Torah Reading
Rosh Chodesh: Numbers 28:1 (v) Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Give an order to the people of Isra’el. Tell them, ‘You are to take care to offer me at the proper time the food presented to me as offerings made by fire, providing a fragrant aroma for me.’ 3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering.; Numbers 28:3 Tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire that you are to bring to Adonai: male lambs in their first year and without defect, two daily as a regular burnt offering. 4 Offer the one lamb in the morning and the other lamb at dusk, 5 along with two quarts of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with one quart of oil from pressed olives. 6 It is the regular burnt offering, the same as was offered on Mount Sinai to give a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 7 Its drink offering is to be one-quarter hin for one lamb; in the Holy Place you are to pour out a drink offering of intoxicating liquor to Adonai. 8 The other lamb you are to present at dusk; present it with the same kind of grain offering and drink offering as in the morning; it is an offering made by fire, with a fragrant aroma for Adonai.
9 “‘On Shabbat offer two male lambs in their first year and without defect, with one gallon of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with olive oil, and its drink offering. 10 This is the burnt offering for every Shabbat, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
11 “‘At each Rosh-Hodesh of yours, you are to present a burnt offering to Adonai consisting of two young bulls, one ram and seven male lambs in their first year and without defect; 12 with six quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for the one ram; 13 and two quarts of fine flour mixed with olive oil as a grain offering for each lamb. This will be the burnt offering giving a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire for Adonai. 14 Their drink offerings will be two quarts of wine for a bull, one-and-one-third quarts for the ram, and one quart for each lamb. This is the burnt offering for every Rosh-Hodesh throughout the months of the year. 15 Also a male goat is to be offered as a sin offering to Adonai, in addition to the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of "Iyar" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Count "Seventeen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the seventeenth 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 seventeen days, which are two 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'Tifferet -- "Harmony in Harmony"
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:
• Construction of Second Temple Begins (370 BCE)
Fifty three years following the destruction of the First Holy Temple (see Jewish History for the9th of Av), Zerubabel and Joshua the High Priest began construction of the Second Temple, with permission from King Cyrus of Persia.
The offering of sacrifices had actually commenced a few months earlier, on the vacant lot where the 1st Temple stood, however it was only after the construction started on the 1st of Iyar that the Levites began accompanying the service with song and music.
The construction was later halted after the hostile Samaritans supplied false slanderous information to Cyrus about the Jews' intentions. The construction was resumed many years later, and completed 21 years later under the reign of King Darius (see Jewish History for the Third of Adar).
Link: The Second Temple
• Passing of R. Menachem Mendel of Horodok (1788)
Chassidic master Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Horodok (1730?-1788), also known as Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, was one of the leading disciples of the second leader of the Chassidic Movement, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch. Upon the latter's passing in 1772, R. Menachem Mendel was regarded by his colleagues as the leader of the Chassidic community in Russia, and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi considered him his rebbe and mentor. In 1777, R. Menachem Mendel led a group of 300 Chassidim to the Holy Land and established Chassidic communities in Safed and Teberias. Rabbi Menachem Mendel passed away on the 1st of Iyar of 1788, and is buried in Tiberias.
Daily Quote:
When a person builds a house, he makes the windows narrow on the outside and wider on the inside, so that they should draw in light from the outside. But when King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem he made the windows narrow within and wide without, so that its light should emanate to the outside and illuminate the world[Midrash Tanchuma, Behaalotecha 2]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 2nd Portion Leviticus 19:15-19:22 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 19
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 1
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the month of "Iyar" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
• Count "Seventeen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the seventeenth 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 seventeen days, which are two 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'Tifferet -- "Harmony in Harmony"
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:
• Construction of Second Temple Begins (370 BCE)
Fifty three years following the destruction of the First Holy Temple (see Jewish History for the9th of Av), Zerubabel and Joshua the High Priest began construction of the Second Temple, with permission from King Cyrus of Persia.
The offering of sacrifices had actually commenced a few months earlier, on the vacant lot where the 1st Temple stood, however it was only after the construction started on the 1st of Iyar that the Levites began accompanying the service with song and music.
The construction was later halted after the hostile Samaritans supplied false slanderous information to Cyrus about the Jews' intentions. The construction was resumed many years later, and completed 21 years later under the reign of King Darius (see Jewish History for the Third of Adar).
Link: The Second Temple
• Passing of R. Menachem Mendel of Horodok (1788)
Chassidic master Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Horodok (1730?-1788), also known as Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, was one of the leading disciples of the second leader of the Chassidic Movement, Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch. Upon the latter's passing in 1772, R. Menachem Mendel was regarded by his colleagues as the leader of the Chassidic community in Russia, and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi considered him his rebbe and mentor. In 1777, R. Menachem Mendel led a group of 300 Chassidim to the Holy Land and established Chassidic communities in Safed and Teberias. Rabbi Menachem Mendel passed away on the 1st of Iyar of 1788, and is buried in Tiberias.
Daily Quote:
When a person builds a house, he makes the windows narrow on the outside and wider on the inside, so that they should draw in light from the outside. But when King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem he made the windows narrow within and wide without, so that its light should emanate to the outside and illuminate the world[Midrash Tanchuma, Behaalotecha 2]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 2nd Portion Leviticus 19:15-19:22 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 19
15You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness. טו לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֨וֶל֙ בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹֽא־תִשָּׂ֣א פְנֵי־דָ֔ל וְלֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר פְּנֵ֣י גָד֑וֹל בְּצֶ֖דֶק תִּשְׁפֹּ֥ט עֲמִיתֶֽךָ:
You shall commit no injustice in judgment: This verse teaches us that a judge who corrupts the law is called unjust, hated and disgusting, fit to be destroyed, and an abomination. For an unjust person is called an abomination, as the verse says, “For whoever does these things, whoever perpetrates such injustice, is an abomination to the Lord…” (Deut. 25: 16); and an abomination, is called a חֵרֶם, [something doomed to destruction], and a disgusting thing, as the verse says (Deut. 7:26), “Nor should you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be destroyed (חֵרֶם) like it, but you shall utterly detest it (שַׁקֵּץ תְּשַׁקְּצֶנּוּ) ” [and an abomination is called hated, as it is said, “for every abomination to the Lord which He hates”] (Deut. 12:31).
לא תעשו עול במשפט: מלמד שהדיין המקלקל את הדין קרוי עול, שנאוי ומשוקץ, חרם ותועבה. שהעול קרוי תועבה, שנאמר (דברים כה טז) כי תועבת ה' וגו' כל עושה עול, והתועבה קרויה שקץ וחרם, שנאמר (שם ז כו) ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך והיית חרם כמוהו שקץ תשקצנו וגו':
You shall not favor a poor person: [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is poor, and the rich man is obligated to provide him with sustenance; therefore, I will acquit him in judgment, and he will thus be sustained respectably.”- [Torath Kohanim 19:37]
לא תשא פני דל: שלא תאמר עני הוא זה והעשיר חייב לפרנסו, אזכנו בדין, ונמצא מתפרנס בנקיות:
or show respect to the great: [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is rich, the son of prominent people; how can I embarrass him and behold his shame? That would surely be a punishable act!” Therefore, Scripture says here, “or respect a great man.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:38]
ולא תהדר פני גדול: שלא תאמר עשיר הוא זה בן גדולים הוא זה, היאך אביישנו ואראה בבושתו, עונש יש בדבר, לכך נאמר ולא תהדר פני גדול:
Judge your fellow with righteousness: [This is to be understood] according to its apparent meaning. Another explanation is: Judge your fellow favorably [i.e., give him the benefit of the doubt].
בצדק תשפט עמיתך: כמשמעו. דבר אחר הוי דן את חברך לכף זכות:
16You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people. You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord. טזלֹֽא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַֽעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall not go around as a gossipmonger: Heb. לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל. I say that, since all those who instigate quarrels and speak evil talk go (הוֹלְכִים) into their friends’ houses in order to spy out (לְרַגֵּל) what evil they can see there, or what evil they can hear, to tell in the market-place, they are called הוֹלְכֵי רָכִיל, [which is the same as] הוֹלְכֵי רְגִילָה, - “those who go about spying” ; espiement in Old French, spying. A proof for my words is that we do not find [anywhere in Scripture] where the term רְכִילוּת is used without expressing it in terms of הֲלִיכָה, “going”; [for instance here,] לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל, “You shall not go around as a gossipmonger,” and, “going tale bearing (הוֹלְכֵי רָכִיל) (Jer. 6:28); [like] copper and iron.” With any other expression for evil talk, however, Scripture does not mention the term הֲלִיכָה, “going”; [for instance,], “He who slanders his fellow in secret” (Ps. 101: 5), and, “you deceitful tongue” (Ps. 120:3), and, “the tongue that speaks great things” (Ps. 12:4). Therefore, I say that the expression רָכִיל is an expression of “going around and spying מְרַגֵּל,” whereby [the letter] כ [of the word רָכִיל] is interchanged with [the letter] ג \'82 [so that the word רָכִיל is equivalent to רָגִיל]. For all letters which stem from the same source are interchangeable with one another [i.e., letters by the same speech organs, namely, the lips, tongue, teeth, palate, or throat]. [For example], [the letter] ב [is interchangeable] with פ or ו [as they are all labials; the letter] ג \'82 [is interchangeable] with כ as is [the letter] ק [since they are all palatals; the letter] נ [is interchangeable] with ל [because they are both linguals, and [the letters] ר and ז [are interchangeable] with צ [as they are all dentals]. Similarly, [the following verses illustrate how רָגַל is employed in connection with slander, just as is רָכִיל in our verse:], “And he slandered (וַיְרַגֵּל) your servant” (II Sam. 19:28), [lit.,] he spied deceitfully to say evil about me, and [likewise], “He did not slander (רָגַל) with his tongue” (Ps. 15:3). And likewise, [the term] רוֹכֵל means a merchant who goes around spying out (מְרַגֵּל) merchandise; [similarly,] one who sells perfumes with which women beautify themselves, since he constantly goes around in the towns, he is called a רוֹכֵל, equivalent to the term רוֹגֵל -one who spies. And the Targum renders [the phrase in our verse, לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל, as]: לָא תֵיכוּל קוּרְצִין, [lit., “You shall not eat the food of winking,” a figurative expression for slandering], as, וַאֲכַלוּ קַרְצֵיהוֹן דִּי יְהוּדָיֵא [lit., “and they ate their food of winking concerning the Jews” (Dan. 3:8), i.e., they informed against the Jews], and, אֲכַל בֵּהּ קֻרְצָא בֵּי מַלְכָּא [lit., “he ate the food of winking, concerning him, to the king’s palace” (Ber. 58a), i.e., he informed against him to the king. And why is the expression “eating the food of winking” used to signify slander?] It appears to me that it was the practice of these [informers and slanderers] to eat some sort of small snack at the house of those who listened to their words, for this [eating] acted as a [gesture of] final reinforcement, that the slanderer’s words were indeed well-founded and that he maintained them as the truth. This snack, then, is referred to as אֲכִילַת קוּרְצִין, [where the term קוּרְצִין is] denoted by [Scripture’s description of a faithless man], “He winks (קוֹרֵץ) with his eyes” (Prov. 6:13), for so is the way of all those who go around speaking evil talk, to wink with their eyes, thereby alluding to their slanderous words by innuendo, so that any other people listening will not understand.
לא תלך רכיל: אני אומר על שם שכל משלחי מדנים ומספרי לשון הרע הולכים בבתי רעיהם לרגל מה יראו רע או מה ישמעו רע לספר בשוק, נקראים הולכי רכיל, הולכי רגילה אשפיימנ"ט בלע"ז [ריגול]. וראיה לדברי, שלא מצינו רכילות שאין כתוב בלשון הליכה לא תלך רכיל, הולכי רכיל נחשת וברזל (ירמיה ו כח), ושאר לשון הרע אין כתוב בו הליכה מלשני בסתר רעהו (תהלים קא ה), לשון רמיה (שם קכ ב), לשון מדברת גדולות (שם יב ד), לכך אני אומר שלשון רכיל לשון הולך ומרגל, שהכ"ף נחלפת בגימ"ל, שכל האותיות שמוצאיהם ממקום אחד מתחלפות זו בזו, בי"ת בפ"א ובוי"ו, גימ"ל בכ"ף וקו"ף, נו"ן בלמ"ד, ורי"ש וזי"ן בצד"י וכן (ש"ב יט כח) וירגל בעבדך, רגל ותרמה לומר עלי רעה, וכן (תהלים טו ג) לא רגל על לשונו, וכן רוכל הסוחר ומרגל אחר כל סחורה, וכל המוכר בשמים להתקשט בהם הנשים, על שם שמחזר תמיד בעיירות נקרא רוכל, לשון רוגל. ותרגומו לא תיכול קורצין, כמו (דניאל ג ח) ואכלו קרציהון די יהודיא, אכל ביה קורצא בי מלכא (ברכות נח א). נראה בעיני שהיה משפטם לאכול בבית המקבל דבריהם שום הלעטה, והוא גמר חזוק, שדבריו מקויימים ויעמידם על האמת, ואותה הלעטה נקראת אכילת קורצין, לשון קורץ בעיניו (משלי ו יג), שכן דרך כל הולכי רכיל לקרוץ בעיניהם ולרמוז דברי רכילותן, שלא יבינו שאר השומעים:
You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood: [I.e., do not stand by,] watching your fellow’s death, when you are able to save him; for example, if he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or robbers come upon him. — [Torath Kohanim 19:41; Sanh. 73a]
לא תעמד על דם רעך: לראות במיתתו ואתה יכול להצילו, כגון טובע בנהר, וחיה או לסטים באים עליו:
I am the Lord: faithful to pay reward [to those who heed the above warnings], and faithful to exact punishment [upon those who transgress them].
אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר, ונאמן להפרע:
17You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account. יזלֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֨יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹֽא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא:
but You shall not bear a sin on his account: I.e., [in the course of your rebuking your fellow,] do not embarrass him in public. — [Torath Kohanim 19:43; Arachin 16b]
ולא תשא עליו חטא: לא תלבין את פניו ברבים:
18You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. יחלֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall neither take revenge: [For example:] He says to him, “Lend me your sickle,” and he [the latter] replies, “No!” The next day, he [the latter] says to him, “Lend me your ax.” [If] he says to him, “I will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend to me!” this constitutes revenge. And what constitutes “bearing a grudge?” [For example:] he says to him, “Lend me your ax,” and he [the latter] replies, “No!” Then the next day, he [the latter] says to him, “Lend me your sickle.” [Now, if] he says to him, “Here it is for you; I am not like you, who did not lend me!” this constitutes “bearing a grudge,” for he keeps the hatred in his heart, even though he does not take revenge. — [Torath Kohanim 19:44; Yoma 23a]
לא תקם: אמר לו השאילני מגלך. אמר לו לאו. למחר אמר לו השאילני קרדומך. אמר לו איני משאילך כדרך שלא השאלתני, זו היא נקימה. ואיזו היא נטירה, אמר לו השאילני קרדומך. אמר לו לאו. למחר אמר לו השאילני מגלך. אמר לו הא לך ואיני כמותך, שלא השאלתני. זו היא נטירה, שנוטר האיבה בלבו אף על פי שאינו נוקם:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself: Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a fundamental [all-inclusive] principle of the Torah.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:45]
ואהבת לרעך כמוך: אמר רבי עקיבא זה כלל גדול בתורה:
19You shall observe My statutes: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you. יטאֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֘ תִּשְׁמֹ֒רוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹֽא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָֽׂדְךָ֖ לֹֽא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֨יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַֽעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ:
You shall observe My statutes: They are the following: “You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species, etc.” [The term] חֻקִּים, “statutes,” refers to the decrees of the Divine King, which have no rationale.
את חקתי תשמרו: ואלו הן בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים וגו', חקים אלו גזרות מלך שאין טעם לדבר:
and a garment which has a mixture: Why is this stated? Since Scripture says, “ You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together” (Deut. 22:11), I might think that one may not wear [even] shearings of wool [beaten together with] stalks of linen. Therefore, Scripture says, “a garment” [thus excluding pieces of wool and linen combined together, which do not form a “garment”]. And how do we know that included [in this prohibition is also] felt [although it is not a garment, but only a belt]? Because Scripture employs the term שַׁעַטְנֵז, [an acronym of the terms] שׁוּעַ, combed, טָווּי, spun, and נוּז, woven. And נוּז, twisted. [i.e., even if the material in question is] “combed,” “spun” and “twined together” [although it does not form a garment]. And I say that [the term] נוּז denotes a material [made from fibers which have been] stretched and twined together in order to join it together; mestier in Old French, and similar to [the term employed by the Talmud], “…fit for use because of the hard [dry] seeds נַאֲזֵי that they have” (Moed Katan 12a), a term which we explain as meaning “hardened” [just as the fibers of the נוּז cloth become hardened when they are intertwined together]; flestre in Old French, wilted. And with regards to the actual term שַׁעַטְנֵז, Menahem [Ben Saruk] explains it to mean: “A combination of wool and linen.”
ובגד כלאים: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו (דברים כב יא), יכול לא ילבש גיזי צמר ואניצי פשתן, תלמוד לומר בגד. מנין לרבות הלבדים, תלמוד לומר שעטנז, דבר שהוא שוע טווי ונוז. ואומר אני נוז לשון דבר הנמלל ושזור זה עם זה לחברו, מישטי"ר בלע"ז [לערבב], כמו (מועד קטן יב ב) חזיין לנאזי דאית בהון, שאנו מפרשין לשון כמוש פלישטר"א [כמוש]. ולשון שעטנז פירש מנחם מחברת צמר ופשתים:
20If a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a handmaid designated for a man, and she had not been [fully] redeemed nor had her document of emancipation been granted her, there shall be an investigation; they shall not be put to death, because she had not been [completely] freed. כוְאִ֠ישׁ כִּֽי־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֗רַע וְהִ֤וא שִׁפְחָה֙ נֶֽחֱרֶ֣פֶת לְאִ֔ישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה֙ לֹ֣א נִפְדָּ֔תָה א֥וֹ חֻפְשָׁ֖ה לֹ֣א נִתַּן־לָ֑הּ בִּקֹּ֧רֶת תִּֽהְיֶ֛ה לֹ֥א יֽוּמְת֖וּ כִּי־לֹ֥א חֻפָּֽשָׁה:
designated for a man: נֶחֱרֶפֶת, designated and specified for a [particular] man. And [regarding this term נֶחֱרֶפֶת,] I do not know of [a term] resembling it anywhere in Scripture, but the Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite handmaid, partly a handmaid and partly a free woman [i.e., she belonged to two partners and one freed his part of her], who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to [marry] a handmaid. — [Torath Kohanim 19:52; Kereithoth 11a]
נחרפת לאיש: מיועדת ומיוחדת לאיש, ואיני יודע לו דמיון במקרא. ובשפחה כנענית שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין המאורסת לעבד עברי שמותר בשפחה, הכתוב מדבר:
and she had not been [fully] redeemed: Heb. וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדְּתָה, she is redeemed, but not redeemed. And when the unqualified term פִּדְיוֹן, “redemption” is employed, it means [redeeming with money. — [Torath Kohanim 19:53]
והפדה לא נפדתה: פדויה ואינה פדויה וסתם פדיון בכסף:
nor had her document of emancipation been granted her: [the unqualified term חפשׁ, “freeing,” refers to doing so] with a document [of release]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:53]
או חפשה: בשטר:
there shall be an investigation: Heb. בִּקֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה [which will result in] the woman being given lashes but not the man (Torath Kohanim 19:54) The court is obligated to investigate the matter in order not to sentence him [her] to death, since “she had not been [completely] freed” [and therefore,] her marriage is not completely binding. Our Rabbis, however, learned from [this verse], that whoever is sentenced to lashes [as this woman, those lashes] shall be accompanied by a “recitation” [בִּקֹרֶת בִּקְרִיאָה, derived from the בִּקֹרֶת, so that the phrase בִּקֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה is expounded to mean “she is to be given lashes with a קֹּרֶת, a recitation.” And what is the recitation referred to here? It is] that the judges who mete out the lashes, shall recite to the one receiving them (Deut. 28:58-59),“If you will not observe to fulfill [all the words of this Torah]…the Lord will bring upon you…uniquely [horrible] plagues!”- [Kereithoth 11a]
בקרת תהיה: היא לוקה ולא הוא, יש על בית דין לבקר את הדבר שלא לחייבו מיתה, כי לא חפשה, ואין קידושיה קידושין גמורין. ורבותינו למדו מכאן שמי שהוא במלקות יהא בקריאה, שהדיינים המלקין קורין על הלוקה (דברים כח נח - נט) אם לא תשמור לעשות וגו' והפלא ה' את מכותך וגו':
because she had not been [completely] freed: And therefore, the man is not liable to the death penalty because of [his intimacy with] her, since her marriage is not binding. It follows then, that if she had been freed, her marriage would be binding, and he would be liable to the death penalty. — [Torath Kohanim 19:55; Gittin 43b]
כי לא חפשה: לפיכך אין חייב עליה מיתה, שאין קידושיה קידושין, הא אם חופשה, קידושיה קידושין וחייב מיתה:
21He shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a guilt offering ram. כאוְהֵבִ֤יא אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד אֵ֖יל אָשָֽׁם:
22And the kohen shall effect atonement for him with the guilt offering ram, before the Lord, for the sin that he had committed; and he shall be forgiven for the sin that he had committed. כבוְכִפֶּר֩ עָלָ֨יו הַכֹּהֵ֜ן בְּאֵ֤יל הָֽאָשָׁם֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה עַל־חַטָּאת֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֑א וְנִסְלַ֣ח ל֔וֹ מֵֽחַטָּאת֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָֽא:
And he shall be forgiven for the sin that he had committed: [The apparently superfluous phrase, “for the sin that he had committed,” is written] to include the intentional sinner like the unintentional sinner [insofar as atonement is effected by bringing a guilt-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:57; Kereithoth 9a]
ונסלח לו מחטאתו אשר חטא: לרבות את המזיד כשוגג:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 1 - 9• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 1
This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.
1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.
2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.
3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.
4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
Chapter 2
This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.
1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?
2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:
3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”
4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:
6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.
1
8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”
10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.
12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him
FOOTNOTES
1.The day David was crowned. (Rashi)
Chapter 3
When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.
1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!
3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”
4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.
5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.
6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.
7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.
8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.
9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever
Chapter 4
This psalm exhorts man not to shame his fellow, and to neither speak nor listen to gossip and slander. Envy not the prosperity of the wicked in this world, rather rejoice and say: “If it is so for those who anger Him . . . [how much better it will be for those who serve Him!”]
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by David.
2. Answer me when I call, O God [Who knows] my righteousness. You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer.
3. Sons of men, how long will you turn my honor to shame, will you love vanity, and endlessly seek falsehood?
4. Know that the Lord has set apart His devout one; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.
5. Tremble and do not sin; reflect in your hearts upon your beds, and be silent forever.
6. Offer sacrifices in righteousness, and trust in the Lord.
7. Many say: “Who will show us good?” Raise the light of Your countenance upon us, O Lord.
8. You put joy in my heart, greater than [their joy] when their grain and wine abound.
9. In peace and harmony I will lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, will make me dwell alone, in security.
Chapter 5
A prayer for every individual, requesting that the wicked perish for their deeds, and the righteous rejoice for their good deeds.
1. For the Conductor, on the nechilot,1 a psalm by David.
2. Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my thoughts.
3. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God, for to You I pray.
4. Lord, hear my voice in the morning; in the morning I set [my prayers] before you and hope.
5. For You are not a God Who desires wickedness; evil does not abide with You.
6. The boastful cannot stand before Your eyes; You hate all evildoers.
7. You destroy the speakers of falsehood; the Lord despises the man of blood and deceit.
8. And I, through Your abundant kindness, come into Your house; I bow toward Your holy Sanctuary, in awe of You.
9. Lead me, O Lord, in Your righteousness, because of my watchful enemies; straighten Your path before me.
10. For there is no sincerity in their mouths, their heart is treacherous; their throat is an open grave, [though] their tongue flatters.
11. Find them guilty, O God, let them fall by their schemes; banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against You.
12. But all who trust in You will rejoice, they will sing joyously forever; You will shelter them, and those who love Your Name will exult in You.
13. For You, Lord, will bless the righteous one; You will envelop him with favor as with a shield.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument that sounded like the buzzing of bees (Metzudot).
Chapter 6
This is an awe-inspiring prayer for one who is ill, to pray that God heal him, body and soul. An ailing person who offers this prayer devoutly and with a broken heart is assured that God will accept his prayer.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music for the eight-stringed harp, a psalm by David.
2. Lord, do not punish me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I languish away; heal me, O Lord, for my bones tremble in fear.
4. My soul is panic-stricken; and You, O Lord, how long [before You help]?
5. Relent, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for the sake of Your kindness.
6. For there is no remembrance of You in death; who will praise You in the grave?
7. I am weary from sighing; each night I drench my bed, I melt my couch with my tears.
8. My eye has grown dim from vexation, worn out by all my oppressors.
9. Depart from me, all you evildoers, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
10. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer.
11. All my enemies will be shamed and utterly terrified; they will then repent and be shamed for a moment.
FOOTNOTES
1.Only for a moment will they be shamed, because I will forgive them and never again mention their deeds (Metzudot).
Chapter 7
Do not rejoice if God causes your enemy to suffer—just as the suffering of the righteous is not pleasant. David, therefore, defends himself intensely before God, maintaining that he did not actively harm Saul. In fact, Saul precipitated his own harm, while David’s intentions were only for the good.
1. A shigayon 1 by David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush the Benjaminite.
2. I put my trust in You, Lord, my God; deliver me from all my pursuers and save me.
3. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, crushing me with none to rescue.
4. Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is wrongdoing in my hands;
5. if I have rewarded my friends with evil or oppressed those who hate me without reason—
6. then let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul, let him trample my life to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust forever.
7. Arise, O Lord, in Your anger, lift Yourself up in fury against my foes. Stir me [to mete out] the retribution which You commanded.
8. When the assembly of nations surrounds You, remove Yourself from it and return to the heavens.
9. The Lord will mete out retribution upon the nations; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity.
10. Let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous—O righteous God, Searcher of hearts and minds.
11. [I rely] on God to be my shield, He Who saves the upright of heart.
12. God is the righteous judge, and the Almighty is angered every day.
13. Because he does not repent, He sharpens His sword, bends His bow and makes it ready.
14. He has prepared instruments of death for him; His arrows will be used on the pursuers.
15. Indeed, he conceives iniquity, is pregnant with evil schemes, and gives birth to falsehood.
16. He digs a pit, digs it deep, only to fall into the trap he laid.
17. His mischief will return upon his own head, his violence will come down upon his own skull.
18. I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness, and sing to the Name of the Lord Most High
FOOTNOTES
1.This refers either to a musical instrument, or to a mistake committed by David, in recognition of which this psalm was written (Rashi).
Chapter 8
This psalm is a glorious praise to God for His kindness to the lowly and mortal human in giving the Torah to the inhabitants of the lower worlds, arousing the envy of the celestial angels. This idea is expressed in the Yom Kippur prayer, “Though Your mighty strength is in the angels above, You desire praise from those formed of lowly matter.”
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by David.
2. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth, You Who has set Your majesty upon the heavens!
3. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have established might, to counter Your enemies, to silence foe and avenger.2
4. When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place—
5. what is man that You should remember him, son of man that You should be mindful of him?
6. Yet, You have made him but a little less than the angels, and crowned him with honor and glory.
7. You made him ruler over Your handiwork, You placed everything under his feet.
8. Sheep and cattle—all of them, also the beasts of the field;
9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea; all that traverses the paths of the seas.
10. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument crafted in Gath (Metzudot).
2.The wonders of childbirth and nursing demonstrate God’s existence to non-believers (Metzudot).
Chapter 9
One should praise God for saving him from the hand of the enemy who stands over and agonizes him, and for His judging each person according to his deeds: the righteous according to their righteousness, and the wicked according to their wickedness.
1. For the Conductor, upon the death of Labben, a psalm by David.
2. I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will recount all Your wonders.
3. I will rejoice and exult in You; I will sing to Your Name, O Most High.
4. When my enemies retreat, they will stumble and perish from before You.
5. You have rendered my judgement and [defended] my cause; You sat on the throne, O righteous Judge.
6. You destroyed nations, doomed the wicked, erased their name for all eternity.
7. O enemy, your ruins are gone forever, and the cities you have uprooted—their very remembrance is lost.
8. But the Lord is enthroned forever, He established His throne for judgement.
9. And He will judge the world with justice, He will render judgement to the nations with righteousness.
10. The Lord will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.
11. Those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, Lord, have not abandoned those who seek You.
12. Sing to the Lord Who dwells in Zion, recount His deeds among the nations.
13. For the Avenger of bloodshed is mindful of them; He does not forget the cry of the downtrodden.
14. Be gracious to me, O Lord; behold my affliction at the hands of my enemies, You Who raises me from the gates of death,
15. so that I may relate all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion, that I may exult in Your deliverance.
16. The nations sank into the pit that they made; in the net they concealed their foot was caught.
17. The Lord became known through the judgement He executed; the wicked one is snared in the work of his own hands; reflect on this always.
18. The wicked will return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
19. For not for eternity will the needy be forgotten, nor will the hope of the poor perish forever.
20. Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.
21. Set Your mastery over them, O Lord; let the nations know that they are but frail men, Selah.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44• 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 1, 5776 · May 9, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
• As explained in the previous chapters, the love and fear that lead to performance of Torah and mitzvot elevate them to the Supernal Sefirot. If the love and fear are “natural” — i.e., they do not result from contemplating G‑d’s greatness, but from the soul’s natural resources — then the Torah and mitzvot are elevated only as far as the World of Yetzirah, the World of emotion. For since the level of “natural” love and fear of G‑d belongs in that World, it follows that the Torah and mitzvot performed as a result of that level, will be elevated there as well.
However, if the love and fear are “intellectual” — created by one’s reflection on G‑d’s greatness — then the Torah andmitzvot performed as a result of this contemplation will be elevated to the Sefirot of the World of Beriah, the World where theSefirah of Binah (“understanding”) is preeminent.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that although the two above-mentioned loves (“My soul...” and “Like a son...”) arenaturally found in a Jew’s soul, deriving as they do from the Patriarchs, still, when they are in a revealed state in one’s heart, they are able to elevate the Torah and mitzvot that result from them to the World of Beriah. Only when “natural” love remains concealed in the mind, is it restricted to elevating Torah and mitzvot no higher than Yetzirah. When, however, it is in a revealed state, they are elevated to the World of Beriah.
For while it is true that these loves are natural, yet in order for them to be revealed there must be profound contemplation on the theme of G‑d as our true Father and Source of life. Such contemplation gives this natural love the additional qualitative trait achieved by “intellectual” love, so that the Torah and mitzvot which result from this love are elevated to the World ofBeriah, the World of knowledge. This is now going to be discussed:
והנה ב׳ בחינות אהבות אלו
The said two categories of love — that of “My soul...,” the love a Jew feels for G‑d upon realizing that He is his true life, and that which is “Like a son...,” loving G‑d as one’s true father —
אף שהן ירושה לנו מאבותינו, וכמו טבע בנפשותינו, וכן היראה הכלולה בהן, שהיא לירא מליפרד, חס ושלום, ממקור חיינו ואבינו האמיתי, ברוך הוא
though they are an inheritance unto us from our Patriarchs, and like a natural instinct in our souls (and so, too, as a natural instinct, is the fear that is comprised in them, namely the fear of being sundered, G‑d forbid, from the Source of our life and our true Father, blessed be He),
When one feels that G‑d is the true Source of his life he will fear to transgress, so as not to become separated from his source of life. The feeling of G‑d being one’s true father will likewise keep him from sinning, since he does not want to be torn away from his father.
Although both the above-mentioned degrees of love and fear are instinctively found within Jews,
אף על פי כן אינן נקראות בשם דחילו ורחימו טבעיים, אלא כשהן במוחו ומחשבתו לבד ותעלומות לבו, ואז מקומן בי׳ ספירות דיצירה, ולשם הן מעלות עמהן התורה והמצות הבאות מחמתן ובסיבתן
they are, nevertheless, not termed “natural” fear and love unless they be in the mind and thought alone and in the latency of the heart. Then their place is in the Ten Sefirot of Yetzirah, the place and level of the “natural” emotions, whither they raise up with them the Torah and mitzvot of which they have been the inspiration and cause.
These levels of love are the cause of the performance of one’s Torah and mitzvot, for they result from the portrayal of this love in his mind.
אבל כשהן בהתגלות לבו, נקראים רעותא דלבא בזהר
But when they (the two degrees of love) are in a manifest state in the heart, as a result of his contemplation, they are called in the Zohar, re‘uta delibba (“the heart’s desire” — a more exalted love than “natural” love),
ומקומן בי׳ ספירות דבריאה, ולשם הן מעלות עמהן התורה והמצות הבאות מחמתן
and their place is in the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, where they raise up with them the Torah and mitzvot of which they have been the cause, i.e., which have been performed with the ardor of this love.
The reason this is indeed so, notwithstanding the fact that they are “naturally” found with the soul of every Jew, is now given:
מפני שיציאתן מההעלם והסתר הלב אל בחינת גילוי היא על ידי הדעת, ותקיעת המחשבה בחוזק והתבוננות עצומה מעומקא דלבא יתיר ותדיר באין סוף ברוך הוא, איך הוא חיינו ממש ואבינו האמיתי, ברוך הוא
For their emergence from the latency and concealment of the heart into a state of revelation comes through the faculty of Daat, i.e., through a powerful fixation of the mind and an intense concentration — from the depths of the heart, powerfully and frequently — on the blessed Ein Sof, as to how He is our very life and our blessed true Father. And since his contemplation is so powerful and deep:
ומודעת זאת מה שכתוב בתיקונים כי בעולם הבריאה מקננא תמן אימא עילאה שהיא ההתבוננות באור אין סוף חיי החיים ברוך הוא, וכמאמר אליהו: בינה לבא, ובה הלב מבין
Moreover, what is written in the Tikkunim1 is well known, that “there, in the World of Beriah, nests the ‘Supernal Mother,’” i.e., the level of Binah of Atzilut, which in terms of man’s spiritual service, is the contemplation of the (infinite) light of the blessed Ein Sof, the Giver of life, blessed be He. And this is in accordance with the teaching of Elijah in Tikkunei Zohar,2 in the section beginning Patach Eliyahu: “Binah is the heart, and with it the heart understands.” This means to say that the meditation and understanding taking place in the mind illuminate the heart.
Since the contemplation of G‑dliness is related to the World of Beriah, the World which is illuminated by Binah of Atzilut,it follows that the various forms of love which are revealed through such contemplation have their place in that World as well, and it is there that they elevate one’s Torah and mitzvot.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that the two kinds of love — “My soul...” and “Like a son...” — not only have the quality of love that results from contemplation, but they also have the quality of ahavah rabbah, the love that is granted from above. For they, too, are granted from above, inasmuch as Jews inherit them from the Patriarchs, as explained earlier.
Since these two kinds of love possess all these qualities, it would seem that they should suffice, and love born wholly of intellect is superfluous. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe concludes that a Jew should also strive to attain the love that results wholly from contemplating G‑d’s greatness, because of the reasons he will soon give.
ולא עוד, אלא שב׳ בחינות אהבות אלו הנזכרות למעלה הן כלולות מן בחינת אהבה רבה וגדולה ומעולה מדחילו ורחימו שכליים, אשר האהבה נקראת לעיל בשם אהבת עולם
Furthermore, these two categories of love that have been referred to above, the love of “My soul...” and the love of “Like a son...,” incorporate a quality of love which is greater and more sublime than intelligent fear and love, the kind that result from contemplating G‑d’s greatness, the love termed above ahavat olam; these two kinds of love also partake of the quality of ahavah rabbah, which is loftier than ahavat olam.
The Rebbe explains that ahavah rabbah is rooted in Atzilut, which is far superior to Beriah, where ahavat olam is rooted. The Alter Rebbe alludes to this by saying “Furthermore”: i.e., these loves not only have the qualities of “natural” love and “intellectual” love, found in the Worlds of Yetzirah and Beriah respectively, but they also have the quality of the love ofahavah rabbah found in the World of Atzilut. This tremendous quality notwithstanding, the Alter Rebbe concludes that it is necessary to achieve the love brought about wholly through contemplation, for this love is unique in its passion and yearning for G‑dliness.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Tikkun 6. |
| 2. | Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar, 17a. |
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 1, 5776 · May 9, 2016
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 1, 5776 · May 9, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 91
Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
"But that which remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:17.
We are commanded to burn sacrificial meat that remains after the deadline for its consumption has passed.
Included in this mitzvah is also the commandment to burn sacrificial meat that is Pigul.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 91
Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
"But that which remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:17.
We are commanded to burn sacrificial meat that remains after the deadline for its consumption has passed.
Included in this mitzvah is also the commandment to burn sacrificial meat that is Pigul.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Burning Leftover Sacrificial Meat
Positive Commandment 91
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 91st mitzvah is that we are commanded to burn nosar.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "What is left over from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned in fire."
Regarding the Pascal lamb, G‑d A‑lmighty said,3 "Do not leave any of it over until morning. Anything that is left over until morning must be burned in fire." The Mechilta4 says explicitly, "This verse comes to add a positive commandment to the prohibition."
In many places in tractates Pesachim,5 and Makkos6 and elsewhere,7 our Sages say explicitly that the prohibition of nosar is a lav shenitak l'aseh, and one is therefore not punished by lashes for transgressing it.8 The aseh [positive commandment] is, as we said, "Anything that is left over until morning must be burned in fire."
The law of pigul is identical to that of nosar, as will be explained in the Prohibitions.9 This is because pigul is referred to [in Scripture10] as nosar.
The details of this mitzvah as well have been explained in tractate Pesachim11 and in the end of Temurah.12
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. sacrificial meat which was not consumed within the designated time and thereby became invalid.
2.Lev. 7:17.
3.Ex. 12:10.
4.Our version of the Mechilta does not contain this passage. It may be found in Mechilta D'Rashbi, chapter 12.
5.84a.
6.4b, 16a.
7.Sanhedrin 63a; Shavuos 3b; Chullin 82b, 91a, 141b; Temurah 4b.
8.See N120. This point is discussed here to demonstrate that the burning is counted as a positive commandment.
9.N132. One is therefore also obligated to burn pigul.
10.Lev. 7:18.
11.27b.
12.34a.
• 1 Chapter: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a dove from an unspecified group flies to free spaces or among doves that are consigned to death,1 or one of the doves dies, a second one should be taken for its pair.
Halacha 2
If it flies among [doves] that are fit to be offered, it is disqualified and it disqualifies one [of the group], for when a dove flies from an unspecified group to among those which will be offered, it becomes disqualified and it disqualifies another one corresponding to it.2
What is implied? A dove from a group of unspecified doves flies to an unspecified group of ten doves. If [the priest] offered five on the lower portion [of the altar] and six on the upper portion, five of the burnt-offerings from the six offered on the upper portion are acceptable3 and four of the sin-offerings from the five offered on the lower portion are acceptable. [The rationale is that] one says: "Perhaps the dove that flew is one of the five offered on the lower portion."4
Similarly, if he offered six on the lower portion and five on the upper portion, five sin-offerings and four burnt-offerings are acceptable. For one might say: "Perhaps the dove [that flew] is one of the five offered on the upper portion." Thus from the ten [from the second group], nine are acceptable and [the dove] disqualified one.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of four doves and another unspecified group of four doves. If one from the first group flew to the second group, it disqualified one of the second group.5 If, after it became intermingled among them,6 one of the second group flew to the first group, it disqualifies one of the first group.7 Thus there are only two doves in the first group that are acceptable.8
Halacha 4
If, again, one of the first group flew back to the second group, even if [they continue flying back and forth] the entire day, they do not add to the number disqualified,9 for even if they become entirely intermingled with each other, half are acceptable and half are disqualified, as we explained.10
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of two doves, a second group of four doves, a third of six, a fourth of eight, a fifth of ten, a sixth of twelve, and a seventh of fourteen. If one of the first group flew to the second,11 one of the second12 flew to the third, one of the third to the fourth, one of the fourth to the fifth, one of the fifth to the sixth, and one of the sixth to the seventh - and then, one flew back from group to group until one returned to the first group from which the original one had flown, one dove is disqualified in the first movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the first and second groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the third group has two; the fourth, four; the fifth, six; the sixth, eight, and the seventh, twelve.13
If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a second time and then one flew back from the last [group], going from group to group until it reaches the first, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. The third14 and the fourth groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the fifth group has two; the sixth, four, and the seventh, ten.
If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a third time and then one flew a fourth time, going from group to group, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the fifth and the sixth are disqualified entirely and the seventh has eight acceptable doves remaining, i.e., when the fourteen doves are offered [on the altar], seven on the upper portion and seven on the lower portion, eight will be acceptable and six will be disqualified because of the intermingling of the doves that flew back and forth.
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when there was] a group of doves that was unspecified and another group [in which the doves for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering] had already been specified. If one of the doves from the unspecified group flew to the group that had been specified, [the owner of the unspecified group] should take a partner for the remaining dove.15
If [the above group became intermingled and then of the doves] returned [to the unspecified group] or [at the outset,] one of the doves from the specified group flew to the unspecified group and it was not known whether it was the one designated as a burnt-offering or the one designated as the sin-offering,16 all of the doves in the unspecified group should be consigned to death. [The rationale is that] if it was the one designated as a burnt-offering that became intermingled, all of the sin-offerings [in that group] are disqualified.17 And if it was the one designated as a sin-offering that became intermingled, all of the burnt-offerings [in that group] are disqualified. Therefore,18 they should all be consigned to death.
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply when there were] a group of doves that were designated as sin-offerings on one side, others designated as burnt-offerings on the other side, and an unspecified group in the middle. If one of the unspecified group flew to the group on one side and another, to the other group, nothing is lost. Instead, the owner should say: "The one which flew to the sin offerings is a sin-offering. The one which flew to the burnt-offerings is a burnt-offering."19
If, after they became intermingled, one from each of the sides returned to the center, the two in the center should be consigned to death, for they are a burnt-offering and a sin-offering mixed together and those on the sides should be offered - these as sin-offerings and these as burnt-offerings - as was their original state.
If those [which returned to] the center flew to the sides, they must all be consigned to death for perhaps20 the burnt-offering became intermingled with the sin-offerings and the sin-offering became intermingled with the burnt-offerings.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Because they have become intermingled with a dove designated as a sin-offering.
2.
The redundancy in the Rambam's ruling is a quote fromKinim 2:1.
3.
I.e., it is obvious that one of the six offered as burnt-offerings is unacceptable, because there only five in the second group. The sixth is either one of the original group that should have been offered as a burnt-offering and is thus unacceptable. Or it is the one that flew into it, in which instance, it is unacceptable, because perhaps it was to be offered as a sin-offering. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:1).
4.
And one of the sin-offerings in that group had been offered together with the burnt-offerings.
5.
As described in the previous halachah.
6.
If, however, it is obvious that the dove that flew from the first group flew back to it, none of the doves are disqualified (ibid.).
7.
And it is disqualified itself.
8.
They should be offered one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Similarly, in the second group, only one pair of doves should be offered, for we surmise that it was one of the three that was acceptable that flew to the first group.
9.
I.e., each group has two acceptable doves and two which are disqualified.
10.
Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
11.
And became intermingled there. The dove that flies into the group is unacceptable and it disqualifies another dove in the group. Thus of the group of four, only two acceptable doves remain. This principle applies every time one dove flies from one group to another, as evident from Halachah 3.
12.
If it is discernable that the dove that flew from the first group to the second flew from the second to the third, etc., all of these rules do not apply [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:3)].
13.
More acceptable doves remain in the last group because only two doves are disqualified in each circuit, while in all the other groups four are disqualified each time.
14.
As mentioned above, all of the doves in the first and second group were disqualified in the first phase of movement.
15.
One should be offered as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. With regard to the doves from the group that had been specified. We are speaking about a situation where the identity of one of the doves - for argument's sake, the burnt-offering - is still known and the one designated as the sin-offering has become intermingled with the dove that flew into that group. Hence one burnt-offering and two sin-offerings should be offered and only one of the sin-offerings is acceptable. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:4).
16.
If, however, the identity of the dove which became intermingled is known, different laws apply, as explained in Chapter 8.
17.
The rationale is that since the doves are intermingled and it is known that one was a burnt-offering, none may be offered on the lower portion of the altar.
18.
I.e., since we do not know whether it was a burnt-offering or a sin-offering that was intermingled.
19.
Determining their identities with that statement. The fact that the priest offering the doves does not know which doves were brought by which person is not significant. See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
20.
And even the possibility warrants that the doves be consigned to death.
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 1, 5776 · May 9, 2016
• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence.1 Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul,2 if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.
Halacha 2
The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.3
What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service.4 The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal.5If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.6
If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has an disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.7
They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally,8 as will be explained.9 Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.10
Halacha 3
What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent,11 it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings.12
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy13 while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed,14there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent,15because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.16
If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.17
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal offering,21 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.
Halacha 7
These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard],22the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim,23 the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers24 of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail.25 Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices.26 This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called theallal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.
Halacha 8
A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt.
If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services,27 one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable.
What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard]28 or on the following day,29 the sacrifice is acceptable.30 [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day.
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones,giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable.31Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt,32 outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable.33 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 9
If34 one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul,35 as we explained.36 If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul.37
Halacha 10
The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.38Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.39
If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion,40 they can be combined because both are called eating.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,41 the eating is combined.42 If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion and at the time of casting [the blood on the altar], he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion, the two intents - whether concerning the place or the time - are combined. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning an olive-sized portion43 at the time he received [the blood] and [such an intent] concerning an olive-sized44portion while bringing [it to the altar, they are combined]. For all the four services [mentioned above]45 are combined and can be considered as a single service.
If one had a [disqualifying] intent regarding offering half an olive-sized portion of the handful [of meal] and [a similar intent] regarding half an olive-sized portion of the frankincense,46 they are combined. For with regard to the meal-offering, the frankincense and the handful [of meal] are considered like the eimorim for an animal sacrifice. Therefore if one had the intent to offer an olive-sized portion of frankincense at an improper time, [the meal-offering] is considered piggul, as was be explained.44
Whether one had the intent to cast all [of an animal's] blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day or had the intent to cast [only] a portion of its blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, since he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning the amount of blood sufficient to present on the altar,47 [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Note the parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:22.
2.
Vayikra Rabbah 22:7 states that even if the owner "sits and thinks [unacceptable intents] the entire day," the sacrifice is not disqualified.
3.
The Rambam proceeds to define each of these concepts.
4.
For these undesirable intents disqualify a sacrifice only when they alone are the factors that disqualify it and not when it is disqualified for other reasons [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:1)].
5.
For it is disqualified and must be disposed.
6.
He should then bring it to the altar and cast it upon it. The sacrifice is then acceptable. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 27-28, the rationale is that "individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants." Hence it is as if the blood of the sacrifice had never been taken.
7.
Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
8.
E.g., a burnt-offering is offered with the intent that it is a peace-offering.
9.
Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
10.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is implying that since the sacrifice is acceptable in these instances, even though in other instances, such a change in intent would disqualify it, a person who is not fit for Temple service is considered just like one who is. His intent is significant and could disqualify the sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions on what the Rambam bases this principle.
11.
I.e., with the intent that it be offered as another type of meal-offering.
12.
I.e., all of the other meal-offerings were brought from wheat and thus the barley used for the omer offering is unfit to be used for other meal-offerings. Hence even if one had the intent to offer it as another type of offering, that intent is of no consequence. (The meal-offering of a sotah is also brought from barley, but there are fundamental differences between it and theomer offering.)
The Rambam's understanding is based on his understanding ofMenachot 5b which states that the omer offering is a chidush, something new and different than other meal-offerings, for it is from barley, as explained. The Ra'avad follows a different version of the text which states that the omer offering is different, because it is brought fromchadash, wheat from the new harvest.
There is an advantage to the Ra'avad's understanding, because - as he explains - according to the Rambam, the same rationale could seemingly be used with regard to the sotahoffering mentioned in the second clause of the halachah. There would be no necessity to mention frankincense. The Kessef Mishneh favors the Rambam's version and explains that by mentioning frankincense, our Sages (and the Rambam) chose one of two possible answers. They could also have stated that it is unfit to be used for other offerings.
13.
The term used by Numbers 5:15,18 to describe the meal-offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery.
14.
It is forbidden to place frankincense on this offering (Numbers 5:15). Thus before the offering is brought, the frankincense must be removed and until it is removed, the offering is not fit. Hence, whatever intent the person has concerning the offering at that time is of no consequence.
15.
And it may be offered when the altar is repaired.
16.
This applies even if he had this intent while performing service in the Temple Courtyard. Since the altar is not fit for sacrifices to be offered upon it, the place is not considered as fit for service.
17.
Because the act was performed outside the Temple Courtyard, a place where sacrificial service may not be performed.
18.
The definitions given in this and the following two halachot are necessary to understand the laws stated in Halachot 8-10 (Kessef Mishneh).
19.
The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's wording is not exact, for although the blood is presented on the altar, it is not "offered on the altar's pyre."
20.
The fats and organs offered on the altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:18).
21.
I.e., what remains after the handful is removed.
22.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices.
23.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.
24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed. [The Mishnah there uses the term mourah. The spelling of that term is important, for some spell it in the same way as a term the Rambam translates as referring to one of a fowl's stomachs.]
25.
In the above source, the Rambam explains that when the feathers are removed from these places, they remain dry projections that are unfit for consumption unless the fowl is very fat.
26.
Similarly, they are not considered as meat with regard to the prohibitions against partaking of forbidden foods and the laws of ritual purity. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:18, 9:7;Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah1:7.
27.
See Halachah 2 above.
28.
I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the place.
29.
I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the time.
30.
Because the substances mentioned are not usually eaten.
31.
For these entities are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
32.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices.
33.
Because these sacrifices are not fit to be eaten. With regard to a disqualifying intent while burning these sacrifices, see Chapter 13, Halachah 8.
34.
While performing one of the four services mentioned previously.
35.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that, as stated in the following halachah, our Sages considered an animal's consumption as "eating." Hence consumption by such individuals will certainly fall into that category.
36.
In Chapter 13, Halachah 1. The fact that the person who was intended to partake of the sacrifice or offer it was impure or disqualified is not significant.
37.
See Chapter 13 which explains that the concept of piggul applies only when the disqualifying intent applies time alone.
38.
An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
39.
Because his forbidden intent is of no consequence.
40.
Zevachim 31b refers to II Kings 9:10 as support for the concept that consumption by animals can be termed achilah.
41.
I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. Generally, if a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized portion beyond this time span, it is not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to considerk'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur.
42.
For here the emphasis is not on the person's activity of eating, but on the sacrifice being eaten (Kin'at Eliyahu).
43.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read "half an olive-sized portion" and in that way fit the context of the entire halachah. The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah, however, indicate that all of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of theMishneh Torah speak of an olive-sized portion.
44.
An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15.
45.
See Halachah 2 above.
46.
The Mishneh LiMelech notes that in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the Rambam writes that two grains of frankincense are sufficient for a meal-offering to be considered acceptable. Seemingly, then, that amount should also be enough to disqualify such an offering.
47.
I.e.,. a very small amount.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices1 - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable,2 but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.3If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, he brings it to altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained.4
What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon.5
When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence.6
Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable,7 but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable.
Halacha 2
Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner8 and a meal offering of a sotah.9If while performing one of the four services10 one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable.11
What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan.12Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained.13 Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose.14
Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner.15
And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to God, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner,16 it is not acceptable.
And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering."17 And with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah, [Numbers 5:15] states: "It is a meal-offering [resulting from] envy." [The implication is that] all of the actions associated with them must be performed for that purpose.
Halacha 4
When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
Halacha 5
According to the Oral Tradition,18 was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.
Halacha 6
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.19
Halacha 7
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering,20 it is unacceptable.
Halacha 8
If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burnt-offering ,21 it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.
[The concept mentioned previously22 derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.
Halacha 9
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices].23
Halacha 10
If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant].26 Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
Halacha 11
A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal27 - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,'28
When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day29 for a different intent, it is unacceptable.30 If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable.31
[If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year32 and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.
Halacha 13
When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering,33but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.
Halacha 14
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation,34for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.35
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams,38 the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation.39If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.40
Halacha 17
When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from]tzara'at41was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement,42 accompanying offerings43 are required.44For if it were offered without accompanying offerings, it will be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.
Halacha 18
When the sheep that is brought together with the omeroffering45 was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering.46Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation.47
Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood48should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.
Halacha 19
When the sheep offered on Shavout49 where slaughtered for a different intent or they were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten50 even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar].51 If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.
Halacha 20
Similarly when the peace-offerings of a nazirite were offered for a different intent, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation, they are eaten for a day and a night52 and do not require bread.53 Similarly, when the guilt-offering of a nazirite or the guilt-offering of one [to be purified from]tzara'at54 were offered for a different intent, they are eaten, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The mention of communal sacrifices represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1, which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that a communal sacrifice slaughtered for a different intent fulfills the community's obligation. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura also follows this view. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text). Note also Rabbi Akiva Eiger's gloss who questions the initial version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah.
2.
Hence, even if one slaughtered an animal designated as a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, one should continue performing all the subsequent tasks for the sake of a burnt-offering [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. See Halachah 3.
3.
See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.
4.
Chapter 13, Halachah 4.
5.
See Halachah 3 which explains the derivation of this concept. The Mishneh LiMelech questions the Rambam's equation of sacrifices offered for a different purpose than they were originally designated and those offered for the sake of a different person. There is, he explains, a fundamental difference between them. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of another person, the owner is still considered to have fulfilled his obligation. It is only when the blood is cast on the altar for the sake of another person that he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be interpreted as referring to an instance when one slaughtered the animal with the intent to cast its blood on the altar for the sake of another person.
6.
This also represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that if an intent is supplanted in error, it is considered to be supplanted. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text).
7.
This applies even if its blood was presented on the lower portion of the altar as is the blood of a sin-offering.
8.
I.e., the mal-offering brought by a transgressor obligated to bring an adjustable guilt-offering who is very poor. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 10.
9.
A woman suspected of adultery. This meal-offering is comparable to that of a sinner.
10.
Mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 6.
11.
See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.
12.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 13, for a description of the differences between these offerings.
13.
Chapter 18, Halachah 1.
14.
The rationale is that since the sacrifice is acceptable, its functions must be performed for the proper intent.
15.
Zevachim 7a interprets the phrase cited as implying: for him and not for his colleague. See Halachah 8.
16.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), the Rambam states that the first verse teaches that the offering must be brought as a Paschal sacrifice and the second, that it must be brought for the sake of its owner. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions only the second verse and states that a Paschal sacrifice that is not offered for the proper purpose is unacceptable. See also Halachah 11.
17.
Our text reflects an amended version. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torahcontains a different prooftext.
18.
Zevachim 46b derives this principle through Biblical exegesis.
19.
I.e., even though it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, since it was not slaughtered for the sake of the sin for which the animal was originally designated, it is unacceptable.
20.
Since this is a different type of sacrifice, one might think that the situation is comparable to that stated in the following halachah, slaughtering a sin-offering for the sake of a person obligated to bring a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since both offerings atone for sins punishable by karet, they are considered as comparable. Hence the sacrifice is disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 9b).
21.
To atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment.
22.
I.e., the law stated in Halachah 7. From this concept, it is also possible to derive the law stated in this halachah, for the implication is that when one offers a sin-offering for the sake of another person who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, it is disqualified, but not when one offers it for the sake of another person who is not so obligated (Zevachim 7a).
23.
Hence the deceased person is not considered as obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore, this is not considered as an instance where one offered a sacrifice for the sake of another person obligated to bring a sacrifice.
24.
A burnt-offering to atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment.
25.
Hence he is considered to be obligated to bring a sacrifice.
Zevachim 71-7b explains that there is a difference between such a situation and a person who knows he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering (in which instance, the sin-offering is not disqualified, as stated in the previous halachah). When the person knows he must bring a burnt-offering, his atonement is associated with that offering only. When, however, he does not know that he must bring a burnt-offering, he will not seek atonement. Hence, the sin-offering he brings will bring him a certain measure of atonement for the positive commandments he did not perform. For as stated in Halachah 14, everyone has certain positive commandments that he has failed to fulfill.
26.
The Mishneh LiMelech restricts the scope of the Rambam's statements, maintaining that if at the time of slaughter or the performance of one of the other three services mentioned in Halachah 2, one has a disqualifying intent concerning receiving the blood or bringing it to the altar, the sacrifice is still acceptable.
27.
The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, because even a sin-offering is acceptable when slaughtered as an ordinary animal. The Kessef Mishnehstates that the phrase "unto God" in the prooftext excludes slaughtering the animal for ordinary purposes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud which states that the phrase "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice' excludes all other intents.
28.
See Halachot 1 and 3.
29.
The Paschal sacrifice may not be sacrificed until the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. Nevertheless, since it is offered on that day, the morning is considered "the time of its sacrifice" with regard to the disqualification of an offering.
30.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter inZevachim 1:3. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam maintaining that the more lenient opinion should be accepted. TheKessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam accepted the more stringent view because it is debated in the Talmud.
31.
For if it was slaughtered at such a time, it is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering that was slaughtered with a different intent is acceptable.
In the clause which follows, the sacrifice is unacceptable, because there is no one to partake of it and a Paschal sacrifice is brought only to be eaten (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 2).
32.
At this age, it is no longer fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice.
33.
See Leviticus 7:15 which speaks of "the thanksgiving-peace sacrifice."
34.
For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
35.
And atonement for these unknown faults will be secured by this sacrifice.
36.
The heir.
37.
For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
38.
As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.
39.
And two other sheep must be brought.
40.
As stated in Halachah 1.
41.
A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.
42.
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah4:2.
43.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.
44.
Even though the person has not fulfilled his obligation and must bring another sacrifice, he is required to bring the accompanying offerings, for the reason mentioned by the Rambam.
45.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim7:3.
46.
As would be required were it offered for the specified intent (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot2:5).
47.
In contrast to the guilt-offering mentioned in the previous halachah, it is customary to bring burnt-offerings as freewill offerings. Hence, the accompanying offerings should be brought accordingly.
48.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim2:2-3.
49.
As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings.
50.
The commentaries note that it is forbidden to offer the eimorim on the festival and question whether the intent is that the meat may be eaten on the festival or whether it is necessary to wait until the evening.
51.
For only obligatory sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath.
52.
Like the peace-offerings of a nazirite, rather than for a two days and a night like other peace offerings.
53.
Bread must be brought with the peace-offerings of a nazirite (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1).
54.
A skin malady similar to, but not identical with leprosy that renders one ritually impure.
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.
• English Text | Video Class• Monday, Iyar 1, 5776 · May 9, 2016
• "Today's Day"
Thursday Iyar 1, Second day of Rosh Chodesh, 16th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 1-9.
Tanya: The said two (p. 235) to...Ahavat Olam ("eternal love") (p.237).
At a farbrengen during the days of sefira (at some time in the years 5651-5653, 1891-1893) someone said to my father, "The Alter Rebbe's chassidim were always keeping count." My father took a great liking to the saying, and he commented: "That idea characterizes man's avoda. The hours must be 'counted hours,' then the days will be 'counted days.' When a day passes one should know what he has accomplished and what remains yet to be done... In general, one should always see to it that tomorrow should be much better than today."
• Daily Thought:
Self-Pity
Self-pity is nothing less than an impulse to self-destruction. And this is its script:
“This is the way you were made. These are the facts of your situation. It’s bad. In fact, it’s so bad, it’s impossible to do anything about it. And therefore, you are free from any responsibility to clean it up. Nobody can blame you for anything.”
Self-pity is a liar and a thief.
A liar, because everyone is granted the power to clean up their own mess. A thief, because as long as it sits inside you, it is stealing away the days of your life.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment