipped entity to paganism, it is permitted to benefit from it. The subsequent halachot in that chapter describe the process of nullification. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that although it is permitted to benefit from the article afterwards, the fact that it was once worshipped - or served as an accessory to an article worshipped - prevents it from being offered as a sacrifice.
32.
Similarly, the branches of a palm tree that was worshipped should not be used as alulav (Hilchot Lulav 8:1).
33.
See the conclusion of the tractate of Kinnimwhich mentions how a sacrificial animal can be used for these purposes.
There the Mishnah states that the wool is unacceptable for use as techelet. TheKessef Mishneh notes that although in Chapter 3, Halachah 14, the Rambam ruled that even though wheat was worshipped, the flour made from it is not disqualified for use as a meal offering, because it underwent a change. In this and the other instances mentioned below, although the color and the form of the article may have undergone a change, that change does not alter its fundamental nature and it is still disqualified for the altar and its service.
Such wool is also disqualified for use in tzitzitor for any other purpose associated with a mitzvah. See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:8).
34.
I.e., as shofarot that are sounded together with the trumpets (Hilchot Taaniot 1:4).
35.
Among the instruments sounded in the Temple service were flutes (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:4-6). Apparently, the thighs of sacrificial animals were hollowed out and converted into such instruments.
36.
Which were also employed in the Temple service (ibid.).
37.
Because it was an integral part of an entity that was worshipped.
38.
This general principle summarizes the concepts mentioned in the previous halachot. The Rambam now goes on to discuss other reasons why animals were forbidden as sacrifices.
39.
Which is forbidden to be used as a sacrifice as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
40.
I.e., in exchange for intimacy.
41.
The Rambam is explaining that here the emphasis is on the halachic meaning of the term zonah ("harlot") and not its popular meaning. The point is not that the present is forbidden because it was given in exchange for intimacy, but that it was given in exchange for intimacy with a woman who meets the halachic definitions of that term. That definition is given in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah18:1: "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah7 used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess (thus excluding a gentile woman or maidservant) [or] a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable" (excluding the prohibited relations the Rambam mentions).
42.
Incestuous and adulterous sexual relations for which one is liable for karet (Hilchot Ishut1:5). These forbidden relationships are mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18.
43.
The nine forbidden relationships mentioned in Hilchot Isut 1:7.
44.
I.e., although he is engaging in intimacy out of lust and in exchange for payment, the woman is not termed a harlot, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:2 states: "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone... she is not deemed as a zonah... for she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]."
45.
I.e., she has experienced menstrual bleeding and has not purified herself afterwards.
46.
For such relationships are also punishable by karet (see Hilchot Issurei Biah 4:1). Nevertheless, the fact that a woman is in theniddah state does not prevent the consecration of a woman from taking effect.
47.
The consecration of such a woman is binding and she is considered as his wife (Hilchot Ishut 4:14).
48.
Because he is forbidden to marry her and thus the present meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah.
49.
See Temurah 29b.
50.
The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that although in a strict halachic sense, there is no prohibition against offering such an article as a sacrifice, it is an abomination unto God and should not be offered.
51.
There are two points expressed by this halachah: a) that, as stated above, a Canaanite maidservant is considered as a harlot;
b) that even though the present is not being given by the person engaging in the intimate relations, the present is still forbidden as a sacrifice.
52.
Hilchot Avadim 3:3-4.
53.
I.e., one might think that the law applies only with regard to a bondsman and his master, for the master has authority over the bondsman and has certain responsibilities toward him, but not with regard to two free men who are not associated in this manner (Kessef Mishneh).
54.
And not an ordinary gift (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). This applies even when he does not explicitly say that he gave them to her because of the relations they shared (Radbaz).
55.
Because it was given to her in exchange for relations. It is not significant whether it was given before the relations or afterwards.
56.
Because they had not engaged in relations yet. We do not say that since it was designated as "a present for a harlot," it is forbidden as a sacrifice (Radbaz).
57.
Thus she was the legal owner at the time it was sacrificed.
58.
If he did not make such a stipulation, he remains the legal owner of the animal. It is in the woman's possession as security, but she is not its owner.
59.
Temurah 29b considers this question and does not reach a conclusion.
60.
And from the time an entity is consecrated, it is considered as having been given to the Temple. Hence, it could be considered as if it already had been sacrificed.
61.
Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.
62.
As evident from Hilchot Temidim UMusafim7:20, this is the ruling whenever there is a question whether an substance offered as a sacrifice is acceptable.
63.
The principle under which this halachah operates is that for a "present to a harlot" to be forbidden as a sacrifice, it must be acquired by the woman at the time of relations even though it does not come into her full possession until afterwards.(Temurah 29a).
64.
I.e., if the gentile woman later desires to offer this animal as a sacrifice, it is not accepted from her. Although we do accept animals brought by gentiles as burnt offerings, the animals must be acceptable.
65.
According to Scriptural Law, an exchange is completed when an exchange is made. Hence, at the time the two engaged in relations, the lamb became the woman's property. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that movable property is not transferred to the legal domain of the recipient until he acquires it through meshichah, physically drawing it into his possession (Hilchot Mechirah 3:1). Our Sages, however, did not impose this decree with regard to gentiles and transactions with them follow the original guidelines of Scriptural Law (see (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14). Hence a gentile harlot became the legal owner of the lamb directly after the relations. Hence it is considered as "the present of a harlot." The fact that it was not given to her until years afterwards is not significant.
66.
Because a person's courtyard can acquire an article on his or her behalf when it is placed within (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah4:8). Hence, while the women is holding the lamb in lieu of the money, it is considered to have entered her possession.
67.
Or other entities.
68.
The finished product is considered as different from the raw material from which it is made.
69.
For a consecrated article is not considered as his personal property. Hence, it is not his to give her (Temurah 30b).
70.
To partake of a Paschal sacrifice, one must designated to partake of it from the outset.
71.
This refers to the festive offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to accompany the Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:11.
72.
Although the owner retains the right to give others to partake of the offerings, they are not considered as his private property. Instead, he is giving them the right to partake of consecrated property, not his own possessions.
73.
For at that point - since the owner has despaired of its return and it has departed from the possession of the thief - the harlot becomes its legal owner (see Hilchot Geneivah 5:3). Accordingly, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.
74.
I.e., the Rambam understands Temurah 30b as deriving this law from the exegesis of a verse. According to logic, we would apply the principle: A person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be become forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding the interpretation of the above passage. He maintains that it is speaking about ordinary doves. Nevertheless, since blemished doves are acceptable as sacrifices (Chapter 3, Halachah 1), one might think that a present to a harlot is also acceptable. Therefore, the Torah must teach us that this is not the case. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Ra'avad's understanding of the passage.
75.
Which is forbidden for the altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
76.
For a certain portion of each one is being given in exchange for the dog.
77.
For the article being offered is not considered as the article exchanged.
78.
I.e., a person sodomized a dog and separated a lamb as a fee.
79.
I.e., a person gave a colleague a lamb in exchange for a maidservant that was a harlot.
80.
I.e., the articles donated to the Temple treasury are sold and the money used for improvements. Thus the distasteful article itself is not becoming part of the Temple.
81.
See Temurah 30a.
• English Text | Video Class• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5776 · April 23, 2016• "Today's Day"
Tuesday Nissan 15, 1st day of chag ha'matzot (Pesach) 5703
Our custom is to use for the maror and the chazeret (on the seder plate) both horseradish and romaine lettuce. Kiddush is said standing. The pronunciation of the first word of the Haggada is Hay lachma... When the b'racha "...on eating maror" is recited, one should have in mind the second portion of maror to be eaten later at koreich (sandwiched between two pieces of matza).
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: Furthermore, even in (p. 209)...been explained above. (p.211).
At the first seder my father would be brief,1 in order to eat the afikoman before midnight. On the second night, however, he would expound at length; he began the seder before 9 p.m. and ended at about 3 or 4 in the morning, dwelling at length on the explanation of the Haggada.
The Alter Rebbe declared: The matza of the first evening of Pesach is called the Food of Faith; the matza of the second evening is called the Food of Healing. When healing brings faith ("Thank you, G-d, for healing me") then clearly there has been illness. When faith brings healing, there is no illness to start with.
FOOTNOTES
1.In his explanations of the Haggada, etc.
• Daily Thought:
Expect Wonder
On the night of Passover, the Ari taught, you must enter your home for the Seder with great joy.
On this night, all the portals of heaven are opened. On this night, G‑d pours down His deepest love upon every Jew. On this night, we were liberated at midnight.
On this night, expect wonder.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment