Today's Laws & Customs:
• Today's 'Nasi': Naftali
In today's "Nasi" reading (see "Nasi of the Day" in Nissan 1), we read of the gift bought by the nasi of the tribe of Naftali, Achira ben Enan, for the inauguration of the Mishkan.
Text of today's Nasi in Hebrew and English.
Today in Jewish History:
• King Hezekiah Falls Ill (548 BCE)
On this day, King Hezekiah, the greatest of all the Judeaen kings, fell seriously ill, and was informed by the Prophet Isaiah that he would die, for G-d was displeased with the fact that Hezekiah had never married.
Hezekiah had refused to get married because he had prophetically foreseen that his children would lead the Jewish people to sin. He erred, for it is man's job to heed the commandment of procreating, and the rest is in the hands of G-d.
Hezekiah asked the prophet to pray on his behalf, but he refused, insisting that the Heavenly decree was final. The king asked the prophet to leave, saying that he had a tradition from his ancestors that one should never despair, even if a sharp sword is drawn across one's throat. The king prayed to G-d, and his prayer was accepted. G-d sent Isaiah to tell him that he would recover and that his life would be extended for fifteen years. Hezekiah recovered three days later, on the first day of Passover.
The King later married Prophet Isaiah's daughter.
Links:Hezekiah's Last Years of Reign
The story in Kings II with commentary
More about King Hezekiah
• Ezra and Followers Depart Babylon (348 BCE)
A year following the building of the second Temple in Jerusalem (see Jewish History for the 3rd of Adar) Ezra gathered many of the Jews who had remained in Babylon and began a journey to the land of Israel. Though he certainly wanted to go earlier, his teacher, Baruch ben Neriah was too frail to travel, and Ezra refused to leave him until his passing.
Ezra was the head of the Sanhedrin, who all traveled together with him.
On the 12th of Nissan, Ezra departed from the river of Ahava, the beginning of the long journey to the land of Israel which would last for nearly five months (see Jewish history for the 1st of Av).
Links:Account of event in Ezra
Ezra the Scribe
Daily Quote:
"Although a fire descended from heaven upon the Altar, it is a mitzvah to add to it a humanly produced fire" (Talmud, Eruvin 63a, as per Leviticus 6). This rule applies to all areas of life: the gifts of life are bestowed upon us from Above, yet it is G-d's desire that we add to them the product of our own initiative[- The Chassidic Masters]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei, 4th Portion Leviticus 17:1-17:7 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class
• Leviticus Chapter 17
| 1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: | אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר: | |
| 2Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing the Lord has commanded, saying: | בדַּבֵּ֨ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֗יו וְאֶל֙ כָּל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵיהֶ֑ם זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָֹ֖ה לֵאמֹֽר: | |
| 3Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, | גאִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁחַ֜ט שׁ֥וֹר אוֹ־כֶ֛שֶׂב אוֹ־עֵ֖ז בַּמַּֽחֲנֶ֑ה א֚וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִשְׁחָ֔ט מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה: | |
| Who slaughters an ox, a lamb, [or a goat]: Scripture is speaking of [slaughtering] holy sacrifices [not of slaughtering ordinary animals], for Scripture continues, “to offer up as a sacrifice” (next verse). - [Torath Kohanim 17:91] | אשר ישחט שור או כשב: במוקדשין הכתוב מדבר, שנאמר להקריב קרבן: | |
| inside the camp: But outside the Courtyard. — [Torath Kohanim 17:89; Zev. 107b] | במחנה: חוץ לעזרה: | |
| 4but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people; | דוְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֘ לֹ֣א הֱבִיאוֹ֒ לְהַקְרִ֤יב קָרְבָּן֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לִפְנֵ֖י מִשְׁכַּ֣ן יְהוָֹ֑ה דָּ֣ם יֵֽחָשֵׁ֞ב לָאִ֤ישׁ הַהוּא֙ דָּ֣ם שָׁפָ֔ךְ וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמּֽוֹ: | |
| shall be counted [for that man] as blood: As though he had shed human blood, for which one is liable to the death penalty. | דם יחשב: כשופך דם האדם שמתחייב בנפשו: | |
| He has shed blood: [This comes] to include one who dashes the blood [of a holy sacrifice] outside [the Temple Courtyard]. — [Zev. 107a] | דם שפך: לרבות את הזורק דמים בחוץ: | |
| 5in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen, and slaughter them as peace offerings to the Lord. | הלְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבִ֜יאוּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶם֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֵ֣ם זֹֽבְחִים֘ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הַשָּׂדֶה֒ וֶֽהֱבִיאֻ֣ם לַֽיהֹוָ֗ה אֶל־פֶּ֛תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְזָ֨בְח֜וּ זִבְחֵ֧י שְׁלָמִ֛ים לַֽיהוָֹ֖ה אוֹתָֽם: | |
| which they slaughter: which they are accustomed to slaughter. | אשר הם זבחים: אשר הם רגילים לזבוח: | |
| 6And the kohen shall dash the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall cause the fat to go up in smoke, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. | ווְזָרַ֨ק הַכֹּהֵ֤ן אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־מִזְבַּ֣ח יְהֹוָ֔ה פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַחֵ֔לֶב לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַֽיהוָֹֽה: | |
| 7And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray. This shall be an eternal statute for them, for [all] their generations. | זוְלֹֽא־יִזְבְּח֥וּ עוֹד֙ אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶ֔ם לַשְּׂעִירִ֕ם אֲשֶׁ֛ר הֵ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַֽחֲרֵיהֶ֑ם חֻקַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֛ם תִּֽהְיֶה־זֹּ֥את לָהֶ֖ם לְדֹֽרֹתָֽם: | |
| to the satyrs: Heb. לַשְּׂעִירִים, to the demons, like, “and satyrs (וּשְּׂעִירִים) will dance there” (Isa. 13:21). - [Torath Kohanim 17:100] | לשעירם: לשדים, כמו (ישעיה יג כא) ושעירים ירקדו שם: |
• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 66
This psalm describes the praises and awe-inspiring prayers that we will offer God upon the ingathering of the exiles.
1. For the Conductor, a song, a psalm. Raise your voices in jubilation to God, all the earth!
2. Sing the glory of His Name; make glorious His praise.
3. Say to God, "How awesome are Your deeds!" Because of Your great strength, Your enemies will [admit] their treachery to You.
4. All the earth will bow to You, and sing to You; they will sing praise to Your Name forever!
5. Go and see the works of God, awesome in His deeds toward mankind.
6. He turned the sea into dry land, and they passed through the river on foot; we rejoiced in Him there.
7. He rules the world with His might, and His eyes watch the nations; let the rebellious not exalt themselves, Selah.
8. Bless our God, O nations, and let the voice of His praise be heard.
9. He has kept us alive, and did not allow our feet to falter.
10. For You tested us, O God; You refined us as one refining silver.
11. You brought us into prison; You placed a chain upon our loins.
12. You mounted men over our head; we went through fire and water, and You brought us out to abundance.
13. I will enter Your House with burnt-offerings, I will pay to You my vows,
14. which my lips uttered and my mouth spoke in my distress.
15. I will offer up to You burnt-offerings of fat animals, with the smoke of rams; I will prepare cattle with he-goats, Selah.
16. Come listen, all you who fear God, and I will relate what He has done for my soul.
17. I called to Him with my mouth, with exaltation beneath my tongue.
18. Had I seen iniquity in my heart, my Lord would not have listened.
19. But in truth, God heard; He gave ear to the voice of my prayer.
20. Blessed is God Who has not turned away my prayer or His kindness from me.
Chapter 67
This psalm is known as an especially revered prayer. It, too, speaks of the era of the ingathering of the exiles, and the wars of Gog and Magog, a time when "the Lord will be One."
1. For the Conductor, a song with instrumental music, a psalm.
2. May God be gracious to us and bless us; may He make His countenance shine upon us forever,
3. that Your way be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations.
4. The nations will extol You, O God; all the nations will extol You.
5. The nations will rejoice and sing for joy, for You will judge the peoples justly and guide the nations on earth forever.
6. The peoples will extol You, O God; all the peoples will extol You,
7. for the earth will have yielded its produce, and God, our God, will bless us.
8. God will bless us; and all, from the farthest corners of the earth, shall fear Him.
Chapter 68
An awe-inspiring and wondrous prayer, David composed this psalm referring to a future event, when Sennacherib would surround Jerusalem on Passover, during the reign of Hezekiah. He also prophesies about the good we will enjoy during the Messianic era.
1. For the Conductor; by David, a psalm, a song.
2. Let God rise, let His enemies be scattered, and let His enemies flee before Him.
3. As smoke is driven away, drive them away; as wax melts before fire, let the wicked perish before God.
4. And the righteous will rejoice, they will exult before God and delight with joy.
5. Sing to God, chant praises to His Name; extol Him Who rides upon the heavens with His Name, Yah, and exult before Him.
6. A father of orphans and judge of widows is God, in the abode of His holiness.
7. God settles the solitary into a home, and frees those bound in shackles; but the rebellious [are left to] dwell in an arid land.
8. O God, when You went out before Your nation, when You marched through the wilderness, Selah,
9. the earth trembled, even the heavens dripped before the presence of God; this mountain of Sinai [trembled] before the presence of God, the God of Israel.
10. You poured generous rain, O God; when Your heritage was weary, You secured it.
11. Your flock settled there; in Your goodness, O God, You prepare for the poor.
12. My Lord will fulfill the word of the heralds to a great legion:
13. Kings of armies will flee, they will flee; and she who inhabits the home will divide the loot.
14. Even if you lie upon the hearth,1 [you will be like] wings of a dove covered with silver, her pinions with brilliant gold.
15. When the Almighty scatters kings in her midst, those in the shadow of darkness will be made snow-white.
16. The mountain of God is a fertile mountain, the mountain of majestic peaks is a fertile mountain.
17. Why do you prance, O mountains of peaks? This is the mountain God has desired as His dwelling; the Lord will even dwell there forever.
18. The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, [with] thousands of angels; my Lord is in their midst, at Sinai, in holiness.
19. You ascended on high and took a captive,2 you seized gifts for man; and [now] even rebels dwell with Yah, God.
20. Blessed is my Lord, Who each day loads us [with beneficence], the God Who is our deliverance forever.
21. The Lord is a God of deliverances for us; and to God, my Lord, are the many avenues of death.
22. God alone crushes the heads of His enemies, the hairy skull of him who goes about in his guilt.
23. My Lord said, "I will bring back from Bashan,3 I will bring back from the depths of the sea,
24. that your foot may wade through [the enemy's] blood; that the tongue of your dogs may have its portion from your enemies.”
25. They saw Your ways, O God, the ways of my God, my King, in holiness.
26. The singers began, then the musicians, in the midst of the maidens playing timbrels.
27. In assemblies bless God; [bless] my Lord, O you who stem from Israel.
28. There Benjamin, the youngest, rules them; the princes of Judah stone them, [as do] the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali.
29. Your God has decreed your strength. Show Your strength, O God, Who has wrought this for our sake.
30. Because of [the glory of] Your Sanctuary upon Jerusalem, kings will bring You tribute.
31. Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds, the assembly of mighty bulls among the calves of nations, [until] each submits himself with pieces of silver. Scatter the nations that desire wars.
32. Nobles will come from Egypt; Kush will hasten [to raise] its hands to God.
33. Kingdoms of the earth, sing to God; sing praise to my Lord forever!
34. To the One Who rides upon the loftiest of ancient heavens-behold He gives forth His voice, a voice of might.
35. Ascribe power to God; His majesty is over Israel, and His might is in the skies.
36. God, You are feared from Your Sanctuary; it is the God of Israel Who grants strength and power to His people; blessed is God.
Footnotes
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Wednesday, Nissan 12, 5776 · April 20, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41
• וגם יתבונן איך שאור אין סוף ברוך הוא, הסובב כל עלמין וממלא כל עלמין, הוא רצון העליון
He should also reflect how the light of the blessed Ein Sof, which encompasses all worlds and pervades all worlds, and which is identical with the Higher Will,
Previous chapters have stated that G‑d’s Will is the source of the life-force that animates all worlds in both a transcendental and an indwelling mode.
הוא מלובש באותיות וחכמת התורה
is clothed in the letters and wisdom of the Torah,
In the very letters of Torah that the person utters and in the Torah wisdom that he comprehends, G‑d’s Will is to be found. As explained in ch. 4, the Divine Will clothed itself in the ink and parchment of the Torah scroll, and similarly clothed itself in the wisdom of Torah. Thus, when the wisdom of the Torah determines that a certain object is either kosher or invalid, it is expressing the Divine Will.
Accordingly, before a person commences his Torah study, he should ponder on how the Ein Sof-light — the Divine Will — is vested in the letters and wisdom of the Torah he is now about to study,
או בציצית ותפילין אלו
or, if his meditation takes place before he puts on his tallit and tefillin, he should contemplate how the Divine Will is clothedin these tzitzit and tefillin, it being G‑d’s Will that a Jew wear them,
ובקריאתו או בלבישתו
and through his recitation or study of the Torah, or by his wearing tzitzit and tefillin,
-הוא ממשיך אורו יתברך עליו, דהיינו על חלק אלוה ממעל שבתוך גופו
he draws upon himself His blessed light, that is, over the “part of G‑d above” — his soul — which abides in his body, and animates it.
ליכלל וליבטל באורו יתברך
This he does with the intent that it may be absorbed and nullified in His blessed light.
The individual’s intent, then, is that the aforementioned study and performance have an effect on his soul. In particular, as will soon be explained, the intellectual and emotional faculties of the soul are affected by tefillin.
ודרך פרט בתפילין, ליבטל וליכלל בחינת חכמתו ובינתו שבנפשו האלקית בבחינת חכמתו ובינתו של אין סוף ברוך הוא, המלובשות דרך פרט בפרשת קדש, והיה כי יביאך
Specifically, through tefillin, [he should intend that] the attributes of wisdom and understanding which are in his divine soul should be nullified and absorbed into the attributes of wisdom and understanding of the blessed Ein Sof, these being clothed, in particular, in the passages of Kadesh and Vehayah ki yeviacha.1
In these passages, both of which are found in the tefillin, G‑d’s wisdom (Chochmah) and understanding (Binah) are enclothed, wisdom in the former and understanding in the latter. By putting on tefillin, the individual’s wisdom and understanding are absorbed in G‑d’s. How does this find expression?
דהיינו שלא להשתמש בחכמתו ובינתו שבנפשו בלתי לה׳ לבדו
That is to say, that he should use the wisdom and understanding that are in his soul, for G‑d alone — only in pursuit of Torah and mitzvot, and for understanding G‑dliness.
וכן ליבטל וליכלל בחינת הדעת שבנפשו, הכולל חסד וגבורה שהן יראה ואהבה שבלבו
Similarly, [he should intend that] the attribute of Daat (the third of the three components of seichel) in his soul, which includes both the Chesed (kindness) and Gevurah (severity), i.e., fear and love, in his heart,
The attribute of Daat comprises kindness and severity insofar as these attributes exist on an intellectual level. Moreover, as is explained at the end of ch. 3, the profound and involved meditation that characterizes the level of Daat actually creates love and fear, insofar as they exist independently on an emotional level. This faculty of Daat, then, should —
בבחינת דעת העליון, הכולל חסד וגבורה, המלובש בפרשת שמע, והיה אם שמוע
be nullified and absorbed into the attribute of the Higher Knowledge (Daat HaElyon), which comprises kindness and severity, and which is clothed in the passage of Shema and Vehayah im shamoa.
והיינו כמו שכתוב בשולחן ערוך: לשעבד הלב והמוח כו׳
This accords with the statement of the Shulchan Aruch,2 [that while putting on the tefillin one should intend] “to make one’s heart and brain subservient to G‑d.”
In this way, then, the divine soul as a whole, and its intellective and emotive faculties in particular, are affected by one’s wearing tefillin.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | “As explained at length in the discourses on tefillin in Pri Etz Chayim; Siddur (edition with chassidic discourses); Imrei Binah; etc.” (— Comment by the Rebbe.) |
| 2. | Orach Chayim 25:5. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Wednesday, Nissan 12, 5776 · April 20, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 68
Off-Limits Areas for the Priests
"That he may not come at all times into the holy place"—Leviticus 16:2.
The high priest is forbidden from entering the Holy of Holies any time other than Yom Kippur, and only when he is then performing the special Yom Kippur service.
The regular priest is forbidden from entering the Holy Temple's sanctuary unless he is discharging a service there [e.g., kindling the menorah, offering incense, or simply entering to prostrate himself before G‑d].
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Off-Limits Areas for the Priests
Negative Commandment 68
Translated by Berel Bell
The 68th prohibition is that [even] a kohen gadol may not always enter the Temple, due to its exalted status and the awe of the Divine Presence.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He [Aaron] may not always enter the Sanctuary."
There are various categories within this prohibition: a kohen gadol may not enter the Holy of Holies even on Yom Kippur, expect for times designated for the service.2 Similarly, a regular kohen may not enter the Temple building (heichal) the entire year, expect for when he is performing the Temple service.
In summary, this prohibition says that if not performing the Temple service, a kohen may not even enter an area he would be allowed to enter, and at a time he would be allowed to enter, unless he is performing a Temple service — whether a kohen gadol inside the Holy of Holies or a kohen outside.3
The punishment for entering such an area without performing the Temple service [varies]: if he entered the Holy of Holies, there is a [Divine] death penalty. If he entered the Temple building (heichal), he receives lashes.
In the words of the Sifra: "The phrase 'He may not always enter' refers to Yom Kippur [— that he may not enter except for the designated times]. The phrase 'the Sanctuary' comes to include the rest of the year. The phrase 'from inside the partition' comes to include the rest of the Temple.4 One might think that the death penalty applies to the entire Temple — therefore the verse adds '[from inside the partition] which faces the Ark, so that he shall not die.' This means that [for entering the area] which faces the Ark [i.e. the Holy of Holies] the penalty is death, but [entering] the rest of the Temple is only a prohibition." Our Sages stated clearly in tractate Menachos,5 "One who enters the Temple building receives 40 lashes."
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 16:2.
2.The kohen gadol entered the Holy of Holies four times on Yom Kippur. Entering a fifth time is prohibited by this commandment.
3.By this statement, the Rambam evidently wishes to explain why this counts as just one commandment rather than two. See Yad Halevi, footnote 4.
4.See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 2:2 and commentaries. Heller, footnote 13.
5.27b
Negative Commandment 165
A Priest Leaving the Holy Temple Mid-Service
"And you shall not go out the door of the Tent of Meeting"—Leviticus 10:7.
It is forbidden for a priest to leave the Temple while he is in middle of performing his service.
A high priest may not leave the Temple even if he is an onen, i.e. he is informed that one of his next of kin has passed away.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• A Priest Leaving the Holy Temple Mid-Service
Negative Commandment 165
Translated by Berel Bell
The 165th prohibition is that the kohanim are forbidden from leaving the Temple when they are in the middle of performing the Temple service.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not go out from the entrance of the Communion Tent (pesach ohel moed)." The prohibition is repeated in reference to the kohen gadol in the verse,2 "He may not leave the Temple."
In the words of the Sifra: "From the phrase 'from the entrance of the ohel moed' I would think that the prohibition applies regardless of whether or not the Temple service was being performed. The verse,3 'He may not leave the Temple in order that he not profane' [the Temple service] teaches that the prohibition applies only when the Temple service is being performed. [What is the significance of the conclusion of the verse] 'because G‑d's anointing oil is upon you'? One might think that the death penalty for one who leaves while in the middle of the Temple service is only for Aaron and his sons — who were anointed with this special oil. What is the source to apply this law for all kohanim and for all generations? This verse 'because G‑d's anointing oil is upon you.' "
This law contains an extra stringency for a kohen gadol in that he may not [leave the Temple even to] attend the burial [of a close relative]. This is the meaning of the verse, "He may not leave the Temple." This is explained in the second chapter of Sanhedrin,4 which clearly derives the law that he may not attend a relative's burial from this verse, "He may not leave the Temple."
From here we learn that he may perform the Temple service even on the day of the relative's death. To quote the statement of our Sages from tractate Sanhedrin:5 "The verse states, 'He may not leave the Temple in order that he not profane' [the Temple service] — however there is someone else who would profane the Temple service if he would not leave [and instead continue the Temple service]." This refers to a regular kohen, who may not perform the Temple service when an onen. This law which prohibits an onen from performing the service is derived as mentioned above. This principle that a regular kohen is not allowed to perform the service when an onen, while a kohen gadol is allowed is explained in the end of tractate Horios.6
It7 has been made clear that the phrase v'lo y'chalel ("[he may not leave the Temple] in order that he not profane") is a statement that something will not happen [sh'lilah] rather than a prohibition, because his service is not profaned although he is an onen.8
On the simple level, the phrase v'lo y'chalel [has another interpretation: it] gives the reason for the prohibition which immediately precedes it — "He may not leave" in order that "he not profane." According to both interpretations9 this phrase is not counted as a separate commandment, as is clear to all who understand the principles which were given as the introduction to this work.10
We have explained that these three prohibitions — not to grow long hair, wear torn clothing, or leave the Temple — are repeated regarding the kohen gadol in order to convey a particular idea. This is similar to the verses which prohibit [a kohen from marrying] a divorcee, chalalah, or zonah, which are repeated [in reference to the kohen gadol] in order to convey a particular idea.
The three areas prohibited by these three laws are the same ones referred to in the verses, "Your heads al tifrau," "Your clothing lo tifromu," and "Do not go out from the entrance of the ohel moed." Moshe Rabbeinu, may he rest in peace, gave them over to Elazar and Isamar, saying, "in spite of your shock over this frightening event [i.e. the death of Nadav and Avihu], those things which are normally forbidden to you do not become permitted. Rather, you remain forbidden from doing all the things you were forbidden from doing beforehand, i.e. allowing the hair to grow long, wearing torn clothing, and leaving the Temple during the Temple service."
The repetition in reference to the kohen gadol teaches that the prohibition applies [only] at the time that the Temple service is being performed, and that only at such a time is the [Divine] death penalty in effect. This is similar to the way that the commandment, "Do not go out from the entrance of the ohel moed" is explained by the verse, "He may not leave the Temple."11
Although each repetition of these prohibitions in reference to the kohen gadol is used to derive an additional law, as explained above, nevertheless, they do not increase the total number of mitzvos — as is understood by anyone who understands our introduction.12 This is because each repeated verse is used to teach you that the act is prohibited specifically during the time of the Temple service. One should understand this well.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 10:7.
2.Ibid. 21:12.
3.Ibid.
4.18a.
5.84a.
6.12b.
7.The Rambam now proves that the phrase "he not profane" does not count as a separate prohibition, i.e. to not profane the Temple service.
8.Therefore, the verse means to say, "He may not leave the Temple, and may continue to perform the Temple service, and he still does not profane the service, although he is an onen."
9.1 — that it is a sh'lilah; 2 — that it gives the reason.
10.See Principle 8.
11.See Sifra, beginning of this mitzvah.
12.See the Ninth Introductory Principle.
Positive Commandment 31
Ejecting the Ritually Impure from the Temple Area
"They shall send out from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'at or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead"—Numbers 5:2.
We are commanded to expel from the Temple area all those who are ritually impure.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Ejecting the Ritually Impure from the Temple Area
Positive Commandment 31
Translated by Berel Bell
The 31st mitzvah is that we are commanded to remove from the Temple people who are tameh.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Send out of the camp everyone who has a leprous mark or a male discharge, and all who are ritually defiled by the dead."
The camp referred to [in the desert] is the machaneh Shechinah, which in later generations corresponds to the Temple courtyard, as we explained in our commentary on the Mishneh, at the beginning of Seder Taharos.2 In the words of the Sifri, "The verse 'Send out of the camp' is a prohibition to those who are tameh, that they may not enter the Temple when still in a state of tumah."
This mitzvah is repeated in another form in G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "If a man is tameh because of a nocturnal emission, he must go outside the camp." The camp referred to in this phrase is the machaneh Shechinah, just as in [the passage quoted above as the source for] this same mitzvah,4 "Send them out of the camp." In tractate Pesachim,5 it is explained, "The verse 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Shechinah." In the words of the Mechilta,6 "The verse 'Command the Jewish people to send out of the camp,' constitutes a positive commandment. What is the source for the prohibition? The verse, '[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp.' "
The Sifra7 states, "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' constitutes a positive commandment."
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 5:2.
2.Keilim 1:8. There were three levels of holiness in the Mishkan that accompanied the Jewish people in the desert. The lowest was the machaneh Yisroel, the next, the machaneh Leviyah, and the highest, the machaneh Shechinah. In later generations they corresponded to the city of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple courtyard, respectively.
3.Deut. 23:11.
4.Num. 5:3.
5.68a.
6.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 62, that our versions of Mechilta do not have this passage. It can be found in Sifri Zuta.
7.Deut. 23:11.
Negative Commandment 77
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Holy Temple
"They shall not defile their camp"—Numbers 5:3.
All ritually impure individuals are forbidden from entering the Holy Temple—i.e., any area in [the sanctuary and] the Holy Temple Courtyard, starting from the Nikanor Gate.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Holy Temple
Negative Commandment 77
Translated by Berel Bell
The 77th prohibition is that anyone who is tameh is forbidden from entering anywhere in the Temple. In later generations, this corresponds to the entire Temple courtyard, from the Gate of Nikanor and inward, which is the beginning of the Courtyard of the Israelites.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp," i.e. the machaneh Shechinah.
In tractate Makkos2 it is explained, "Regarding a person who enters the Temple when he is tameh, both the punishment and the prohibition are written. The punishment is from the verse,3 '[Any person who touches the corpse of a dead person...] shall receive kares if he defiles G‑d's Temple [by entering it].' The prohibition is derived from the verse, '[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp.' "
The Mechilta4 says, "The verse 'Command the Jewish people to send out of the camp' constitutes a positive commandment. What is the source for the prohibition? The verse, 'and they shall not defile their camp.' "
This prohibition is repeated with different wording regarding a woman who has recently given birth, "She shall not enter the Temple."5
The Sifra says, "From the verse6 'You must warn the Jewish people about their impurity, so that it not cause them to die [if they defile the Temple that I have placed among them]' I would think that the same applies both from the inside and the outside," i.e. that if he is tameh, he receives kares even if he touches the Temple from the outside. [The Sifra concludes,] "The Torah therefore says regarding a woman who recently gave birth, 'She shall not enter the Temple.' "
There it is explained that the law regarding a woman who has given birth is identical to that of other individuals who are tameh as far as this law is concerned.7
The Sifra also comments on G‑d's statement8 (exalted be He), "If he does not immerse his clothing and body, then he will bear his guilt" — "What does this mean? For not immersing his body, he is punished with kares; for not immersing his clothing, he is punished by receiving 40 lashes. How do we know that this speaks exclusively about someone who is tameh and either enters the Temple or consumes holy offerings? From the fact that it warns, and then indicates the punishment."
We have already explained that one who intentionally transgresses this prohibition is punished with kares. If done unintentionally, the person must bring an offering of adjustable value, as we explained in P72.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the beginning of tractate Shavuos, in Horios,9 Kerisus,10 and a number of passages in Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 5:3.
2.14b.
3.Num. 19:13.
4.See footnote to P31 above regarding our versions of the Mechilta.
5.Lev.12:4.
6.Ibid., 15:31.
7.We see from this that the law regarding a woman who recently gave birth is included in this commandment, and does not count as a separate commandment.
8.Ibid. 17:16.
9.9a.
10.2a.
Negative Commandment 78
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Temple Mount
"He may not enter this camp"—Deuteronomy 23:11.
All ritually impure individuals [with the exception of individuals impure due to contact with a corpse] are forbidden from entering the Temple Mount.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Temple Mount
Negative Commandment 78
Translated by Berel Bell
The 78th prohibition is that a person who is tameh is forbidden from entering the machaneh Leviyah, which later corresponded to the Temple Mount, as we explained in our commentary on the beginning of tractate Keilim.1 The prohibition against people who are tameh entering the Temple Mount is explained there.
The verse which serves as the source of this prohibition refers to a man who is tameh because of a nocturnal emission, "He may not enter inside the camp."2
The3 passage in tractate Pesachim4 reads: "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Shechinah," as we explained in positive commandment 31. [Pesachim continues,] "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Leviyah."
"Ravina then asked, 'perhaps both phrases refer to the machaneh Shechinah, and the repetition serves to cover both the positive and negative commandments?!'"
[The Gemara answers,] "If so, it could have just written, 'he may not enter inside,'" i.e. "he may not enter inside it."5 [The Gemara continues,] "Why is the word 'camp' repeated? To refer to a second type of camp, i.e. the machaneh Leviyah." This means that even this camp he may not enter.
The Sifri6 says [clearly that this phrase counts as a separate commandment]: "The phrase, 'He may not enter inside the camp, 'is a negative commandment."
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in our commentary to the beginning of tractate Keilim.
FOOTNOTES
1.See footnote to P31.
2.Deut. 23:11.
3.The full verse reads, "He must go outside the camp; he may not enter inside the camp." The Rambam proves that the "camp" referred to in the beginning of the verse refers to the machaneh Shechinah, which is positive commandment 31; while the second "camp" refers to the machaneh Leviyah, which is this commandment.
4.68a.
5.The Rambam makes this clarification because in Hebrew, removing the word hamachaneh ("the camp") would make the phrase non-sensical.
6.Deut. 23:11.
• 1 Chapter: Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 19
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 19
Halacha 1
A person who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard] is not liable unless he brings [the sacrificial animal] to the top of the altar that he constructed outside [the Temple]. If, however, he offered it on a stone or a rock, he is exempt, for the term sacrifice applies only when [an animal is offered] on an altar, even if it is outside [the Temple], as [indicated by Genesis 8:2]: "And Noah built an altar." He is not liable unless he offers the sacrifice to God, as [Leviticus 17:9]: "...to offer it to God," i.e., unless his intent is for God.1
Halacha 2
One is liable only for offering an entity that is fit for the fire2 and for the altar,3for example, a burnt offering, as [ibid.:8] states: "who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice." [One may infer:] Just as a burnt-offering is fit to be offered on the fires, so too, everything that is fit to be offered on the fire is what one is liable for offering outside [the Temple Courtyard].
Halacha 3
On this basis, [our Sages] said that individuals [who perform the following services] outside [the Temple Courtyard] are liable: One who throws the blood, offers on the pyre the limbs of a burnt-offering, the parts of an animal offered on the altar,4a handful [of meal], or frankincense,5 or incense,6 the meal-offering of a priest,7or the meal-offering within the accompanying offerings8 or one who pours a libation of three lugim9 of wine or of water.10[This is derived from ibid.:9:] "He did not bring it [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting] to offer it." [Implied is that] any [sacrifice] that would be accepted within [the Temple Courtyard] causes one to be liable for [offering] it outside.
Halacha 4
If, however, one throws the remainder of the blood [of a sacrificial animal] - even the remainder of the blood [from a sin-offering whose blood was offered] inside [the Sanctuary],11 he is exempt. [The rationale is that] throwing the blood on the altar is the remaining aspect of the mitzvah and is not an absolute necessity.12
Similarly, one who pours a libation of less than three lugim of wine or water outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt, whether during Sukkot13 or throughout the year. Since the required measure is lacking,14 they are not fit to be accepted within [the Temple]. Similarly, one who offers from the meat of a sin-offering, that of a guilt-offering, or that of a peace-offering whether of an individual or of the community or from the remainder of the meal-offerings, the two breads [offered on Shavuot], or the showbread outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt. [The rationale is that] all of these are fit to be eaten, not for the fires [of the altar].
Halacha 5
One who offers an entire animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] is liable, because of the portions offered on the altar. Even though they have not been separated, the meat of the sacrifice is not considered as an intervening substance15 and it is as if he offered those portions on the pyre alone. In contrast, if one offers a meal-offering from which a handful [of meal] has not been separated, he is exempt. [Even though he would have been liable for the handful], the handful is not a distinct and discrete entity. If he separated [the handful] and then it was mixed back into it and he then offered the entire [measure] outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable.
Halacha 6
One who pours oil [over a meal-offering], mixes the meal and oil, breaks up the wafers, salts them, waives them, approaches an altar with them, arranges a table for showbread, cleans the lamps of a candelabra, separates a handful [of meal], or receives the blood [of a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt. [The rationale is that] all of these are not activities that complete the offering [of the sacrifice] and [the prooftext] says: "Who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice." [One may infer:] Just as offering [these sacrifices] is the final stage of the service [involved with them], so too, one is liable only for activities that are the final stage of sacrificial service.
Halacha 7
When one burns a red heifer outside the place where it is required to be burnt16 or if one offers, outside [the Temple Courtyard], the goat that is sent [to Azazel]17 after the confession was recited over it,18 he is exempt. [The rationale is that the prooftext] says: "He did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." [One may infer:] One is not liable for any sacrifice which is not fit to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.19
In contrast, one is liable for offering [outside the Temple Courtyard] sacrificial animals that were disqualified if they were disqualified in the Temple. What is implied? [Sacrificial meat or blood] that remained overnight [without being offered], they were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard], they became impure, or they were disqualified because of the intent of the person sacrificing them all are required to be burnt20 as will be explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukkdashim.21 If a person transgressed and offered [such entities] as sacrifices outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. [This is derived from the prooftext]: "...to offer it to God." One is liable for any [entity] that is are fit to be offered to God and these are fit to be offered to God.22
Halacha 8
Whenever there is a substance for which one is liable for offering it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for offering an olive-sized portion of it outside.23[This applies] whether he offered [a portion of the entity] inside [the Temple Courtyard] first, left over an olive-sized portion and then offered it outside or left the entire entity inside and took an olive-sized portion and offered it outside. If, however, [the size of] the sacrificial entity was decreased in the slightest way24 inside the Temple Courtyard and then the remainder was offered outside, he is exempt.
Halacha 9
What is implied? If a portion of the handful [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, the portions of a sacrifice offered on the altar, a burnt-offering, a meal offering that is burnt,25 and the wine libations was decreased within [the Temple Courtyard] and the remainder was offered outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [This is derived from the prooftext which states:] "to offer it." [Implied is that] he is liable for a complete entity, but he is not liable if it is lacking.26 If one remove [the sacrificial entity] from the Temple Courtyard while it was complete, its [size] was decreased outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then he offered it [there], there is an unresolved question [whether he is liable]. Therefore [a transgressor] is not given lashes.
Halacha 10
If, [outside the Temple Courtyard,] one offered a limb that did not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, but the bone itself caused it to reach the olive-sized measure, he is liable, because the meat is connected to the bone. If salt caused [the sacrificial entity] to reach the olive-sized measure, there is an unresolved question [whether he is liable].27 Therefore [a transgressor] is not given lashes. A burnt-offering and the portions of the innards of a burnt-offering28 that are offered on the altar can be combined to complete an olive-sized portion [to cause one to be liable].29
Halacha 11
If one offered [a portion of a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard] and then offered another portion of it, he is liable for every individual limb.30 If he sprinkled its blood [outside the Temple Courtyard] and then offered its limbs, he is liable twice. For the Torah made a distinction between [offering blood and offering limbs as indicated by the two prooftexts] "Who will offer a burnt-offering" and "to offer it."31
If one offered a limb that was lacking [in substance], he is exempt,32 as [one can infer from the prooftext] "to offer it." [This indicates] that one is liable [only] for a complete [limb].
Halacha 12
When two people slaughter [a sacrificial animal outside the Temple Courtyard], they are exempt.33 If two people hold a limb [from a sacrificial animal] and offer it outside the Temple Courtyard], they are liable. [The rationale is that the prooftext states] "Every man34 who will offer a burnt-offering." Implied is that even two people who offer [a sacrifice] are liable.
Halacha 13
If a person makes several of the required sprinklings [of blood] outside [their appropriate place], he is liable.35 A person who receives the blood of a sin-offering36 in one cup and applies it to an altar outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then applies it to the altar inside [the Temple Courtyard],37 he is liable for the portion applied outside [the Temple Courtyard]. [The rationale is that] the entire amount was fit to be offered inside.38
If he applied it to [the altar] inside and then applied it outside, he is exempt, for [the blood he used] was merely remnants.39 If, however, he received the blood in two cups, he is liable whether he applied both of them outside [the Temple Courtyard], [the first] outside and the other inside, or [the first] inside and the other outside.40
Halacha 14
When one offered a handful [of meal] or the frankincense from the meal offering41 outside [the Temple Courtyard] or offered one inside and the other outside, he is liable. Similarly, with regard to the two bowls of frankincense from the showbread,42 if one offered [the first] outside the [Temple Courtyard]43 or [the first] inside and the second outside, he is liable.
Halacha 15
If a person slaughtered consecrated animals in the present era and offered them outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable, because [the sacrifices] are fit to be offered inside. For it is permitted to offer sacrifices even though the Temple is not built, because [when the Temple was] consecrated originally, it was consecrated for the immediate time and for all future time.44
Halacha 19
[A Jew] who slaughters sacrificial animals belonging to a gentile outside [the Temple Courtyard] is liable.45 Similarly, one who offers them outside [the Temple Courtyard is liable].
Gentiles are permitted to offer burnt offerings to God in all places,46 provided they sacrifice them on a raised structure that they build.47 It is forbidden to help them [offer these sacrifices] or act as agents for them, for we are forbidden to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]. It is permitted to instruct them and teach them how to sacrifice to the Almighty, blessed be He.
Blessed be the Merciful One who offers assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., if he offers it for the sake of a person without designating him as a deity, but merely as a token of appreciation, he is not liable.
2.
In contrast to an entity which is eaten, as stated in Halachah 4.
3.
Excluding sacrifices that are not offered on the altar, as mentioned in Halachah 7.
4.
This applies with regard to all sacrifices, even sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity. Since these parts are offered on the altar in the Temple, one is liable for offering them outside the Temple (Radbaz).
5.
Both the handful of meal taken from the meal-offering and the frankincense from that offering are offered on the altar in their entirety (Chapter 13, Halachah 12).
6.
This is offered on the inner altar twice daily (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 2:11).
7.
Which is offered on the altar in its entirety (Chapter 12, Halachah 9).
8.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
9.
For a wine libation is never less than threelugim. See the following halachah.
10.
The Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh maintain that one is liable for pouring water on an altar only during the holiday of Sukkos, for only then is water offered on the altar in the Temple. The Radbaz does clarify that this is not necessarily apparent from the Rambam's wording. Indeed, on the contrary, from the following halachah, one could infer the opposite.
11.
This refers to the sin-offerings that were burnt. See Chapter 5, Halachah 11.
12.
I.e., the fundamental aspect of pouring the blood is the sprinkling of the blood on the altar - or in the Temple Building - each sacrifice according to its laws. Pouring out the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not of fundamental importance and the sacrifices are acceptable even if it is not performed. Hence, it is not considered as an act of significance for which one is liable.
13.
When the water libation is offered. See the notes to the previous halachah.
14.
For three lugim is the smallest wine libation offered (see Chapter 17, Halachot 12, 15). Similarly, the water libation offered on Sukkot is three lugim (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim10:7).
15.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:5), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that we follow the principles that two entities that are the same substance are never considered as intervening substances.
16.
The red heifer should be slaughtered on the Mount of Olives, as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:1-2.
17.
As stated in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim3:7, the goat sent to Azazel was pushed off a mountain cliff in the desert outside of Jerusalem.
18.
See Chapter 18, Halachah 11.
19.
I.e., the Temple. This excludes offerings like the above which, though they are consecrated, are not offered in the Temple.
20.
Radbaz notes that Zevachim 109a mentions sacrifices disqualified for other reasons. He explains that the Rambam does not mention them here, because here he is speaking in general terms. They are detailed in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim where he discusses the particulars pertaining to these laws.
21.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19, which mentions the obligation to burn sacrifices that were disqualified for all these reasons.
22.
As explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 3, if sacrificial meat or blood was brought to the top of the altar after being disqualified for these reasons, it should be offered on the altar's pyre.
23.
Any lesser amount is not considered significant. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:10.
24.
I.e., a portion of it was lost or burnt.
25.
This refers to a meal offering brought by a male priest, the meal offering of the High Priest, and the meal component of the accompanying offerings (Zevachim 13:4).
26.
For the prooftext states "it," and this implies that the entity must be complete.
27.
Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:10.
28.
We have translated the text according to its straightforward meaning. Nevertheless, the Radbaz states that this ruling applies, not only to a burnt-offering and its own innards, but even one that is combined with the innards of another sacrifice. Thus he maintains that one is liable for combining the meat of a burnt-offering, not only with the innards of a burnt-offering, but also with the innards of a peace-offering.
29.
For they are part of the same type of offering and are both offered on the altar in their entirety.
30.
Provided he was notified of the transgression between the offering of each particular limb (Radbaz, based on Hilchot Shegagot 6:2).
31.
The fact that the Torah uses two prooftexts implies that two different prohibitions are involved. The prooftext "to offer it" refers to both the prohibitions against slaughter and against sprinkling the blood and the prooftext "who will offer it" refers to the prohibition against offering the limbs on the altar (Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh, thus resolving the questions raised by the Ra'avad).
32.
The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, noting that the previous halachah stated that a person is liable if the combination of a portion of a limb and the portions of the innards offered on the altar equal an olive-sized portion. This indicates that a limb need not be whole. The Kessef Mishneh and others, however, justify the Rambam's ruling.
33.
This law has already been stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 16. Indeed, there are some who considered its inclusion here as a scribal error.
34.
The Hebrew original repeats the word ishmeaning man, implying that even two men can be held liable for the same activity.
35.
Even though he did not complete the required service associated with the sacrifice, as long as he sprinkled the blood on an altar once, he is liable.
36.
The Rambam is quoting the wording of the mishnah (Zevachim13:6). Nevertheless, according to his understanding, this law applies to the blood of other sacrifices as well.
37.
He is liable even if he does not apply the blood to the altar inside. The Rambam mentions the application of the blood inside only to emphasize that offering the blood properly does not remove the liability that was already established.
38.
Hence if he offers any of it outside first, he is liable. The fact that he does not offer the entire amount outside is not significant. As long as a portion is offered outside, he is liable.
39.
I.e., the offering was completed through the application of the blood to the altar inside. Although the remainder of the blood should also have been dashed on the altar, that is not an absolute requirement. Hence one is not liable for offering such blood outside the Temple Courtyard.
40.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam regarding the latter point, explaining thatZevachim 112a states that one is exempt in the latter instance. Since the blood was first offered inside, the sacrifice is acceptable and the fact that later blood was also offered outside is not of consequence. The Radbaz explains that, according to the Rambam, that rationale applies when the blood was offered inside according to all of its specifications. In this instance, however, the Rambam is speaking about a situation where the applications of the blood to the Temple altar were not completed. Hence, the blood in the second cup is still significant.
41.
See Chapter 13, Halachot 12-13, which describe the offering of the meal-offering.
42.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2 for a description of the offering of the showbread.
43.
Even though the offering is not complete until both bowls of frankincense are offered (ibid.:3), one is liable for offering even one of them outside.
44.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15-16 for an explanation of these concepts. See also ibid.2:4 which states that as long as the altar is built in its appropriate place sacrifices may be offered even though the Temple is destroyed. Based on Zevachim 59a, the Radbaz states that even if the altar is not built, sacrifices can be offered on its site. Indeed, he writes that it is only because the gentiles do not allow us that we do not offer communal sacrifices in the present age. (Communal sacrifices may be offered while ritually impure.)
Based on this rationale, after the conquest of Jerusalem in 5727 (1967), the Lubavitcher Rebbe advised his chassidim to leave the holy city on the day before Pesach. The rationale is that the Paschal sacrifice may also be brought while ritually impure. Now anyone who is close to Jerusalem on the day before Pesach and does not bring a Paschal sacrifice is liable for karet. Although many factors are involved and the Rebbe did not advise his followers to actually bring a sacrifice, he felt it necessary that precautions be taken so that they would not be held liable for not bringing the offering. This situation persisted for several years until the Rebbe felt that the Jewish control of the Temple Mount was weakened to the point that it would be impossible to bring an offering.
45.
For slaughtering these animals outside the Temple Courtyard. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this is speaking about a situation where the gentile desires to offer the sacrifice to God.
46.
Zevachim 116b notes that the passage prohibiting the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple Courtyard begins: "Speak to the children of Israel," implying that the prohibition applies only to them.
47.
This license applies in the present era as well.
• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
The priests were all3 warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies when they are not in the midst of the service,4 as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "He shall not come to the Holy Chamber at all time" - this refers to the Holy of Holies. "...Within the curtain" - this warns [the priests against unwarranted entry] into the entire Temple.5
Halacha 3
A priest - whether an ordinary priest or a High Priest - who enters the Holy of Holies on any of the other days of the year, or a High Priest who enters there on Yom Kippur outside the time of service, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.] states: "And he shall not die."
How many times does he enter on Yom Kippur? Four, as will be explained in the appropriate place.6 If he enters a fifth time, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven.
Halacha 4
One - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who enters the Sacred Chamber outside the Holy of Holies not for the sake of service, nor prostrating oneself7 is liable for lashes, but is not liable for death. [This is derived from the above verse which states:] "Before the covering [that is upon the Ark] so that he will not die." [Implied is that] for [unauthorized entry into] the Holy of Holies, he is liable for death, but [entering] the remainder of the Sanctuary is merely the violation of a negative commandment and is punishable by lashes.
Halacha 5
A priest - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who departs from the Temple is liable for death8 [at the hand of heaven] only in the midst of his service,9 as [ibid 10:7] states: "From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, you shall not depart, lest you die." Implied is that you should not abandon the service and leave hastily and in panic because of this decree.10 Similarly, the charge [issued to] the High Priest [ibid. 21:12]: "He shall not depart from the Temple," applies only in the midst of his service, i.e., that he should not abandon his service and depart.
Halacha 6
If so, why was this warning repeated for the High Priest? [Because there is a difference between the laws that apply to him and those which apply to an ordinary priest]. When an ordinary priest was in the midst of his service in the Temple and he heard that a person for whom he is obligated to mourn has died, he should not perform sacrificial service, even though he does not leave the Temple,11 because he is in an acute state of mourning.12 if he performed service while in an acute state of mourning, he profanes his service, whether he is offering an individual sacrifice or a communal offering. A High Priest, by contrast, performs sacrificial service while he is in a state of acute mourning, as [implied by ibid.]: "From the Temple, he should not depart and not profane." Implied is that he should remain [in the Temple] and perform the service with which he was involved and it does not become profaned.
Halacha 7
What is the source that teaches that the service of one in an acute state of mourning is invalid? [It is derived from] an inference from a less severe situation to a more severe one.13 A priest disqualified because of a physical deformity may partake of sacrificial foods.14 Nevertheless, if he performs service, he profanes it.15 How much more so should one who is in acute mourning and thus forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods16 - as [Deuteronomy 26:14] states: "I did not eat from it in a state of acute morning" - profane his service [if he performs it].
Halacha 8
Although a High Priest may perform service while he is in a state of acute mourning, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food, as [Leviticus 10:19] states: "If I had partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have found favor in God's eyes."17Similarly, he does not participate in the division of the sacrificial foods so that he could partake of the food in the evening.
When a person in an acute state of mourning performs sacrificial service, he is not liable for lashes. He is permitted to touch sacrificial foods even though he did not immerse himself [in a mikveh], for this safeguard was enforced only with regard to eating. With regard to touching [objects], he is considered as pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.18
Halacha 9
What is meant by a person in an acute state of mourning? One who lost one of the relatives19 for whom he is required to mourn. On the day of the person's death, he is considered in acute mourning according to Scriptural Law. And at night, he is in acute mourning according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 10
When [it was necessary] to wait several days and [only] afterwards, a corpse was buried, for all those days after the day of the deceased's passing, [his relative] is considered in an acute state of mourning according to Rabbinic Law. This also [applies] with regard to the day of burial, but not the following night.
Therefore if [a close relative of a priest] dies and he buries him after the day of his death, throughout the day of the burial, he may not offer or partake of sacrifices according to Rabbinic Law. He should then immerse himself and partake of sacrifices at night. The day on which a person hears a report that a relative of his died within 30 days20 and the day on which he gathers his bones21 is considered as the day of one's burial, but [the restrictions] do not apply at night. On the day of [a close relative's] death, by contrast, just as it is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods during the day according to Scriptural Law, so too, it is forbidden for him to partake of them that night according to Rabbinic Law. [The only] exception is the Paschal sacrifice which he may eat at night, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22
Halacha 11
Throughout the seven days of mourning, a mourner should not send sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple].23 [Indeed, he should not send] even wine, wood, or frankincense. Similarly, a person afflicted with tzara'at24 should not send his sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple]. For as long as he is not fit to enter the camp [of the Levites],25 he is not fit for his sacrifices to be offered. There is an unresolved question whether a person under a ban of ostracism26may send his sacrifices [to be offered] or not.27 Hence, if they were offered on his behalf, [his obligation] is satisfied.
Halacha 12
A person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard or the like and an uncircumcised person may send their sacrifices28 and they are offered with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice. That sacrifice may not be offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard.29 Nor may a Paschal sacrifice be offered for an uncircumcised person, as will be explained.30 No sacrifices at all are offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a corpse until he becomes ritually pure.31
FOOTNOTES
1.
As explained in Halachah 3.
2.
I.e., to offer incense, kindle the menorah, or to bow.
3.
According to its simple meaning, the prooftext cited below refers only to Aaron. Nevertheless, through the Biblical exegesis, the Sifra interprets it as referring to all priests (Kessef Mishneh).
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 68) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 184) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is an expression of honor and reverence toward the Temple.
5.
The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's interpretation of the verse, for seemingly, "within the curtain" refers to the Holy of Holies. On the surface, the opposite would be more appropriate: "The Holy Chamber" could be interpreted as referring to the entire Temple and "within the curtain" to the Holy of Holies. He explains the verse as follows: Were the verse to have mentioned "the Holy Chamber" alone, we would have thought that it refers only to the Holy of Holies and not to the Temple at large. Since, however, the verse adds "within the curtain," we understand that it refers to the Holy of Holies" and "the Holy Chamber" refers to the entire Sanctuary.
There is, however, a difference in the punishments for which one is liable for the violation of the two aspects of this commandment, as the Rambam states in Halachah 4.
6.
Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 4.
7.
With regard to the priests' prostrating themselves, see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash5:11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the priests were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary to prostrate themselves at all times. Instead, they would enter only at a specific time, when the service of the morning was completed.
8.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 151) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
9.
If, however, he is not involved in the Temple service, he is not required to remain in the Temple.
10.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the prooftext the Rambam cites was directed to Aaron's sons and applied only at the time of the death of Nadav and Avihu at the dedication of the Sanctuary. In other instances, there is no prohibition for an ordinary priest to leave the Temple. The prohibition applies to the High Priest alone. The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Sifra which - as interpreted by the Ramban - serves as support for the Rambam's ruling.
11.
The Ra'avad amplifies his difference of opinion with the Rambam, maintaining that the ordinary priest should certainly leave the Temple to participate in the funeral of a close relative. Indeed, he is forced to become impure to take part in the burial. Indeed, since he cannot complete the service, what value is there in him remaining?
The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that were he to depart from the Temple, it would be demeaning to the service that he had performed. The implication would be that it was not of serious importance to him. Also, there is a practical dimension; if he would depart, there might not be anyone to see that the service is in fact completed.
12.
See Halachah 9 for a definition of this term. See also Hilchot Evel 4:6, 9, for particulars with regard to the state of aninut, acute mourning.
13.
The Rambam's statements are taken fromZevachim 17b. The Talmud there offers another derivation. Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam uses that derivation and not the one mentioned here.
14.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.
15.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.
16.
See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:7.
17.
Aaron asked this rhetorical question to Moses after serving in the Sanctuary, but not partaking of the offerings, on the day his sons died.
18.
As explained in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:15, since a person who was in a state of acute mourning was forbidden to partake of holy objects, it is possible that he diverted his attention from his hands and touched a source of impurity unknowingly. Nevertheless, this is only a safeguard and applies only with regard to partaking of food and not to touching it.
[It must be emphasized that there is a difference in the versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim12:1). Some versions of the text follow the ruling here, but others state that it is forbidden for a person to touch sacred food.]
19.
A person's mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. One must mourn for his or her spouse according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Evel 2:1).
20.
I.e., the person died beforehand and the priest heard the report within 30 days of his death. In that instance, he is required to observe a full week of shivah mourning (Hilchot Evel 7:1).
21.
I.e., unearths his grave for the sake of reburying him in another place.
22.
Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:9. There it is explained that our Sages did not wish to enforce their decree in a situation that would lead to the violation of a transgression punishable by karet.
23.
See Mo'ed Kattan 16b which states that this is derived from the term shelamim ("peace-offerings"). That name implies that these offerings may only be brought when a person is at peace with himself.
24.
A physical ailment similar to leprosy which causes one to become ritually impure.
25.
I.e., the Temple Mount; see Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which explains these concepts.
26.
See Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 7, for a definition of this term.
27.
Mo'ed Kattan 15b explains this question as follows: During the 40 years between the sin of the spies and the entry of the Jews intoEretz Yisrael, they were considered as if they were under a ban of ostracism from God. Nevertheless, their sacrifices were offered. Hence one might conclude that even though a person is under a ban of ostracism, his sacrifices may be offered. That conclusion is not accepted unquestionably, however, because it is possible to make a distinction between one who is ostracized by God (as the Jews were in the desert) and one ostracized by man. It is possible that the latter situation is more severe.
28.
They may not, however, enter the Temple themselves to take part in the offering.
The Kessef Mishneh raises a question for it is necessary to perform semichah (leaning on the sacrificial animal with all one's strength; see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3) on sacrifices. Since these individuals may not enter the Temple Courtyard, because of their impurity, they cannot perform semichah. Hence, seemingly, the sacrifices should not be offered. The Kessef Mishneh states that perhaps the Rambam is speaking only of certain sacrifices wheresemichah is not required.
29.
Unless he has already immersed himself. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:1.
30.
For as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach2:3, 5-6, the Paschal sacrifice should be sacrificed only on behalf of individuals who are fit to partake of it and a person who is ritually impure and an uncircumcised person are forbidden to do so.
31.
I.e., he must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, and he must immerse in the mikveh.
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to send all impure persons away from the Temple,1 as [Numbers 5:2] states: "And they shall send away from the camp all those with tzara'at and zav2 [afflictions] and all those who are impure because of contact with a corpse.
Halacha 2
"The camp" cited refers to "the camp of the Divine presence," i.e., from the entrance to the Courtyard of the Israelites onward.3 Should one infer that a person with tzaraat or zav ailments and one impure due to contact with a corpse are all three sent to the same place? With regard to one inflicted withtzara'at, [Leviticus 13:46] states: "He shall abide alone outside the camp where he dwells." [The camp from which he is sent] refers to the camp of the Israelites which parallels the area from the entrance to Jerusalem and beyond.4 [From this we conclude,]5 just like a person who is afflicted withtzara'at, because his impurity is more severe, is sent away in a more severe manner than others,6 so too, any individuals whose state of impurity is more severe than others should be sent out in a more sever manner.7
Therefore a person afflicted with tzara'at is sent outside of all three camps, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [His impurity is considered more severe,] because he causes [a house] to be considered impure when he enters it.8 This does not apply with regard to a zav.
Halacha 3
Men with a zav condition,9 women with a zavah condition,10 niddot,11 and women who gave birth12 are sent outside two camps, i.e., outside the Temple Mount.13 [The rationale for this severity is that] they cause an entity upon which they are seated or upon which they are lying to become ritually impure,14 even if it is under a stone.15 [This does not apply] with regard to impurity [contracted] from a corpse.16
Halacha 4
A person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse - and even a corpse itself - is permitted to enter the Temple Mount. [This is derived fromExodus 13:19]: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him."17 "With him" [implies] into the camp of the Levites.18
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
From the Women's Courtyard,23 one who immersed himself that day is sent away,24 but not one who has not completed the purification process.25 For [the day on which] a person who has not completed the purification process [immersed himself] has already passed.26 The prohibition against a person who has immersed himself entering [this portion of] the camp of the Levites is Rabbinic in origin.27
Halacha 7
From the Courtyard of the Israelites28 and onward even one who has not completed his process of purification should not enter, because his process of purification is not yet consummated. [This is evident from Leviticus 12:8which, with regard to a woman who seeks purification after childbirth,]29states: "And the priest will bring atonement for her and she will become pure." One can infer that until then, she was not pure.30
Halacha 8
An impure person who [must be] sent away from the Temple Mount, violates a negative commandment31 if he enters there, as [can be inferred fromDeuteronomy 23:11 which] states: "And he shall go outside the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Shechinah - "and he shall not enter the midst of the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Levites.32 Similarly, a person afflicted bytzara'at who enters Jerusalem is liable for lashes.33 If, however, he enters any of the other walled cities34 [in Eretz Yisrael], although he is not allowed to,35as [implied by the verse]: "He shall abide alone, he is not liable for lashes."
Halacha 9
If one afflicted with tzara'at entered the Temple Mount, he is liable for 80 lashes.36 If, however, one who is impure because of contact with a human corpse or one who immersed himself that day entered the Women's Courtyard,37 or one who has not completed his process of purification entered the Israelites' Courtyard,38 he is not given lashes.39 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.40
Halacha 10
Just as there is a positive commandment to send impure persons out from the Temple, so too, if they enter, they violate a negative commandment,41 as [Numbers 5:3] states: "They shall not make your camp impure." This refers to the camp of the Shechinah.42
Halacha 11
What source teaches that one does not violate the prohibition unless he enters [the Temple], but that he he is exempt43 if he touches the Temple Courtyard from the outside? [Leviticus 12:4] states with regard to a woman who gives birth: "She shall not enter the Sanctuary."44
Halacha 12
When an impure person willfully enters the Temple, he is punishable bykaret,45 as [Leviticus 17:16] states: "If he will not clean [his garments] or wash his flesh, he will bear his iniquity."46 [If he enters] unknowingly, he is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,47 as [ibid. 5:2] states: "Or a soul that will touch any impure entity." One is liable for karet or a sacrifice only when one enters from the Israelites' Courtyard or onward or into an addition to the Courtyard that was sanctified in a consummate manner, as we explained.48
Halacha 13
What are the types of impurity for which one is liable [for entering] the Temple [while impure]?
a) Anyone who became impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner which would require a nazirite to shave [his head] because of them; these are explained in [Hilchot] Nizirut;49
b) one who touched a person or a utensil that became impure through those types of impurity for which a nazirite must shave [his head]; for such a person is considered as a second level of impurity to a primary object of impurity that touched a corpse;50
Halacha 14
The general principle is: Anyone who is required to immerse himself in water53according to Scriptural Law is liable for karet for entering the Temple [while impure] even after he immersed himself until nightfall [that day].54 If, however, one became impure due to impurity stemming from a human corpse that does not require a nazirite to shave [his head], he is exempt for entering the Temple, even though his impurity lasts for seven days.55
Halacha 15
Similarly, if one touches utensils that touched a human corpse or touches a person who is touching utensils that touch a corpse, even though he is considered as impure to the first degree with regard to terumah56 and with regard to imparting impurity to sacrificial foods, he is exempt for entering the Temple. For these matters are laws received through the Oral Tradition.57Although he is exempt, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.58
Halacha 16
A person who brings a dead teeming animal59 or the like60 into the Temple or when he brings an impure person into the Temple, he is liable for karet, because he made God's sanctuary impure. If, however, he threw impure utensils into the Temple - even if they were utensils that touched a corpse61 - he is exempt from karet, but liable for lashes, as [implied by the prooftext cited above]: "If he will not clean [his garments]...."62 According to the Oral Tradition, [for entering the Temple without] washing his body, he is liable forkaret. [For entering without] cleaning his garments, he receives 40 lashes.
Halacha 17
It appears to me63 that he is liable for lashes only for his clothes that are a source of ritual impurity, i.e., clothes that were touched by a person who became impure through contact with a corpse that themselves become a source for ritual impurity, as will be explained.64 If, by contrast, one brings a garment which is of first degree impurity65 into the Temple, he is not liable for lashes.66 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 18
Similarly, when an impure person inserts his hand [alone] into the Temple,67he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, anyone who purposely enters the Temple before immersing himself68 while he is impure because of contact with objects that are sources of ritual impurity by virtue of Rabbinic decree, because he ate impure foods, or because he drank impure beverages is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 19
When an impure person enters the Temple through the rooftops, he is exempt.69 [This is derived from the prooftext cited above:] "He shall not enter the Temple." [Implied is that] the Torah held him liable [only when he entered in] the way one usually enters.70Although he is exempt for karet, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
[This exemption applies] even if he enters in a compartment flying in the air,71whether he entered the Temple in this compartment through the roofs or through the entrances.
Halacha 20
In all places where one is liable for karet72 for a willful transgression or a sacrifice for an unknowing transgression, should an impure object be found there on the Sabbath, it should be removed.73 In other places,74 it should be covered with a utensil until after the Sabbath.75 When it is removed, it should be removed only with flat wooden utensil which do not contract ritual impurity,76 so that there should not be an increase in ritual impurity.77
Halacha 21
Both an impure person who entered the Temple when it was pure78 and a pure person who entered the Temple when there was impurity within it - e.g., a corpse was lying under a shelter in the Temple and he entered under that shelter - are liable for karet. [In the latter situation,] his entrance and his impurity occur at one time.
Halacha 22
It is forbidden for him to tarry, to bow, or to depart via a longer way. If he tarried or departed via a longer way even though he did not tarry, or he turned his face to the Sanctuary and bowed even if he did not tarry, he is liable forkaret. If he acted unknowingly, he must bring a sacrifice.81
Halacha 23
If he did not turn his face [toward the Sanctuary], but bowed as he was departing toward the outside area, he is not liable unless he tarrys.
How long a delay [creates a liability]? Enough time to read the verse:82 "And they bowed with their faces to the ground on the floor, prostrating themselves and giving thanks to God who is good and whose kindness is everlasting." This is the measure of the delay [for which one is liable].
Halacha 24
What is meant by [departing] via longer way? Any way for which it is possible to depart from the Temple via a shorter way.
If one departed via a shorter way, even if he did not run, but instead walked [slowly], positioning his heel by his toes,83 although it takes the entire day, he is exempt. If he took a longer path, even though he ran and pressed himself with all of his power and thus the amount of time it took for him to leave in this manner was less than it would take other men via the shorter way, he is liable, because he departed via the longer path.
If he departed via the shorter path, but walked some, then stood, tarried some, [and continued this pattern] until all of his delays together amount to the time it takes to bow, he is not liable for lashes if he acted willfully, nor is he liable for a sacrifice if he acted unknowingly, because there is an unresolved question concerning the matter.84 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.85
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 31) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 362) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.
3.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11 which states:
The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert [was divided into] three areas:the camp of Israel... the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50] states: "They shall camp around the Sanctuary;", and the camp of the Shechinah[which included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards.Correspondingly, for [future] generations: [The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel. [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites. And [the area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah.
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8).
4.
The verse implies that he must abide in a place where others do not dwell.
5.
The Sifra understands this to be an example of the principle of Biblical exegesis: A subject (a person impure because of tzara'at) was included in a general category (impure people) and then was singled out to teach us a new law (that he must dwell separate from all others). This does not only teach us about this instance, but about the entire category (that there are distinctions in the extent people with impurity must distance themselves).
6.
For in no other instance is an impure person required to depart from the camp of the Israelites. See also Halachah 8.
7.
Thus as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachot, there are differences in the extent people with various types of impurities are forced to distance themselves.
8.
Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:12.
9.
A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.
10.
I.e., they experience vaginal bleeding at times other than their ordinary monthly cycle. This causes them to be considered ritually impure.
11.
Women who are impure because of menstrual bleeding.
12.
This - or a miscarriage - renders a woman as ritually impure.
13.
Since there is an added dimension to the severity of their impurity, they must distance themselves in a more sever manner.
14.
See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1.
15.
See ibid. 6:5, 7:1, which explains that even if there is a stone - which itself never contracts ritual impurity - intervening between the person's body and the entity, the entity becomes impure.
16.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:14.
17.
Joseph had asked the Jewish people to bring his body from Egypt to be buried inEretz Yisrael. Moses brought his body with him from Egypt, transporting it on the entire journey through the desert.
18.
For that is where Moses had his personal dwelling.
19.
The rampart surrounding the walls of the courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3).
20.
For through that act, the man also becomes ritually impure.
21.
This is a Rabbinic restriction. According to Scriptural Law, these places are not on a different rung of holiness than the other portions of the Temple Mount. This and the restrictions mentioned in the next two halachot are also found in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:16-18.
22.
When a person must immerse himself to ascend from ritual impurity, according to Scriptural Law, he does not achieve that status until nightfall. Nevertheless, since he has already immersed, our Sages relaxed this and several other of the prohibitions that they had placed upon such individuals.
23.
A square courtyard outside the Temple Courtyard, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-9.
24.
For he is still impure, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
25.
This term refers to a zav,, a zavah, a woman who gave birth or miscarried, or a convert, who even after immersing themselves in the mikveh, must bring a sacrifice before their purification process is complete. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah1:1.
26.
The Sifri brings proof that one who has not yet completed the purification process is in a different category than a person who has immersed himself from the fact that the former is permitted to partake of terumah, while the latter is not.
27.
Zevachim 32b relates that this restriction was imposed by Yehoshefat, King of Judah.
28.
The first eleven cubits of the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah5:11). This area begins "the camp of theShechinah" into which all of those who are impure may not enter according to Scriptural Law.
29.
And from this example, we extrapolate with regard to others in that category.
30.
Even though she had already immersed herself. Hence, she and others in the same category may not enter an area which is reserved for those who are ritually pure. This is a Scriptural restriction.
31.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 78) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 565) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Its violation is punishable by lashes.
32.
Which, as mentioned above, parallels the camp of the Levites.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's interpretation of the verse reverses the order found in Pesachim 68a and the Sifri. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.
33.
Significantly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4 where the Rambam lists those who are punished by lashes, he does not mention this instance.
34.
See Hilchot Megilah 1:4 and Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 12:15 which explain that this term applies only to a city surrounded by a wall at the time when Joshua conquered the land. Even if the wall of such a city is destroyed, the city is still placed in that category. Moreover, if a city was not walled at the time of Joshua's conquest, even if it was walled afterwards, it is not placed in this category.
35.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:7. Based on Tosafot(Berachot 5b), Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that these restrictions apply only during the era when the Jubilee year was observed.
36.
I.e., he violated two negative commandments: he entered Jerusalem and he entered the Temple Mount. Therefore he is liable for two sets of lashes. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim1:8, based on the Tosefta to Keilim), the Rambam states these concepts slightly differently.
The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person afflicted with tzara'at enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for an addition set of lashes.
37.
As mentioned in Halachot 5-6, this constitutes the violation of a Rabbinical commandment. The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for 120 lashes.
38.
And thus violates a positive commandment, as indicated by Halachah 1.
39.
For he does not violate a Scriptural prohibition.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that since the person is impure, his entry into the Temple Courtyard violates a Scriptural prohibition and is punishable bykaret. The Kessef Mishneh cites a passage from Zevachim 17b which appears to support the Ra'avad's objection. To resolve the Rambam's ruling, the Kessef Mishneh, however, quotes Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14, where the Rambam distinguishes between an impure person who has immersed and one who has not done so as of yet. He also quotes other opinions in support of the distinction the Rambam makes.
40.
A punishment instituted by the Rabbis for the violation of their decrees or positive commandments.
41.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 77) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 363) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
42.
I.e., the area encompassed by the Temple Courtyard.
43.
I.e., the act is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes or a sin-offering for its violation.
44.
Implying that entry into the Temple area is what is forbidden.
45.
Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
46.
Har HaMoriah explains that the Rambam quotes this verse rather than Numbers 19:13-20 which is more explicit, because the latter passage speaks only about one who became impure due to contact with a human corpse and the prohibition applies even when one became impure for other reasons.
47.
See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.
48.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:10-14 which describes the manner in which additions are made to the Temple Courtyard.
49.
See Hilchot Nizirut 7:1-6 which describes this subject in detail. As stated in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." Implied is that since a nazirite is forbidden to cut his hair according to Scriptural Law, when he contracts ritual impurity stemming from a human corpse that is only Rabbinic in origin, he should not cut his hair, because then the Rabbinic safeguard would lead to the violation of Scriptural Law. Note also the commentary toHilchot Nizirut which explains that the Rambam is referring to ritual impurity that is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis.
50.
A person or an object that touches a human corpse becomes a source of impurity that can cause other people or objects to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4-5).
The Ra'avad states however that a nazirite is not obligated to shave his head if he touched a utensil or a person that became impure due to contact with a corpse. Hence, he concludes, one should not be liable for entering the Temple after having contracted impurity in this manner. The Kessef Mishnehmaintains that the simple meaning of the passage in Nazir 54a appears to support the Ra'avad's understanding. Nevertheless, he cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) which could be interpreted as supporting the Rambam's ruling.
51.
There are entities that are considered sources of impurity according to Rabbinic Law. They do not make a person impure to the extent that he is liable for entering the Temple.
52.
See Sefer Taharah.
53.
I.e., in a mikveh.
54.
For as stated in Halachah 6, one who has immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity is still impure until nightfall of that day. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such a person is not liable for karet. The Radbaz cites the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14 which would seem to support the Ra'avad's ruling. It states that a person who was ritually impure, then immersed himself, and then partook of sacrificial foods before nightfall is liable for lashes, but is not liable for karet. Nevertheless, the Radbaz explains that a distinction can be made between these two situations.
55.
Although he is required to observe the strictures of someone who is ritually impure, he is not liable for entering the Temple.
56.
In Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4, the Rambam describes the impurity caused by such situations.
57.
In ibid.:5, the Rambam continues: "Even though according to the Oral Tradition [one is rendered impure for such matters], this is not Scriptural Law. For it is not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who becomes impure through contact with a human corpse becomes a source of impurity and one who touches him becomes impure to the first degree." In this instance, however, the Rambam is probably following his renown approach that any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah is considered as "from the Oral Tradition" even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai.
58.
For the Rabbis instituted decrees to insure that the prohibitions established by the Oral Tradition were observed.
59.
This is speaking about a situation where he brought the dead teeming animal into the Temple without touching it, since, as stated in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 4:1, a dead teeming animal imparts ritual impurity only when one touches it and not when one carries it. For if the person had touched it, he would become impure and be liable forkaret entering the Temple in that state.
60.
I.e., another source of impurity that imparts impurity through touch, but not when carried.
61.
And thus serve as a source of impurity.
62.
The verse concludes: "He will bear his iniquity." "Clean[ing] his garments" refers to immersing them to remove their impurity.
63.
This expression implies that there is no Talmudic source for this ruling, but instead, it was derived by deduction.
64.
Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:2. There the Rambam states that if a person touching the corpse touches any other utensil at the same time, that utensil is considered as if it touched the corpse itself.
65.
I.e., the person touched the garments after he let go of the corpse.
66.
Since the object brought into the Temple is not a source for ritual impurity, the person is not liable for karet. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even bringing an object that is not a source for ritual impurity into the Temple causes one to be liable for lashes. The Kessef Mishnehsupports the Rambam's view, explaining that there is a logical basis for his conclusion. Since the Torah was lenient with regard to utensils (and garments), absolving one fromkaret even when the utensil was a source of impurity, we can conclude that leniency would also be shown with regard to lashes.
67.
I.e., he stands outside the Temple Courtyard and inserts only his hand. He is not given lashes, because his entire body has not entered the Temple Courtyard. Even the Rambam would agree that he is forbidden by Rabbinic decree to insert his hand. The Ra'avad is more stringent and rules that inserting part of one's body is equivalent to entering entirely. The Kessef Mishnehsupports the Rambam's ruling.
68.
The Rambam's words imply that once he immersed himself, he is not liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for entering the Temple even if night has not yet fallen. Since his impurity is only Rabbinic in origin and he has immersed himself, he is not given punishment. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 9:1.
69.
Such entry is, nevertheless, forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
70.
I.e., on foot through the gate. The Mishneh LiMelech emphasizes that if he remains in the Temple for the amount of time for which he is liable (see Halachah 22), he is liable forkaret even if he entered through the rooftops.
71.
For this also is not the usual way of entry.
72.
I.e., in the Temple Courtyard.
73.
An object for which one has no purpose ismuktzeh and there is a Rabbinic prohibition against transporting it on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature are not applied in the Temple (Rashi,Eruvin 104b).
74.
I.e., in the chambers that are considered as being separate entities from the Temple Courtyard.
75.
So that it will not be touched.
76.
See Hilchot Keilim 1:10. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:6.
77.
I.e., if a priest would carry it out in his garment, he would be causing his garment to become impure. Hence, it was desirable to use a flat wooden utensil even if it takes time to find such a utensil (Eruvin, loc. cit.).
78.
As stated in Halachah 12.
79.
There is an unresolved question concerning whether such a person is liable in Sh'vuot17a. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh).
80.
If he departs in this manner, he is not liable for karet.
81.
An adjustable guilt offering.
82.
The Rambam is citing Sh'vuot 16b which quotes the description of the people's bowing in II Chronicles 7:3.
83.
I.e., taking very short steps. As long as he does not stop for the amount of time mentioned in the previous halachah, he is not liable.
84.
See Sh'vuot 17a. Hence we rule leniently.
85.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied.
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When an impure person serves in the Temple,1 he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there,2 as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure.3
Further on,4 [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.5
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard10 and departed in the shortest way possible,11 but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames.12 [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service13 is considered as equivalent to that service.
Halacha 4
Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall of that day,14 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their God."15 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid. 22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure.16 A person whose atonement process was not completed17 who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment]18 even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice].
Halacha 5
What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.19
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known,20 all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths,21 the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.22 Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally.23We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.
Halacha 7
Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure,24 as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation,25 in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.
Halacha 8
The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead,26 as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before God."
Halacha 9
[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath27 or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering,28 supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.29
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten.32 Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar].33 The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten34 are burnt in the same manner35 as are other sacrifices that became impure.36
Halacha 12
What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority37 of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse,38 or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure39 due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together40 and enter the Temple Courtyard.41
Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karet for entering [the Courtyard]42 or death [at the hand of Heaven]43 for [carrying out] the service.44 For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices].
Halacha 13
When a Paschal sacrifice45 is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard.46 Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.47
Halacha 14
If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day48 were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices.49If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve].50 If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.
Halacha 15
Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clain?51 Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation.52 We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.53
Halacha 16
What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because a [deceased] human soul."54 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred.55 Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice:56 [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.
Halacha 17
This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure....57 For many of the people, may from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves."
What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"?58 Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month,59 because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves."60 As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh,61 as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.62
Halacha 18
There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh.63
Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions,64 as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May God Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'God heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.
2.
As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard.
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
In reference to terumah.
5.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above.
6.
In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."
7.
The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment to him. All they can do is bring him to the court.
8.
I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.
9.
The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken.
10.
For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
11.
In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.
12.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act.
13.
And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service.
14.
As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe punishment.
15.
See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch(mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.
The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in the mikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple.
17.
I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure.
18.
The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offence is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. TheKessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult.
19.
I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted withtzara'at.
20.
To even one person.
21.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.
Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about."
22.
The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.
23.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet.
24.
I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34.
25.
I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot.
26.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist.
27.
I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time.
28.
I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices.
29.
For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.
30.
I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices, are not offered at a specific time.
31.
And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).
32.
With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim 7:5).
33.
For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be offered on the altar.
34.
Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omeroffering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered onRosh Chodesh.
35.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.
36.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.
37.
Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).
38.
This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference whether or not the people at large are impure.
39.
As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning.
40.
I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
41.
I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).
42.
See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
43.
As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.
44.
They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).
45.
Although this law also applies with regard to other communal sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of people in the Temple Courtyard.
46.
Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the Sanctuary itself.
47.
There is a question concerning this issue inPesachim 95b. Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes. The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well.
48.
See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term.
49.
As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure.
50.
For the reason stated in the following halachah.
51.
And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).
52.
The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely, with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh toHilchot Shabbat 2:1.
53.
As stated in Halachah 7.
54.
The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.
55.
See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.
56.
Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2 states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now sinceNumbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.
57.
King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them an extra month.
58.
I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).
59.
I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap year.
60.
Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav Yosef Corcus).
61.
Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
62.
For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.
63.
Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before.
64.
I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).
• English Text | Video Class
• Wednesday, Nissan 12, 5776 · April 20, 2016
• "Today's Day"
Shabbat Nissan 12, Shabbat Haggadol 5703
Haftora: Ve'arba'a anashim. At Mincha say Avadim hayinu (Passover Haggada).
Torah lessons: Chumash: Metzora, Shvi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 66-68.
Tanya: He should also (p. 207)...subservient to Him..." (p. 207).
From the time of the exodus from Egypt the Jewish people are called the "Army of G-d."1 They are also called "servants." The difference is this: A servant performs his master's service which may be on many different levels; he may work at the delicate craft of threading pearls, he may do other kinds of expert work or he may perform simple tasks. His service involves great toil and labor, but this does not constitute mesirat nefesh - a willingness to sacrifice self, to lay down one's life. Soldiers are servants who serve with great toil and labor and with self sacrifice, in wars of defense or attack. The soldiers stand at their posts with the highest degree of stalwart determination, undeterred by the opposing enemy; their service is not one of comprehension, for they act according to the orders of their commander.
The Jews in Egypt were utterly degraded under their severe and bitter affliction. Yet, despite it all, they did not change their names, their language, or their distinctive clothing. With absolute determination they stood at their posts, for they knew that G-d had promised to redeem them.
Whoever behaves as they did under such circumstances is a soldier in the Army of G-d, and the Al-mighty will come to his assistance in a manner that manifests itself in nature - yet transcends nature.
FOOTNOTES
1.Sh'mot 12:41.
• Daily Thought:
The wise child asks the same question each year, again and again.
That is wisdom: To ask a question of perpetual wonder.
Even once it is answered, today is another Exodus. Today the wonder is renewed.
----------------------
That is wisdom: To ask a question of perpetual wonder.
Even once it is answered, today is another Exodus. Today the wonder is renewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment