Torah Reading
Emor: Leviticus 21:1 Adonai said to Moshe, “Speak to the cohanim, the sons of Aharon; tell them: ‘No cohen is to make himself unclean for any of his people who dies, 2 except for his close relatives — his mother, father, son, daughter and brother; 3 he may also make himself unclean for his virgin sister who has never married and is therefore dependent on him. 4 He may not make himself unclean, because he is a leader among his people; doing so would profane him. 5 Cohanim are not to make bald spots on their heads, mar the edges of their beards or cut gashes in their flesh. 6 Rather, they are to be holy for their God and not profane the name of their God. For they are the ones who present Adonai with offerings made by fire, the bread of their God; therefore they must be holy.
7 “‘A cohen is not to marry a woman who is a prostitute, who has been profaned or who has been divorced; because he is holy for his God. 8 Rather, you are to set him apart as holy, because he offers the bread of your God; he is to be holy for you, because I, Adonai, who makes you holy, am holy. 9 The daughter of a cohen who profanes herself by prostitution profanes her father; she is to be put to death by fire.
10 “‘The cohen who is ranked highest among his brothers, the one on whose head the anointing oil is poured and who is consecrated to put on the garments, is not to stop grooming his hair, tear his clothes, 11 go in to where any dead body is or make himself unclean, even when his father or mother dies. 12 He may not leave the sanctuary then or profane the sanctuary of his God, because the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is on him; I am Adonai.
13 “‘He is to marry a virgin; 14 he may not marry a widow, divorcee, profaned woman or prostitute; but he must marry a virgin from among his own people 15 and not disqualify his descendants among his people; because I am Adonai, who makes him holy.’”
Today's Laws & Customs:• Count "Twenty-Four Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the twenty-fourth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is twenty-four days, which are three weeks and three days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Tifferet sheb'Netzach -- "Harmony in Ambition"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod,Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• First Crusade Massacres Begin (1096)
In the early 1070s, the Muslim Turks commenced an offensive against the Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem. Pope Gregory VII offered his help to defend the Greek Christians, but the army he promised never materialized.
In 1095, his successor, Urban II, began to call for a holy war to liberate the Christians in Jerusalem. By the next year, more than 100,000 men had rallied to his call, forming the First Crusade. Urban and the local clergymen in Europe felt that the Crusade had another purpose as well--to annihilate all non-Christians in Europe who refused to convert to Christianity.
On their way to the Holy Land, the mobs of crusaders attacked many Jewish communities. On Shabbat, the 8th of Iyar, the Jews of Speyer (Rhineland-Palatinate), Germany were massacred. Many of the Jews of Worms, Germany were also massacred on this day; some of them took refuge in a local castle for a week before being slaughtered as they recited their morning prayers (see "Today in Jewish History" for Sivan 1).
Link: The First Crusade
Daily Quote:
Are you as careful with what comes out of your mouth as you are with what enters into it?[Chassidic saying]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Emor, 2nd Portion Leviticus 21:16-22:16 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 21
16And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, טזוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
17Speak to Aaron, saying: Any man among your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect, shall not come near to offer up his God's food. יזדַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ֞ לְדֹֽרֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִֽהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרַ֔ב לְהַקְרִ֖יב לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהָֽיו:
his God’s food: Heb. לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו, his God’s food. Any meal is termed לֶחֶם, as in, “…made a great feast (לְחֵם) ” (Dan. 5:1).
לחם אלהיו: מאכל אלהיו, כל סעודה קרויה לחם, כמו (דניאל ה א) עבד לחם רב:
18For any man who has a defect should not approach: A blind man or a lame one, or one with a sunken nose or with mismatching limbs; יחכִּ֥י כָל־אִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ מ֖וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרָ֑ב אִ֤ישׁ עִוֵּר֙ א֣וֹ פִסֵּ֔חַ א֥וֹ חָרֻ֖ם א֥וֹ שָׂרֽוּעַ:
For any man who has a defect should not approach: [But this prohibition has already been stated (preceding verse). The meaning here is that] it is not fitting that he should approach, like “[When you offer up a blind [animal]…a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong?] Were you to offer it to your governor, [would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts” (Malachi 1:8). Thus, just as an animal with a defect is not fitting as an offering, neither is a person with a defect fit for presenting it.]
כי כל איש אשר בו מום לא יקרב: אינו דין שיקרב, כמו (מלאכי א ח) הקריבהו נא לפחתך:
with a sunken nose: Heb. חָרֻם. [This term means] that his nose is sunken between his two eyes, such that he applies [eye shadow to] his two eyes with one stroke [i.e., his nose is so sunken that its bridge does not intercede between the two eyes]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:48; Bech. 43b]
חרם: שחוטמו שקוע בין שתי העינים, שכוחל שתי עיניו כאחת:
with mismatching limbs: Heb. שָׂרוּעַ [This term means] that one of his limbs is bigger than its counterpart, [e.g.,] one of his eyes is large, and one of his eyes is smaller [normal], or one thigh longer than its [normal] counterpart. — [see Sifthei Chachamim; Bech. 40b]
שרוע: שאחד מאיבריו גדול מחברו, עינו אחת גדולה ועינו אחת קטנה, או שוקו אחת ארוכה מחברתה:
19or a man who has a broken leg or a broken arm; יטא֣וֹ אִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה ב֖וֹ שֶׁ֣בֶר רָ֑גֶל א֖וֹ שֶׁ֥בֶר יָֽד:
20or one with long eyebrows, or a cataract, or a commingling in his eye; dry lesions or weeping sores, or one with crushed testicles כאֽוֹ־גִבֵּ֣ן אוֹ־דַ֔ק א֖וֹ תְּבַלֻּ֣ל בְּעֵינ֑וֹ א֤וֹ גָרָב֙ א֣וֹ יַלֶּ֔פֶת א֖וֹ מְר֥וֹחַ אָֽשֶׁךְ:
one who has unusually long eyebrows: Heb. גִּבֵּן, sourcils in French, [meaning] that his eyebrow (גַּבִּין) hairs are [abnormally] long and droop. — [Bech. 43b]
או גבן: שורצילו"ש בלע"ז [בעל גבות ארוכות] שגביני עיניו שערן ארוך ושוכב:
cataract: Heb. דַּק. [This means] that over his eyes he has a [thin] membrane (דּוֹק) which is called teile, tele, toyle, or tele in Old French, as in, “He Who stretches out [the heavens] like a curtain (דֹּק) ” (Isa. 40:22). — [Torath Kohanim 21:52; Bech. 38a]
או דק: שיש לו בעיניו דוק שקורין טיל"א [קרום], כמו (ישעיה מ כב) הנוטה כדוק:
a commingling in his eyes: Heb. תְּבֻלַּל, something that mixes (מְבַלְבֵּל) the [colors of the] eye, e.g., a white line that extends from the white [of the eye], piercing the “ring” [viz., the iris,] i.e., the [colored] annulus that encompasses the black [center of the eye, viz., the pupil,] called prunelle in French. This line pierces the iris and enters the black [pupil]. The Targum renders תְּבֻלַּל as חִילִיז, derived from חִלָּזוֹן, because this line resembles a worm. And so did the Sages of Israel call it [when they enumerate] the defects of a firstborn animal [in the context of whether it may be slaughtered outside the Temple]: עֵינָב, נָחָשׁ, חִלָּזוֹן, a worm-shaped, snake-shaped [growth], or a berry-shaped [growth]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:52, Bech. 38a, Mishnah Bech. 6:2]
או תבלל: דבר המבלבל את העין, כגון חוט לבן הנמשך מן הלבן ופוסק בסירא, שהוא עוגל המקיף את השחור, שקוראים פרוניל"א [אישון], והחוט הזה פוסק את העוגל ונכנס בשחור. ותרגום תבלול חיליז, לשון חלזון, שהוא דומה לתולעת אותו החוט. וכן כינוהו חכמי ישראל במומי הבכור חלזון נחש עינב (בכורות לח א):
or dry lesions or weeping sores: These are various types of boils.
גרב וילפת: מיני שחין הם:
dry lesions: Heb. גָרָב. This is [equivalent to] חֶרֶס, a skin disease [whose lesions are] dry [both] underneath and on the surface.
גרב: זו החרס, שחין היבש מבפנים ומבחוץ:
weeping sores: Heb. יַלֶּפֶת. This is the Egyptian lichen. And why is it called יַלֶּפֶת ? Because it bonds (מְלַפֶּפֶת) itself more and more [to the stricken person] until the day of [his] death. It is wet on its surface and dry underneath. Now, in another passage, a lesion wet on the surface and dry underneath is called גָרָב, as the verse says (Deut. 28:27), “weeping sores (גָרָב) and with dry lesions (חֶרֶס).” (But how is that so, when here, we have explained גָּרָב not only to be a completely dry lesion but also to be synonymous with חֶרֶס)? The answer is that] when גָּרָב is mentioned alongside חֶרֶס [as in Deut. 28:27], then the term גָרָב means [with wet lesions on the surface, and the term חֶרֶס refers to dry lesions both on the surface and underneath (see Rashi there)]. However, when it is mentioned alongside יַלֶּפֶת, then חֶרֶס [the dry lesion], is called גָרָב. Thus is the matter explained in Bech. (41a).
ילפת: היא חזזית המצרית. ולמה נקראת ילפת שמלפפת והולכת עד יום המיתה, והוא לח מבחוץ ויבש מבפנים. ובמקום אחר קורא לגרב שחין הלח מבחוץ ויבש מבפנים, שנאמר (דברים כח כז) ובגרב ובחרס, כשסמוך גרב אצל חרס קורא לילפת גרב, וכשהוא סמוך אצל ילפת קורא לחרס גרב, כך מפורש בבכורות (מא א):
one who has crushed testicles: Heb. מְרוֹחַ אֶשֶׁךְ [This term is to be understood] according to the Targum [Onkelos] as מְרִיס פַּחֲדִין, meaning: his testicles are crushed, like, “the sinews of his testicles (פַּחִדָיו) are knit together” (Job 40:17).
מרוח אשך: לפי התרגום מריס פחדין, שפחדיו מרוססים, שביצים שלו כתותין. פחדין כמו (איוב מ יז) גידי פחדיו ישורגו:
21Any man among Aaron the kohen's offspring who has a defect shall not draw near to offer up the Lord's fire offerings. There is a defect in him; he shall not draw near to offer up his God's food. כאכָּל־אִ֞ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֣וֹ מ֗וּם מִזֶּ֨רַע֙ אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֔ן לֹ֣א יִגַּ֔שׁ לְהַקְרִ֖יב אֶת־אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה מ֣וּם בּ֔וֹ אֵ֚ת לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹהָ֔יו לֹ֥א יִגַּ֖שׁ לְהַקְרִֽיב:
Any man…who has a defect [shall not draw near…]: [But has this prohibition not already been stated in verse 17? This verse, however, comes to] include other types of defects [not specified in our passage]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:54]
כל איש אשר בו מום: לרבות שאר מומין:
There is a defect in him: As long as he has the defect, he is unfit [for the Holy Service]. However, if his defect goes away, he is fit [to serve]. — [Torath Kohanim 21:55]
מום בו: בעוד מומו בו פסול, הא אם עבר מומו כשר:
his God’s food: Any food is termed לֶחֶם.
לחם אלהיו: כל מאכל קרוי לחם:
22His God's food from the most holy and from the holy ones, he may eat. כבלֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹהָ֔יו מִקָּדְשֵׁ֖י הַקֳּדָשִׁ֑ים וּמִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים יֹאכֵֽל:
from the most holy: [This phrase] refers to [those sacrifices] with a higher degree of holiness;
מקדשי הקדשים: אלו קדשי הקדשים:
and from the holy ones, he may eat: These are the sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness. Now, if sacrifices with a higher degree of holiness are mentioned [that a kohen with a defect may eat of them], why is it necessary to state [the same of] sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness? [The answer is that] had they not been stated, I would have concluded [the following]: Indeed [a kohen] with a defect may eat of the sacrifices with a higher degree of holiness, since we find that these were allowed to [be eaten even by] a non- kohen , since Moses [who was not a kohen ,] ate of the flesh of the sacrifices of the investitures. Consequently, perhaps the most holy sacrifices carry with them this leniency]. The breast and thigh of sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness, however, shall not be eaten [by a kohen with a defect], for we do not find an instance where a non- kohen takes a share of these!“ Therefore, Scripture states here ”or from the holy" [thereby permitting a kohen with a defect to eat from the sacrifices with a lesser degree of holiness as well]. In this way the matter is explained in [Tractate] Zevachim (101b).
ומן הקדשים יאכל: אלו קדשים קלים. ואם נאמרו קדשי הקדשים למה נאמרו קדשים קלים, אם לא נאמרו הייתי אומר בקדשי הקדשים יאכל בעל מום, שמצינו שהותרו לזר, שאכל משה בשר המלואים, אבל בחזה ושוק של קדשים קלים לא יאכל, שלא מצינו זר חולק בהן, לכך נאמרו קדשים קלים. כך מפורש בזבחים (קא ב):
23But he shall not come to the dividing curtain, nor shall he draw near to the altar, for he has a defect, and he shall not desecrate My holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. כגאַ֣ךְ אֶל־הַפָּרֹ֜כֶת לֹ֣א יָבֹ֗א וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֛חַ לֹ֥א יִגַּ֖שׁ כִּי־מ֣וּם בּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֤א יְחַלֵּל֙ אֶת־מִקְדָּשַׁ֔י כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשָֽׁם:
But [he shall not come] to the dividing curtain: to sprinkle the seven sprinklings [of blood] towards the dividing curtain. — [see Lev. 4:6]
אך אל הפרכת: להזות שבע הזאות שעל הפרכת:
[Nor shall he draw near] to the altar: [This refers to] the outer altar [(see Exod. 27:18) in the courtyard of the Sanctuary, as opposed to the inner incense altar (see Exod. 30:110) which was situated just outside the dividing curtain, all within the Holy enclosed area of the Sanctuary. Now, had our verse been referring to the inner altar, it would not have been necessary to specify the prohibition of the dividing curtain, for the dividing curtain was even closer in to the holy of holies. However, since it refers to the outer altar,] both [the altar and the curtain] are necessary to be written here; this matter is explained [in full] in Torath Kohanim (21:58).
ואל המזבח: החיצון. ושניהם הוצרכו להכתב, ומפורש בתורת כהנים:
And he shall not desecrate My Holy Services: for if [a kohen with a defect] did perform the Holy Service, [his service is considered] desecrated [and] thereby deemed invalid. — [Torath Kohanim 21:60]
ולא יחלל את מקדשי: שאם עבד, עבודתו מחוללת להפסל:
24Moses told [this to] Aaron and his sons, and to all of the children of Israel. כדוַיְדַבֵּ֣ר משֶׁ֔ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֑יו וְאֶל־כָּל־בְּנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
Moses told: [Literally, our verse would read: “Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons, and to all of the children of Israel.” But what did he speak? He told them] this [entire] commandment [i.e., all the laws of the kehunah delineated in this passage].
וידבר משה: המצוה הזאת:
[to] Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel: [But why command “all the children of Israel” about laws pertaining only to kohanim ?] So that the courts of law [comprising non- kohen judges] should warn kohanim [who have defects, to separate themselves from the Holy Service]. — [Midrash Hagadol, and see Torath Kohanim, Glosses of Gra]
אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל בני ישראל: להזהיר בית דין על הכהנים:
Leviticus Chapter 22
1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2Speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they shall separate themselves from the holy [sacrifices] of the children of Israel, which they sanctify to Me, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name. I am the Lord. בדַּבֵּ֨ר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֗יו וְיִנָּֽזְרוּ֙ מִקָּדְשֵׁ֣י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְלֹ֥א יְחַלְּל֖וּ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם קָדְשִׁ֑י אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵ֧ם מַקְדִּשִׁ֛ים לִ֖י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
they shall separate themselves: The term נְזִירָה means only separation [from something]. Likewise, Scripture says, “and draws away (וְיִנָּזֵר) from following Me” (Ezek. 14:7), and, “they drew backwards (נָזֹרוּ)” (Isa. 1:4). [Thus, here, the meaning is that] when kohanim are in a state of uncleanness, they shall separate themselves (וְיִנָּזְרוּ) from the holy things. — [Torath Kohanim 22:62] Another explanation: [The commentators are at a loss to explain this expression, because the following comment easily agrees with the preceding one. See below.] “shall separate themselves from the holy [sacrifices] of the children of Israel which they sanctify to Me, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name.” [Now, the verse, in the order it is written, reads: “Aaron and his sons…shall separate themselves from the holy (sacrifices) of the children of Israel, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name-which they sanctify to Me.”] Transpose the verse and explain it [as follows]: shall separate themselves from the holy [sacrifices] of the children of Israel which they sanctify to Me, so as not to desecrate My Holy Name." [Another explanation] (see Sifthei Chachamim):
וינזרו: אין נזירה אלא פרישה, וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל יד ז) וינזר מאחרי, (ישעיה א ד) נזורו אחור, יפרשו מן הקדשים בימי טומאתן. דבר אחר: וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל אשר הם מקדישים לי ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, סרס המקרא ודרשהו, אשר הם מקדשים לי ולא יחללו את שם קדשי:
which they sanctify to Me: [This comes] to include offerings that the kohanim themselves sanctified [to the Holy Temple, offerings from which kohanim in the state of uncleanness shall also separate themselves]. [According to this explanation, no transposition is necessary, and the verse is to be explained as follows: When the kohanim are unclean, they must separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, i.e., those consecrated by the children of Israel, and also from those consecrated by the kohanim themselves. Accordingly, the words, “another explanation,” appear at this point, not as they appear in the Mikraoth Gedoloth. According to Mizrachi and others, and according to all manuscripts and incunabula editions, these words do not appear at all. - [Torath Kohanim 22:64]
אשר הם מקדשים לי: לרבות קדשי כהנים עצמן:
3Say to them: Throughout your generations, any man among any of your offspring who, while his defilement is still upon him, comes near to the holy sacrifices that the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord that soul shall be cut off from before me. I am the Lord. גאֱמֹ֣ר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם לְדֹרֹ֨תֵיכֶ֜ם כָּל־אִ֣ישׁ | אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרַ֣ב מִכָּל־זַרְעֲכֶ֗ם אֶל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַקְדִּ֤ישׁוּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה וְטֻמְאָת֖וֹ עָלָ֑יו וְנִכְרְתָ֞ה הַנֶּ֧פֶשׁ הַהִ֛וא מִלְּפָנַ֖י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
Any man…who…comes near [to the holy sacrifices]: The phrase “comes near” really means “eating.” And so we find that a warning against eating holy sacrifices while in a state of uncleanness, is expressed as “touching,” [as is written], “she shall not touch anything holy” (Lev. 12:4) [which is] a warning against eating [anything holy, while in a state of uncleanness]. And our Rabbis have learnt [that these terms mean “eating” in this context] by way of a hekesh [a rule of Scriptural exposition, whereby, via Rabbinical transmission, laws from two passages are linked through their appearance in the same verse (Mizrachi).] Now, it is impossible to say that one is liable [to the penalty of excision] if he [merely] touches [holy sacrifices while he is in the state of uncleanness], for we find the penalty of excision for eating [holy sacrifices while one is unclean] stated in the passage “Command Aaron” (Lev. 7:20-21) [and moreover, there, we find] the penalty of excision for eating mentioned twice, one next to the other (see Lev. 7:20-21), and, if one would be liable just for touching, it would be unnecessary for Scripture to mention liability for eating. In a similar vein, [this explanation that our verse here refers to eating and not touching,] is expounded in Torath Kohanim (22:69), [as follows]: “…But is there [a case of] one who touches [holy sacrifices], that he should be liable [to the penalty of excision?!] If so, why does Scripture say, ”comes near“? [Because it teaches us that for eating holy sacrifices, one incurs the penalty of excision] only when they become fit to be ”brought near“ as an offering-for one becomes liable only if one [eats holy sacrifices] while one is unclean, after the parts that makes the sacrifice permissible to be eaten has been offered up [i.e., only when the sacrificial fats have been offered up and the blood has been dashed, or the offering of the fistful of flour in a meal-offering, or the sanctification in a vessel of parts of other offerings (see Hagahoth Uvei-urei HaGra on Torath Kohanim ; Mizrachi), is the holy sacrifice allowed to be eaten by the kohanim, and not before]. Now, one may ask: [Since our verse, as well as the two verses in Lev. 7:20-21, are all referring to eating holy sacrifices when one is unclean,] why is it necessary for Scripture to mention three times the penalty of excision for kohanim [eating holy sacrifices] when they are in an unclean state? These have already been expounded upon in Tractate Shevuoth (7a): ”One of them is [needed] to state the general law; one of them is [needed] to state a particular case [namely, the peace-offering, in order to preclude the eating of certain clean foods that are not sacrificed on the altar which do not have the punishment of excision; and one of them is needed to teach us that…when the verse says, “he incurs guilt” (Lev. 5:2), and may bring a קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, a sliding-scale sacrifice, Scripture is referring to…a person…who, while in an unclean state, enters the Sanctuary or eats of its holy sacrifices].
כל איש אשר יקרב: אין קריבה זו אלא אכילה, וכן מצינו שנאמרה אזהרת אכילת קדשים בטומאה בלשון נגיעה בכל קדש לא תגע (ויקרא יב ד), אזהרה לאוכל. ולמדוה רבותינו מגזירה שוה. ואי אפשר לומר שחייב על הנגיעה, שהרי נאמר כרת על האכילה בצו את אהרן (ויקרא ז כ - כא) שתי כריתות זו אצל זו, ואם על הנגיעה חייב לא הוצרך לחייבו על האכילה, וכן נדרש בתורת כהנים וכי יש נוגע חייב, אם כן מה תלמוד לומר יקרב, משיכשר לקרב, שאין חייבין עליו משום טומאה, אלא אם כן קרבו מתיריו. ואם תאמר שלש כריתות בטומאת כהנים למה, כבר נדרשו במסכת שבועות אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט וכו' (שבועות ז א):
while his defilement is still upon him: [meaning:] While the person is in a state of uncleanness. But I might think that Scripture is referring to the flesh, while the flesh is unclean,“ and the verse is speaking of someone in a clean state who eats unclean flesh [of holy sacrifices]. However, one is forced to learn the meaning of the verse from the literal meaning [of this phrase ”while its/his uncleanness is still upon it/him"]-i.e., the verse is speaking of something from which uncleanness can be removed, and this is a person, because a person can cleanse himself in a mikvah [while meat cannot be purified once it is defiled. — [Torath Kohanim 22:69; Zev. 43b]
וטמאתו עליו: וטומאת האדם עליו, יכול בבשר הכתוב מדבר, וטומאתו של בשר עליו, ובטהור שאכל את הטמא הכתוב מדבר, הרי כבר נאמר (ויק' ז יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל, אלא על כרחך ממשמעו אתה למד, במי שטומאתו פורחת ממנו הכתוב מדבר, וזהו האדם שיש לו טהרה בטבילה:
shall be cut off: One might suggest that [the offender is to be “cut off”] from one place to another, i.e., he shall be cut off from his place [of abode] and exiled (Be’er Basadeh) to settle in another place. Scripture, therefore, continues, “I am the Lord”- [as if to say:] “I am in every place” [and even if someone is sent into exile, I am also in that other place. Hence, the “cutting off” here refers to excision of the soul, that he will die before his time (Be’er Basadeh)]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:69]
ונכרתה וגו': יכול מצד זה לצד זה, יכרת ממקומו ויתיישב במקום אחר, תלמוד לומר אני ה', בכל מקום אני:
4Any man whatsoever among Aaron's offspring if he has tzara'ath or has had a discharge, he shall not eat of the holy sacrifices, until he cleanses himself. And one who touches anyone who has become unclean [by contact with a dead] person, or a man from whom semen issued, דאִ֣ישׁ אִ֞ישׁ מִזֶּ֣רַע אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן וְה֤וּא צָר֨וּעַ֙ א֣וֹ זָ֔ב בַּקֳּדָשִׁים֙ לֹ֣א יֹאכַ֔ל עַ֖ד אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִטְהָ֑ר וְהַנֹּגֵ֨עַ֙ בְּכָל־טְמֵא־נֶ֔פֶשׁ א֣וֹ אִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־תֵּצֵ֥א מִמֶּ֖נּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָֽרַע:
among Aaron’s offspring: I know only that Aaron’s offspring [are meant]. How do I know that he himself [and every Kohen Gadol (Ramban on verse 17, Rash MiShantz on Torath Kohanim) is also included]? Therefore, Scripture states [the apparently superfluous word “he” in the clause], “if he has tzara’ath ”; for one might think that since he is allowed to offer up holy sacrifices when he is an onen (Rashi Lev. 21:12 above), he would also be allowed to offer them up if he has tzara’ath or if he had a discharge. Scripture, therefore, says, “if he…” [to include Aaron and all other Kohanim Gedolim]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:70]
מזרע אהרן: אין לי אלא זרעו, גופו מנין, תלמוד לומר והוא צרוע, שיכול הואיל ומקריב אונן יקריב צרוע וזב, תלמוד לומר והוא:
until he cleanses himself: [This means] sunset [after his immersion]. Or, perhaps, it means only immersion [in a mikvah, and that suffices]? It says here, וְטָהֵר, and it says below (verse 7), וְטָהֵר, “When the sun has set, he becomes clean (וְטָהֵר).” Just as there (in verse 7), [it means] sunset, here too, [it means] sunset [that he may not eat holy things until the sun sets after his immersion]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:72]
עד אשר יטהר: ביאת השמש, או אינו אלא טבילה, נאמר כאן וטהר, ונאמר למטה וטהר (פסוק ז) ובא השמש וטהר, מה להלן ביאת שמש, אף כאן ביאת שמש:
anyone who has become unclean [by contact with a dead] person: Heb. טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ, one who has become unclean by [contact with] a dead person.
בכל טמא נפש: במי שנטמא במת:
5or a man who touches any creeping creature through which he becomes unclean or a person through whom he becomes unclean, whatever his uncleanness האוֹ־אִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִגַּ֔ע בְּכָל־שֶׁ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִטְמָא־ל֑וֹ א֤וֹ בְאָדָם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִטְמָא־ל֔וֹ לְכֹ֖ל טֻמְאָתֽוֹ:
[A man who touches] any creeping creature through which he becomes unclean: [The seemingly superfluous phrase “through which he becomes unclean” means,] the [minimum] size [of a part of a creeping creature] through which [contact] one is rendered unclean (Torath Kohanim 22:76) -namely, through the volume of a lentil. — [Chag. 11a]
בכל שרץ אשר יטמא לו: בשיעור הראוי לטמא, בכעדשה:
or a person: a corpse. - [Torath Kohanim 22:76] [That is to say, cleansing after contact with a dead body takes place only after immersion and sunset on the seventh day. — [Sifthei Chachamim]
או באדם: במת:
through whom he becomes unclean: The size through which [contact] one is rendered unclean-namely, the volume of an olive. [Oholoth 2:1]
אשר יטמא לו: כשיעורו לטמא, וזהו כזית:
whatever his uncleanness: [This comes] to include one who comes into contact with a man or woman who has had a discharge, or with a menstruating woman or with a woman who has given birth, [or with one who has tzara’ath]. — [Torath Kohanim 22:76]
לכל טומאתו: לרבות נוגע בזב וזבה, נדה ויולדת ובמצורע:
6the person who touches it shall remain unclean until evening, and he shall not eat from the holy things unless he has immersed his flesh in water. ונֶ֚פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּגַּע־בּ֔וֹ וְטָֽמְאָ֖ה עַד־הָעָ֑רֶב וְלֹ֤א יֹאכַל֙ מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים כִּ֛י אִם־רָחַ֥ץ בְּשָׂר֖וֹ בַּמָּֽיִם:
The person who touches it: i.e., who touches any one of these unclean beings.
נפש אשר תגע בו: באחד מן הטמאים הללו:
7When the sun sets, he becomes clean, and afterwards, he may eat of the holy things, for it is his food. זוּבָ֥א הַשֶּׁ֖מֶשׁ וְטָהֵ֑ר וְאַחַר֙ יֹאכַ֣ל מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י לַחְמ֖וֹ הֽוּא:
and afterwards, he may eat of the holy things: This is expounded on in [Tractate] Yev. (74b) as referring to terumah, that [the purified kohen] may eat it after sunset [of the day of his cleansing].
ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים: נדרש ביבמות בתרומה, שמותר לאכלה בהערב השמש:
he may eat of the holy things: [meaning, some of the holy things,] but not all holy things [thus, our verse refers specifically to terumah, but not sacrificial flesh, which the kohen who was stricken with tzara’ath or had a discharge may not eat until he brings his sacrifices on the morrow]. — [see preceding Rashi]
מן הקדשים: ולא כל הקדשים:
8He shall not eat a carcass or anything that was torn, thereby becoming unclean through it. I am the Lord. חנְבֵלָ֧ה וּטְרֵפָ֛ה לֹ֥א יֹאכַ֖ל לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה:
He shall not eat a carcass or anything that was torn, thereby becoming unclean through it: [Scripture] warned here regarding the [implications of one’s] uncleanness, as follows: If one ate a carcass of a clean bird, which [as explained (Rashi above 17:15),] does not defile through contact or by lifting it but defiles only when it is swallowed into the esophagus-this person is prohibited to eat holy things. Now, [a bird that had been torn (טְרֵפָה) and mortally wounded by a wild animal, if slaughtered properly, does not convey uncleanness. So why is it mentioned here?] We must say that וּטְרֵפָה is [stated only to teach us that the carcass of a bird conveys uncleanness only] of the species that can be prohibited because of טְרֵפָה, thus excluding the carcass of an unclean bird, whose species can never fall under the category of טְרֵפָה [because it is prohibited even if it was perfectly healthy]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:125126; see Rashi Lev . 17:15]
נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה: לענין הטומאה הזהיר כאן, שאם אכל נבלת עוף טהור, שאין לה טומאת מגע ומשא אלא טומאת אכילה בבית הבליעה, אסור לאכול בקדשים. וצריך לומר וטרפה, מי שיש במינו טרפה, יצא נבלת עוף טמא שאין במינו טרפה:
9They shall keep My charge and not bear a sin by [eating] it [while unclean] and thereby die through it since they will have desecrated it. I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. טוְשָֽׁמְר֣וּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֗י וְלֹֽא־יִשְׂא֤וּ עָלָיו֙ חֵ֔טְא וּמֵ֥תוּ ב֖וֹ כִּ֣י יְחַלְּלֻ֑הוּ אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשָֽׁם:
They shall keep My charge: [and refrain] from eating teruman while one’s body is unclean. — [Sanh. 83a]
ושמרו את משמרתי: מלאכול תרומה בטומאת הגוף:
and thereby die through it: we learn that it is death by the hands of Heaven [which is meted out “through it,”] meaning that the sin of eating while unclean brings about the death penalty by itself without any other prerequisites, such as witnesses or warning. That could be only death by the hands of Heaven. - [Gur Aryeh ; Sanh. 83a; also see Sifthei Chachamim]
ומתו בו: למדנו שהיא מיתה בידי שמים:
10No non kohen may eat holy things; a kohen's resident and his hireling may not eat holy things. יוְכָל־זָ֖ר לֹא־יֹ֣אכַל קֹ֑דֶשׁ תּוֹשַׁ֥ב כֹּהֵ֛ן וְשָׂכִ֖יר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל קֹֽדֶשׁ:
No [non-kohen may] eat holy things: The text is referring to terumah, for the entire passage speaks of it (see Rashi verse 7).
לא יאכל קדש: בתרומה הכתוב מדבר, שכל הענין דבר בה:
a kohen’s resident and his hireling: [could be erroneously read as “a kohen who is a resident or a hireling.” However, the correct meaning here is:] The resident of a kohen or one who is hired by a kohen. [I. e., the word תּוֹשַׁב means “the resident of.”] Therefore, תּוֹשַׁב is vocalized with a patach [under the “shin,”] because it is in the construct state. [Had it been in the absolute state, simply meaning “resident,” the “shin” would have been vocalized with a kamatz .] Now, who is considered a “resident” [in this context]? This is a Hebrew slave whose ear has been bored [i.e., one who elected to remain a slave after six years, and resides with his master (see Exod. 21:16)], thereby becoming acquired [by his master] until the Jubilee year (see Rashi Exod. 21:6). And who is considered a hireling [in this context]? This is someone acquired for a [set] number of years [to be a Hebrew slave] and who is to be released after six years (see Exod. 21:2). The text comes to teach you here that he does not become his master’s physical property [and is, therefore, not permitted] to eat terumah . — [Torath Kohanim 22:86; Yev. . 70a]
תושב כהן ושכיר: תושבו של כהן ושכירו, לפיכך תושב זה נקוד פתח, לפי שהוא דבוק. ואיזהו תושב, זה נרצע שהוא קנוי לו עד היובל, ואיזהו שכיר, זה קנוי קנין שנים, שיוצא בשש, בא הכתוב ולמדך כאן שאין גופו קנוי לאדוניו לאכול בתרומתו:
11And if a kohen acquires a person, an acquisition through his money, he may eat of it, and those born in his house they may eat of his food. יאוְכֹהֵ֗ן כִּֽי־יִקְנֶ֥ה נֶ֨פֶשׁ֙ קִנְיַ֣ן כַּסְפּ֔וֹ ה֖וּא יֹ֣אכַל בּ֑וֹ וִילִ֣יד בֵּית֔וֹ הֵ֖ם יֹֽאכְל֥וּ בְלַחְמֽוֹ:
And if a kohen acquires a person: [This refers to] a Canaanite slave, whose body is acquired [by his master and may therefore eat from his master’s terumah].
וכהן כי יקנה נפש: עבד כנעני שקנוי לגופו:
and those born in his house: These are the children of the [non-Jewish] maidservants [who are the property of the master]. We learn also from this verse here that a kohen’s wife may eat terumah, since she too, is considered “an acquisition through his money” [for the Jewish marriage is technically attained through the acquisition of a woman by a man by giving her money or an object worth money, such as a ring] (see Keth. 57b). However, we learn other [cases, namely, about a kohen’s wife who had been acquired through other means, e.g., by contract or cohabitation,] from another verse in Scripture “Anyone who is clean in your household [may eat it]” (Num. 18:11) [the above being expounded] in [Sifrei 18:29; see Levush Haorah also Gur Aryeh.]
ויליד ביתו: אלו בני השפחות. ואשת כהן אוכלת בתרומה מן המקרא הזה, שאף היא קנין כספו. ועוד למד ממקרא אחר (במדבר יח יא) כל טהור בביתך וגו' בספרי:
12And if a kohen's daughter is married to a non kohen, she may [no longer] eat of the separated holy things. יבוּבַ֨ת־כֹּהֵ֔ן כִּ֥י תִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאִ֣ישׁ זָ֑ר הִ֕וא בִּתְרוּמַ֥ת הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽל:
married to a non-kohen: אִישׁ זָר [lit., “an alien man,” here, in the context of kehunah , this means] to a Levite or an Israelite. — [Torath Kohanim 22:92]
לאיש זר: ללוי ולישראל:
13But if the kohen's daughter becomes widowed or divorced, and she has no offspring she may return to her father's household as in her youth [and] eat of her father's food, but no non kohen may eat of it. יגוּבַת־כֹּהֵן֩ כִּ֨י תִֽהְיֶ֜ה אַלְמָנָ֣ה וּגְרוּשָׁ֗ה וְזֶ֘רַע֘ אֵ֣ין לָהּ֒ וְשָׁבָ֞ה אֶל־בֵּ֤ית אָבִ֨יהָ֙ כִּנְעוּרֶ֔יהָ מִלֶּ֥חֶם אָבִ֖יהָ תֹּאכֵ֑ל וְכָל־זָ֖ר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ:
[But if the kohen’s daughter] becomes widowed or divorced: from her non- kohen husband.
אלמנה וגרושה: מן האיש הזר:
and she has no offspring: from him.
וזרע אין לה: ממנו:
she may return [to her father’s household…(and) eat of her father’s food]: But, if she does have offspring from her non- kohen husband, she is prohibited to eat terumah as long as the offspring is alive. — [Yev. 87a-b]
ושבה: הא אם יש לה זרע ממנו אסורה בתרומה כל זמן שהזרע קיים:
But no non-kohen may eat of it: [This seemingly superfluous phrase] is stated only to exclude an onen [kohen, i.e., one whose relative has died on that day,] who is permitted [to eat] terumah. [see Rashi 21:12 above] [It is as if Scripture is saying here:] “I said that only a non- kohen(זָר) [is prohibited to eat terumah]-but not an onen .” [Yev. 68b]
וכל זר לא יאכל בו: לא בא אלא להוציא את האונן שמותר בתרומה. זרות אמרתי לך, ולא אנינות:
14And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy, he shall add a fifth of it to it and give the kohen the holy thing. ידוְאִ֕ישׁ כִּֽי־יֹאכַ֥ל קֹ֖דֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָ֑ה וְיָסַ֤ף חֲמִֽשִׁיתוֹ֙ עָלָ֔יו וְנָתַ֥ן לַכֹּהֵ֖ן אֶת־הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ:
And if [a man] eats that which is holy: [This refers to] terumah .
כי יאכל קדש: תרומה:
and give the kohen the holy thing: something that is fit to become holy. He shall not pay him money, but non-consecrated fruits, which in turn become [consecrated as] terumah . — [Pes. 32a]
ונתן לכהן את הקדש: דבר הראוי להיות קדש, שאינו פורע לו מעות אלא פירות של חולין, והן נעשין תרומה:
15And they shall not desecrate the holy things of the children of Israel, those that they have set aside for the Lord, טווְלֹ֣א יְחַלְּל֔וּ אֶת־קָדְשֵׁ֖י בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־יָרִ֖ימוּ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:
And they shall not desecrate [the holy things of the children of Israel]: By allowing non- kohanim to eat of them. [see next Rashi]
ולא יחללו וגו': להאכילם לזרים:
16thereby bringing upon themselves to bear iniquity and guilt, when they eat their holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them. טזוְהִשִּׂ֤יאוּ אוֹתָם֙ עֲוֹ֣ן אַשְׁמָ֔ה בְּאָכְלָ֖ם אֶת־קָדְשֵׁיהֶ֑ם כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשָֽׁם:
thereby bringing upon themselves to bear-: [lit., “And they will cause them to bear (iniquity and guilt).”] They will cause themselves to bear iniquity when they [the non- kohanim] eat their holy things which were set aside for terumah , and were consecrated and consequently prohibited for them. Onkelos, however, who rendered: when they eat in uncleanness, unnecessarily rendered in this manner [because the verse deals with giving the terumah to non- kohanim, not with eating it in an unclean state].
והשיאו אותם: את עצמם יטענו עון באכלם את קדשיהם, שהובדלו לשם תרומה וקדשו ונאסרו עליהם. ואונקלוס שתרגם במיכלהון בסואבא, שלא לצורך תרגמו כן:
thereby bringing upon themselves to bear: Heb. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם. This is one of the three instances in Scripture of אֶת [normally referring to a third party “him,” “them” etc.], which are expounded by Rabbi Ishmael to mean that the Torah is speaking of the persons themselves [i.e., the verb is reflexive]. Similarly, [the other two examples are]: יָבִיא אֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם מלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ [lit., “On the day when his abstinence is completed, he shall bring him”] (Num. 6:13)- [meaning] that he should bring himself. Likewise, וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַגַּי [lit., “And he buried him in the valley” (Deut. 34:6), meaning that] Moses buried himself (see Rashi there). Thus is it expounded in Sifrei (Bamidbar 6:124).
והשיאו אותם: זה אחד משלשה אתים שהיה רבי ישמעאל דורש בתורה שמדברים באדם עצמו, וכן (במדבר ו יג) ביום מלאת ימי נזרו יביא אותו, הוא יביא את עצמו. וכן (דברים לד ו) ויקבור אותו בגיא, הוא קבר את עצמו, כך נדרש בספרי:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 44 - 48• Hebrew text
• English text
• Chapter 44
The psalmist cries and laments painfully over this bitter exile, where we and our Torah are shamed daily, when the nations say that God has exchanged us for another nation, and where we are considered as sheep for the slaughter, as a byword and taunt. It is therefore fitting that God redeem us, for the sake of His great Name that abides with us in exile.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil.1
2. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have told us, of the deeds You wrought in their days, in the days of old.
3. You drove out nations with Your hand, and planted [Israel in their place]; You afflicted peoples and banished them.
4. For not by their sword did they inherit the land, and their own arm did not save them, but by Your right hand, Your arm and the light of Your countenance-for You favored them.
5. You are my king, O God; decree the salvation of Jacob.
6. Through You will we gore our adversaries; with Your Name we will trample our opponents.
7. For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me.
8. For You have delivered us from our foes, and You shamed those who hate us.
9. In God we glory all day, and forever thank Your Name, Selah.
10. Though You abandon and disgrace us, and do not go forth with our armies;
11. You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and those who hate us plunder for themselves;
12. You deliver us like sheep to be devoured, and scatter us among the nations;
13. You sell Your nation without gain, and do not set a high price upon them;
14. You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the scorn and derision of those around us;
15. You make us a byword among the nations, [a cause for] nodding the head among the peoples;
16. all day long my humiliation is before me, and the shame of my face covers me
17. at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the foe and avenger-
18. all this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten You, nor have we been false to Your covenant.
19. Our hearts have not retracted, nor have our steps strayed from Your path.
20. Even when You crushed us in the place of serpents, and shrouded us in the shadow of death-
21. did we forget the Name of our God, and extend our hands to a foreign god?
22. Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart.
23. For it is for Your sake that we are killed all the time; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
24. Arise! Why do You sleep, my Lord? Wake up! Do not abandon [us] forever!
25. Why do You conceal Your countenance and forget our affliction and distress?
26. For our souls are bowed to the dust, our bellies cleave to the earth.
27. Arise! Be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your kindness.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
Chapter 45
The psalmist composed this psalm referring to Moshiach. He describes his greatness, his attributes, his glory, his wealth, and his reign; and states that Israel anticipates him, remembering and saying in every generation, "When will King Moshiach come?"
1. For the Conductor, upon the shoshanim,1 By the sons of Korach; a maskil,2 a song of love.
2. My heart is astir with a noble theme; I say, "My composition is for the king;3 my tongue is the pen of a skillful scribe.”
3. You are the most handsome of men, charm is poured upon your lips; therefore has God blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one-it is your majesty and splendor.
5. And with your splendor, succeed and ride on for the sake of truth and righteous humility; and your right hand will guide you to awesome deeds.
6. Your arrows are sharpened-nations fall beneath you-[the arrows fall] into the hearts of the king's enemies.
7. Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom.
8. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore has God, your God, anointed you with oil of joy above your peers.
9. Myrrh, aloes and cassia are [the fragrance] of all your garments, which are from ivory palaces that bring you joy.
10. Daughters of kings visit you, and the queen stands erect at your right hand, adorned in the fine gold of Ophir.
11. Hear, O daughter, and observe, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house.
12. Then the king will desire your beauty. He is your master-bow to him.
13. The daughter of Tyre, the wealthiest of nations, will seek your favor with a gift.
14. All the glory of the princess is within; her clothing surpasses settings of gold.
15. In embroidered garments she will be brought to the king; the maidens in her train, her companions, will be led to you.
16. They will be brought with gladness and joy, they will enter the palace of the king.
17. Your sons will succeed your fathers; you will appoint them ministers throughout the land.
18. I will cause Your Name to be remembered throughout the generations; therefore will the nations praise You forever and ever.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).
2.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge(Metzudot).
3.Reffering to the Messiah. (Metzudot).
Chapter 46
This psalm tells of the Gog and Magog era (the Messianic age), when man will cast aside his weapons, and warfare will be no more.
1. For the Conductor, by the sons of Korach, on the alamot,1 a song.
2. God is our refuge and strength, a help in distress, He is most accessible.
3. Therefore, we will not be afraid when the earth is transformed, when mountains collapse in the heart of the seas;
4. when its waters roar and are muddied, and mountains quake before His grandeur, Selah.
5. The river2-its streams will bring joy to the city of God, the sacred dwelling of the Most High.
6. God is in her midst, she will not falter; God will help her at the approach of morning.
7. Nations clamor, kingdoms stumble; He raises His voice and the earth dissolves.
8. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
9. Go and see the works of the Lord, Who has wrought devastation in the land.
10. To the end of the earth He causes wars to cease; He breaks the bow, snaps the spear, and burns the wagons in fire.
11. Stop [waging war]! And know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, exalted upon the earth.
12. The Lord of Hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold forever.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument (Rashi)
2.Flowing from Eden (Rashi)
Chapter 47
Following the battle of Gog and Magog (in the Messianic era), war will be no more. God will grant us salvation, and we will merit to go up to the Holy Temple for the festivals, Amen.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. All you nations, clap hands; sound [the shofar] to God with a sound of jubilation.
3. For the Lord is most high, awesome; a great King over all the earth.
4. He subdues peoples under us, nations beneath our feet.
5. He chooses our heritage for us, the glory of Jacob whom He loves eternally.
6. God ascends through teruah, the Lord-through the sound of the shofar.
7. Sing, O sing to God; sing, O sing to our King.
8. For God is King over all the earth; sing, O man of understanding.
9. God reigns over the nations; God is seated on His holy throne.
10. The most noble of the nations are gathered, the nation of the God of Abraham; for the protectors of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted.
Chapter 48
The psalmist prophesies about the Messianic era, singing the praises of a rebuilt Jerusalem and the sacrifices brought there. At that time Israel will say, "As we heard from the mouths of the prophets, so have we merited to see!"
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. The Lord is great and exceedingly acclaimed in the city of God, His holy mountain.
3. Beautiful in landscape, the joy of the whole earth is Mount Zion, on the northern slopes, the city of the great King.
4. In her citadels, God became known as a tower of strength.
5. For behold, the kings assembled, they advanced in concert [to invade her].
6. They saw [the wonders of the Almighty] and were astounded; they were terror-stricken, they hastened to flee.
7. Trembling seized them there, pangs as of a woman in the throes of labor;
8. [they were crushed as] by an east wind that shatters the ships of Tarshish.
9. As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it for all eternity.
10. God, we have been hoping for Your kindness [to be revealed] within Your Sanctuary.
11. As Your Name, O God, [is great,] so is Your praise to the ends of the earth; Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
12. Let Mount Zion rejoice, let the towns of Judah exult, because of Your judgments.
13. Walk around Zion, encircle her, count her towers.
14. Consider well her ramparts, behold her lofty citadels, that you may recount it to a later generation.
15. For this God is our God forever and ever; He will lead us eternally.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 46• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Monday, Iyar 8, 5776 · May 16, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 46
• ולכן המשיל שלמה עליו השלום בשיר השירים יחוד זה ליחוד חתן וכלה
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class
• Monday, Iyar 8, 5776 · May 16, 2016
Therefore did Solomon, peace unto him, in the Song of Songs compare this union of G‑d and Jews through Torah and mitzvot with the union of bridegroom and bride,
בדביקה חשיקה וחפיצה, בחיבוק ונישוק
this union being with attachment — an external level of unity, with longing — a more inward level of unity, and desire — an even more inward level of unity, with embrace and kissing.
All the above manners of union are found in the Jew’s relationship to G‑d through Torah and mitzvot.
Until now the Alter Rebbe expounded on the theme of unity, understanding kidshanu as deriving from kiddushin(“betrothal”). The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that the word kidshanu also alludes to the sanctification a Jew achieves through Torah and mitzvot, sanctification implying a state of exaltation and separation from all worlds.
וזה שאומרים: אשר קדשנו במצותיו
This is also the meaning of the blessings alluded to above: “Who has sanctified us by His commandments,” the verb kidshanu (“Who has sanctified us”) here meaning:
שהעלנו למעלת קודש העליון, ברוך הוא, שהיא קדושתו של הקב״ה בכבודו ובעצמו
that He has elevated us to the heights of the Supreme Holiness, which is the holiness of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself.
וקדושה היא לשון הבדלה, מה שהקב״ה הוא מובדל מהעולמות
Kedushah (“holiness”) is a term indicating separateness, in that the Holy One, blessed be He, is apart from the worlds,
והיא בחינת סובב כל עלמין, מה שאינו יכול להתלבש בהן
this being the quality of “encompassing all worlds,” being unable to clothe Himself within them.
Because of the inability of created beings to absorb the extreme holiness of this transcendent level, G‑d (as it were) cannot enclothe Himself within the worlds, and therefore affects them in an encompassing manner. It is to this lofty level that Jews are elevated through their performance of mitzvot.
כי על ידי יחוד הנפש והתכללותה באור אין סוף ברוך הוא, הרי היא במעלת ומדרגת קדושת אין סוף ברוך הוא ממש
For through the union of the soul with, and its absorption into, the light of the Ein Sof, it attains the quality and the degree of holiness of the blessed Ein Sof Himself,
מאחר שמתייחדת ומתכללת בו יתברך, והיו לאחדים ממש
since it unites itself with Him, and is integrated into Him, and they become truly one.
וזה שכתוב: והייתם לי קדושים כי קדוש אני ה׳, ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי
This is the meaning of the verse:1 “And you shall be holy unto Me, for I the Lord am holy; the verse gives us the reason for the Jew’s sanctity, connecting it with G‑d’s Supreme Holiness, which Jews can attain through Torah andmitzvot; and I have separated you from other peoples that you should be Mine.” Here we see that holiness implies separation, as mentioned earlier.
ואומר: ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם, אני ה׳ אלקיכם וגו׳
Another verse states:2 “You shall fulfill all My commandments and be holy unto your G‑d: I am the Lord your G‑d....” The term “your G‑d,” in the possessive form, recalls the relationship set up when a man betrothes a woman, whereby she becomes his wife.3
-פירוש: כי על ידי קיום המצות הריני אלוה שלכם
The meaning is that “through the fulfillment of the commandments I become ‘your’ G‑d,” in the same manner
כמו אלקי אברהם, אלקי יצחק וכו׳
as G‑d is called “the G‑d of Abraham,” “the G‑d of Isaac,” and so on,
שנקרא כן מפני שהאבות היו בחינת מרכבה לו יתברך
called thus because the Patriarchs were on the level of a “vehicle” unto Him,
The Patriarchs were totally dedicated to G‑d, and nullified before Him, like a vehicle (lit., “chariot”) which is totally nullified to its driver, possessing no independent will.
ובטלים ונכללים באורו
and they were nullified and absorbed in His light.
וככה הוא בכל נפש מישראל, בשעת עסק התורה והמצות
So it is with the soul of every Jew at the time he is occupied with Torah and the commandments.
When a Jew occupies himself with Torah study and the performance of its commandments he is totally nullified and absorbed in G‑d’s light. The only difference between the Patriarchs and other Jews is that the Patriarchs were in this state constantly, while other Jews attain this level only at the above-mentioned times.
ולכן חייבו רז״ל לקום ולעמוד מפני כל עוסק במצוה, אף אם הוא בור ועם הארץ
Therefore the Sages, of blessed memory, made it obligatory to rise and remain standing4 in the presence of anyone who is engaged in fulfilling a commandment, even if the latter is uncultured and illiterate. When such a person performs a mitzvah, such as bringing Bikkurim (the First Fruits) to the Beit HaMikdash, one must rise before him.
והיינו מפני ה׳ השוכן ומתלבש בנפשו בשעה זו
This is because G‑d dwells and clothes Himself in this man’s soul at such time.
רק שאין נפשו מרגשת
It is only that his soul is unconscious of this sanctity that resides within him at the time of his performance,
מפני מסך החומר הגופני שלא נזדכך, ומחשיך עיני הנפש מראות מראות אלקים
because of the barrier of the bodily grossness within which the soul dwells, which has of yet not been refined, and which dims the eyes of the soul preventing it from seeing Divine visions,
כמו האבות וכיוצא בהן, שראו עולמם בחייהם
as experienced by the Patriarchs and others of their stature, who “saw their world the spiritual World to Come during their lifetime.”
These great tzaddikim were able in this world to see Divine visions normally seen only in the World to Come. This was so because their bodies, having been purified, did not conceal G‑dliness. Truly, each and every Jew would be capable of witnessing such visions of holiness during the performance of a mitzvah, were it not for the coarseness of his body.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Vayikra 20:26. |
| 2. | Bamidbar 15:40-41. |
| 3. | The Rebbe explains that the Alter Rebbe cites these verses to provide evidence of the various aspects inherent in the term, “has sanctified us.” That sanctification is similar to the sanctification and union of a marriage we learn from the phrases, “...unto your G‑d; I am the L‑rd your G‑d.” I.e., G‑d is our G‑d in a manner of a man taking a wife, whereby she becomes his wife. The second form of “sanctification” — the concept that Jews are (a) elevated to Supernal Holiness, G‑d’s essential holiness, and (b) sanctified in the sense of being apart — is understood from the first verse, as follows: The words, “And you shall be holy unto Me, for I the L‑rd am holy,” indicate that the Jews‘ sanctity is bound up with G‑d’s Supernal Holiness. The concluding words, “...and I have separated you from other nations that you should be Mine,” indicate that sanctity which entails being separate and apart. |
| 4. | See Kiddushin 33a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 8, 5776 · May 16, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 57
The Second Passover
"On the fourteenth day of the second month, in the afternoon, they shall do it"—Numbers 9:11.
One who was prevented from offering the Paschal Offering in its proper time is commanded to offer the "Second Passover" one month later, on the 14th of Iyar.
Women are exempt from this mitzvah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Second Passover
Eating the Paschal Offering
"And they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted over the fire, together with matzah; with bitter herbs they shall eat it"—Exodus 12:8.
We are commanded to eat the Paschal Offering on the eve of the fifteenth of Nissan [the first night of Passover], according to all the requirements detailed in the Torah: it must be roasted, eaten all in one home, and accompanied by the consumption of matzah and bitter herbs.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Eating the Paschal Offering
Eating the Second Passover Offering
"And eat it with matzah and bitter herbs"—Numbers 9:11.
[Those who must offer the "Second Passover," as explained in Positive Commandment 57, are] commanded to eat the Second Passover Offering on the eve of the fifteenth of Iyar, together with matzah and bitter herbs.
Women are exempt from this mitzvah (just as they are exempt from offering the Second Passover Offering).
Link p57
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 57
The Second Passover
"On the fourteenth day of the second month, in the afternoon, they shall do it"—Numbers 9:11.
One who was prevented from offering the Paschal Offering in its proper time is commanded to offer the "Second Passover" one month later, on the 14th of Iyar.
Women are exempt from this mitzvah.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• The Second Passover
Positive Commandment 57
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 57th mitzvah is that one who was unable [to bring] the Pesach offering is commanded to slaughter the second Pesach offering.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "[Any person who is impure or far away3...] He shall bring it on the afternoon of the 14th of the second month."
One who is so inclined could challenge me here4 by asking, "Why do you count the second Pesach offering [separately], in contradiction to your Seventh Introductory Principle, where you said that the [individual] laws relating to a single commandment are not counted as separate commandments?"
One who asks such a question should realize that our Sages already disagreed as to whether the second Pesach is included in the laws of the first Pesach or whether it is a separate commandment. The halachic ruling is that it is a separate commandment, and is therefore counted individually.
Our Sages said in tractate Pesachim,5 "'One is punished by kares [for not bringing an offering] on the first [Pesach] and one is punished by kares [for not bringing an offering] on the second [Pesach].' These are the words of Rebbi [Yehuda HaNasi]. Rabbi Nasan says, 'One is punished by kares [for not bringing an offering] on the first [Pesach] and one is exempt [for not bringing an offering] on the second [Pesach].' Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya says, 'One is exempt even [for not bringing an offering] on the first [Pesach] unless he did not bring the second [Pesach].'" The Talmud then asks, "What is the basis of their disagreement? Rebbi holds that the second [Pesach] is a separate holiday. Rabbi Nasan holds that the second [Pesach] is to make up for the first." This explains clearly what I alluded to above.6
It says there, "Therefore, one who acted intentionally in both," — i.e. intentionally did not bring the first Pesach offering nor the second Pesach offering — "is guilty according to all opinions. One who acted unintentionally in both is exempt according to all opinions. One who acted intentionally in the first and unintentionally in the second, is guilty according to Rebbi and Rabbi Nasan, and exempt according to Rabbi Chananya ben Akavya." Rebbi holds that he is guilty even if he acted intentionally on the first and actually brought the offering on the second. This is because he does not hold that the second is to make up for the first.
The halachic conclusion in all these cases is in accordance with Rebbi.7
Women are not obligated in this commandment, as it explains there,8 "Women are permitted [but not obligated] in the second [Pesach offering]."9
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Pesachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Pesach Sheini, brought on the 14th of Iyar, one month after the regular Pesach offering.
2.Num. 9:10-11.
3.From Jerusalem.
4.In addition to the previous commandment, P56 (printed immediately below, as per the study schedule, based on the order in Mishneh Torah).
5.93a.
6.I.e. that the halachic ruling is that it is a separate commandment. This is because the halachic conclusion is in accordance with Rebbi, who says that it is a "separate holiday."
7.And the second Pesach offering is therefore counted as a separate commandment.
8.Pesachim 91b.
9.Women are obligated in all prohibitions and all positive commandments which are not bound to a specific time. If the positive, time-bound commandment has a corresponding prohibition (such as Shabbos, Pesach, or other holidays), women are also obligated. If the positive, time-bound commandment has no corresponding prohibition, such as the second Pesach offering, women are exempt.
Positive Commandment 56Eating the Paschal Offering
"And they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted over the fire, together with matzah; with bitter herbs they shall eat it"—Exodus 12:8.
We are commanded to eat the Paschal Offering on the eve of the fifteenth of Nissan [the first night of Passover], according to all the requirements detailed in the Torah: it must be roasted, eaten all in one home, and accompanied by the consumption of matzah and bitter herbs.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Eating the Paschal Offering
Positive Commandment 56
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 56th mitzvah is that we are commanded to eat the Pesach lamb on the night of the 15th of Nissan, keeping all the conditions which are stated, i.e. that it be roasted, that it be eaten in one house, and that it be eaten with Matzah and bitter vegetables.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Eat the meat on this night, roasted over fire. With Matzah and bitter vegetables you shall eat it."
Perhaps a questioner will challenge me, "Why do you count eating the Pesach [offering], Matzah, and bitter vegetables as a single commandment rather than as three commandments? Eating Matzah is a mitzvah, eating the bitter vegetables is a mitzvah, and eating the Pesach offering is a mitzvah!"
I will answer him that, "eating Matzah is a separate commandment," is correct, as we shall explain.2 It is also correct that eating the meat of the Pesach offering is a commandment, as we mentioned. But the bitter vegetables are secondary to eating the Pesach offering, and are not counted separately.
The proof of this is that it is a mitzvah to eat the meat of the Pesach offering whether or not there are bitter vegetables. But the bitter vegetables are not eaten unless there is meat from the Pesach offering, as it is written in G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "Eat it with Matzah and bitter vegetables." If one ate the bitter vegetables without the meat from the Pesach offering, he certainly accomplished nothing; we do not say that he fulfilled [at least] one commandment, i.e. that of eating the bitter vegetables.
In the words of the Mechilta,4 "The verse says, '...roasted over fire, with Matzah and bitter vegetables.' This verse teaches that the commandment of the Pesach offering is roasted meat with Matzah and bitter vegetables," i.e. that the [single] commandment includes all of them.
It [also] says there, "From which words do we derive that those who do not have Matzah or bitter vegetables fulfill their obligation [just] by eating the Pesach offering? From the [apparently extra] expression,5 'you shall eat it,'" — i.e. the meat by itself.
"One might think that just as those who lack Matzah and bitter vegetables fulfill their obligation [just] by eating the Pesach offering, so too those who lack the Pesach offering fulfill their obligation [just] by eating Matzah and bitter vegetables. One might make the following comparison: since [eating] the Pesach offering is a Positive commandment and [eating] the Matzah and bitter vegetables is a [separate] Positive commandment, once you learn that if they lack Matzah and bitter vegetables, they fulfill their obligation [just] by eating the Pesach offering, so too, if they lack the Pesach offering, they fulfill their obligation by eating [just] Matzah and bitter vegetables.
[To teach that this comparison is wrong,] "The Torah therefore says, 'you shall eat it.' "6
It also says there, "The expression, '[With Matzah and bitter vegetables] you shall eat it,' teaches that the Pesach offering is eaten when one is full, but the Matzah and bitter vegetable are not eaten when one is full." This is because the [primary] commandment is to eat the meat [of the offering], as it is written, "Eat the meat on this night."
[In conclusion,] the bitter vegetables are secondary and requisite to the Pesach offering, as clear from the above quotes to anyone who understands them.
The clear proof of this is the basic principle given in the Talmud,7 "[Eating] bitter vegetables today is [only] a Rabbinic obligation." This is because there is no Torah obligation to eat it by itself; it is eaten [only] if there is meat from the Pesach offering. This is a clear and obvious proof that it is secondary to the commandment, and that eating it is not a separate commandment.
The details of this mitzvah too are explained in tractate Pesachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 12:8.
2.P158, which is later in the order of Sefer HaMitzvos. Eating Matzah is counted as a separate commandment, because there is a separate verse that speaks exclusively about Matzah. Bitter vegetables, however, are mentioned only together with the Pesach offering, and are therefore not counted as a separate commandment.
3.Num. 9:11.
4.Parshas Bo. The Rambam intersperses his explanation within the words of the Mechilta to clarify his point that there is no commandment to eat bitter vegetables alone.
5.Ex. 12:8.
6.I.e. only the Pesach offering is a commandment by itself. Other versions of the Mechilta omit this last line, leading to an opposite conclusion. See Mechilta d'R. Yishmael (Horovitz-Rabin ed. 1960), Torah Shleimah, Ex. 12:182 and miluim ch. 19.
7.120a.
Positive Commandment 58Eating the Second Passover Offering
"And eat it with matzah and bitter herbs"—Numbers 9:11.
[Those who must offer the "Second Passover," as explained in Positive Commandment 57, are] commanded to eat the Second Passover Offering on the eve of the fifteenth of Iyar, together with matzah and bitter herbs.
Women are exempt from this mitzvah (just as they are exempt from offering the Second Passover Offering).
Link p57
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Eating the second Passover Offering
Positive Commandment 58
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 58th mitzvah is that we are commanded to eat the meat of the second Pesach offering, together with Matzah and bitter vegetables, during the night of the 15th of Iyar
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He) also regarding it,1 "With Matzah and bitter vegetables you shall eat it."
The details of this mitzvah too are explained in Pesachim.2
It is clear that women are exempt from this commandment. Just as they are exempt from its slaughter, as we explained earlier,3 they are undoubtedly exempt from eating it.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. the second Pesach offering, Num. 9:11, like that of the first Pesach offering, Ex. 12:8.
2.95a.
3.P57.
• 1 Chapter: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16
Halacha 1
We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is notpiggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.
When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4
What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] waspiggul. If, however, If one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5
Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.
The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place is combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.
Halacha 2
When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;
an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8
half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or
half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.
Halacha 3
If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10
Halacha 4
If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul.11
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12
Halacha 5
If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained.13 If one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15 [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
Halacha 6
If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,
[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,
he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or
he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16
Since we have explained in these halachot17 that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood which was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18[There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
Halacha 7
If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19 [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].
Halacha 8
If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20 Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.
If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21
Halacha 9
If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23
Halacha 10
When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24 and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul.25If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26
Halacha 11
If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27 and thus it is piggul or it was not established28 and it is notpiggul.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Chapter 13, Halachah 1.
2.
Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah.
3.
Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul.
4.
As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable forkaret, a much more serious punishment.
5.
I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first, as long as another intent is mixed together with the intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. InZevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed pigguleven if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.
6.
More precisely, that the meat be eaten whether by himself or by someone else.
7.
See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.
8.
Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time.
9.
As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined.
10.
In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.
The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text.
11.
I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. The fact that - had the person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, the first half portion would have been combined with the second half portion is not of consequence Ravva (Zevachim 31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.".
12.
Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded.
13.
Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
14.
Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent the sacrifice from being considered as piggul.
15.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is notpiggul.
16.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.
It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.
17.
Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
18.
Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
19.
Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought.
20.
For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggulonly when one thinks of it while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah.
21.
Even though neither of the intents in their own right would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, when combined, they have this effect.
To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.
22.
As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable.
23.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance inMenachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).
24.
Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10.
25.
Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed.
26.
Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar.
27.
For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.)
28.
For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering.
• 3 Chapters: Korban Pesach Korban Pesach - Perek 3, Korban Pesach Korban Pesach - Perek 4, Korban Pesach Korban Pesach - Perek 5 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Korban Pesach - Perek 3
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 8, 5776 · May 16, 2016• Iyar 8 23rd day of the omer
Audio: Listen | Download• Korban Pesach - Perek 3
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when a person tells his servant: "Go and sacrifice a Paschal sacrifice for me." Even though his master usually slaughters a lamb every year and the servant slaughtered a goat - or his master would usually slaughter a goat and he went and slaughtered a lamb, the master may partake of it, since he did not explicitly say: "Slaughter this particular type."
If the servant went and slaughtered both a kid and a lamb, the master may not partake of either of them. Instead, they should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt, because one may not be enumerated on two Paschal sacrifices. If, however, it was a king or queen who told his servant to sacrifice an animal for him and the servant slaughtered a kid and a lamb, the king or queen may partake of the one slaughtered first. This leniency was granted to placate the king.
Halacha 2
When one tells his agent: "Go out and slaughter a Paschal sacrifice for me" and establishes that he wants either a kid or a lamb slaughtered, but the agent forgot what the principal told him, the agent should slaughter both a kid and a lamb and say: "If the principal told me to slaughter a kid, the kid should be his and the lamb, mine. If he told me to slaughter a lamb, the lamb should be his and the kid, mine."
In such a situation, if the principal also forgot what he told the agent, both animals should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt. If the principal forgot before the blood was cast on the altar, they are obligated to bring a second Paschal sacrifice. If he forgot after the blood was cast on the altar, he is exempt from bring a second Paschal sacrifice.
The same also applies if one tells a Canaanite servant: "Go and slaughter a Paschal sacrifice for me," and he established the type of sacrifice he desired and the servant forgot what his master told him, provided the shepherd of his master gives him a kid and a lamb and tells him: "Slaughter both of them so that you will have slaughtered one according to the instructions of your master. And one shall be yours on the condition that your master has no portion in it." If the shepherd does this, it will be possible for the servant to make the stipulation described above.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply if the members of a company tell a person: "Go and slaughter a Paschal sacrifice for us," and he tells them: "And you should slaughter for me." If they slaughtered an animal and he slaughtered an animal, they should eat from the animal slaughtered first and the one slaughtered last should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.
Halacha 4
The following laws apply when the animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice of a company is lost and they tell one of the members of the company: "Go, search for it, and slaughter it for us." He went, found the Paschal sacrifice that was lost, and slaughtered it and they took another animal for a Paschal sacrifice and slaughtered it. If his was slaughtered first, he partakes of his sacrifice and they partake of it with him and the second one should be burnt. If theirs was slaughtered first, they should partake of their sacrifice and he should partake of his own. If it is not known which was slaughtered first or they were both slaughtered at the same time, he should partake of his own, but they should not eat with him. Their sacrifice should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt, but they are exempt from bringing a second Paschal sacrifice.
Halacha 5
The following laws apply when the agent told the members of the company who sent him to search for the Paschal sacrifice that was lost and to slaughter it: "If I come late, slaughter a Paschal sacrifice for me," and then he went found the lost animal and slaughtered it, but they also took another animal for a Paschal sacrifice and slaughtered it. If theirs is slaughtered first, they should partake of their own and he should eat with them. The second one should be burnt. If his is slaughtered first, he should partake of his own and they should partake of their own.If it is not known which was slaughtered first or they were both slaughtered at the same time, they should partake of theirs, but he does not partake of it with them. His sacrifice should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt, but he is exempt from bringing a second Paschal sacrifice.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply if the Paschal sacrifice of a company was lost and the Paschal sacrifice of an individual was lost. He told them: "Go, search for it and slaughter for me" and they told him: "Go, search for it, and slaughter for us." If he went, found the lost animal, and slaughtered it and they went, found the lost animal, and slaughtered it, they should all eat from the first one slaughtered and the second should be burnt. If it is not known which was slaughtered first or they were both slaughtered them at the same time, they should both be burnt and they are all exempt from bringing a second Paschal sacrifice.
If he went to search for the lost animal and they went to search for the lost animal, but they did not tell each other anything, neither one has any responsibility to the other. Since they said nothing explicitly and did not tell each other anything, this applies even if, in their hearts, they had the intent that each one would slaughter for the other and their were gestures and other matters from which it could assessed that they all agreed that whoever finds the lost animal should slaughter for the sake of the other.
Halacha 7
The following rules apply when the Paschal sacrifices of two companies become intermingled before they are slaughtered. One company takes one lamb from the mixture and the other takes the second. One of the members of one company should go to the other and one of the members of the second company should go the first. Each of the companies say to the person who came to join them: "If this Paschal sacrifice is ours, you are removed from your Paschal sacrifice and enumerated on ours. If, however, this Paschal sacrifice is yours, we are removed from our Paschal sacrifice and enumerated on yours."
Similarly, if there were five groups with at least five persons in each or ten groups of at least ten, a member of the every company is taken to each other company and such stipulations are made. Afterwards, they slaughter the sacrificial animals.
Halacha 8
When the Paschal sacrifices of two individuals become intermingled, one should take one of the Paschal sacrifices that are intermingled and the other should take the other. One should add another outsider to his Paschal sacrifice and the other should add an outsider, so that there be two companies. Afterwards, one of the two will go to the others and one of the others will go to the one and each one will stipulate with the person who came to him from the other company. Each should say: "If this Paschal sacrifice is mine, you are removed from your Paschal sacrifice and enumerated on mine. If, however, this Paschal sacrifice is yours, I am removed from our Paschal sacrifice and enumerated on yours." Thus no one has lost anything.
Halacha 9
When the hides of the Paschal sacrifices of five companies become intermingled and a disqualifying growth was discovered on the hide of one of them, all the sacrifices must be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt. If they were intermingled before the blood was cast on the altar, they are all obligated to bring the second Paschal sacrifice.
If, however, the sacrificial animals became intermingled after the blood was cast, they are exempt from bringing the second Paschal sacrifice. For if they would offer a second Paschal sacrifice, the ones who offered an acceptable sacrifice on the first Pesach will be bringing non-sacrificial animals to the Temple Courtyard. If they would all be enumerated on one Paschal sacrifice, it would be slaughtered for those who are not obligated. That is equivalent to having it sacrificed for the sake of those who were not enumerated upon it. If each one of them brought a sacrifice for the second Paschal sacrifice and made a stipulation saying: "If it is not a Paschal sacrifice,it should be considered as a peace-offering," that is undesirable. For the blood of the Paschal sacrifice is poured on the altar, while the blood of a peace-offering is dashed and, as an initial preference, blood that should be dashed should not be poured. Hence they are exempt from a second Paschal sacrifice.
Korban Pesach - Perek 4
Halacha 1
We already explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim that a Paschal sacrifice is slaughtered only for the sake of a Paschal sacrificeand only for the sake of its owners. If it was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice, it is unacceptable.
When a person slaughters a Paschal sacrifice for the members of a company and, at a later time, told them: "That Paschal sacrifice that I slaughtered for you was not slaughtered with the proper intent," they should rely on his words if they consider him trustworthy. If not, according to the letter, his word is not accepted. If one desires to be stringent with himself and bring a second Paschal sacrifice, he is praiseworthy.
Halacha 2
When the meat of the Paschal sacrifice becomes impure and one becomes aware of this before the blood is poured on the altar, it should not be poured on the altar even though the fats and organs are pure. The rationale is that the Paschal sacrifice is offered only with the intent that it be eaten. If the blood is poured on the altar, it is not acceptable.
If one does not become aware until the blood was poured, it is acceptable. For the High Priest's forehead plate generates appeasement for blood offered unintentionally when meat became impure, but it does not generate appeasement for intentional violation.
If a portion of the limbs of the Paschal sacrifice become impure, he should burn those which became impure and partake of those which are pure. If the fats and organs become impure while the meat is intact, the blood should be poured and the meat eaten in the evening.
If the owners become impure after the Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered, the blood should not be poured. If it is poured, it is not acceptable. Therefore they are obligated to bring a second Paschal sacrifice. For the High Priest's forehead plate does generate appeasement for bodily impurity unless the person became impure due to "impurity likened to the depths," as we explained in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash.
Halacha 3
When a Paschal sacrifice was taken out of Jerusalem or it became impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, it should be burnt immediately. When the owners became impure, died, or remove themselves - even if they became impure or died before the blood was poured on the altar - it should be left overnight and burnt afterwards.
This is the general principle: Whenever there is a disqualifying factor involving the actual body of the sacrifice, it should be burnt immediately. If the disqualifying factor involves the blood or the owners, it should be left overnight and then burnt. Therefore if it was slaughtered after it was known that the owners removed themselves from the sacrifice, died, or became impure and thus their obligation was postponed until the second Pesach, their first Paschal sacrifice should be burnt immediately.
When does the statement that the Paschal sacrifice should be burnt if the owners become impure apply? When all of the members of the company become impure. If, however, only some of them become impure, those who remain pure acquire the portions of those who became impure. Even if those who became impure incurred their impurity after they began eating, those who were pure who did not begin eating as of yet, acquire their portion.
If, however, all of them began eating and some of them became impure, those who remain pure do not acquire the portions of those who became impure. Instead, those who remain pure should partake of their portions and the portions of those who became impure should be burnt. This also applies if a portion of the owners died.
If the Paschal sacrifice became impure after those impure began eating, those who remained pure acquire their portions. If, however, they all had begun to eat and some of them became impure, those who remained pure do not acquire the portions of those who became impure. Instead, those who remained pure should eat their own portion and the portions of those who became impure should be burnt. These same laws apply if some of those enumerated on the sacrifice died.
If the entire Paschal sacrifice or its majority becomes impure, it should be burnt in front of the Temple in the presence of everyone to embarrass its owners, so that in the future they will show greater care. It should be burnt with wood designated for the altar so that suspicion about them will not be aroused and it be said: "They stole wood designated for the altar." Therefore if they burn it with straw and reeds and desire to burn it with their own straw, they may.
If less than half of it became impure and similarly, any meat left over from the Paschal sacrifice should be burnt in their own courtyards from their own wood. Wood designated for the altar should not be used, so that it will not remain in their possession and they misappropriate it.
Halacha 4
If one set aside a female animal for his Paschal sacrifice or a male animal in its second or third year of life, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and a Paschal sacrifice brought with the proceeds of the sale. If it did not contract a blemish until after he offered his Paschal sacrifice, he should bring a peace-offering with the proceeds of the sale.
Halacha 5
When a person sets aside a Paschal sacrifice and dies, his son should not bring it afterwards as a Paschal sacrifice, but as a peace-offering. If the son was enumerated on the Paschal sacrifice together with his father, he may bring it as a Paschal sacrifice.
When does the above apply? When his father dies after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan. If, however, he died before midday on the fourteenth, the son is deferred to the second Pesach, because he is in the acute state of onainmourning, as will be explained. He should bring this animal as a Paschal sacrifice on the second Pesach.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply if a person's Paschal sacrifice was lost and then he found it after he set aside another Paschal sacrifice and they are both standing before him. He should sacrifice whichever one he desires for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and the other should be offered as a peace-offering.
If he finds it after he slaughtered another animal as a Paschal sacrifice, the one that he found should be offered as a peace-offering. Similarly, if he transferred the holinessof the animal he found after the slaughter of its replacement, the animal unto which the holiness was transferred should be sacrificed as a peace-offering. If, however, he found it before the other he set aside was slaughtered, different rules apply. Since the animal that was found is fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice and it is fit to be offered as a peace-offering, as explained above, if he transferred the holiness of the animal that was found whether before the slaughter of the one designated in its place or afterwards, the animal to which its holiness is transferred is not sacrificed. Instead, it is left to pasture until it contracts a blemish. Then a peace-offering is brought with the proceeds of its sale.
Halacha 7
An animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice that becomes more than a year old or a peace-offering brought from an animal that was originally designated as Paschal sacrifice is considered as a peace-offering in all contexts. It requiressemichah, accompanying offerings, and the waving of the breast and thigh. These requirements do not apply with regard to the Paschal sacrifice.
Halacha 8
When an animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice becomes intermingled with animals designated as peace-offerings, they should all be brought as peace-offerings.If it became intermingled with an animal designated as another type of offering, the two should be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes. An animal equivalent to the value of the more expensive of the two should be brought for each type of sacrifice and the owner should forfeit the remainder from his resources, as explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.
If a Paschal sacrifice becomes intermingled with firstborn animals, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes and then they should be eaten according to the laws pertaining to a blemished firstborn animal.And he should bring an animal equivalent to the most valuable one in the mixture and say: "Wherever the Paschal sacrifice is, its holiness should be transferred to this animal." That animal should be brought as a peace-offering if his Paschal sacrifice was already offered.
Halacha 9
When one sets aside an animal for a Paschal sacrifice before he converts and then converts or a Canaanite servant sets one aside before he is freed and then he is freed, or a child sets one aside before he manifests signs of physical maturity and then he manifests them, he may offer it for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice. The rationale is that living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever, as explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.
Halacha 10
If one set aside money for his Paschal sacrifice and there was some left over, he should use the remainder for a peace-offering. If someone enumerates others on his Paschal sacrifice and festive offering, the money he takes from them for their portion is considered as ordinary funds. Even though this one set aside a lamb for his Paschal sacrifice and this one set aside money, and the one took that money and enumerated the other on his Paschal sacrifice, the money is considered as ordinary funds. For the Jews consecrated their Paschal sacrifices and festive offerings and the money for their Paschal sacrifices and festive offerings with this stipulation.
Halacha 11
The wood used for roasting the Paschal sacrifice is equivalent to the Paschal sacrifice. Similarly, the matzah and bitter herbs, since they are necessary elements for the Paschal sacrifice, are equivalent to the Paschal sacrifice. If one took money from the money for the Paschal sacrifice from someone who was enumerated with him to enumerate him on the matzah and the bitter herbs or so that he will own a portion of the wood used to roast it, the money is considered as ordinary funds.
Korban Pesach - Perek 5
Halacha 1
When someone was impure at the time of the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice and the Paschal sacrifice could not be slaughtered for him,was "on a distant way," he was prevented because of other reasons, or inadvertently failed to offer the first Paschal sacrifice, he should bring a Paschal sacrifice on the fourteenth of the second month in the afternoon. Slaughtering this Paschal sacrifice is an independent positive commandment and supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. For the second Pesach is not compensation for the first, but an independent festival. Therefore one is liable for karet for failing to bring the sacrifice.
Halacha 2
What is implied? If a person inadvertently or because of forces beyond his control failed to offer the first Paschal sacrifice, if he intentionally refrained from offering the second, he is liable for karet. If he inadvertently did not offer the second Paschal sacrifice or was held back due to forces beyond his control, he is exempt from karet. If he intentionally did not offer the first Paschal sacrifice, he may offer the second. If he did not offer the second Paschal sacrifice, even if his lapse was unintentional, he is liable forkaret. The rationale is that he did not offer God's sacrifice at the appointed time and was willful in his omission. If, however, he was impure or "on a distant way" and did not offer the first Paschal sacrifice, he is not liable for karet even though he willfully did not bring the second. The rationale is that on the first Pesach, he was already exempt from karet.
Halacha 3
When someone was "on a distant way" on the fourteenth of Nisan, but the Paschal sacrifice was nevertheless sacrificed on his behalf and the blood was poured on the altar for him, it is not accepted and he is obligated to offer a second Paschal sacrifice even though he came in the evening.
Halacha 4
When a person is impure, but could purify himself to partake of the first Paschal sacrifice, and yet refrains from immersing himself and instead, remains in a state of impurity until the time for offering the sacrifices passes, he is considered as having intentionally failed to sacrifice the first Paschal sacrifice. This ruling also applies to an uncircumcised person who does not circumcise himself until the time for the sacrifice passes. Therefore if these individuals do not offer the second Paschal sacrifice - even if their failure to do so is inadvertent - they are liable for karet.
Halacha 5
Just as the failure to circumcise oneself holds a person back from offering the Paschal sacrifice, so too, the failure to circumcise one's children below the age of majority and the failure to circumcise all of one's Canaanite servants, whether above majority or below majority, holds him back, as Exodus 12:48 states: "He shall circumcise all males, then he will draw close to offer it." If one offered the Paschal sacrifice before circumcising the above individuals, the Paschal sacrifices is invalidated.
Similarly, the immersion of one's Canaanite maidservants in a mikveh for the sake of servitude holds one back from offering the Paschal sacrifice. This matter is part of the received tradition: immersion for maidservants is equivalent to circumcision for servants.
Halacha 6
The circumcision of his servants and the immersion of his maidservants does not prevent a minor from being enumerated on a Paschal sacrifice, as indicated by ibid.:44: "Any servant of a man." This excludes a minor.
Halacha 7
A convert who converts between the first Pesach and the second Pesach and similarly, a child who comes of age between these two holidays are obligated to offer the second Paschal sacrifice. If one slaughtered the first Paschal sacrifice for the sake of the minor, the minor is exempt from bringing the second sacrifice.
Halacha 8
When the obligation of women is postponed until the second Pesach, whether because of forces beyond their control, inadvertent omission, impurity, or because they were "on a distant way," offering the second Paschal sacrifice is optional for them. If they desire, they may have the offering slaughtered; if they do not desire, they don't. Therefore one should not slaughter a Paschal sacrifice only for women when the second Pesach falls on the Sabbath. If, however, a woman is part of the company offering a second Paschal sacrifice, it is permitted.
What is meant by the term "on a distant way" which exempts a person from bringing a Paschal sacrifice? Fifteen miloutside the walls of Jerusalem.
Halacha 9
If one was fifteen mil or more outside of Jerusalem at the appearance of the sun on the fourteenth Nisan, he is considered to be "on a distant way." If he was closer than this, he is not considered to be "on a distant way," because he could reach Jerusalem after midday while walking comfortably by foot.
If he journeyed and did not reach Jerusalem in time, because he was held back by a press of animals or he was in Jerusalem, but was infirm in his legs and did not reach the Temple Courtyard until the time for the offering of the sacrifice passed, he is considered as having been held back by forces beyond his control, but not "on a distant way."
If someone was imprisoned outside the walls of Jerusalem and was promised to be released in the evening, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf and when he is released in the evening, he may partake of it.
When does the above apply? When he was imprisoned by Jews. If, by contrast, he was imprisoned by gentiles, the Paschal sacrifice should not be slaughtered on his behalf until he is released. If, however, it was slaughtered on his behalf and he was released, he may partake of it. If he was not released, he is exempt from bringing a second Paschal sacrifice, since the sacrifice was slaughtered on his behalf.
Similar laws apply when a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered for a person in the acute state of onain mourning, for an invalid, or for an elderly person who could have partaken of the sacrifice who became impure after the blood was poured on the altar and thus they are no longer able to partake of it. They are exempt from offering the second Paschal sacrifice.
• English Text | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 8, 5776 · May 16, 2016• Iyar 8 23rd day of the omer
Print this Page
Thursday Iyar 8, 23rd day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Emor, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 44-48.
Tanya: Therefore did Shlomon (p. 245)...during their lifetime." (p. 245)
An emissary is one with his sender. This concept is similar to that of an angel acting as a Divine emissary, when he is actually called by G-d's name. If this is so with an angel it is certainly true1 of the soul; in fact with the soul the quality of this oneness is of a higher order, as explained elsewhere.2
Now chassidim are emissaries of the Rebbe, the Alter Rebbe. So if the chassid actively discharges his mission, he is bound up with his Rebbe, bound up in his entire being - there walks a chassid, there eats a chassid, there sleeps a chassid.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Iyar 6.
2.See Tamuz 10.
• Daily Thought:
Bouncing Up
Night comes before day, pain before pleasure, confusion before wisdom. So too, the way this world was made, there is no journey forward without first a step backward.
So it is with all creatures. But we human beings, we strive not only to move forward, but to leap beyond our own nature, beyond any nature at all.
We, too, must first step back before we can leap upward. But since our leap is beyond nature, we fall, too, beneath our nature.
That is sin—a fall beneath your own nature, as one who crouches before he leaps.
And that is the power of return
—to leap beyond any bounds at all.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment