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 first 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 "Sixteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the sixteenth 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 sixteen days, which are two weeks and two 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: Gevurah sheb'Tifferet -- "Restraint 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:
• Passing of R. Chaim Vital (1620)
Nissan 30 is the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of the famed Kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Vital (1542?-1620), author of the mystical work Eitz Chaim. Rabbi Chaim was the leading disciple of Rabbi Isaac Luria (the "Holy Ari," 1534-1572) and the transcriber of his teachings, which form the "Lurianic" Kabbalah.
Links: About Kabbalah
Daily Quote:
The Sages taught: Always appoint at least two people together as trustees over public funds. Even Moses, of whom it is written (Numbers 12:7) "In all My house, he is trusted," figured the accounts of the Sanctuary together with others, as it says (Exodus 38:21): "By the hand of Itamar the son of Aaron."[Midrash Tanchuma]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 1st Portion Leviticus 19:1-19:14 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 19
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 145
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Rosh Chodesh Observances
Today is the first 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 "Sixteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the sixteenth 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 sixteen days, which are two weeks and two 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: Gevurah sheb'Tifferet -- "Restraint 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:
• Passing of R. Chaim Vital (1620)
Nissan 30 is the yahrtzeit (anniversary of the passing) of the famed Kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Vital (1542?-1620), author of the mystical work Eitz Chaim. Rabbi Chaim was the leading disciple of Rabbi Isaac Luria (the "Holy Ari," 1534-1572) and the transcriber of his teachings, which form the "Lurianic" Kabbalah.
Links: About Kabbalah
Daily Quote:
The Sages taught: Always appoint at least two people together as trustees over public funds. Even Moses, of whom it is written (Numbers 12:7) "In all My house, he is trusted," figured the accounts of the Sanctuary together with others, as it says (Exodus 38:21): "By the hand of Itamar the son of Aaron."[Midrash Tanchuma]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 1st Portion Leviticus 19:1-19:14 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 19
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy. בדַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־כָּל־עֲדַ֧ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֥ אֲלֵהֶ֖ם קְדשִׁ֣ים תִּֽהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel: [This] teaches us that this passage was stated in the assembly [of the entire congregation of Israel] because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it [i.e., they are encapsulated in this passage]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5]
דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל: מלמד שנאמרה פרשה זו בהקהל, מפני שרוב גופי תורה תלויין בה:
You shall be holy: Separate yourselves from sexual immorality and from sin, for wherever one finds a barrier against sexual immorality, one finds holiness, [for example:], “[They (the kohanim) shall not take in marriage] a woman who is a prostitute or one who was profaned…I, the Lord, Who sanctifies you [am holy]” (Lev. 21:7-8); and, “he shall not profane his offspring…I am the Lord, Who sanctifies him” (Lev. 21:15); and, “They shall be holy…[They shall not take in marriage] a woman who is a prostitute or one who was profaned” (Lev. 21:6-7). - [Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6; and see also Sefer Hazikkaron]
קדשים תהיו: הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה, שכל מקום שאתה מוצא גדר ערוה אתה מוצא קדושה, אשה זונה וחללה וגו' אני ה' מקדשכם, (ויקרא כא ז - ח) ולא יחלל זרעו אני ה' מקדשו (ויקרא כא טו) קדושים יהיו אשה זונה וחללה וגו' (ויקרא כא ו - ז):
3Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths. I am the Lord, your God. גאִ֣ישׁ אִמּ֤וֹ וְאָבִיו֙ תִּירָ֔אוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
Every man shall fear his mother and father: Every one of you shall fear his father and his mother. This is its simple meaning. Its Midrashic explanation, however, [is as follows]. Since the verse literally means, “Every man shall fear…,”] we know only [that this law applies to] a man; how do we know [that it applies to] a woman [as well]? When Scripture says, תִּירָאוּ [you shall fear, using the plural form], two are included [in the verse, namely, men and women]. But if this is so, why does the verse say, “Every man…?” Because a man has the ability to fulfill this [commandment without restriction, since he is independent and thus obliged to fear his parents], whereas a woman is [sometimes] under the authority of others [namely her husband. — [Kid. 30b; Torath Kohanim 19:3]
איש אמו ואביו תיראו: כל אחד מכם תיראו אביו ואמו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו אין לי אלא איש, אשה מנין, כשהוא אומר תיראו, הרי כאן שנים אם כן למה נאמר איש, שהאיש סיפק בידו לעשות, אבל אשה רשות אחרים עליה:
[Every man] shall fear his mother and his father: Here, Scripture mentions the mother before the father, because He is privy to the fact that a child fears his father more than his mother [and therefore, by mentioning the mother first, Scripture emphasizes the duty of fearing her also. However,] in the case of honoring [one’s parents], Scripture mentions the father before the mother, because He is privy to the fact that a child honors his mother more than his father, since she wins his favor by [speaking kind and loving] words. [Therefore, by mentioning the father first in the context of honor, Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him also]. — [Kid. 31a]
אמו ואביו תיראו: כאן הקדים אם לאב, לפי שגלוי לפניו שהבן ירא את אביו יותר מאמו, ובכבוד הקדים אב לאם, לפי שגלוי לפניו שהבן מכבד את אמו יותר מאביו, מפני שמשדלתו בדברים:
and you shall observe My Sabbaths: Scripture juxtaposes [the commandment of] observing the Sabbath with [that] of fearing one’s father [and mother], in order to state [the following principle]: “Although I have admonished you regarding the fear of your father, nevertheless, if he tells you to desecrate the Sabbath, do not listen to him.” And this is also the case with all the [other] commandments. — [B.M. 32a] [This is indicated by:]
ואת שבתתי תשמרו: סמך שמירת שבת למורא אב, לומר אף על פי שהזהרתיך על מורא אב, אם יאמר לך חלל את השבת אל תשמע לו, וכן בשאר כל המצות:
I am the Lord, your God: [where “your” is in the plural form, meaning to say,] both you and your father are obligated to honor Me! Therefore, do not listen to him to negate My commands. — [B.M. 32a] Now, what constitutes “fear”? One must not sit in his place, speak in his stead [when it is his father’s turn to speak] or contradict him. And what constitutes “honor”? One must give [the father and mother] food and drink, clothe them and put on their shoes, and accompany them when they enter or leave. — [Torath Kohanim 19:3; Kid. 31b]
אני ה' אלהיכם: אתה ואביך חייבים בכבודי, לפיכך לא תשמע לו לבטל את דברי. איזהו מורא, לא ישב במקומו ולא ידבר במקומו ולא יסתור את דבריו. ואיזהו כבוד, מאכיל ומשקה, מלביש ומנעיל, מכניס ומוציא:
4You shall not turn to the worthless idols, nor shall you make molten deities for yourselves. I am the Lord, your God. דאַל־תִּפְנוּ֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלִילִ֔ם וֵֽאלֹהֵי֙ מַסֵּכָ֔ה לֹ֥א תַֽעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
You shall not turn to the worthless idols: to serve them. [The term] הָאֶלִילִם stems from אַל, naught , meaning that [these idols] are considered as naught.
אל תפנו אל האלילם: לעבדם. אלילים לשון אל, כלא הוא חשוב:
molten deities: At first, they are just worthless idols. But if you turn after them, eventually, you will make them into deities. — [Torath Kohanim 19:8]
ואלהי מסכה: תחילתן אלילים הם, ואם אתה פונה אחריהם, סופך לעשותן אלהות:
nor shall you make [molten deities] for yourselves: [This verse is to be understood as two separate admonitions, the first:] “Nor shall you make” [meaning] for other people; [the second:] “for yourselves” [meaning] nor shall others make them for you. Now, if you say that [this verse is one admonition, namely,] that you shall not make [molten deities] for yourselves, but others may make [them] for you, [this cannot be so, since] it has already been stated, “You shall not have [any other deities]” (Exod. 20:3) neither your own nor those of others. — [Torath Kohanim 19:9]
לא תעשו לכם: לא תעשו לאחרים ולא אחרים לכם. ואם תאמר לא תעשו לעצמכם אבל אחרים עושין לכם, הרי כבר נאמר (שמות כ ג) לא יהיה לך, לא שלך ולא של אחרים:
5When you slaughter a peace offering to the Lord, you shall slaughter it for your acceptance. הוְכִ֧י תִזְבְּח֛וּ זֶ֥בַח שְׁלָמִ֖ים לַֽיהוָֹ֑ה לִרְצֹֽנְכֶ֖ם תִּזְבָּחֻֽהוּ:
When you slaughter…: This passage is stated only to teach us that the offerings must be slaughtered with the intent that they be eaten within this time, for if [you think that this passage comes to] fix a time limit for eating them, [this cannot be so, for] it has already been stated, “And if his sacrifice is a vow or a voluntary donation [it may be eaten]….” (Lev. 7:16). - [Torath Kohanim 19:10]
וכי תזבחו וגו': לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא ללמד שלא תהא זביחתן אלא על מנת להאכל בתוך הזמן הזה, שאם לקבוע להם זמן אכילה, הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז טז) ואם נדר או נדבה זבח קרבנו וגו':
you shall slaughter it for your acceptance: The very outset of your slaughtering [the offering] must be with the intent that [it is for the purpose of causing] contentment [to God, as it were,] for your acceptance [by Him]. For if you think an invalidating thought regarding it, [says God,] the sacrifice will not gain your acceptance before Me.
לרצנכם תזבחהו: תחלת זביחתו תהא על מנת נחת רוח שיהא לכם לרצון, שאם תחשבו עליו מחשבת פסול לא ירצה עליכם לפני:
for your acceptance: Heb., apaisement in French, appeasement. [Note that the spelling in Mikraoth Gedoloth matches the Italian appaciamento, more closely than the French. In Old French, it is spelled apayement according to Greenberg, or apaiemant according to Gukovitzki, and this form appears in many editions of Rashi.] This is according to its simple meaning. Our Rabbis, however, learned from here, that if someone was involved in another activity (מִתְעסֵּק) and accidentally slaughtered [e.g., if he threw a knife, and in its path it slaughtered an animal] designated for a holy sacrifice, it is invalid, because [in the context of sacrifices] one must intend to slaughter. — [Chul. 13a]
לרצנכם: אפיימנ"ט [פיוס]. זהו לפי פשוטו. ורבותינו למדו (חולין יג א), מכאן למתעסק בקדשים שפסול, שצריך שיתכוין לשחוט:
6It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it and on the morrow, but anything left over until the third day, shall be burned in fire. ובְּי֧וֹם זִבְחֲכֶ֛ם יֵֽאָכֵ֖ל וּמִמָּֽחֳרָ֑ת וְהַנּוֹתָר֙ עַד־י֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י בָּאֵ֖שׁ יִשָּׂרֵֽף:
It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it: When you slaughter it, you must slaughter it with the intent that you will eat it within this time limit, which I have already fixed for you [regarding that particular sacrifice]."
ביום זבחכם יאכל: כשתזבחוהו, תשחטוהו על מנת לאכלו בזמן שקבעתי לכם כבר:
7And if it would be eaten on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted. זוְאִ֛ם הֵֽאָכֹ֥ל יֵֽאָכֵ֖ל בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֑י פִּגּ֥וּל ה֖וּא לֹ֥א יֵֽרָצֶֽה:
And if it would be eaten…: If this [verse] does not refer to [an intention to eat the sacrifice] outside its time limit, since this has already been stated, “And if, [on the third day,] any of the flesh of his sacrifice would be eaten,” (Lev. 7:18) [explained there by Rashi to refer to someone who, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends, to eat it outside its time limit], it must be utilized to refer to [someone who, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends to eat it] outside its permitted location. — [Torath Kohanim 19:10] Now, one might think that if someone eats from it, he is liable to the punishment of excision [just like a sacrifice slaughtered with the intention to eat it outside its time limit]. Scripture, therefore, states, “And the person who eats from it, shall bear his sin” (Lev. 7:18)-“from it,” but not from anything like it. This excludes [from the punishment of excision, a sacrifice] slaughtered with the intention [of eating it] outside its [permitted] location. — [Zev. 29a]
ואם האכל יאכל וגו': אם אינו ענין לחוץ לזמנו, שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו וגו', תנהו ענין לחוץ למקומו. יכול יהיו חייבין כרת על אכילתו, תלמוד לומר (שם) והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא, ממנו ולא מחבירו, יצא הנשחט במחשבת חוץ למקומו:
it is abominable: Heb. פִּגּוּל, abominable, like, “and broth of abominable things (פִּגּוּלִים) is in their vessels” (Isa. 65:4).
פגול: מתועב, כמו (ישעיה סה ד) ומרק פגולים כליהם:
8And whoever eats it shall bear his sin, because he has profaned what is holy to the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from his people. חוְאֹֽכְלָיו֙ עֲוֹנ֣וֹ יִשָּׂ֔א כִּֽי־אֶת־קֹ֥דֶשׁ יְהוָֹ֖ה חִלֵּ֑ל וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵֽעַמֶּֽיהָ:
And whoever eats it, shall bear his sin: Scripture is referring to a sacrifice actually left over (נוֹתָר) [past its time limit]. But one is not punished by excision in the case of a sacrifice slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] outside its permitted location, for Scripture has already excluded this case [from the punishment of excision (see Rashi on verse 7 above)]. Rather, this verse is referring to actual נוֹתָר. [And how do we know this?] In Tractate Kereithoth (5a) we learn this through a gezeirah shavah [a Rabbinical tradition that links the word קֹדֶשׁ common to our verse and to Exod. 29:34, the latter dealing with actual נוֹתָר].
ואכליו עונו ישא: בנותר גמור הכתוב מדבר ואינו ענוש כרת על הנשחט חוץ למקומו שכבר מיעטו הכתוב. וזהו בנותר גמור מדבר. ובמסכת כריתות (ה א) למדוהו מגזירה שוה:
9When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. טוּבְקֻצְרְכֶם֙ אֶת־קְצִ֣יר אַרְצְכֶ֔ם לֹ֧א תְכַלֶּ֛ה פְּאַ֥ת שָֽׂדְךָ֖ לִקְצֹ֑ר וְלֶ֥קֶט קְצִֽירְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תְלַקֵּֽט:
You shall not fully reap the corner of your field: [meaning] that one should leave the corner at the edge of his field [unharvested]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:15]
לא תכלה פאת שדך: שיניח פאה בסוף שדהו:
gleanings of your harvest: Heb. לֶקֶט. [This refers to individual] stalks that fall down at the time of harvest. [And how many stalks constitute לֶקֶט ?] One or two; three, however, do not constitute לֶקֶט [and the owner may gather them for himself]. — [Peah 6:5]
ולקט קצירך: שבלים הנושרים בשעת קצירה אחת או שתים, אבל שלש אינן לקט:
10And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God. יוְכַרְמְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תְעוֹלֵ֔ל וּפֶ֥רֶט כַּרְמְךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְלַקֵּ֑ט לֶֽעָנִ֤י וְלַגֵּר֙ תַּֽעֲזֹ֣ב אֹתָ֔ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
And you shall not glean: Heb. לֹא תְעוֹלֵל, you shall not take the small clusters (עוֹלֵלוֹת) therein, and these are identifiable. “Which clusters עוֹלֵלוֹת ? Any one which has neither a כָּתֵף [a shoulder] or a נָטֵף [drippings].” [Peah 7:4. See Rashi Deut. 24:21 for explanation.]
לא תעולל: לא תטול עוללות שבה והן ניכרות. איזהו עוללות כל שאין לה לא כתף ולא נטף:
the [fallen] individual grapes: Heb. וּפֶרֶט. Individual grapes which fall off at the time of the vintage.
ופרט כרמך: גרגרי ענבים הנושרים בשעת בצירה:
I am the Lord, your God: A Judge Who exacts punishment; and [for this sin] I will exact from you nothing less than [your] souls, as it is said, “Do not rob a poor man…for the Lord will plead their cause, and rob those who rob them, of life” (Prov. 22: 2223). - [Torath Kohanim 19:22]
אני ה' אלהיכם: דיין להפרע ואיני גובה מכם אלא נפשות, שנאמר (משלי כב - כג) אל תגזל דל וגו' כי ה' יריב ריבם וגו':
11You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie, one man to his fellow. יאלֹ֖א תִּגְנֹ֑בוּ וְלֹֽא־תְכַֽחֲשׁ֥וּ וְלֹֽא־תְשַׁקְּר֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ בַּֽעֲמִיתֽוֹ:
You shall not steal: Heb. לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ. This is an admonition against someone stealing money, while “You shall not steal (לֹא תִגְנֹב) ” in the Ten Commandments is an admonition against stealing people [i.e., kidnapping]. [This is] a matter derived from its context [namely, “You shall not murder,” “ You shall not commit adultery,” each of which is] a capital crime, [which is the case of kidnapping but not of stealing money]. — [see Rashi on Exod. 20:13; Sanh. 86a]
לא תגנבו: אזהרה לגונב ממון, אבל לא תגנוב (שמות כ יג) שבעשרת הדברות, אזהרה לגונב נפשות, דבר הלמד מענינו, דבר שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין:
You shall not deny falsely: Since Scripture says, “and he denies it” (Lev. 5:22), he must pay the principal and [an additional] fifth [of its value], we know the punishment [involved]. But where do we find the admonition [against denying a rightful claim]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not deny falsely.”
ולא תכחשו: לפי שנאמר (ויקרא ה כב) וכחש בה, משלם קרן וחומש. למדנו עונש, אזהרה מנין, תלמוד לומר ולא תכחשו:
You shall not lie: Since Scripture says “and he…swears falsely” (Lev. 5:22), he must pay back the principal and [an additional] fifth [of its value], we know the punishment [involved]. [But] where do we find the admonition [against swearing falsely]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not lie.”
ולא תשקרו: לפי שנאמר (שם) ונשבע על שקר, ישלם קרן וחומש. למדנו עונש, אזהרה מנין, תלמוד לומר ולא תשקרו:
You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie,… You shall not swear [falsely]: If you steal, you will eventually come to deny falsely, and consequently, you will come to lie and then swear falsely. — [Torath Kohanim 19:26]
לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו: אם גנבת, סופך לכחש, סופך לשקר, סופך להשבע לשקר:
12You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby profaning the Name of your God. I am the Lord. יבוְלֹֽא־תִשָּֽׁבְע֥וּ בִשְׁמִ֖י לַשָּׁ֑קֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ֛ אֶת־שֵׁ֥ם אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall not swear falsely by My Name: Why is this stated? Since Scripture says, “You shall not take the Name of the Lord (יהוה), your God in vain” (Exod. 20:7), one might think that a person is liable only regarding the special Name [of God יהוה]. How do we know that included [also in this prohibition] are the כִּנּוּיִין [i.e., all the ancillary Names that represent various attributes of God, thus adopting the status of a “Name of God”]? Because Scripture says here, “You shall not swear falsely by My Name”- [meaning,] any Name that I have. — [Torath Kohanim 19:27]
ולא תשבעו בשמי: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר (שמות כ ז) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא, יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד, מנין לרבות כל הכנויין, תלמוד לומר ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, כל שם שיש לי:
13You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning. יגלֹא־תַֽעֲשֹׁ֥ק אֶת־רֵֽעֲךָ֖ וְלֹ֣א תִגְזֹ֑ל לֹֽא־תָלִ֞ין פְּעֻלַּ֥ת שָׂכִ֛יר אִתְּךָ֖ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר:
You shall not oppress: Heb. לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק. This refers to one who withholds a hired worker’s wages. — [Torath Kohanim 19:29]
לא תעשק: זה הכובש שכר שכיר:
shall not remain… overnight: Heb. לֹא תָלִין. This [verb] is feminine in gender, referring to פְּעֻלַּת, the wages. [Although the word תָלִין, could be understood as, “You shall not keep overnight,” i.e., a command in the second person masculine, since it always appears as an intransitive verb, Rashi prefers to interpret it as the third person feminine, referring to פְּעֻלַּת.]
לא תלין: לשון נקבה מוסב על הפעולה:
until morning: The verse is speaking about a worker hired for a day, whose departure [from his work] is at sunset. Therefore, the time for him to collect his wages is the entire night [and the employer has till dawn to pay him]. But elsewhere, Scripture says, “[You shall give him his wage on his day and not let the sun set over it,” (Deut. 24:15) [which seems to contradict our verse. However, that verse] is speaking about a worker hired for the night, the completion of whose work is at the break of dawn. Therefore, the time for him to collect his wages is the entire day because the Torah gave the employer time, namely, an עוֹנָה [a twelve-hour period] to seek money [to pay his workers]. — [B.M. 110b]
עד בקר: בשכיר יום הכתוב מדבר, שיציאתו מששקעה החמה, לפיכך זמן גבוי שכרו כל הלילה. ובמקום אחר הוא אומר (דברים כד טו) ולא תבוא עליו השמש, מדבר בשכיר לילה, שהשלמת פעולתו משיעלה עמוד השחר, לפיכך זמן גבוי שכרו כל היום, לפי שנתנה תורה זמן לבעל הבית עונה לבקש מעות:
14You shall not curse a deaf person. You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord. ידלֹֽא־תְקַלֵּ֣ל חֵרֵ֔שׁ וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל וְיָרֵ֥אתָ מֵֽאֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall not curse a deaf person: [From this verse] I know only that [one may not curse] a deaf person. But from where do I know that this [prohibition] includes [cursing] any person [even if he is not deaf]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not curse…among your people.” But if this is so [that this law is not exclusive to deaf people], why does it say here, “a deaf person?” (Exod. 22:27). [The answer is that] just as a deaf person is special insofar as he is alive, likewise, [one is prohibited from cursing] anyone who is alive. This excludes [cursing] a dead person, for he is not alive. — [Torath Kohanim 19:35]
לא תקלל חרש: אין לי אלא חרש, מנין לרבות כל אדם, תלמוד לומר (שמות כב כז) בעמך לא תאר, אם כן למה נאמר חרש, מה חרש מיוחד שהוא בחיים אף כל שהוא בחיים, יצא המת שאינו בחיים:
You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person: Before a person who is “blind” regarding a matter, you shall not give advice that is improper for him. [For instance,] do not say to someone,“ Sell your field and buy a donkey [with the proceeds], ”while [in truth,] you plan to cheat him since you yourself will take it from him [by lending him money and taking the donkey as collateral. He will not be able to take the field because a previous creditor has a lien on it.] - [Torath Kohanim 19:34]
ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל: לפני הסומא בדבר לא תתן עצה שאינה הוגנת לו, אל תאמר מכור שדך וקח לך חמור, ואתה עוקף עליו ונוטלה הימנו:
and you shall fear your God: [Why is this mentioned here?] Because this matter [of misadvising someone] is not discernible by people, whether this person had good or evil intentions, and he can avoid [being recriminated by his victim afterwards] by saying, “I meant well!” Therefore, concerning this, it says, “and you shall fear your God,” Who knows your thoughts! Likewise, concerning anything known to the one who does it, but to which no one else is privy, Scripture says, “and you shall fear your God.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:34]
ויראת מאלהיך: לפי שהדבר הזה אינו מסור לבריות לידע אם דעתו של זה לטובה או לרעה, ויכול להשמט ולומר לטובה נתכוונתי, לפיכך נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך המכיר מחשבותיך. וכן כל דבר המסור ללבו של אדם העושהו ואין שאר הבריות מכירות בו, נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 145 - 150• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 145
One who recites this psalm three times daily with absolute concentration is guaranteed a portion in the World to Come. Because of its prominence, this psalm was composed in alphabetical sequence.
1. A psalm of praise by David: I will exalt You, my God the King, and bless Your Name forever.
2. Every day I will bless You, and extol Your Name forever.
3. The Lord is great and exceedingly exalted; there is no limit to His greatness.
4. One generation to another will laud Your works, and tell of Your mighty acts.
5. I will speak of the splendor of Your glorious majesty and of Your wondrous deeds.
6. They will proclaim the might of Your awesome acts, and I will recount Your greatness.
7. They will express the remembrance of Your abounding goodness, and sing of Your righteousness.
8. The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. The Lord is good to all, and His mercies extend over all His works.
10. Lord, all Your works will give thanks to You, and Your pious ones will bless You.
11. They will declare the glory of Your kingdom, and tell of Your strength,
12. to make known to men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom.
13. Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout all generations.
14. The Lord supports all who fall, and straightens all who are bent.
15. The eyes of all look expectantly to You, and You give them their food at the proper time.
16. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
17. The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and benevolent in all His deeds.
18. The Lord is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.
19. He fulfills the desire of those who fear Him, hears their cry and delivers them.
20. The Lord watches over all who love Him, and will destroy all the wicked.
21. My mouth will utter the praise of the Lord, and let all flesh bless His holy Name forever.
Chapter 146
This psalm inspires man to repent and perform good deeds while still alive. Let him not rely on mortals who are unable to help themselves, and who may suddenly pass on. Rather, one should put his trust in God, Who is capable of carrying out all He desires.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul.
2. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praises to my God while I yet exist.
3. Do not place your trust in nobles, nor in mortal man who has not the ability to bring deliverance.
4. When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans come to naught.
5. Fortunate is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope rests upon the Lord his God.
6. He makes the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; He keeps His promise faithfully forever.
7. He renders justice to the oppressed; He gives food to the hungry; the Lord releases those who are bound.
8. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind; the Lord straightens those who are bowed; the Lord loves the righteous.
9. The Lord watches over the strangers; He gives strength to orphan and widow; He thwarts the way of the wicked.
10. The Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, throughout all generations. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 147
This psalm recounts God's greatness, and His kindness and goodness to His creations.
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to our God for He is good; praise befits Him for He is pleasant.
2. The Lord is the rebuilder of Jerusalem; He will gather the banished of Israel.
3. He heals the broken-hearted, and bandages their wounds.
4. He counts the number of the stars; He gives a name to each of them.
5. Great is our Master and abounding in might; His understanding is beyond reckoning.
6. The Lord strengthens the humble; He casts the wicked to the ground.
7. Lift your voices to the Lord in gratitude; sing to our God with the harp.
8. He covers the heaven with clouds; He prepares rain for the earth, and makes grass grow upon the mountains.
9. He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens which cry to Him.
10. He does not desire [those who place their trust in] the strength of the horse, nor does He want those who rely upon the thighs [swiftness] of man.
11. He desires those who fear Him, those who long for His kindness.
12. Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; Zion, extol your God.
13. For He has strengthened the bolts of your gates; He has blessed your children in your midst.
14. He has made peace within your borders; He satiates you with the finest of wheat.
15. He issues His command to the earth; swiftly does His word run.
16. He dispenses snow like fleece; He scatters frost like ashes.
17. He hurls His ice like morsels; who can withstand His cold?
18. He sends forth His word and melts them; He causes His wind to blow, and the waters flow.
19. He tells His words [Torah] to Jacob, His statutes and ordinances to Israel.
20. He has not done so for other nations, and they do not know [His] ordinances. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 148
The psalmist inspires one to praise God for His creations-above and below-all of which exist by God's might alone.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the celestial heights.
2. Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts.
3. Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all the shining stars.
4. Praise Him, hea-ven of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens.
5. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for He comman-ded and they were created.
6. He has established them forever, for all time; He issued a decree, and it shall not be transgressed.
7. Praise the Lord from the earth, sea-monsters and all [that dwell in] the depths;
8. fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind carrying out His command;
9. the mountains and all hills, fruit-bearing trees and all cedars;
10. the beasts and all cattle, creeping things and winged fowl;
11. kings of the earth and all nations, rulers and all judges of the land;
12. young men as well as maidens, elders with young lads.
13. Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for His Name is sublime, to Himself; its radiance [alone] is upon earth and heaven.
14. He shall raise the glory of His people, [increase] the praise of all His pious ones, the Children of Israel, the people close to Him. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 149
1. Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, [recount] His praise in the assembly of the pious.
2. Israel will rejoice in its Maker; the children of Zion will delight in their King.
3. They will praise His Name with dancing; they will sing to Him with the drum and harp.
4. For the Lord desires His people; He will adorn the humble with salvation.
5. The pious will exult in glory; they will sing upon their beds.
6. The exaltation of God is in their throat, and a double-edged sword in their hand,
7. to bring retribution upon the nations, punishment upon the peoples;
8. to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with iron fetters;
9. to execute upon them the prescribed judgment; it shall be a glory for all His pious ones. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 150
This psalm contains thirteen praises, alluding to the Thirteen Attributes (of Mercy) with which God conducts the world.
1. Praise the Lord! Praise God in His holiness; praise Him in the firmament of His strength.
2. Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness.
3. Praise Him with the call of the shofar; praise Him with harp and lyre.
4. Praise Him with timbrel and dance; praise Him with stringed instruments and flute.
5. Praise Him with resounding cymbals; praise Him with clanging cymbals.
6. Let every soul praise the Lord. Praise the Lord!
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
• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5776 · May 8, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
• ואף אם נדמה לו לכאורה שהוא כח דמיוני
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5776 · May 8, 2016
Even if it appears to him at first sight that this is an illusion, and that in truth he does not possess this love for G‑d, and thinking that he does is nothing less than deluding himself as to his true spiritual status,
לא יחוש, מאחר שהוא אמת לאמיתו מצד עצמו בבחינת אהבה מסותרת
he need not be concerned, because it is intrinsically the absolute truth even without his own spiritual service, by virtue of the “hidden love” which his soul possesses for G‑d.
רק שתועלת יציאתה אל הגילוי: כדי להביאה לידי מעשה
But the benefit derived from the spiritual service through which he effects its emergence into the open is that he should translate it into action, and when his love is in a state of concealment it cannot affect his actions.
שהוא עסק התורה והמצות שלומד ומקיים על ידי זה, כדי לעשות נחת רוח לפניו יתברך, כבן העובד את אביו
This means being occupied with the Torah and the mitzvot, which he studies and performs as a result of it,i.e., as a result of revealing this love, with the intention of causing gratification to G‑d, like a son serving his father, who does so in order to cause him gratification.
Since the revelation of this love leads in fact to increased performance, he should not be troubled by the fact that he may be deluding himself in thinking that he possesses this love when in actuality he does not — particularly since his soul does truly love G‑d.
ועל זה אמרו: מחשבה טובה, הקב״ה מצרפה למעשה, להיות גדפין לפרחא כנ״ל
Concerning this it was said that1 “a good thought is joined by the Holy One, blessed be He, to a deed,” providing it with the “wings” to soar upwards, as explained earlier, in ch. 16.
“A good thought is joined... to a deed” cannot simply mean that when one thinks about doing a good deed and then, through no fault of his own, he is unable to do it, G‑d considers it as if he had actually done it. For if this were so the expression should be, “A good thought is considered by G‑d as an actual deed.” Rather, the term “joined to” indicates that the deed was actually done, but that the thought and deed were unconnected. G‑d, in His goodness, therefore connects the thought and the deed.
When a love of G‑d is revealed within one’s heart, there is an actual connection between the thought and the deed, for the revealed love adds vitality to the performance of the deed.
However, when love of G‑d is not revealed in one’s heart and is limited to one’s mind, it is considered to be a “good thought” that is not connected to a deed. Thus when one understands that something ought to be done, but he has no love for it, then the deed will be performed without fervor.
It is therefore necessary for G‑d to connect the “good thought” with the deed, thereby ensuring that the “good thought” — the love and fear of G‑d in his mind — will elevate the Torah and mitzvot which result from it, to the world and level of the “good thought.”
והנחת רוח הוא כמשל שמחת המלך מבנו שבא אליו בצאתו מבית האסורים כנ״ל
The gratification he provides G‑d is akin, by way of the illustration used earlier,2 to the joy of a king whose son returns to him after liberation from captivity;
When the soul, G‑d’s child, is clothed in the body and animal soul, it is in a state of captivity. Through Torah and mitzvotit is liberated from this captivity and is joined with G‑d. This causes Him a joy similar to that experienced by the mortal king in the analogy.
או להיות לו דירה בתחתונים כנ״ל
or G‑d’s gratification may be from the fact that it has been made possible for Him to have a habitation among mortals, as already mentioned.
Thus, the love which is “like a son who strives for the sake of his father” can be revealed by habituating oneself (with his tongue and voice) to arouse the intention of heart and mind. The Alter Rebbe soon goes on to explain, that the love of “My soul, I desire You” may also be revealed and awakened through habitually speaking about it, when one does so in a manner where the heart will feel that G‑d is his true life, the “Life of life.”
והנה גם לבחינת נפשי אויתיך הנ״ל, קרוב הדבר מאד להוציאה מההעלם אל הגילוי על ידי ההרגל תמיד, בפיו ולבו שוין
Even in regard to the above-mentioned love, of the category of “My soul, I desire You,” it is readily possible to bring it out of its concealment into the open through constant practice, with mouth and heart in full accord, so that one’s heart should feel what his mouth utters, about G‑d’s being his true life.3
אך אם אינו יכול להוציאה אל הגילוי בלבו, אף על פי כן יכול לעסוק בתורה ומצות לשמן על ידי ציור ענין אהבה זו במחשבה שבמוחו, ומחשבה טובה, הקב״ה מצרפה כו׳
However, even if he cannot bring it (the love) into a revealed state in his heart, nevertheless he can occupy himself because of this love in the Torah and mitzvot “for their own sake” through portraying the idea of this love in his mind — and “a good thought is united by G‑d....”
It is therefore possible for his Torah and mitzvot to be elevated to the Supernal Sefirot just as if he had fulfilled them with a love revealed in his heart.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Kiddushin 40a. |
| 2. | Chs. 31, 41. |
| 3. | Earlier on, when the Alter Rebbe speaks of the two types of love — “My soul...” and “Like a son...” — he first explains the former love and then the latter. Here, however, when he speaks of the revelation of these kinds of love through “the voice rousing the devout concentration of the heart and mind,” he discusses them in opposite order. He begins by discussing at length that “it should be habitual with his tongue and voice...for He is literally our true Father.” Only later does he briefly state that “even in regard to the...love of...’My soul...,‘ it is readily possible to bring it out of its concealment... through constant practice, with mouth and heart in full accord.” Moreover, the Alter Rebbe immediately follows this with, “However, even if he cannot bring it into a revealed state in his heart....” All the above seems to indicate that the “voice rousing the devout concentration of the heart and mind” is more applicable to the love of “Like a son...” than “My soul....” The Rebbe explains why this is so. To quote: “[The love of ’Like a son...‘] necessitates that it become one’s nature to perceive that He is our Father — an intellectual and emotional concept, unconnected with physicality. It is therefore more readily understood that arousing the kavanah(through one’s voice) will be beneficial. [The love of ’My soul...,‘ by contrast,] necessitates that it become one’s nature to perceive that G‑dliness is his very life. It would seem that if his body fails to feel this (as he does feel the life of his soul — when exhausted, and so on), what benefit will be derived from the spiritual intention of the heart?” |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5776 · May 8, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 130
Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
"And the flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten"—Leviticus 7:19.
It is forbidden to eat of sacrificial meat that is ritually impure.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
"She shall not touch any holy thing"—Leviticus 12:4.
It is forbidden for a ritually impure individual to partake of sacrificial meat.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 130
Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
"And the flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten"—Leviticus 7:19.
It is forbidden to eat of sacrificial meat that is ritually impure.
Full text of this Mitzvah »• Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
Negative Commandment 130
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 130th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating sacrificial meat which has become impure.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten."
One who transgresses this prohibition by eating is punished by lashes. The Tosefta in Zevachim2 explains that when a person is pure and he eats impure meat, he receives 40 lashes. Our Sages say in the second chapter of tractate Pesachim,3 "If the person is impure, the punishment is kares, and if the meat is impure, it is [just] a prohibition."4
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:19.
2.Ch. 5
3.24a.
4.Therefore punished by lashes, not kares.
Negative Commandment 129Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
"She shall not touch any holy thing"—Leviticus 12:4.
It is forbidden for a ritually impure individual to partake of sacrificial meat.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
Negative Commandment 129
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 129th prohibition is that a person who is impure is forbidden from eating from the sacrifices.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 regarding a woman after childbirth, "She shall not touch anything holy."
The Sifra says, "The verse says, 'She shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the Temple.' Just as one who enters the Temple when impure is punished by kares, so too, one who eats from the sacrifices when impure is punished by kares."
The explanation — that the phrase, "She shall not touch," refers to one who eats — relies on the principle2 explained in tractate Makkos3 on G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "She shall not touch anything holy."
This is the passage from tractate Makkos: "For an impure person who eats sacrifices, the punishment is clearly written,4 'An impure person who eats meat of a peace-sacrifice to G‑d will be cut off [from his people].' What is the source of the actual prohibition? From the verse, 'She shall not touch anything holy.' "
The Talmud continues, "The verse, 'She shall not touch anything holy,' prohibits one from eating. You say it prohibits eating? You could think it prohibits touching! The Torah therefore writes,5 'She shall not touch anything holy and shall not enter the Sanctuary,' to compare sacrifices to the Temple: just as [entering] the Temple [when impure] is at the cost of one's life,6 so too [the prohibition regarding] the sacrifices is for something which costs one's life. And for touching, what loss of life is there!7 It must therefore refer to eating." And G‑d uses the word "touch," when it means, "eat," to teach that touching is [prohibited] like eating.8
From these passages it is clear to you that an impure person who eats from the sacrifices intentionally is punished by kares. If he does so accidentally, he must bring an adjustable sacrifice (korban oleh v'yored), as explained in Positive Commandment 72.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.9
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 12:4.
2.Chavel, 5727, translates, "willfully based on the principle," rather than, "relies on the principle." Kapach, 5731, points out that the 5718 Hebrew edition upon which Chavel's translation is based, is itself in error.
3.14b.
4.Ibid., 7:20.
5.Ibid.
6.I.e. kares.
7.Obviously that there is no kares for touching the sacrifice!
8.See Hilchos P'sulei HaMukdashin 18:12.
9.106a.
• 1 Chapter: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a sin-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with a burnt-offerings of doves or a burnt-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with sin-offerings of doves,1 even one in a myriad, they should all be consigned to death.2
When does the above apply? When their identity had been explicitly determined when they were purchased by the owner, [saying]: "This is a sin-offering. This is a burnt-offering." Different rules apply, however, of one brought doves to fulfill his obligation, some [for] a sin-offering and some for a burnt-offering, without stating explicitly [what each was, instead, they were brought] without specification and then a [dove designated as] a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering became mixed with these undesignated [doves] brought to fulfill his obligation.
Halacha 2
What are the appropriate laws? If [a dove designated as] a sin-offering becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves] brought to fulfill one's obligation, only the number of doves to be brought as sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable.3 The number of burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the sin-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a sin-offering has become intermingled with burnt-offerings.4
Halacha 3
Therefore if the unspecified [group] is [at least] twice as large as the number of sin-offerings [that became intermingled with them], half of the unspecified group is acceptable,5 and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the lower portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a sin-offering.6
Halacha 4
Similarly, if a burnt-offering7 becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves], only the number of doves to be brought as burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable. The number of sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the burnt-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a burnt-offering has become intermingled with sin-offerings.8
Whether there are more doves in the unspecified group than the number of burnt-offerings that became intermingled with them, there were more burnt-offerings than doves in the unspecified group, or they were of equal amounts, only the amount of burnt-offerings in the unspecified group are acceptable. Therefore if the unspecified group was twice as large as the number of doves that became intermingled with them, half of the unspecified group is acceptable, and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the upper portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a burnt-offering.
Halacha 5
When one unspecified group becomes intermingled with another unspecified group - whether they were all for one purpose, e.g., doves brought by zavimtogether with doves brought by zavim, or for two purposes, doves brought byzavim together with doves brought by women after childbirth, whether they were both brought by the same person, or they were brought by two separate people, if they were both similar, half are acceptable and half are disqualified.9[This applies] whether [the priest] offered all of them on the upper portion of the altar or all on the lower portion of the altar, or half were offered on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, half are always acceptable and half are always disqualified, because half [of the mixture] are burnt-offerings and half are sin-offerings and a sin-offering is offered on the lower portion of the altar and a burnt-offering is offered on the upper portion.
[To explain:] If he offered them all on the upper portion, half are acceptable and they are burnt-offerings.10 If he offered them all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.11 If half were offered on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion, half of the half offered on the upper portion are acceptable [and the other half are disqualified,] because of the mixture.12 [The acceptable ones] are burnt-offerings. And half of the half of those offered on the lower portion are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply if] two unspecified groups became intermingled with each other and one was larger than the other, e.g., one had four doves and one had six. If he offered them all on the upper portion of the altar, or all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are disqualified for the reason we explained.13 [Different laws apply] if he offered half on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion. If he did this after he asked,14 the lesser amount are acceptable.15 If he did this on his own initiative, the greater amount are acceptable.16
Halacha 7
This is the general principle: Whenever, on his initiative, the priest offered half on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, and it is impossible that [the doves of] one [owner] will not have been offered on both halves of the altar, the greater amount is acceptable.17 Since it is known that a portion of [this person's]18 sacrifices will be [offered] on the upper portion of the altar and a portion on the lower half, all of his sacrifices are acceptable.
Halacha 8
When two individuals purchase pairs of doves together or give the money for them to the priest [to purchase them], the priest may offer whichever he desires as sin-offerings and whichever he desires as burnt-offerings.19 For [the identity of the sacrifices] in the pair is determined only when purchased by the owners or when offered by the priest, as we explained.20
Halacha 9
If there were [groups of doves], some [groups of] sin-offerings and others, burnt-offerings, before a priest and he offered21 both [groups] on the upper portion of the altar or both on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.22 If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion without knowing whether it was the sin-offerings or the burnt-offerings that he offered on the lower portion, they are all unacceptable. For we surmise that it was the burnt-offering that were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.
Halacha 10
If there were three groups of doves before him:23 one sin-offerings, one burnt-offerings, and one undefined, half burnt-offerings and half sin-offerings, without the purpose [for any given dove] being defined, if he offered all of them on the upper portion or on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.24
Halacha 11
If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion,25 only the group that was undefined that was offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion is acceptable.26 It is divided between the owners27 and [the portion allotted to] each one is considered as valid for them, for the priest does not know which groups were specified [as being sin-offerings] and which one was left undefined. The two specified groups are not acceptable, because it is not known which one was offered on the upper portion of the altar and which one, on the lower portion and it is possible that the burnt-offerings were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.
FOOTNOTES
1.
As mentioned in the previous chapter and notes, a zav, a zavah, and a woman who gave birth are required to bring two doves as offerings, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. The designation of the doves for these offerings is made either by the owner at the time of purchase or - and this is the most common instance - by the priest when he offers them. If the person bringing the doves did not designate them, the doves are referred to as a chovah, which we have translated as "the unspecified group."
2.
A dove designated as a sin-offering may not be offered as a burnt-offering, nor may one designated as a burnt-offering be offered as a sin-offering, as explained in Chapter 7, Halachot 5-8. Since the identity of the dove is not known, some of the offerings will be unacceptable. Hence none are offered and instead, they are consigned to die.
3.
The rationale is that half of the doves in the unspecified group are sin-offerings. Hence even if another dove that was designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a group of four unspecified doves, there are definitely two doves that can be selected to be offered as sin-offerings (either two are from the unspecified group or one is from the unspecified group and one is the sin-offering that became intermingled).
A third sin-offering may not be brought because it is possible that the third dove is from the unspecified group and it should be designated as a burnt-offering.
4.
Either the dove designated as the sin-offering is among the three. Or the three are from the unspecified group and two are burnt-offerings and one is a sin-offering.
5.
For example, if five sin-offerings become intermingled with an unspecified group of ten, there are five acceptable sin-offerings in the intermingled group of fifteen.
6.
The expression "It appears to me" indicates a conclusion the Rambam reached through the process of deduction without any clearcut prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam is saying that all of the doves, even those which are disqualified, should be offered on the lower half of the altar. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam, asking how is it possible for him to suggest that unacceptable doves should be offered as sacrifices. (If, he states, the Rambam's intent was that all of the sin-offerings should be offered on the bottom half of the altar, that is obvious and does not need the introduction "It appears to me.")
The Kessef Mishneh states that with the expression "It appears to me," the Rambam is introducing a new idea. The previous halachah is speaking about an instance where the priest offered only half the doves in the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar. If, however, he offers more than half of the doves (half of the unspecified group and the number of doves designated as sin-offerings that became intermingled with them) on the lower half of the altar, not only is half the unspecified group acceptable, the sin-offerings that became mixed with the unspecified group are also acceptable. The priest is allowed to offer the majority of the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar because the other doves were never specified as burnt-offerings. Although they would have to be offered as burnt-offerings (and hence, are disqualified), since they were never specified as such, they may be offered on the lower half of the altar. Rav Yosef Corcus adds that according to the Rambam, the intent is the sacrifices are acceptable. It is just that the owners can fulfill their obligation only for half of them.
7.
In addition to burnt-offerings from the pairs mentioned above, this could also refer to doves donated for freewill offerings which are all burnt offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:3)].
8.
I.e., the same principles applied in Halachot 2-3 with regard to a sin-offering are applied here with regard to a burnt-offering.
9.
Here the problem is that perhaps unknowingly, the priest will be offering all the doves from one unspecified group as sin-offerings and all of the other, as burnt-offerings, instead of offering them, half and half, as required.
10.
The other half are unacceptable, because they were sin-offerings and they were offered as burnt-offerings.
11.
The other half are unacceptable, because they were burnt-offerings and they were offered as sin-offerings.
12.
As explained in note 8.
13.
In the previous halachah.
14.
I.e., he consulted with the women and asked them what he should do [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 1:4)]. Others interpret this as meaning that he consulted the court.
15.
For example, Leah brought six doves and Rachel, four. If the priest offered five on the upper portion of the altar and five on the lower portion, it is possible that three are from Leah's group and she intended for them to be sin-offerings not burnt-offerings. Hence only two of the doves offered on the upper portion are acceptable. The same applies with regard to those offered on the lower portion (see the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus).
16.
For the reason explained in the next halachah.
17.
Because the distinction of the sacrifices as burnt-offerings and sin-offerings was left to the priest to determine.
18.
I.e., the person who brought the larger group.
19.
They are all acceptable, because when offering them, he is determining which is a sin-offering and which, a burnt-offering.
20.
Chapter 5, Halachah 11.
21.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim3:2), the Rambam states that this is speaking about an instance where the groups were not intermingled. The identity of the groups was left for the priest to determine. After doing so, he forgot how he had determined the identity of the groups and offered them in the manner described. Afterwards, he remembered they were of different types and inquired what was the outcome of his deeds. If, however, the groups became intermingled at the outset, they should all be consigned to death, as stated in Halachah 1 (see Kessef Mishneh).
22.
I.e., the groups contained an equal number of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Thus if they are all offered as one type, half will be unacceptable.
23.
This too is speaking about an instance where the groups are not intermingled, but rather three groups were brought to a priest to define their status and to offer them. Afterwards, he forgot and offered them without being conscious of their different status [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].
24.
This is a combination of the previous halachah and Halachot 2 and 4.
25.
This refers to a situation similar to that described in note 23, except that here, he offered one group on the upper portion of the altar, one group one the lower portion, and one group, half and half.
26.
For it was offered as required, half on the upper portion of the altar and half, on the lower portion.
27.
Each of the people who brought sacrifices are credited with an equal share of the sacrifices offered. Thus each one is considered to have brought half their sacrifices and must bring the other half.
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5776 · May 8, 2016• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4
a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable;
b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil;
c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.
Halacha 3
If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5
Halacha 4
If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6 and it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7
Halacha 6
[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:
it was not placed in a sacred utensil,
the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,
or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10
Halacha 7
All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11 or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12 a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful...." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13 Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.
Halacha 8
When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15 of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16 "on all its frankincense."17
Halacha 9
If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugimfor every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18 it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.
Halacha 10
If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19 or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20 If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21 If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24 on an olive-sized portion25 of the meal-offering,26 he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27 unless he places an olive-sized portion28 [on the offering].
Halacha 13
Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.
Halacha 14
If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29 that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.
Halacha 15
A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.
Halacha 16
If one offered the handful [of meal30 on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31 for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32 When a meal-offering was lacking33 before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34 not placing it into a sacred vessel.
Halacha 17
When a person donates a handful35 of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36 are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38 If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.
Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40 [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.
Halacha 19
When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41 the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42
If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.
Halacha 20
If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43 was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44 or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45 If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46
Halacha 21
If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47 If one did, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 22
If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48
Halacha 23
If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49 If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50
Halacha 24
If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,51 the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].
Halacha 25
If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53 If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55 and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron].
If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56 The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57 If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58
Halacha 27
Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59 may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60 If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61 [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62 For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.
[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63
Halacha 28
When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65 or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66 They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.
Halacha 29
[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.
Halacha 30
When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67 If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
Halacha 31
If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68 it69 it should not be offered.70 If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
FOOTNOTES
1.
See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:13.
2.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by a person unacceptable, it is disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a non-priest.
3.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense.
4.
The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the deed may be corrected.
5.
The frankincense should be shifted to side before the handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful is lacking [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].
6.
Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot12:12).
7.
And the meal-offering is acceptable. TheKessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26).
8.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar.
9.
Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred utensil for each of these stages of service.
10.
Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot9b).
11.
As required for certain meal-offerings; seeLeviticus 2:6.
12.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the waving process which is necessary for certain meal-offerings.
13.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23.
14.
One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7).
15.
A handful per offering (ibid.).
16.
There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam.Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam.
17.
The use of a plural term indicates that one particle is not sufficient.
18.
Double the usual measure.
19.
Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: "You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense." See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7.
20.
Because of the transgression involved.
21.
Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified.
22.
For the violation of the above prohibition.
23.
The Rambam's wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so.
24.
Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering.
25.
For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant.
26.
Before the handful of meal is removed.
27.
I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of theMishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error.
28.
For here also anything less is not considered significant.
29.
Leviticus 7:10 speaks of a meal-offering "mixed with oil or that is dry."
30.
The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted.
31.
Although Menachot 18a states: "If salt was not placed on it, it is acceptable," it is explained (ibid. 20a): "If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did."
32.
Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other sacrifices.
33.
I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.
34.
Hence it must be complete at that time.
35.
This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13.
36.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2.
37.
Doubling the minimum requirement.
38.
And thus the offering is acceptable.
39.
Doubling the minimum requirement.
40.
On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar.
41.
The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered.
42.
See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me'ilah 3:9, et al.
43.
Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified.
44.
Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified.
45.
And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
46.
Menachot 9b derives this concept fromLeviticus 2:3: "The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons." Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants.
47.
For the handful must be taken from anisaron of flour and since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if the isaronwas brought in two containers which is unacceptable (Menachot 24a).
48.
Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity.
49.
Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner.
50.
The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above.
51.
15 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high.
52.
I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam's wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).
53.
Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved.
54.
The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified.
55.
Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection.
56.
For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering.
57.
For as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection.
58.
For they both share a connection with it.
59.
In its entirety.
60.
Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah).
61.
The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable.
62.
As the Rambam continues to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron.
63.
Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.
64.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.
65.
See ibid. 2:1.
66.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.
67.
I.e., one might desire to offer the entire mixture so that he will have fulfilled his obligation to offer the handful. This, however, is undesirable for one will have offered a meal-offering without separating the handful from it.
68.
Our translation reflects the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries have questioned it and have suggested that the text should read: "or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering." This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn't the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard printed text. Moreover, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements.
69.
In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder.
70.
Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes betal - it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance,Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not becomebetal to the remainder of the offering.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.
Halacha 4
And with regard to the showbread, if lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8 it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9 If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11
What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12 If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13 they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14
When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15 [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16 Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19 If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20 need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21
When does the above22 apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23 When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24 Its offspring does not require bread.25 [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27 and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28 The third one, however, requires bread.29
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving offering, but it does not require bread.33 It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34
Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35 Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36 The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37 If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38 [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.
Halacha 12
When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41 [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42 Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43
Halacha 14
When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44 If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45 the remainder of the breads are acceptable.
If the bread46 was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47 The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48
If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49 for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.
Halacha 15
When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50 If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54
Halacha 18
If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55 the bread is sanctified.56 If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58 the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59
FOOTNOTES
1.
See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1.
2.
Ibid. 5:1.
3.
And offered on the day following Pesach;ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.
4.
See ibid. 9:17-22.
5.
Ibid.:23.
6.
The animal offered with the loaves.
7.
The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot.
8.
Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17.
9.
In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire.
10.
According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note.
11.
Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages inMenachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.
The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi YehudahHaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.
12.
I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified.
13.
And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it.
14.
The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them. For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4).
15.
I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which the accompanying offering was brought is not nullified.
16.
For the court does not make such stipulations about them.
17.
I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peace-offering.
18.
For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.
19.
See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
20.
I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgiving-offering.
21.
The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.
22.
That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the above situations.
23.
I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgiving-offering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice.
24.
Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.
With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transformed, Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred.
25.
I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah4:1.
26.
Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.
27.
This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice.
28.
The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second.
29.
For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.
30.
For the third animal takes the place of the second.
31.
For it is not associated with the third animal.
32.
Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.
33.
For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8.
34.
For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.
35.
I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering.
36.
Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering.
37.
Setting aside a specific animal and bread.
38.
Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains.
39.
Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a).
40.
Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose.
41.
And bread should not be brought with such an offering.
As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8.
42.
Which requires bread.
43.
At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. TheKessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.
44.
The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar.
45.
Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic.
46.
This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced.
47.
Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard.
48.
And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text ofMenachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.
49.
A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18).
50.
Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated.
51.
The commentaries question why the loaves must be redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40? Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be consecrated.
52.
This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5): patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot7:3)].
53.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.
54.
For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered.
55.
See the following chapters which discuss these issues at length.
56.
Because the disqualification came at the time of the slaughter of the animal and not beforehand. Since the bread becomes sanctified, it is considered as piggul
57.
An animal that will die within a year. In these instances, since the animal was never acceptable for sacrifice - even if that was not discovered before its slaughter - the breads are not consecrated.
58.
I.e., it was slaughtered with the intent of it being offered as another type of sacrifice. In this instance, even though the disqualifying factor took place at the time the animal is slaughtered, the bread is disqualified. For based on Leviticus 7:12, the Sifra states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering.
59.
I.e., for this offering is also accompanied by bread. The same concepts also apply with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuos and the two lambs brought at that time. See Chapter 17, Halachah 18.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1 for a different purpose,2 the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3 [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose."
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4 with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5 These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place.
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.7
Halacha 2
According to the Oral Tradition,8 we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9 The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice.
Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10 the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.
Halacha 3
When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it,11 but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained.
The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.
Halacha 4
We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12
Halacha 5
A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services:melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13
Halacha 6
The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14
Halacha 7
If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15 when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
Halacha 8
Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all.
What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17
a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18 or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19
b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20
c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22 on the upper portion,
d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23 on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24 on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber,
e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it,
f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service,
g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood;
h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25
i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt26 outside its proper time or outside its proper place;
With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.
Halacha 9
We already explained27 that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30
FOOTNOTES
1.
The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6.
2.
I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
3.
Zevachim 1:1 states: "All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner's obligation with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice." Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:10.
4.
I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner.
5.
Sacrifices of the most sacred order must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.
6.
Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day.
7.
Leviticus 7:18; 19:7. The term has the implication of "rejected" (Targum Onkelos) and "abhorrent" (Rav Saadia Gaon).
8.
Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3).
9.
I.e., the verse states: "if it was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable." Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering disqualifies it from the outset.
Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah's words. The above verse uses the term: "the one who offers it," implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav ("and it will be considered"), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought.
10.
Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a twofold construction for the term "eat," haechol yaechol, our Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption: consumption by the altar and consumption by man.
11.
See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition.
12.
The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim 1:4.)
13.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that performing melikah is equivalent to slaughter and squeezing a fowl's blood on the altar equivalent to casting an animal's blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to the altar.
14.
For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim 13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal, equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal.
15.
All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable.
16.
These services are performed before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services performed before slaughter which do not disqualify an animal.
17.
All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however, we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the service intended that they be performed.
18.
While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night.
19.
Which would disqualify them.
20.
And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.
21.
Burnt-offerings.
22.
Sin-offerings.
23.
I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and individual offerings.
24.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:11.
25.
Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9).
26.
See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these sin-offerings. As related there, they are burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or on the following night.
27.
Chapter 1, Halachah 23.
28.
Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.
29.
He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it - but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi,Zevachim 16b).
30.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion inZevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest's intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam's understanding.
• English Text | Video Class• Sunday, Nissan 30, 5776 · May 8, 2016• "Today's Day"
Wednesday Nissan 30, Rosh Chodesh, 15th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 145-150.
Tanya: Even if it (p. 235)...blessed be He. (p. 235).
The following farbrengens should take place in shul: The farbrengen of s'uda shlishit,1 of Shabbat m'varchim,2 and of holidays (such as Rosh Chodesh and festive days3 of anash)4
The farbrengen of melava malka5 should be held in the private homes of anash.
FOOTNOTES
1.The third Shabbat meal.
2.The Shabbat on which the coming month is blessed.
3.Such as Chassidic festivals - Yud-tess Kislev, Yud-beis Tamuz, Yud Kislev, Yud Sh'vat, Yud-Alef Nissan, Hay Tevet, Rosh Chodesh Kislev, etc.
4.Members of the Lubavitch community.
5."Escorting the Shabbat Queen"; the Saturday night festive meal.
• Daily Thought:
Dance with the Other
As a parent and a child, as siblings who remain bonded, as two young people in love, as in any marriage that stays alive—so we are with the One Above.
One chases, the other runs away. One runs away, the other chases in longing pursuit. One initiates, the other responds. The other initiates, the one responds.
It is a dance, a game, a duet, and it plays as surely as the pulse of life.
Until one falls away. Until it seems the game is over, that all is lost and it is time to move on.
That’s when the other looks and says, “This is not an other. We are one.” And so, they return to each other’s arms.
It is a great mystery, but in that falling apart, there is found the deepest bond.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment