Torah Reading
Tazria: Leviticus 12:1 Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Tell the people of Isra’el: ‘If a woman conceives and gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days with the same uncleanness as in niddah, when she is having her menstrual period. 3 On the eighth day, the baby’s foreskin is to be circumcised. 4 She is to wait an additional thirty-three days to be purified from her blood; she is not to touch any holy thing or come into the sanctuary until the time of her purification is over. 5 But if she gives birth to a girl, she will be unclean for two weeks, as in her niddah; and she is to wait another sixty-six days to be purified from her blood.
6 “‘When the days of her purification are over, whether for a son or for a daughter, she is to bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to the cohen. 7 He will offer it before Adonai and make atonement for her; thus she will be purified from her discharge of blood. Such is the law for a woman who gives birth, whether to a boy or to a girl. 8 If she can’t afford a lamb, she is to take two doves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; the cohen will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
13:1 Adonai said to Moshe and Aharon, 2 “If someone develops on his skin a swelling, scab or bright spot which could develop into the disease tzara‘at, he is to be brought to Aharon the cohen or to one of his sons who are cohanim. 3 The cohen is to examine the sore on his skin; if the hair in the sore has turned white, and the sore appears to go deep into the skin, it is tzara‘at, and after examining him the cohen is to declare him unclean. 4 If the bright spot on his skin is white, but it does not appear to go deep into the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the cohen is to isolate him for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the cohen is to examine him again, and if the sore appears the same as before and has not spread on the skin, then the cohen is to isolate him for seven more days.
Today in Jewish History:• Decree Against Ritual Circumcision Rescinded (2nd century)
In Talmudic times, Adar 28 used to be celebrated to commemorate the rescinding of a Roman decree against ritual circumcision, Torah study and keeping the Shabbat. The decree was revoked through the efforts of Rabbi Yehudah ben Shamua and his fellow rabbis. (Megillat Taanit, Rosh Hashanah 19a)
• Purim Cairo (1524)
Ahmed Pasha was the governor of Egypt under Selim II "The Magnificent," the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Ahmed plotted to cede from the Ottoman Empire and declare himself Sultan of Egypt. He requested of his Jewish minter Abraham de Castro to mint new Egyptian currency stamped with his image. Instead, De Castro went to Constantinople, and informed Selim II of Ahmed’s plot.
Ahmed decided to exact revenge against Cairo's Jewish community. He imprisoned many of their leaders, and threatened to execute them unless he was paid an outrageously large ransom.
The Jews of Cairo fasted and prayed to G-d. A large sum of money was collected but it did not approach the amount of money Ahmed demanded. Before the planned executions, Ahmed visited his bathhouse. As he was leaving the bathhouse he was attacked and severely wounded by a group of his own advisors and governors. Ahmed escaped but was later captured and beheaded.
From then on, the Jews of Cairo observed the 28th of Adar as a day of celebration. A specialmegillah (scroll) written to commemorate the miracle was read in Cairo every year on this day.
Daily Quote:
If I soar to the heavens, there You are[Psalms 139:8]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tazria, 5th Portion Leviticus 13:29-13:39 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 13
29If a man or a woman has a lesion on the head or on the beard [area], כטוְאִישׁ֙ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּי־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה ב֖וֹ נָ֑גַע בְּרֹ֖אשׁ א֥וֹ בְזָקָֽן:
on the head or on the beard [area]: Scripture comes to distinguish between a lesion in a place where hair grows and a lesion in a place of flesh, namely, that in one [case, i.e., on flesh], the sign [of uncleanness] is white hair, while in the other [case, i.e., on the area of hair], the sign [of uncleanness] is golden-yellow hair. — [Torath Kohanim 5:5] בראש או בזקן: בא הכתוב לחלק בין נגע שבמקום שער לנגע שבמקום בשר, שזה סימנו בשער לבן וזה סימנו בשער צהוב:
30the kohen shall look at the lesion, and, behold! its appearance is deeper than the skin, and in it is a thin golden yellow hair, the kohen shall pronounce him unclean. It is a nethek, which is tzara'ath of the head or the beard. לוְרָאָ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֗גַע וְהִנֵּ֤ה מַרְאֵ֨הוּ֙ עָמֹ֣ק מִן־הָע֔וֹר וּב֛וֹ שֵׂעָ֥ר צָהֹ֖ב דָּ֑ק וְטִמֵּ֨א אֹת֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ נֶ֣תֶק ה֔וּא צָרַ֧עַת הָרֹ֛אשׁ א֥וֹ הַזָּקָ֖ן הֽוּא:
and in it is a… golden-yellow hair: [meaning] that the black hair in it has turned golden-yellow. ובו שער צהב: שנהפך שער שחור שבו לצהוב:
It is a nethek: This is the name of the lesion [of tzara’ath when it occurs] on an area of [skin where] hair [grows]. נתק הוא: כך שמו של נגע, שבמקום שער:
31But when the kohen looks at the nethek lesion, and, behold! its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, the kohen shall quarantine [the person with] the nethek lesion for seven days. לאוְכִֽי־יִרְאֶ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־נֶ֣גַע הַנֶּ֗תֶק וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֵֽין־מַרְאֵ֨הוּ֙ עָמֹ֣ק מִן־הָע֔וֹר וְשֵׂעָ֥ר שָׁחֹ֖ר אֵ֣ין בּ֑וֹ וְהִסְגִּ֧יר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶת־נֶ֥גַע הַנֶּ֖תֶק שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים:
and there is no black hair in it: Thus, if there was black hair inside it, he is clean and does not require quarantine, for black hair in a nethek is a sign of cleanness, as the verse (37) says, “or if black hair has grown in it, [the nethek has healed; it is clean].”[Torath Kohanim 13:125] ושער שחר אין בו: הא אם היה בו שער שחור, טהור. ואין צריך להסגר ששער שחור סימן טהרה הוא בנתקים, כמו שנאמר (פסוק לז) ושער שחור צמח בו וגו':
32And the kohen shall look at the lesion on the seventh day. And, behold! the nethek has not spread, and no golden yellow hair was in it, and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin, לבוְרָאָ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֣ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֘גַע֘ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי֒ וְהִנֵּה֙ לֹֽא־פָשָׂ֣ה הַנֶּ֔תֶק וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה ב֖וֹ שֵׂעָ֣ר צָהֹ֑ב וּמַרְאֵ֣ה הַנֶּ֔תֶק אֵ֥ין עָמֹ֖ק מִן־הָעֽוֹר:
And, behold! the nethek did not spread: Thus, if [the nethek] did spread, or if it had golden-yellow hair in it, he is unclean. והנה לא פשה וגו': הא אם פשה או היה בו שער צהוב טמא:
33he shall shave himself, but adjacent to the nethek he shall not shave, and the kohen shall quarantine [the person with] the nethek again for seven days. לגוְהִ֨תְגַּלָּ֔ח וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖תֶק לֹ֣א יְגַלֵּ֑חַ וְהִסְגִּ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֧ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֛תֶק שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים שֵׁנִֽית:
he shall shave himself: around the nethek. [but adjacent to the nethek] והתגלח: סביבות הנתק:
he shall not shave: [I.e.,] he shall leave two hairs close to it all around, in order that any spread of the nethek will be discernible, so that, if it spreads, it will pass the hairs and go out to the shaven area. — [Torath Kohanim 13:133] ואת הנתק לא יגלח: מניח שתי שערות סמוך לו סביב, כדי שיהא ניכר אם פשה, שאם יפשה ועבר השערות ויצא למקום הגילוח, טמא:
34Then the kohen shall look at the nethek on the seventh day. And, behold! the nethek did not spread on the skin, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, the kohen shall pronounce him clean, and he shall immerse his garments and become clean. לדוְרָאָה֩ הַכֹּהֵ֨ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֜תֶק בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י וְ֠הִנֵּ֠ה לֹֽא־פָשָׂ֤ה הַנֶּ֨תֶק֙ בָּע֔וֹר וּמַרְאֵ֕הוּ אֵינֶ֥נּוּ עָמֹ֖ק מִן־הָע֑וֹר וְטִהַ֤ר אֹתוֹ֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְכִבֶּ֥ס בְּגָדָ֖יו וְטָהֵֽר:
35But if the nethek spreads on the skin, after he has been declared clean, להוְאִם־פָּשׂ֥ה יִפְשֶׂ֛ה הַנֶּ֖תֶק בָּע֑וֹר אַֽחֲרֵ֖י טָֽהֳרָתֽוֹ:
after he has been declared clean: From here, we know only that [the lesion is pronounced unclean] if it spreads after dismissal. How do we know [that it is unclean if it spreads] at the end of the first week [of quarantine] or at the end of the second week [of quarantine]? Because Scripture [uses a double expression and] says, פָּשׂה יִפְשֶׂה, “it spreads,” [denoting that he is unclean if it spreads] in any case. — [Torath Kohanim 13:134] אחרי טהרתו: אין לי אלא פושה לאחר הפטור, מנין אף בסוף שבוע ראשון ובסוף שבוע שני, תלמוד לומר פשה יפשה:
36the kohen shall look at it, and, behold! the nethek has spread on the skin, the kohen need not examine for golden yellow hair; it is unclean! לווְרָאָ֨הוּ֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְהִנֵּ֛ה פָּשָׂ֥ה הַנֶּ֖תֶק בָּע֑וֹר לֹֽא־יְבַקֵּ֧ר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן לַשֵּׂעָ֥ר הַצָּהֹ֖ב טָמֵ֥א הֽוּא:
37But if the appearance of the nethek has remained the same, or if black hair has grown in it, the nethek has healed; he is clean. So the kohen shall pronounce him clean. לזוְאִם־בְּעֵינָיו֩ עָמַ֨ד הַנֶּ֜תֶק וְשֵׂעָ֨ר שָׁחֹ֧ר צָֽמַח־בּ֛וֹ נִרְפָּ֥א הַנֶּ֖תֶק טָה֣וֹר ה֑וּא וְטִֽהֲר֖וֹ הַכֹּהֵֽן:
black hair: How do we know that even yellow or red [hair], which are not golden-yellow? Because Scripture says, [שָׁחֹר] וְשֵׂעָר [lit., “ and black hair,” but here meaning, “ or if black hair.” Instead of using the expected אוֹ, “or,” the Torah used וְ, an inclusive term, which comes to include yellow and red hair in the nethek as signs of cleanness, just like black hair. See Be’er Basadeh] (Torath Kohanim 13:137). The term צָהֹב means: resembling the appearance of gold (Torath Kohanim 13:122). צָהֹב is the same as זָהֹב, golden [because צ and ז are interchangeable], orable in Old French, gold-colored, or orpale, pale gold. ושער שחר: מנין אף הירוק והאדום שאינו צהוב, תלמוד לומר ושער. ולמה צהוב דומה, לתבנית הזהב. צהוב, כמו זהוב אורבל"א בלע"ז [זהוב]:
he is clean. So the kohen shall pronounce him clean: But, an unclean person whom the kohen pronounces clean, is not clean. - [Torath Kohanim 13:140] טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן: הא טמא שטהרו הכהן, לא טהור:
38If a man or a woman has spots on the skin of their flesh, white spots, לחוְאִישׁ֙ אֽוֹ־אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּי־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה בְעֽוֹר־בְּשָׂרָ֖ם בֶּֽהָרֹ֑ת בֶּֽהָרֹ֖ת לְבָנֹֽת:
spots: Spots בהרת: חברבורות:
39the kohen shall look, and, behold! there are dim white spots on the skin of their flesh, it is a bohak [pigmentation] which has spread on the skin. He is clean. לטוְרָאָ֣ה הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְהִנֵּ֧ה בְעֽוֹר־בְּשָׂרָ֛ם בֶּֽהָרֹ֖ת כֵּה֣וֹת לְבָנֹ֑ת בֹּ֥הַק ה֛וּא פָּרַ֥ח בָּע֖וֹר טָה֥וֹר הֽוּא:
dim white: I.e., their whiteness is not bright, but dim. כהות לבנת: שאין לובן שלהן עז אלא כהה:
it is a bohak: Like the whiteness that appears on the flesh of a red man, called ros [in Old French, rosso in Italian], between the areas of his redness [i.e., flesh color]. This [white pigmentation] is called בֹּהַק, just like a freckled man, whose skin between one freckle and another shines brightly (מַבְהִיק) with pure whiteness. בהק: כמין לובן הנראה בבשר אדם אדום, שקורין רו"ש [אדמוני], בין חברבורות אדמימותו, קרוי בהק, כאיש עדשן שבין עדשה לעדשה מבהיק הבשר בלובן צח:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 135 - 139
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 135
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• English text• Chapter 135
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Name of the Lord; offer praise, you servants of the Lord-
2. who stand in the House of the Lord, in the courtyards of the House of our God.
3. Praise the Lord, for the Lord is good; sing to His Name, for He is pleasant.
4. For God has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His beloved treasure.
5. For I know that the Lord is great, our Master is greater than all supernal beings.
6. All that the Lord desired He has done, in the heavens and on earth, in the seas and the depths.
7. He causes mists to rise from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings forth the wind from His vaults.
8. It was He who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, of man and beast.
9. He sent signs and wonders into the midst of Egypt, on Pharaoh and on all his servants.
10. It was He who struck down many nations, and slew mighty kings:
11. Sichon, king of the Amorites; Og, king of Bashan; and all the kingdoms of Canaan.
12. And He gave their lands as a heritage, a heritage to His people Israel.
13. Lord, Your Name is forever; Lord, Your remembrance is throughout all generations.
14. Indeed, the Lord will judge on behalf of His people, and have compassion on His servants.
15. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the product of human hands.
16. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see;
17. they have ears, but cannot hear; nor is there breath in their mouth.
18. Like them will their makers become-all who trust in them.
19. House of Israel, bless the Lord; House of Aaron, bless the Lord;
20. House of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
21. Blessed is the Lord from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 136
This psalm contains twenty-six verses, corresponding to the twenty-six generations between the creation of the world and the giving of the Torah.
1. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is forever.
2. Praise the God of the supernal beings, for His kindness is forever.
3. Praise the Master of the heavenly hosts, for His kindness is forever.
4. Who alone performs great wonders, for His kindness is forever.
5. Who makes the heavens with understanding, for His kindness is forever.
6. Who spreads forth the earth above the waters, for His kindness is forever.
7. Who makes the great lights, for His kindness is forever.
8. The sun to rule by day, for His kindness is forever.
9. The moon and stars to rule by night, for His kindness is forever.
10. Who struck Egypt through its firstborn, for His kindness is forever.
11. And brought Israel out of their midst, for His kindness is forever.
12. With a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, for His kindness is forever.
13. Who split the Sea of Reeds into sections, for His kindness is forever.
14. And brought Israel across it, for His kindness is forever.
15. And cast Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds, for His kindness is forever.
16. Who led His people through the desert, for His kindness is forever;
17. Who struck down great kings, for His kindness is forever.
18. And slew mighty kings, for His kindness is forever.
19. Sichon, king of the Amorites, for His kindness is forever.
20. And Og, king of Bashan, for His kindness is forever.
21. And gave their land as a heritage, for His kindness is forever.
22. A heritage to Israel His servant, for His kindness is forever.
23. Who remembered us in our humiliation, for His kindness is forever.
24. And redeemed us from our oppressors, for His kindness is forever.
25. Who gives food to all flesh, for His kindness is forever.
26. Praise the God of heaven, for His kindness is forever.
Chapter 137
Referring to the time of the destruction of the Temple, this psalm tells of when Nebuchadnezzar would ask the Levites to sing in captivity as they had in the Temple, to which they would reply, "How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil?" They were then comforted by Divine inspiration.
1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept as we remembered Zion.
2. There, upon the willows, we hung our harps.
3. For there our captors demanded of us songs, and those who scorned us-rejoicing, [saying,] "Sing to us of the songs of Zion.”
4. How can we sing the song of the Lord on alien soil?
5. If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [its dexterity].
6. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I will not remember you, if I will not bring to mind Jerusalem during my greatest joy!
7. Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of [the destruction of] Jerusalem, when they said, "Raze it, raze it to its very foundation!”
8. O Babylon, who is destined to be laid waste, happy is he who will repay you in retribution for what you have inflicted on us.
9. Happy is he who will seize and crush your infants against the rock!
Chapter 138
David offers awesome praises to God for His kindness to him, and for fulfilling His promise to grant him kingship.
1. By David. I will thank You with all my heart, in the presence of princes I shall praise You.
2. I will bow toward Your Holy Sanctuary, and praise Your Name for Your kindness and for Your truth; for You have exalted Your word above all Your Names.
3. On the day that I called out You answered me, You emboldened me, [You put] strength in my soul.
4. Lord, all the kings of the land will give thanks to You when they hear the words of Your mouth.
5. And they will sing of the Lord's ways, for the glory of the Lord is great.
6. For though the Lord is exalted, He sees the lowly; the High One castigates from afar.
7. If I walk in the midst of distress, keep me alive; against the wrath of my enemies stretch out Your hand, and let Your right hand deliver me.
8. Lord, complete [Your kindness] on my behalf. Lord, Your kindness is forever, do not forsake the work of Your hands.
Chapter 139
A most prominent psalm that guides man in the ways of God as no other in all of the five books of Tehillim. Fortunate is he who recites it daily.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O Lord, You have probed me, and You know.
2. You know my sitting down and my standing up; You perceive my thought from afar.
3. You encircle my going about and my lying down; You are familiar with all my paths.
4. For there was not yet a word on my tongue-and behold, Lord, You knew it all.
5. You have besieged me front and back, You have laid Your hand upon me.
6. Knowledge [to escape You] is beyond me; it is exalted, I cannot know it.
7. Where can I go [to escape] Your spirit? And where can I flee from Your presence?
8. If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there.
9. Were I to take up wings as the dawn and dwell in the furthest part of the sea,
10. there, too, Your hand would guide me; Your right hand would hold me.
11. Were I to say, "Surely the darkness will shadow me," then the night would be as light around me.
12. Even the darkness obscures nothing from You; and the night shines like the day-the darkness is as light.
13. For You created my mind; You covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will thank You, for I was formed in an awesome and wondrous way; unfathomable are Your works, though my soul perceives much.
15. My essence was not hidden from You even while I was born in concealment, formed in the depths of the earth.
16. Your eyes beheld my raw form; all [happenings] are inscribed in Your book, even those to be formed in future days-to Him they are the same.
17. How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How overwhelming, [even] their beginnings!
18. Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sand, even if I were to remain awake and always with You.
19. O that You would slay the wicked, O God, and men of blood [to whom I say], "Depart from me!”
20. They exalt You for wicked schemes, Your enemies raise [You] for falsehood.
21. Indeed, I hate those who hate You, Lord; I contend with those who rise up against You.
22. I hate them with the utmost hatred; I regard them as my own enemies.
23. Search me, Lord, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
24. See if there is a vexing way in me, then lead me in the way of the world.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 39• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Thursday, Adar II 28, 5776 · April 7, 2016
• Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 39
• Having explained that Beriah is the abode of souls that served G‑d with intellectual love and fear, and Yetzirah — of souls that served Him with natural love and fear, the Alter Rebbe will now discuss the divine service of those souls whose abode is the World of Atzilut. The quality of their divine service, he explains, surpasses even that of intellectual love and fear. This is the level of those tzaddikim who become veritable “chariots” for G‑d: they have no will save His Will, and their every act testifies to their utter self-nullification before Him.
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Adar II 28, 5776 · April 7, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 133
The Dough Offering ("Challah")
"You shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough as a gift"—Numbers 15:20.
We are commanded to separate a portion of every dough we prepare and give it to the priest.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Dough Offering ("Challah")
The Priestly Portion of Meat
"And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from those who perform a slaughter, be it an ox or a sheep"—Deuteronomy 18:3.
We are commanded to give to the priest the foreleg, jaw, and belly of any kosher animal that we slaughter.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Priestly Portion of Meat
The Priestly Portion of Fleece
"The first of the fleece of your sheep [shearing], you shall give him"—Deuteronomy 18:4.
We are commanded to separate the first portion of [a sheep's] shearing and give it to the priest.
This mitzvah applies only in the Land of Israel.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
ועולם האצילות, שהוא למעלה מהשכל וההשגה וההבנה לשכל נברא
The World of Atzilut is beyond the intelligence, grasp and understanding of a created being’s intellect.Even a spiritual being in the World of Beriah is after all a created being, and Atzilut is beyond its grasp as well.
כי חכמתו ובינתו ודעתו של אין סוף ברוך הוא מיוחדות שם בו בתכלית היחוד
For the Chochmah, Binah and Daat of the Ein Sof are united with Him there (in Atzilut) in perfect unity,
ביחוד עצום ונפלא, ביתר שאת ויתר עז לאין ק׳ מבעולם הבריאה
in a profound and wonderful unity infinitely superior to that [unity] found in Beriah.
כי שם ירדו להאיר בבחינת צמצום
For there they descended to illuminate [only] to a restricted (“contracted”) degree. The ChaBaD of Atzilut(referred to here as “ChaBaD of Ein Sof”) radiate in Beriah only after their light is “contracted”,
כדי שיוכלו שכלים נבראים לקבל מהן חב״ד, לידע את ה׳ ולהבין ולהשיג איזו השגה באור אין סוף ברוך הוא
so as to enable the intellect of created beings (namely, the angels and souls of Beriah) to receive ChaBaD — wisdom, understanding and knowledge — from [these Sefirot of Atzilut], so that they might know G‑d, and so that they might grasp and comprehend something of the Ein Sof-light,
כפי כח שכלים הנבראים, שהם בעלי גבול ותכלית
to the extent that the intellect of finite, limited, created beings is capable of understanding.
שלא יתבטלו במציאותם ולא יהיו בגדר נבראים כלל, רק יחזרו למקורם ושרשם, שהוא בחינת אלקות ממש
To achieve this purpose a “contraction” of ChaBaD of Atzilut was necessary, lest they (the created beings of Beriah)dissolve out of existence and lest they furthermore cease altogether to exist as created beings, reverting instead to their source and root, namely G‑dliness itself.
Were the ChaBaD of Atzilut to shine forth in Beriah without being “contracted”, allowing the creatures of Beriah to grasp G‑dliness as it radiates in the Sefirot of Atzilut, these creatures would be overwhelmed by the G‑dly illumination beyond their capacity to absorb, and would dissolve out of existence.
Hence, the Alter Rebbe will now continue, it is only the G‑dliness in a “contracted” ChaBaD that creatures of Beriah can grasp and absorb (and even then, only to the extent of their limited capacity); the light of ChaBaD in its pristine state, as inAtzilut, is beyond them.
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Adar II 28, 5776 · April 7, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 133
The Dough Offering ("Challah")
"You shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough as a gift"—Numbers 15:20.
We are commanded to separate a portion of every dough we prepare and give it to the priest.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Dough Offering ("Challah")
Positive Commandment 133
Translated by Berel Bell
The 133rd mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate challah from each dough and to give it to a kohen.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "You must separate the first portion of your kneading as challah [a dough offering]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractates Challah and Orlah. It is a Biblical commandment only in Eretz Yisroel.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 15:20.
2.Outside Eretz Yisroel it is obligatory by Rabbinic decree.
Positive Commandment 143The Priestly Portion of Meat
"And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from those who perform a slaughter, be it an ox or a sheep"—Deuteronomy 18:3.
We are commanded to give to the priest the foreleg, jaw, and belly of any kosher animal that we slaughter.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Priestly Portion of Meat
Positive Commandment 143
Translated by Berel Bell
The 143rd mitzvah is that we are commanded to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the keivah1 from every kosher animal that we slaughter to a kohen.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "This shall be the law of what the Kohanim receive from the people when an animal is slaughtered: [whether ox or sheep you must give the Kohen the foreleg, the jaw, and the keivah]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 10th chapter of tractate Chullin. Levites are not obligated in this mitzvah.3
FOOTNOTES
1.One of the cow's four stomachs.
2.Deut. 18:3.
3.Since the verse says, "from the people." See Chullin 131a.
Positive Commandment 144The Priestly Portion of Fleece
"The first of the fleece of your sheep [shearing], you shall give him"—Deuteronomy 18:4.
We are commanded to separate the first portion of [a sheep's] shearing and give it to the priest.
This mitzvah applies only in the Land of Israel.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• The Priestly Portion of Fleece
Positive Commandment 144
Translated by Berel Bell
The 144th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate the first of our shearings and give them to a kohen.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "You shall give him the first of your shearing."
This mitzvah applies only in Eretz Yisroel.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 11th chapter of tractate Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid. 18:4.
• 1 Chapter: Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to offer the burnt-offering1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah.2 How is the burnt-offering brought? One slaughters [the animal] and casts its blood in the manner described,3skins it, cuts it into pieces and offers all the pieces on the pyre of the altar, as [Leviticus 1:9] states: "The priest shall offer the entire [sacrifice] on the pyre of the altar."
Halacha 2
The wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the goats, and the bones, sinews, horns, and hoofs of the [sacrificial animals]4 should be offered on the pyre of the altar5 if they are still connected [naturally6 to the animal's body]. If they have been separated, they should not be brought up [to the altar].7 [This is derived from Deuteronomy 12:27 which mentions]: "Your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood."8All parts of the sacrificial animal which flew off9 the altar should not be returned to it. Similarly, a coal which flew off the altar should not be returned to it.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when] the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] flew off the altar. If they still have substance, even if they flew off after midnight,10 they should be returned to the altar,11 [for Leviticus 6:2] speaks of [the burnt-offering remaining] "on its fire, on the altar, the entire night." If they do not have substance, even if they flew off before midnight, they should not be returned.12If the meat became charred and dried up upon them like wood13 and they flew off before midnight, they should be returned. After midnight, they should not be returned.14
Halacha 4
After one cuts up the limbs of the burnt-offering, all of the different portions should be brought to the altar's ramp15 and salted there.16 Afterwards, all of the limbs should be brought up to the top of the altar.17 The gid hanesheh18should be removed at the top of the altar19 and tossed on the pile of ash in the midst of the altar. All of the limbs should be cast on the altar, as [implied by the prooftext cited above], "the flesh and the blood." Just as the blood is cast [on the altar],20 so too, all of the flesh must be cast [on the pyre].21 After they were tossed [on the altar, the priest] should come and arrange them on the pyre, as [Leviticus 1:12] states: "And the priest shall arrange them." If limbs [of sacrificial animals] were roasted and then brought up to the altar, they are not considered as a pleasing fragrance.
Halacha 5
How is the burnt-offering cut up? One would not break the animal's leg. Instead, a hole was made in it.22 It was hung from [the hole]23 and skinned. If [the burnt-offering] was an ox, it should be skinned without being hung.24
The person25 continues skinning, until he gets to the breast, When he gets to the breast, he should cut off the head26 and give it to a priest. He then cuts off the feet27 and gives them to others. He then completes skinning the animal. He rips open the heart and takes out its blood. He then proceeds to the forelegs and cuts them off.28 He proceeds to the right hindleg and gives it to [the priest] who merited [to carry] the head. The two testicles should be taken with it.
Halacha 6
[The latter] goes and washes them with water, as [Leviticus 1:13] states: "The inner organs and the feet should be washed with water." [This excludes] wine, a mixture of wine and water, and other liquids. All types of water are, [however,] acceptable.31
Halacha 7
He then takes the knife and separates the lung from the liver and [also] the lobe of the liver from the liver.34 He should not move the liver from its place. He hollows out the chest and gives it to another [priest]. He then proceeds upward to the right flank and cuts if off and descends to the backbone. He does not touch the backbone35 until he reaches the two soft ribs. He cuts it off and gives it to another [priest] while the liver is attached to it.
Halacha 8
He then reaches the neck and leaves it with two ribs on either side. He cuts it off and gives it to another priest with the windpipe, the heart, and the lungs attached to it. He proceeds to the left flank and leaves two soft ribs above and two soft ribs below and, as he had left in the other one. Thus on the two sides, he leaves four ribs on either side. He then cuts it off and gives it to another person together with the backbone36 with the spleen attached to it.
Halacha 9
He then comes to the tail and severs it and gives it to another [priest] together with the fat-tail, the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys with it.37 He should take the left foot and give it to another [priest]. This order should be followed when skinning and cutting up a burnt-offering of an animal. These are the portions referred to by the Torah [in Leviticus 1:6]: "You shall cut it into its portions."38
Halacha 10
How many priests bring the limbs to the ramp? If the burnt-offering is from sheep, six priests should carry it.
Halacha 11
The first [priest] carries the head and the [right] foot.39 [He carries] the head in his right hand40 with its nose facing his forearm and its horns between his fingers. The place where [the animal] was slaughtered is held upward with the fat upon it. The right foot is in his left hand41 with the side from which the skin was removed42 facing outward.
Halacha 12
The second [priest carries] the two forelegs, the right one in his right hand and the left one in his left hand.43 The side from which the skin was removed should face outward.
Halacha 13
The third [priest carries] the tail and the hindleg, the tail in his right hand with the fat-tail that hangs between his fingers. Together with it should be the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys. The left hindleg should be in his left hand with the side from which the skin was removed facing outward.
Halacha 14
The fourth [priest carries] the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand with the ribs between his fingers.
Halacha 15
The fifth [priest carries] the two flanks, the right flank in his right hand and the left flank in his left hand. The side from which the skin was removed should face outward.
Halacha 16
The sixth [priest carries] the intestines in a bowl.44 The feet should be placed above them.45 [This applies] if the burnt-offering was a sheep or a goat. If, however, it was a ram, two priests should bring the intestines.46
Similarly, [if it was a sheep,] the flour of the accompanying offering should be brought by one priest and the wine by another. If it was a ram, the flour should be brought by two priests47 and the wine, by two priests.
Halacha 17
Thus eight [priests] bring [a burnt offering of] a sheep or a goat to the altar.48That of a ram is brought by eleven and that of an ox is brought by twenty-four.
Halacha 18
There are 24 [priests] who bring [a burnt offering of] an ox to the altar. The first brings the head. The second and the third bring the right foot.49The fourth and the fifth bring the tail. The sixth and the seventh bring the left foot. The eighth brings the breast. The neck is brought by three [priests], the ninth, tenth, and eleventh. The two forelegs are brought by two priests, the two flanks, by two, and the intestines, the flour, and the wine in sets of three.50 Thus there are 24.
Halacha 19
Why was a large limb of an ox not divided into portions? Because it is written: "You shall cut it into its portions." [Implied is that] its portions should not be cut into portions.
When are the above [number of priests] required [to bring the limbs to the altar]?51 For a communal burnt-offering. If it was desired that the portions of an individual burnt-offering be brought to the altar with less than this [number of priests] or more, it is possible.
Halacha 20
How was the burnt-offering of a fowl brought? [The priest] would ascend upon the ramp52 He would turn [right] to the surrounding ledge and approach the southeast corner.53 There he would sever the head [of the fowl] at the nape of its neck, severing [the head]54 entirely. If he does not sever it entirely, [the sacrifice] is invalid. He then squeezes out the blood of the head and the blood of the body on the wall of the altar above the [scarlet] band in the middle of the altar.
If he squeezed out the blood of the head, but did not squeeze out the blood of the body, [the sacrifice] is invalid. If he squeezed out the blood of the body, but did not squeeze out the blood of the head, [the sacrifice] is valid.55
Halacha 21
He should take the head and bring the opening where it was severed close to the altar, dips it into salt,56 and cast it on the pyre. He then focuses his attention on the body. He removes the crop,57 the skin that is upon it with its feathers,58and the intestines that are removed with it59 and casts them on the ash pile.60
Halacha 22
[Leviticus 1:17 states:] "He shall split it with its wings" - [this is performed] by hand,61 not with a knife. He need not separate [one part of the body from the other], as [that verse] states: "He [need] not separate it." If he separates it, it is valid. He then spreads salt upon it and casts it upon the altar.
If he did not remove the craw, the feathers, or the intestines or spread salt upon it, it is valid. As long as the change that one makes comes after squeezing out the blood, [the sacrifice] is acceptable.62
Halacha 23
How is melikah performed? [The priest] cuts and descends with his nail at the nape of the neck.63 If he desires to move his nail back and forth,64 he may. If he wishes to chop and descend with his nail,65 he may. If the organs necessary for ritual slaughter slip from their place,66 he need not be concerned.
He must cut through the spine, i.e., the neckbone, without cutting through the majority of the meat surrounding it, for if he would cut through the majority of the meat, [the sacrificial animal] would be considered as dead67 before he reached the organs necessary for ritual slaughter. With regard to a burnt offering, as he descends he must cut both the organs68 necessary for ritual slaughter.
When one performs melikah with a knife or does so from the side, it is not considered as melika. Instead, it is like strangling or decapitating the fowl. The entire [width of] the nape of the neck is acceptable for melikah.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 63) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 115) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This refers both to the burnt-offerings brought by individuals and those brought by the Jewish people as a whole.
2.
Having described the general principles that apply with regard to all the sacrifices, the Rambam begins to focus on each one individually, describing its laws in a particular chapter or set of halachot. Here the Rambam focuses on the manner in which the sacrifices are brought. In later sets of halachot, he speaks of the obligations of individuals and of the Jewish people as a whole to bring these sacrifices.
3.
See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of the animal and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.
4.
All of these are not fundamental parts of the animal's body. Hence while they are connected to the body, they are considered as part of it and must be offered on the altar's pyre. The implication is that ordinarily, they would not be separated and the animal would be offered on the altar while they were attached. Nevertheless, if they had been separated and they had descended from the altar, they are considered as distinct and there is no longer any obligation to offer them.
5.
If, however, they flew off the pyre, but remained on the altar, they should be placed back on the pyre (Meilah 9b).
6.
This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:5).
7.
Indeed, if they were brought up to the altar as separate entities, they should be taken down again, rather than offered (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:16). Nevertheless, if they were separated on the altar itself before they were offered, they should not be taken down, but instead should be offered on its pyre (Radbaz, Rav Yosef Corcus).
8.
The prooftext is defining the meat and the blood as the fundamental elements of a burnt offering. The implication is that it is necessary for them to be consumed by the altar's fire and hence, they must be returned to the altar if they flew off. There is, by contrast, no fundamental necessity for the secondary elements of the animal's body to be consumed by fire. Hence there is no obligation to return them to the altar if they flew off.
9.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:6), the Rambam explains that often we see that when entities that contain moisture are placed on a fire, the moisture will vaporize. At times, the process will be powerful enough to lift up that entity and propel it upward.
10.
When at times a distinction is made, as the Rambam explains in the second portion of the halachah.
11.
To be consumed by its fire, as the mitzvah requires.
12.
For the mitzvah of having them consumed by fire has been completed.
13.
I.e., they did not become like ash.
14.
Zevachim 86a notes that the prooftext cited speaks of the burnt offering being on the altar's fire "the entire night, until the morning." From the redundancy, our Sages derive that within the night, a distinction should be made. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
15.
See Halachot 10-18 which describes the manner in which the limbs are brought to the altar.
16.
For salt must be applied to all offerings (seeHilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11-12).
17.
Different priests would perform this service, i.e., one priest would bring a limb to the ramp and salt it and another one would bring it to the top of the altar (Radbaz, Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:6,8).
18.
The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal's hind leg. This nerve must be separated before the meat of an animal is eaten or offered on the altar. See Hilchot Ma'achaolot Assurot8:1 for more details.
19.
It should not be removed beforehand, because the limb will not look attractive as it is being carried to the altar (Chulin 90b).
20.
As described in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.
21.
Indeed, the altar's ramp was separated slightly from the altar itself to insure that the limbs were thrown on the fire rather than merely placed there (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:13).
22.
As obvious from the continuation of the halachah, the hole is not made in the animal's foot, but on its thigh above its knee. Thus it will remain hanging after its legs were cut off.
23.
There were pillars in the Temple Courtyard with hooks to serve this purpose (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13).
24.
Perhaps because of its weight, hanging it up would present a difficulty.
25.
In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:6, the Rambamd states that the skinning of the animal and its division into portions need not be performed by a priest.
26.
If he would skin the breast before cutting off the head, the skin would hang from the neck and it would be difficult to cut off the head precisely (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 4:2). Alternatively, since the head is offered first, it is appropriate that it be cut off first (Radbaz).
27.
The portion below the knees.
28.
I.e., the portion from the knee until the shoulder joint.
29.
I.e., the fat that is on the digestive organs.
30.
So that when the head is carried to the altar, the opening where it was severed will not be seen. This is a gesture of respect for the Divine Presence.
31.
I.e., even water that is collected is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
32.
This chamber is described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17. The stomach was washed there, because it would not be respectful to wash out its filth in the Temple Courtyard.
33.
Since they are narrow, it is difficult to clean them thoroughly. At least three washings are necessary. If more are required to clean them, they should be washed more [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:2)].
34.
For it is sacrificed with the tail as stated in Halachot 9 and 13.
35.
For the backbone is offered with the left flank.
36.
The Radbaz explains that the backbone is left intact so that the vertebrae will not separate into individual units.
37.
The ribs that were left are also taken with it (Radbaz).
38.
Rav Yosef Corcus states that there is no Scriptural source for the division of the animal in this manner. Instead, this was simply the most practical and logical way of dividing it.
39.
In this way, a portion of the animal with many bones (the head) and much meat (the leg) will have been offered. The head is also given priority, because it has been mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).
40.
For the offering of the head is most important.
41.
Since carrying the limbs to the altar is not part of the atonement process, there is no difficulty in it being performed with one's left hand (Rabbenu Asher).
42.
I.e., the outer side. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:4).
43.
These limbs are the largest and hence, receive priority.
44.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). Others interpret the term bezech differently.
45.
To cover them, for their appearance is not appealing (Radbaz).
46.
Since a ram is much larger than a sheep, it would be difficult for one priest to carry the intestines alone. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that the intestines are cut in half and part given to one priest and part to another. The Tifferet Yisrael (Yoma 2:6) differs and maintains that two priests carry them together.
47.
Here too, because it is a larger amount, it would be difficult for one priest to carry it. Here too, the Radbaz explains that the intent is that each priest carries a container with half of the meal offering, while the Tifferet Yisrael maintains that it is placed in a large container and that container is carried by two priests together.
48.
The Rambam is speaking about any burnt-offering. Therefore he does not mention thechavitin offering which is brought together with the daily burnt-offering.
49.
For the foot of an ox is large and requires two priests to bring it. Similar concepts apply with regard to the other limbs.
50.
Here also the Radbaz explains that the portions would be divided, with each priest receiving a separate portion. This, he maintained, is a greater expression of honor and respect than to have the priests carry the burdens together.
51.
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. He explains that the animal may not be cut into smaller portions, as implied by the first clause of this halachah. (Indeed, the prooftext cited refers to an individual burnt-offering.)
52.
Holding the fowl.
53.
Zevachim 65a states that this corner is chosen, because it is close to the ash pile where the skin and the intestines would be cast.
54.
The Lechem Mishneh (gloss to Chapter 7, Halachah 6) quotes authorities who maintain that he need not sever the head entirely from the body entirely. What must be severed are the gullet and the windpipe organs. Just as ritual slaughter requires that they be severed, so too, they must be severed in the rite of melikah. The Kessef Mishneh (to that halachah) however, understand the Rambam's words simply. The head must be separated from the body entirely.
55.
The rationale for both these rulings is that the majority of the blood is lodged in the body.
56.
For all offerings must be salted.
57.
One of the stomaches of the fowl.
58.
Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary of the Mishnah (Zevachim6:5). The Radbaz interprets the term notzahas feces rather than as feathers and explains that this enables us to understand why these organs are not burnt together with the rest of the fowl. The intestines of an animal are washed out before being offered. Hence they are fit to be offered on the altar. Those of the fowl are not.
59.
As required by Leviticus 1:16.
60.
The ash pile on the floor of the Temple Courtyard, between the ramp and the altar, near the southeastern corner of the altar. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:12. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 7, Halachah 4.
61.
As evident from Judges 14:6 (Zevachim65b).
62.
Because the primary element of the sacrifice was completed (Rav Yosef Corcus).
63.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, which describes the manner in which the priest would hold the fowl. As stated there, this was one of the difficult tasks performed in the Sanctuary.
64.
As one does when performing ritual slaughter (Hilchot Shechitah 2:7).
65.
Such a motion is unacceptable for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:7).
66.
This would disqualify an animal for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:14).
67.
I.e., that would make the animal. trefe.
68.
Cutting the majority of them is, however, acceptable. They need not be severed entirely.
• 3 Chapters: Bikkurim Bikkurim - Chapter 6, Bikkurim Bikkurim - Chapter 7, Bikkurim Bikkurim - Chapter 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• English Text | Video Class
Audio: Listen | Download• English Text | Video Class
• Bikkurim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
The obligation [to separate] challah applies only to [dough from] the five species of grain: wheat barley, rye, oats, and spelt,3 as [implied by Numbers 15:19]: "When you partake of the bread of the land." The term "bread" refers only to a loaf made from these five species.4 If, however, one makes bread from rice, millet, or other legumes, there is no obligation of challah at all.
Halacha 3
Although there is no obligation to separate terumah from leket, shichachah, pe'ah,5 grain which is ownerless,6 and grain which did not reach a third of its growth,7 there is an obligation to separate challah from these. Similarly, there is an obligation to separate challah [from dough made from grain in the following circumstances]: the tithes was separated from the grain early while it was still stalks8 and terumat ma'aser was separated from it, even though the portion of the great terumah is still included in it,9 [grain that was from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was redeemed, the extra [portions of barley harvested for] the omer offering,10 the two loaves [prepared to be offered on Shavuot], and [the loaves prepared for] the showbread11 which were redeemed.12
Halacha 4
When a dough was made from grain from the second tithe in Jerusalem13or from grain from the Sabbatical year,14 or when there is a doubt whether the dough was made from a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce,15 there is an obligation to separate challah. A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce is exempt from the obligation of challah.16
Halacha 5
The loaves for the thanksgiving offering17 and the wafers for the nazirite offering18 which a person made for himself19 are exempt from the obligation ofchallah, for they are sanctified.20 [If they were made] to sell in the market place to nazirites and to those bringing thanksgiving offerings, there is an obligation to separate challah, since [the baker] has the intent that if they are not sold [for sacrificial purposes], he will eat them.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
When a person makes dough using grain that is tevel - whether the challah is separated before terumah or the terumah separated before challah - what he did is effective.23 If he separated the challah first, he should not partake of it until he separates terumah and terumat ma'aser for it. If he separated terumahfirst, he should not partake of it until he separates challah.24
Halacha 8
When a person makes a dough with the intent25 of feeding the bread baked from it to an domesticated animal or a wild animal, it is exempt fromchallah.26There is an obligation to separate challah from a dough made for dogs27 which is eaten by the shepherds.28 A dough made by a gentile is exempt from challah.29
Halacha 9
If a gentile and a Jew were partners in a dough and the portion owned by the Jew was large enough to be liable for challah, it is liable for challah.30
Halacha 10
When a gentile separates challah even in Eretz Yisrael, it is not challah. Instead, we inform him that he does not have to [observe this mitzvah. The dough separated] may be eaten by a non-priest.31
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when a person] mixes flour from wheat34and rice flour35 and makes a dough: If it has the flavor of grain, challah must be separated from it.36 If not, it is exempt. Even if one placed yeast37 from wheat38 into a dough from rice, one is obligated to separate challah from it if it has the flavor of wheat. If it does not have that flavor, it is exempt.
Halacha 12
There is an obligation to separate challah in all [the following instances]:39 a dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey,40 or with boiling water, or one in which spices where placed, water was boiled and flour was placed inside of it and a dough was kneaded. [And challah must be separated when] dough was baked whether in an oven or [in a pit] in the earth,41 whether in a frying pan or a deep pan, whether first one attached the dough to the frying pan or the deep pan and then heated them with fire from below until the loaf was baked or one heated them first and then attached the dough.
If, however, one made a dough to dry it in the sun alone or to cook it in a pot, it is exempt from challah, for [dough cooked] in the sun is not bread whether it was kneaded with water or other liquids.42 Similarly, roasted grain that was kneaded whether with water or honey and which is eaten without being baked is exempt, for the obligation of challah applies only to a dough that will ultimately be baked as bread for human consumption.
Halacha 13
When a dough was first kneaded to make a dough to be cooked in the sun and then the person completed making it for a loaf of bread, or he began making it to bake bread and completed it to cook it in the sun and similarly, when roasted flour was kneaded to bake a loaf of bread, there is an obligation to separate challah.43
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
What is the minimum measure of dough from which we are obligated to separate challah? An entire omer of flour,47 whether from one of the five species or from all five together, for they are all combined to reach the minimum measure.
What is the measure of an omer? One fifth [of a kab] less than two kabbin. Akab is four lugim and a log is four revi'iot.48 A revi'it is the volume of a cube two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths by a height of two and seven tenths fingerbreadths. A fingerbreadth refers to the width of a thumb.
Thus an omer is a measure that is ten fingerbreadths by ten fingerbreadths by a height of approximately 3 and one ninth fingerbreadths. Similarly, a cube with each side six and seven ninths fingerbreadths produces a measure of anomer.
How much does this measure contain? The volume of 43 and 1/5 eggs. This is equivalent to the weight of 86 2/3 selaim of Egyptian wheat flour.49 This is equivalent to 520 zuz of Egyptian zuzim at present. A measure that comprises such a weight of wheat is used universally to measure for the separation of challah.
Halacha 16
It is forbidden for a person to make his dough less than the minimum measure50 in order to free it from the obligation of challah.51 When a person separates challah from a dough that is smaller than the prescribed measure, his actions are of no consequence and the dough is ordinary dough as before.
When a person made a dough that is less than the prescribed measure, baked it, and put the loaf in a basket, baked another loaf52 and put it in the basket, and [continued doing this] until a measure from which challah [must be separated] was collected in the basket, the basket joins them together [as a single entity, establishing an obligation for] challah.53 He must separatechallah from the bread. This is derived [from the prooftext mentioned above]: "When you partake of the bread of the land." [The verse] teaches that one should separate [challah] from [bread] that is baked. An oven, [however,] does not join loaves together [to create an obligation to separate] challah.54
Halacha 17
If [small] loaves were joined together and a quantity equal to the measure ofchallah was gathered together, there is an obligation to separate challah.55[This applies] even if they are not placed in a basket [together].56 If one baked loaves a little bit at a time and gathered together the entire quantity on a board that does not have a cavity,57 there is a doubt regarding [the matter].58 If [the obligation to separate] challah is of Rabbinic origin,59 one is not obligated to separate it until they are gathered in a container with a cavity.60
Halacha 18
When flour was not sifted, but instead kneaded together with its bran, since the entire measure of the flour61 comprises an omer, there is an obligation [to separate] challah.62 If, however, one removed the bran from the flour and then completed the [required] measure of dough by returning the bran to the flour, there is no obligation to separate challah.63
Halacha 19
FOOTNOTES
1.
The commentaries raise a question concerning this ruling, because seemingly, the baker should separate challah himself. Moreover, because of the severity of the prohibition of challah, the common people were not considered suspect to refrain from making this separation.
The Radbaz explains that we are speaking about an instance where the baker told the purchaser to separate challah, alternatively, an instance where the baker is suspect not to separate challah. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the responsibility for the baker to separate challah applies only when thechallah is ritually pure. Since it will be eaten by the priest, it is appropriate that the baker separate it. When, by contrast, it is impure and must be burnt, it should be separated by the purchaser.
2.
Difusim, translated as "trays," literally means "molds." In the Talmudic era, bread was baked in various molds so that the loaves would be shaped differently. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3), the Rambam explains that there was an opinion which forbade separating challahfrom one tray for another lest the flour used to bake the different breads was from different years.
3.
I.e., whether the dough is made from each of the species individually or a combination of any of the five, as stated in Halachah 15.
4.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 1:1) derives this concept because there is an association between challah and matzah. Matzah may only be made from these five species, for they are the only species that can become leaven. Hence, it is these five to which the mitzvah of challah applies. See Halachah 11 which discusses the laws that apply when a dough is made using one of these grains and other species.
5.
These mitzvot refer to grain left for the poor.
6.
When the grain was left by its owner, it was ownerless and hence, there were no agricultural obligations incumbent upon it. Now, however, that someone took possession of it, those obligations do apply.
7.
Because at this point it is not considered as grain yet. See Hilchot Ma'aser 2:3-5. Nevertheless, since a dough made from such grain will become leaven, there is an obligation to separate challah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:4)].
8.
Before it was threshed; see Hilchot Terumah3:13, Hilchot Ma'aser 3:19.
9.
For as stated in Hilchot Terumah, op. cit., there is no obligation to separate terumahfrom such grain. And since there is no obligation to separate terumah, one might think that one is also exempt from the obligation to separate challah
10.
As explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim7:11-12, three se'ah of barley would be harvested for the omer offering. That barley was then made into flour, sifted and refined until only an isaron (a far smaller measure) was selected for the omer offering. The remainder of the barley was redeemed and could be used for mundane purposes.
11.
This refers to the extra flour which had been set aside for the two loaves or the showbread, like the remainder of the barley mentioned in the previous note, it could be redeemed and then used for mundane purposes.
12.
In all these instances, since the dough was prepared after it was redeemed, it is considered as bread belonging to an ordinary person. Hence, the obligation to tithe it applies (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
13.
Although produce of the second tithe is "the property of the Most High," in Jerusalem, it is permitted to be eaten by ordinary people. Hence, challah must be separated from the dough (Radbaz).
14.
Like the ownerless produce mentioned in the previous halachah, at present, it is the property of the person who took it as his own. Hence, there is an obligation to separate challah.
15.
Although there is a possibility that the produce is a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which is exempt as stated in the following clause, there is also a possibility that this is only ordinary produce in which instance, an obligation does apply.
16.
The Radbaz states that this law applies only in the present era when the obligation to separate challah is of Rabbinic origin. In that instance, the prohibition of a mixture ofterumah offsets the obligation to separatechallah, for they are both Rabbinic safeguards. If, however, the obligation to separate challah is Scriptural in origin, it would take precedence.
17.
Together with the thanksgiving offering, 40 loaves (10 each of four types) were offered.
18.
Together with the ram a nazirite offered 30 loaves (10 each of three types) were offered. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot9:12-24 for a description of these loaves.
19.
To bring as part of his offering, rather than to sell to someone else.
20.
And challah need only be separated from a person's private property, not from consecrated property (Menachot 67a).
21.
This applies even if the dough is not large enough that each of the partners will receive a portion the size of an olive (Radbaz). Even though they intend to separate the bread after it is baked, as long as they do not intend to separate the dough, they are obligated to separate challah (Siftei Cohen326:1).
22.
We are speaking about a situation where a person bakes bread in order to give it to many people. He does not, however, declare the bread ownerless. Were he to do so, there would be no obligation to separatechallah, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
23.
I.e., even though he should have separated the terumah before the dough was made, after the fact, his separation is effective
24.
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam does not mention the second tithe, for in the years that there is an obligation to separate it, one may not partake of the produce until it is separated.
25.
The Radbaz states that the law depends on the intent of the person making the dough and not what it is eventually used for.
26.
For the mitzvah applies only to dough prepared for human consumption.
27.
A dough made without bran being separated from the flour which is thus usually not intended for human consumption [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:8)].
28.
Since the shepherds also intend to partake of it, it is considered as intended for human consumption and challah must be separated from the entire dough, even from the portion intended for the dogs.
29.
Menachot 67a derives this from the fact thatNumbers 15:20, the prooftext for the obligation of challah, speaks of "the first of your dough," i.e., the dough of a Jew and not of a gentile.
30.
The Radbaz maintains that the Jew mayt separate challah from the entire dough, even from the gentile's portion.
31.
Because there is no holiness associated with it.
32.
I.e., the Jew thought that if he gave the dough to a gentile to prepare, it would be exempt and the gentile desired to separatechallah from it. The Radbaz states that although generally we do not suspect that a prohibition is being violated, there is room to do so in this instance, because otherwise, why would the gentile think of separatingchallah.
33.
As stated in Halachah 15.
34.
Or any other of the five species of grain mentioned in Halachah 2.
35.
The Turei Zahav 324:9 states this law applies to rice and not to other species, because rice takes on the flavor of wheat.
36.
This applies even if quantitatively, there is more rice than wheat. For the wheat is considered as dominant.
The Ra'avad states that this ruling applies only when there is enough wheat in the dough to establish an obligation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam does not make such a distinction. The difference of opinion between them centers on the interpretation of the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:5). TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:9) quotes the Rambam's wording without any further qualification. There is a similar disagreement between the Rambam and the Ra'avad with regard to matzah made from wheat and rice. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:5.
37.
Yeast is singled out, because a small amount of yeast can affect an entire dough.
38.
The Ra'avad states that this applies when the yeast is taken from a dough from whichchallah had not been separated. The Radbaz, however, states that it is possible that the Rambam does not accept that conclusion. In this instance as well, theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:10) quotes the Rambam's ruling without further qualification.
39.
All of the instances mentioned in the first clause of the halachah are not bread in the simple sense. Nevertheless, they are all considered as dough within the context of this mitzvah.
40.
Even though no water was mixed into it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 329:9)].
41.
Since ultimately the dough was baked, the fact that the flour was boiled first is not significant (Siftei Cohen 329:8).
42.
Similarly, dough boiled in water is not considered as bread, but as cooked food.
43.
As long as there was an intent to use the dough for bread at one stage in its preparation, challah must be separated.
44.
A mixture of whey and bread crumbs used as a dip.
45.
This shape indicates that he may change his mind and serve the cakes as bread.
46.
This indicates that he is not intending to serve the strips as bread, but will indeed crumble them and use them for kutach.
47.
Our Sages derived this measure as follows:Numbers 15:19 states: "You shall separate the first of your dough as challah." AsExodus 16:16 relates the amount of manna allotted to each individual in the desert was an omer. Hence we use that as the size of the required measure of dough (Eruvin 83b).
48.
A revi'it is approximately 86cc according toShiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a log is 344 or 600 cc, a kab 1376 or 2400 cc, and the measure of the dough from which challahmust be separated is 2500 (because the above figures are approximations) or 4320 cc.
49.
Shiurei Torah writes that a blessing should be recited when separating challah from a dough made from 3 pounds and 10 ¾ ounces of flour and one should be stringent and separate challah from a dough made from 2 pounds and 10.1 ounces of flour.
50.
I.e., less than the measure described in the previous halachah.
51.
This applies even though he is ritually impure and he knows that he will be separating the dough to have it burnt (Challah 2:3). The Turei Zahav 324:17 and the Siftei Cohen 324:25 emphasize that this applies only when the person's intent in making the loaf small is that he will not have to separate challah. If he has another intent, his actions are not sanctioned.
52.
Which was also less than the prescribed measure.
53.
This applies even though the loaves themselves are not joined together. One of the examples of the separation of challahwith which many are familiar - the separation of challah from matzah - employs this principle.
54.
I.e., if small loaves are baked together in an oven, but taken out separately, there is no obligation to separate challah.
55.
Even though at the time the dough was made, there was not a sufficient quantity to require the separation of challah.
56.
The fact that they are joined is sufficient for them to be considered as a singled entity.
57.
In contrast to the basket mentioned in the previous halachah.
58.
Pesachim 48b mentions an unresolved difference of opinion concerning this question among the Sages.
59.
Like the challah separated in the present era, as stated Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
60.
For we follow the principle: When there is a doubt regarding a Rabbinic obligation, we rule leniently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 325:1) writes that if one places the bread on a board and then covers it with a cloth, there is an authority who requires the separation of challah. The Siftei Cohen 325:5 questions why the Shulchan Aruch uses the expression "there is an authority...," in as much as this principle is universally accepted.
61.
I.e., the flour together with the bran, even though the flour alone is not of sufficient quantity to require challah to be separated.
62.
For a poor person will eat bread made from coarse flour containing bran (Shabbat 76b).
63.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 2:6) explains that this is derived from Numbers 15:21 that speaks of "your dough," i.e., the way dough is ordinarily made.
64.
According to the Rambam, this halachah pertains to a baker and not to ordinary individuals. The laws pertaining to them are mentioned in the following halachah.
65.
To sell to others to use the yeast to leaven other doughs without this dough being baked.
66.
So that he will be baking smaller portions and not be obligated to separate challah.
67.
I.e., private individuals who will use the yeast for themselves and not for commercial purposes.
68.
Because the dough is not being made to be baked as bread, but to be divided as dough. Since it is being made for private individuals, the Rambam maintains that there is little likelihood that they will change their minds and have it baked. Even though the women did not give their flour to the baker together, the fact that he made a dough from them would have caused an obligation for challahhad the intent been to bake the dough. Moreover, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 326:3) rules that if the women consent to having their flour mixed in a larger dough, an obligation to separate challah is created.
The Ra'avad maintains that if one woman makes dough to use as yeast, the law mentioned with regard to a baker in the previous halachah applies to her and she is required to separate challah. Here the leniency is granted because several women are involved. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh argue against the Ra'avad's conclusion and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 326:2) states that the stringency applies to a baker and not to an ordinary person.
Bikkurim - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
[The following laws apply when] there are two doughs that when combined comprise the measure that obligates the separation of challah, but neither comprises that measure alone should they touch each other and become attached to each other.1 If they belong to two individuals,2 they are exempt from challah even though they are of the same type of grain.3 [The rationale is that] we assume that the two people object [to the combination of their doughs].4 If it is known that they would not object to the combination of their doughs, they are considered as one.
Halacha 2
[Different rules apply if] the two belonged to one person. If they were from one type [of grain], they are combined and challah is obligated to be separated from them. If they are from two types, they are not combined. [The rationale is that] we assume that one person does not object [to the combination of his doughs].5 If he objects [to their combination and endeavors] that one dough not touch the other or become mixed with it, they are not considered as one, even if they are of one type of grain.
Halacha 3
What is meant by the statement that if they belonged to one person and were from the same type [of grain] they are combined? When a dough from wheat touches6 a dough from spelt, they are combined.7 If it touched [a dough from] another type of grain,8 they are not combined.9 Similarly, if a dough of barley touches a dough of spelt,10 oats, or rye, or doughs of spelt, oats, or rye touch each other, they can be combined.11
Halacha 4
A dough from grain from one year should not be combined with a dough from grain from the previous year even though they are of the same species. [This is a decree,] lest people say that terumah may be separated from new grain for old grain.12 A person should not separate [the challah] from the middle of the two.13 Instead, he should bring another dough - either from this year or the previous - and combine it with them to complete the required measure.14
When does the above apply? When one dough touches another. If, however, one mixes flour from the species of grain and makes a single dough from one of them, the five are combined to comprise the measure of dough required forchallah, as we explained.15
Halacha 5
When there is a dough that is less than the required measure on one side and another dough less than the required measure on the other side,16 and a dough that is exempt from challah in the middle - e.g., a dough of rice, a dough of terumah [flour] or from terumah [flour] that was mixed with ordinary flour, or a dough from a gentile17 - [the doughs] are not combined even though they touch each other.18 [The rationale is that] an entity that is exempt from challahseparates in the middle.
Halacha 6
When, by contrast, there is a dough from which challah was separated between them, [the two outer doughs] can be combined, because originally, there was an obligation to separate challah from the dough in the center.19Similarly, if a dough that was consecrated was in the center, they are combined, [because that dough] is fit to be redeemed20 [at which point,] there will be an obligation to separate challah from it. Similarly, if there was a dough of another type of grain, a dough belonging to another person, or a dough from a different year between them, the doughs on the sides are combined [to comprise an obligation to separate] challah.
Halacha 7
There were two doughs, each one of them less than the minimum measure forchallah. One separated challah from each of them. Afterwards, they touched each other and [the combined doughs] comprise the [required] measure. There is an obligation to separate challah [from the combined doughs], for thechallot separated originally are of no consequence.21
Halacha 8
Two gentiles22 made a dough comprising the required measure [for challah]23and divided it. Afterwards, they converted24 and after the conversion, each one added to his portion until it comprised the [required] measure. There is an obligation [to separate] challah. [The rationale is that] there was no time that it was of the size obligating [challah] while they were gentiles, because each was to receive less than the required measure.25
Halacha 9
If, however, two Jews made [a dough] in the above manner and then, they divided it and each one of them added to his portion26 until it comprised the required measure, it is exempt. [The rationale is that] there was a time when there would have been an obligation [to separate challah from the original dough]27and they were exempt at that time, because the dough was made to be divided.28
Halacha 10
[Different rules apply when], by contrast, the dough was owned by a gentile and a Jew in partnership and they divided it.29 If, afterwards, the gentile converted and then added to his portion and the Jew added to his portion until each one of them completed the measure that requires the separation ofchallah, there is an obligation to separate challah from the dough of the Jew,30but the dough of the gentile31 is exempt.32
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply when a person] takes yeast from a dough from which challah was not separated and places it in a dough from which challahwas separated. He should bring a second dough that - together with this yeast - will comprise a measure that obligates the separation of challah and combine it with the dough from which challah was separated.33 He should then separate from the second dough the appropriate measure of challah for it and for the yeast. [In this manner,] he is separating [challah] from [dough] that is in the same place.34 If he does not have a second dough, the entire [first dough] is considered as tevel. He should separate challah for the entire amount.35[The rationale is that] when tevel36 is mixed with its own type,37 even the slightest amount causes the mixture to become forbidden.38
Halacha 12
A dough from which challah has not been separated is like ordinary produce and not like challah with regard to the laws of ritual purity. As will be explained in the appropriate place,39 impurity of the second degree does not bring about impurity of the third degree with regard to ordinary produce.40
It is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael.41 Therefore when there are two doughs, one that is ritually impure and one that is ritually pure, one may take [a portion of dough]42 equivalent to the measure of challah to be separated from both of them from a dough from which challah was not separated and place it in the center close to the pure dough. He should then extend a portion of the impure dough the size of an egg43 to the pure dough44 so that he will be able to separate challah45 from the dough in the same place.46
Halacha 13
A person may make a pure dough and refrain from separating challah from it, setting it - or a portion of it - aside to continuously separate challot from other doughs with it until the dough set aside becomes challah in its entirety,47provided [the dough set aside] does not become spoiled to the point that it is no longer fit for human consumption. [This applies] even if the doughs became impure. Once the dough is no longer fit for human consumption, [challah] cannot be separated with it.
When does the above apply? When there is a question whether or not challahhas been separated from the doughs for which he is separating challah.48[The rationale is that] challah of a doubtful status49may be taken from the pure dough for the impure as an initial preference50 and the two need not be in the same place.51
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Radbaz emphasizes that touching each other is not sufficient; the two doughs must become attached. See Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 325:1).
2.
Who are not partners (Siftei Cohen 326:1).
3.
See the following halachah which distinguishes between doughs made from one type and those made from two. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 16-17, which deal with the issues mentioned in this and the following halachot.
4.
Thus even if they were kneaded together, since they were intended to be separated, they are considered as distinct entities.
5.
Since they both belong to him and are of the same type of grain, why would he object to their combination?
This, however, applies only when the two doughs are types that would normally be mixed together. If they would not be normally mixed, even if they are owned by one person, this principle does not apply [Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah326:1)].
6.
And becomes attached. This applies to all the other instances when touching doughs are mentioned in this chapter.
7.
Although they are from different species, since they are of the same general type (for the doughs made from the two are similar, see Chapter 8, Halachah 4), they are combined.
8.
I.e., barley, oats, or rye.
9.
Despite the fact that if the different species of grain are mixed in the same dough, they are combined, as stated in the following halachah.
10.
Although spelt is often associated with wheat (ibid.), its dough can be combined with that of rye.
11.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 324:2) mentions the Rambam's perspective as a minority ruling, favoring the opinion of Rabbenu Asher who maintains that rye can be combined with barley and with spelt, but not with oats or wheat. And oats can be combined with barley and spelt, but not with rye or wheat.
12.
See Hilchot Terumah 10:18.
13.
I.e., taking a portion of both of the two doughs. This advice was given by Rabbi Yishmael (Challah 4:4).
14.
I.e., placing the doughs of new grain on either side of the dough of old grain or the doughs of old grain on either side of the dough from new grain. Since the person will see that he is adding an extra dough, he will not err and think that one may separateterumah from new grain for old grain [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah324:8); see Halachah 6]. The Radbaz offers a different explanation.
15.
Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
16.
The two doughs on the sides are of the same type of grain and together, they comprise the required measure.
17.
See Chapter 6, Halachot 2-4, 9-10, which mention the exemption of these doughs.
18.
I.e., the two external doughs touch the middle dough. If, however, the two external doughs are touching, challah must be separated from them.
19.
In all the instances mentioned in this halachah, the governing principle is that even if the dough in the center cannot be combined with those on the side (as explained in Halachot 1-4), since it is fit to require the separation of challah, it does not prevent the doughs on the side from being combined.
20.
This is speaking about a dough that was not consecrated until after it was made. If it was consecrated before it was rolled together, it is not fit to be redeemed. See Chapter 8, Halachot 6-7.
21.
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
22.
In contrast to two Jews or a Jew and a gentile, as explained in the following halachot.
23.
Since they were gentiles (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8) at the time the obligation to separate challah could have taken effect, the mitzvah of challah is not relevant to them at all . Hence, the exemption because the dough was made with the intent that it be divided into small portions (see ibid. 19) is not significant.
24.
If, however, they divided the dough after they converted, there is no obligation to separate challah even if they added to the dough. For in such an instance, they would be comparable to the two Jews mentioned in the following halachah (Rambam LeAm).
25.
Hence we do not say - as is said with regard to the following halachah - since the dough was exempt at the time when it could have been obligated, it cannot become obligated again.
26.
The Siftei Cohen 326:8 emphasizes that for this law to apply the addition must be less than the size that obligates the separation ofchallah.
27.
Had it belonged to one person.
28.
And since the obligation was not incurred at the time it could have been incurred originally, it cannot be incurred afterwards.
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling. He admits that it appears to have a source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:4), but argues that logically, it is hard to distinguish this from a situation where a person made a dough smaller than the required size and then attached it to a dough of the required size (see Chapter 6, Halachah 16). Hence, he rules that both Jews should separatechallah from the dough after they increased its size.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehsupport the Rambam's ruling, differentiating between the two instances by explaining that when a dough is smaller than the required size, it has never reached a state where the obligation to separate challah relates to it. In contrast, in the instance described here, the dough was of the size that obligates the separation of challah and it was exempted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 326:4) quotes the Rambam's view.
29.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehexplains that this is speaking about a situation where the two had not originally intended to divide their dough and then decided to divide it. Had they originally intended to divide it, it would be necessary to separate challah from the portion belonging to the convert as well.
30.
In contrast to the situation mentioned in the previous halachah, the dough was not originally intended to be divided. Hence, since the gentile has a portion in it, while it is whole, it is not considered as if the mitzvah of challah relates to it. Thus the Jew's portion of the dough was never of the size that requires the separation of challah and when he increases its size, an obligation is created (Radbaz).
31.
I.e., the convert.
32.
Since originally, the gentile's involvement in the dough caused his portion to be exempted, when he adds to it, it is not liable, based on the principle explained above. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that there is an obligation to separate challah from both doughs. For just as the mitzvah of challah is not considered as relating to the Jew's dough, it also does not relate to the gentile's dough. Hence, when he adds to it after his conversion, the obligation takes effect. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Rambam's understanding and it is quoted as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah330:6).
33.
This is preferable to separating challah from the dough with which the yeast was mixed, because a) it will represent a saving for the person separating the challah, since he will not be separating challah a second time; b) it is not desirable to separate challah from the first dough, because the obligation to separate challah from it is Rabbinic, not Scriptural, as will be explained.
34.
As is required (Chapter 5, Halachah 14). That is why the second dough must be combined with the first dough into which the yeast was placed.
35.
The combination of the yeast and the dough.
36.
The yeast.
37.
And yeast and dough are considered of the same type.
38.
This is a Rabbinic decree, according to Scriptural Law, the presence of tevel is also nullified when there is a majority of permitted substances. Our Sages considered tevel as a devar sheyeish lo matirin, a prohibition that could be released, since once the necessary separations are made, the prohibition no longer exists. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:6. Hence, he is not considered to be separating challah from dough that is obligated for that which is exempt (Siftei Cohen 324:20).
39.
Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 11:2, 15.
40.
It does, however, have such an effect with regard to terumah and challah.
41.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 16:9. There the Rambam differentiates between produce from which the appropriate agricultural separations have been made and produce from which they have not been made (as in the present instance). If the separations have already been made, one may bring it into direct contact with ritual impurity. If they have not been made, one may only "cause it to contract ritual impurity," i.e., indirectly.
42.
Which is ritually pure.
43.
Challah 2:8 gives this suggestion, but speaks of taking less than the size of an egg of the impure dough, for in that manner, the other dough will not become impure.
44.
Causing it to touch it. This will cause the pure dough to become ritually impure (seeHilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 6:18). Nevertheless, this is not significant, because - as the Rambam stated - there is no prohibition against causing food to become ritually impure.
45.
The dough set aside to be separated aschallah does not become ritually impure, because until it becomes consecrated aschallah, it does not become impure because it was touched by dough that was impure to the second degree. And before it is consecrated as challah, it is lifted up and no longer in contact with the source of ritual impurity. To clarify this, the Rambam began this halachah: "A dough from which challahhas not been separated is like ordinary produce and... impurity of the second degree does not bring about impurity of the third degree with regard to ordinary produce" (Radbaz).
46.
Ordinarily to separate challah for two doughs in the same place, it is not necessary for them to touch. Nevertheless, since one should not separate challah from dough that is ritually pure for dough that is ritually impure (Chapter 5, Halachah 14), in this instance, they must be touching.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, based on Challah 2:8, but the Radbaz explains the Rambam's position as above.
47.
I.e., the person would consider an appropriate portion of the dough set aside aschallah for a given dough and would continue doing this for future doughs until the entire dough that was set aside becamechallah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:6)].
48.
E.g., two witnesses stated that challah had been separated from the dough and two other witnesses state that it was not separated.
49.
Here the demai is being used differently than its ordinary meaning. For unlike the tithes, it is taken for granted that the common people separate challah just as they separateterumah (Radbaz; see Chapter 8, Halachah 14).
50.
Generally, the initial preference is not to separate challah from dough that is ritually pure for dough that is ritually impure (Chapter 5, Halachah 14).
51.
And generally, they must (ibid.).
Bikkurim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a person separates challah from flour, it is not challah.1 [The flour given] the priest is like stolen property in his possession2 and there is an obligation [to separate] challah from a dough [made from] the remainder [of the flour].3 If the flour set aside [mistakenly] as challah is an omer in measure4 and a dough was made from it, one must separate challah from it as [is necessary with regard to doughs made] from any ordinary flour.
Halacha 2
When should challah be set aside? When one adds water and mixes the flour with the water, he should set aside [a portion as] challah from the first portion that is kneaded, as [indicated by Numbers 15:20:] "From the first of your dough."5
[The above applies] provided a measure of flour equal to an omer6 that has not become mixed with water does not remain in the kneading trough.7 If he stipulates: "This is challah for the dough, for the yeast, and for the flour that remains. When it all becomes one dough, the portion set aside will become sanctified as challah," it is permitted.8
Halacha 3
If the person left the dough [intact] until it was all kneaded and mixed together and separated [the challah] afterwards, [the delay] is of no consequence. If he does not separate challah while the mixture is a dough, but bakes the entire dough, he should separate [challah] from the loaf, as we explained.9
Halacha 4
When does the obligation [to separate] challah from dough take effect? When the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball and [all of] the flour becomes mixed with it or when the barley [flour] was made into a single mass and formed one block. One may snack from the dough until the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass.10 The laws pertaining to wheat [flour] pertain to spelt [flour] and those pertaining to barley [flour] pertain to oat and rye [flour].11
Halacha 5
Once the wheat [flour] was rolled into a ball or the barley [flour] was made into a single mass, one who partakes of it before challah was separated, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven], because it is tevel.12 Therefore, if there is a Scriptural obligation [to separate] challah from the dough, a person who partakes of it is liable for lashes, as is anyone who partakes of tevel.13 If the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, [a person who partakes of the dough] is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 6
When a dough from ordinary flour becomes mixed with flour that is terumah14before [all the flour] was rolled into a ball, it is exempt [from the obligation ofchallah].15 When it becomes mixed with it after it was rolled into a ball, there is an obligation [to separate challah].16
Similarly, if a person consecrates a dough or declares it ownerless17 before it was rolled into a ball and then redeemed it or took possession of it and rolled it into a ball - alternatively, he consecrated it or declared it ownerless after it was rolled into a ball18 - there is an obligation [to separate] challah.
Halacha 7
If he consecrated it before he rolled it and it was rolled in the possession of the Temple treasury and afterwards, he redeemed it, it is exempt. For at the time the obligation would have taken effect, [the dough] was exempt.19
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply when] a convert joins the Jewish faith. If he had a dough that was rolled into a ball before he converted, it is exempt.22 If it was rolled afterwards, there is an obligation [to separate challah]. If there is a doubt [concerning the matter], there is an obligation, [because eating bread from which challah was not separated] is a transgression punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].23 If a non-priest [unknowingly] partook of this challah that was separated due to such a doubt or the like, he is not liable to add a fifth [when making restitution].24
Halacha 10
When a question arises concerning the ritual purity of a dough before it was rolled together as a ball,25 he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity.26 For it is permitted to make ordinary produce impure in Eretz Yisrael. The challah should then be burnt.27
If, after a dough was rolled into a ball, a doubtful situation arose concerning its ritual purity which, were it to be ascertained that it was definitely impure, would convey ritual impurity of Scriptural origin, its [preparation] should be completed in a state of ritual purity. [The rationale is that with regard to] any circumstance where impurity would be imparted to ordinary produce were one certain that it transpired, our Sages decreed that if there is a doubt that it transpired, a dough upon which the obligation to separate challah already fell should not intentionally be made impure, for that obligation has already taken effect.28Instead, the challah [separated] is a tentative state; it is not eaten,29 nor is it burnt.30
Halacha 11
As an initial preference, a person should not prepare his dough in a state of ritual impurity.31 Instead, he should be careful and endeavor to purify himself and his utensils so that he can separate challah in a state of ritual purity. If he is more than four mil32 from water [fit for an immersion],33 he should prepare [the dough] in a state of ritual impurity and separate impure challah.
Halacha 12
A loaf to serve as challah34 should not be prepared in a state of ritual purity for a common person.35 A loaf of ordinary produce may, however, be made in ritual purity [for him].36
What is implied? A chaver37 may mix the dough and separate an appropriate measure of challah from it. He then places [the challah] in a utensil made from dung, stone, or clay, which do not contract ritual impurity.38 When the common person comes, he should take both of them, the dough and the challah. We tell him: "Be careful not to touch the challah, lest it become tevel again."39 Why is this allowed?40 So that the person making the dough could earn his livelihood.
Halacha 13
The wife of a chaver may sift and strain [flour] together with the wife of a common person.41 Once water has been mixed with the dough, however, she should not help her, because [the wife of the common person] makes her dough while ritually impure.42 Similarly, one should not kneaded or array dough with a baker who bakes his dough in a state of ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] one should not reinforce the hands of transgressors.43 One may, however, transport bread with him to a bakery.44
Halacha 14
When a person purchases bread from a baker who is a common person in Syria45 and [the baker] tells him: "I separated challah," [the purchaser] does not need to separate challah because of the doubt.46 Just as the entire Jewish people47 in Eretz Yisrael were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] the great terumah, so too, in Syria, they were not suspect [to ignore the separation of] challah.
FOOTNOTES
1.
It is permitted to be eaten by a non-priest. Rashi (Kiddushin 46b) explains that the rationale for this law is that the prooftext requiring the separation of challah mentions "your doughs," i.e., the obligation is incurred only when dough is made.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:1) clarify that this law applies when the person desires that the flour be considered as challah while it is still flour. If, however, he stipulates: "May it be considered challah when a dough is made from it," when it is made into a dough, his statement takes effect.
2.
The priest is obligated to return it to the person who gave it to him. This applies even if the one who gave it is a Torah scholar who knows that flour cannot be separated aschallah. Although one could assume that he was giving the flour to the priest as a gift, it must be returned lest the priest think that it was challah and not separate challah from the dough he makes from it (Kiddushin 46b;Turei Zahav 327:1).
3.
Since the first separation is of no consequence.
4.
I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.
5.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that it is undesirable to separate challah in this manner, for as indicated by Halachah 4, the obligation to separate challah has not taken effect yet. Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim3:3), the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehexplain that the statements in this halachah are a safeguard against the dough becoming ritually impure. From the time the water is mixed with the flour, it is permitted to separated the challah and one may do so if he is worried that the dough will become ritually impure. It is, however, preferable to wait until the dough is thoroughly mixed as stated in Halachah 4. Certainly, this applies in the present era when there is no need to take safeguards against ritual impurity [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:3)]
6.
I.e., it was of the measure from which we are required to separate challah.
7.
For then the dough made from that flour would have a separate obligation. When, by contrast, there is less than that measure, it is considered as ancillary to the initial dough.
8.
This applies even if an omer of flour remains. Since he can easily mix the dough, he can make a stipulation that will take effect when he actually mixes it together. TheShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 327:2) states that it is desirable to teach women who separate challah to make this stipulation.
9.
Chapter 6, Halachah 16.
10.
After the obligation to separate challah takes effect, however, it is forbidden to snack from the dough. It is considered as tevel and one is liable as stated in the following halachah.
11.
For spelt flour has characteristics similar to wheat flour, and rye and oats to barley.
12.
See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19;Hilchot Ma'aser 1:5; 9:2.
13.
Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. This applies when he is given a warning before transgressing.
14.
And thus challah need not be separated from it.
15.
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 4. This applies only in the present era when the obligation to separate challah is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz).
16.
Because the obligation to separate challahfrom the dough had already taken effect.
17.
There is no obligation to separate challahfrom dough that is consecrated. Once, however, the consecrated dough is redeemed, challah must be separated. When a person makes dough from flour that was ownerless which he acquired, he must separate challah from it. See Chapter 6, Halachot 3 and 5.
18.
In which instance, the obligation to separatechallah had already taken effect before it was consecrated or declared ownerless.
19.
Because it was consecrated.
20.
Because the obligation to separate challahtook effect when the dough belonged to the Jew.
21.
For at the time the obligation to separatechallah was to take effect, the dough belonged to the gentile and was exempt.
22.
Because at the time the obligation to separate challah was to take effect, the convert had not converted and was not obligated to separate challah.
23.
The Rambam adds this explanation (based on Chullin 134a), because generally, we would follow the principle: "When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him" (see Chapter 9, Halachah 13). Nevertheless, in this instance, because of the severity of the transgression, challahshould be separated. The Turei Zahav 330:3 and the Siftei Cohen 330:8 note that in the present age, when there is a question whether of not challah has been separated, one is exempt, for at present the observance of the mitzvah of challah is Rabbinic in origin. On this basis, the Sifei Cohen questions why this law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 330:5),
24.
Since there is a doubt concerning the matter, the person must make restitution for the challah, because whenever there is a question with regard to Scriptural Law, we rule stringency and require him to make restitution sp that he can gain atonement. There is, however, no such obligation with regard to the additional fifth, because it was never definitely established that he was liable.
25.
And thus, the obligation to separate challahhas not been established. Hence, the principle that we are allowed to cause ordinary produce to become impure is applied.
26.
For in this way, he will have defined the ritual state of the challah.
27.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 4.
28.
We are forbidden to cause challah mandated by Scriptural Law to contract ritual impurity (Hilchot Terumah 12:1). In this instance, since the challah has not been separated, that prohibition would not be violated. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate challah has been established, it is preferable to be stringent.
29.
Lest it be impure. Thus a priest who partakes of it would be transgressing, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 7:3.
30.
Lest it be pure. In which case, it would be forbidden to destroy it unnecessarily. SeeHilchot Terumah 12:3.
31.
This refers to dough prepared in Eretz Yisrael when the obligation to separatechallah was of Scriptural origin. See Hilchot Terumah 12:1. See also Radbaz.
32.
A Talmudic measure roughly equivalent to a kilometer.
33.
I.e., a mikveh or stream in which he can purge himself from impurity. Compare toHilchot Tefilah 4:2-3 which makes a distinction whether the water is before him or behind him. See Kessef Mishneh.
34.
I.e., a loaf to be set aside and used aschallah for loaves to be baked in the future.
35.
Lest over time he cause it to become impure. The person making the loaf is thus enabling the common person to transgress the prohibition against making challahimpure.
36.
By making the dough pure, the doughmaker is required to separate challah in a state of ritual impurity. That is problematic, because the common person may cause it to become ritually impure. Nevertheless, as will be explained, certain provisions are enacted to allow such a dough to be made.
37.
A person who is careful in his observance of the laws of ritual impurity.
38.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 6:2, Hilchot Keilim1:6, et al. Thus even if the common person would touch the utensil, it would not become impure.
39.
This warning is not true, for once challah is separated, a dough never becomes tevelagain. Nevertheless, we assume that the common person will not know the law and will be careful not to touch the dough, because of this warning. We are not concerned about the dough itself, because one is permitted to cause ordinary produce to contract ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
40.
I.e., it is not desirable, because ultimately, there is the possibility that the challah will become impure.
41.
Although the common person's wife is presumed to be ritually impure, nevertheless, since the flour is dry, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence even if she would touch it, it would not present a difficulty [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:9)]. This leniency is allowed only as an expression of "the ways of piece" (Sh'vi'it, loc. cit.).
42.
I.e., needless to say, the wife of the chavershould not let the wife of the common person help her, for her dough would become ritually impure. She should not even help the wife of the common person for the reason stated by the Rambam.
43.
And preparing dough in a state of ritual impurity was considered a transgression in the Talmudic era when the laws of ritual impurity were observed.
44.
For then the baking process has already been completed.
45.
Which is considered an intermediate level between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora with regard to many of the agricultural laws. With regard to its status for challah, see Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
Certainly, this law applies in Eretz Yisraelwhere eating bread from which challah was not separated is punishable by death at the hand of heaven. We do not suspect a baker of being willing to cause a fellow Jew to violate such a transgression. Nevertheless, the above applies only when the baker says that he has separated the challah. If he does not make such a statement and he is a common person, even in Eretz Yisrael, the purchaser must separate challah as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1 (Radbaz).
46.
I.e., he can rely on the baker.
47.
Even the common people.
48.
We are speaking about a baker who is a common person. Even if he says that he separated challah, his word is not accepted (Radbaz).
49.
Even if he is a common person.
50.
We assume that a common person is careful about what he eats himself - and what he serves from his kitchen. It is only when selling retail that his integrity is suspect.
• "Today's Day"• Thursday, Adar II 28, 5776 · 07 April 2016
Sunday Adar Sheini 28 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tazria, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 135-139.
Tanya: The world of Atzilut (p. 191)...namely, G-dliness itself. (p. 191).
We do recite the Harachaman of brit mila (p. 95).
(From a sicha at a brit mila repast): At a brit mila we say, "Just as he has entered into the Covenant so may he enter into Torah, into marriage and into good deeds" (p. 141). It is our custom to make an advance payment on tuition fees for the boy's studies. (Here the Rebbe gave a sum of money and said): This is for the Yeshiva.
• Daily Thought:
Focusing Your World
Our advantage as human beings lies in our power to speak, to articulate a nebulous world into meaningful words and phrases. G‑d spoke and the world came into being. We speak and bring it into focus.
Our words are the camera that determines reality: According to how we focus, so our world will be. With a small breath of air, we determine whether it is beauty that sprouts from the earth, or monsters growing as large as our imagination.
True, there is a time for all things—even a time to speak in negative terms, to make clear that something is wrong and needs correcting. But there is a caveat to negative words. For if they do not reach their goal, their bitterness still remains.
Speak good words, kind words, words of wisdom, words of encouragement. Like gentle rain upon a dormant field. Eventually, they will coax the seeds beneath the soil to life.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment