Torah Reading
Acharei: Leviticus 16:1 Adonai spoke with Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they tried to sacrifice before Adonai and died; 2 Adonai said to Moshe, “Tell your brother Aharon not to come at just any time into the Holy Place beyond the curtain, in front of the ark-cover which is on the ark, so that he will not die; because I appear in the cloud over the ark-cover.
3 “Here is how Aharon is to enter the Holy Place: with a young bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering. 4 He is to put on the holy linen tunic, have the linen shorts next to his bare flesh, have the linen sash wrapped around him, and be wearing the linen turban — they are the holy garments. He is to bathe his body in water and put them on.
5 “He is to take from the community of the people of Isra’el two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering. 6 Aharon is to present the bull for the sin offering which is for himself and make atonement for himself and his household. 7 He is to take the two goats and place them before Adonai at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 8 Then Aharon is to cast lots for the two goats, one lot for Adonai and the other for ‘Az’azel. 9 Aharon is to present the goat whose lot fell to Adonai and offer it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat whose lot fell to ‘Az’azel is to be presented alive to Adonai to be used for making atonement over it by sending it away into the desert for ‘Az’azel.
11 “Aharon is to present the bull of the sin offering for himself; he will make atonement for himself and his household; he is to slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself. 12 He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before Adonai and, with his hands full of ground, fragrant incense, bring it inside the curtain. 13 He is to put the incense on the fire before Adonai, so that the cloud from the incense will cover the ark-cover which is over the testimony, in order that he not die. 14 He is to take some of the bull’s blood and sprinkle it with his finger on the ark-cover toward the east; and in front of the ark-cover he is to sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 “Next, he is to slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, bring its blood inside the curtain and do with its blood as he did with the bull’s blood, sprinkling it on the ark-cover and in front of the ark-cover. 16 He will make atonement for the Holy Place because of the uncleannesses of the people of Isra’el and because of their transgressions — all their sins; and he is to do the same for the tent of meeting which is there with them right in the middle of their uncleannesses. 17 No one is to be present in the tent of meeting from the time he enters the Holy Place to make atonement until the time he comes out, having made atonement for himself, for his household and for the entire community of Isra’el.
Today's Laws & Customs:• Count "Thirteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the thirteenth 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 thirteen days, which are one week and six 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: Yesod sheb'Gevurah -- "Connection in Restraint"
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:
• Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (1943)
In the summer of 1942, about 300,000 Jews were deported from Warsaw to Treblinka. When reports of the mass murder in the killing center leaked back to the Warsaw ghetto, an organized resistance began forming, which managed to smuggle a modest chache of arms into the ghetto. On the 14th of Nissan of 1943, the remaining 35,000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (from an original 450,000) staged an organized uprising, and drove back the Nazis with a rain of bullets when they came to begin the final removal of all Jews. The Jewish resistance lasted 27 days. A heroic stand was made in an underground bunker under 18 Mila Street, where hundreds of fighters, including the 24-year-old leader of the uprising, Mordechai Anilevitch, met their death. Although the Ghetto was burned to the ground by Iyar 3, a few stray survivors hid in the rubble and fired at the Nazis for two months longer.
In tribute to the uprising, the Israeli government designated the 27th of Nissan as its official "Holocaust and Bravery Day," and in many Jewish communities the day is observed as an annual Holocaust remembrance day. But because of the halachic prohibition to conduct eulogies and other mournful events in the festive month of Nissan, the chief rabbinate of Israel, and many Jewish communities, observe instead the 10th of Tevet as a day to mourn and remember the six million, which include many whose yahrtzeit (date of passing) remains unknown.
Daily Quote:
Those who are born are destined to die, and those who died are destined to live[Ethics of the Fathers 4:22]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Acharei, 5th Portion Leviticus 17:8-18:5 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 17
8And you should say to them: Any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers who will sojourn among them, who offers up a burnt offering or [any other] sacrifice, ח וַֽאֲלֵהֶ֣ם תֹּאמַ֔ר אִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּמִן־הַגֵּ֖ר אֲשֶׁר־יָג֣וּר בְּתוֹכָ֑ם אֲשֶׁר־יַֽעֲלֶ֥ה עֹלָ֖ה אוֹ־זָֽבַח:
Who offers up a burnt-offering: [This passage] comes to make liable one who causes the limbs [of a sacrifice] to go up in smoke outside [the Temple Courtyard] like the one who slaughters [a sacrifice] outside [the Courtyard. Consequently,] if one person slaughtered [the sacrifice] and his fellow offered it up [outside the Courtyard], they are both liable [to the penalty of excision]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:103; Zev. 106a]
אשר יעלה עלה: לחייב על המקטיר איברים בחוץ כשוחט בחוץ, שאם שחט אחד והעלה חבירו שניהם חייבין:
9but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to make it [a sacrifice] to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people. טוְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ לֹ֣א יְבִיאֶ֔נּוּ לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת אֹת֖וֹ לַֽיהוָֹ֑ה וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מֵֽעַמָּֽיו:
[that man] will be cut off [from his people]: Heb. מֵעַמּוֹ, lit. from his peoples. [The plural form of “peoples” teaches us that] his offspring will be cut off as well as his own days being cut off.
ונכרת: זרעו נכרת וימיו נכרתין:
10And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. יוְאִ֨ישׁ אִ֜ישׁ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וּמִן־הַגֵּר֙ הַגָּ֣ר בְּתוֹכָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֹאכַ֖ל כָּל־דָּ֑ם וְנָֽתַתִּ֣י פָנַ֗י בַּנֶּ֨פֶשׁ֙ הָֽאֹכֶ֣לֶת אֶת־הַדָּ֔ם וְהִכְרַתִּ֥י אֹתָ֖הּ מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ:
any blood: Since Scripture says, “[For it is the blood] that atones for the soul” (next verse), one might think that a person is liable only for [eating] the blood of sanctified things, [which effects atonement]. Scripture, therefore, says here, “any blood” [to include even the blood of ordinary animals]. — [Kereithoth 4b]
כל דם: לפי שנאמר בנפש יכפר, יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על דם המוקדשים, תלמוד לומר כל דם:
I will set my attention: Heb. פָנַי. [The word פָנַי here is to be understood to mean] My פְּנַאי, i.e., My leisure. [God is saying,] “I will make Myself free (פּוֹנֶה) from all My affairs, and I will deal with this person!” - [Torath Kohanim 17:108]
ונתתי פני: פנאי שלי, פונה אני מכל עסקי ועוסק בו:
11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul. יאכִּי־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר֘ בַּדָּ֣ם הִוא֒ וַֽאֲנִ֞י נְתַתִּ֤יו לָכֶם֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־הַדָּ֥ם ה֖וּא בַּנֶּ֥פֶשׁ יְכַפֵּֽר:
For the soul of the flesh: of every creature is dependent upon the blood, and therefore, I have given it to atone for the soul of man. [In this way,] one “soul” [namely, the blood of a sacrifice] shall come and atone for another soul.
כי נפש הבשר: של כל בריה בדם היא תלויה, ולפיכך נתתיו על המזבח לכפר על נפש האדם. תבוא נפש ותכפר על הנפש:
12Therefore, I said to the children of Israel: None of you shall eat blood, and the stranger who sojourns among you shall not eat blood. יבעַל־כֵּ֤ן אָמַ֨רְתִּי֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ מִכֶּ֖ם לֹא־תֹ֣אכַל דָּ֑ם וְהַגֵּ֛ר הַגָּ֥ר בְּתֽוֹכְכֶ֖ם לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל דָּֽם:
None of you: [This phrase] comes to warn adults regarding minors [not to feed them blood]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:110; Yev. 114a]
כל נפש מכם: להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים:
13And any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, and sheds its blood, he shall cover it [the blood] with dust. יגוְאִ֨ישׁ אִ֜ישׁ מִבְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וּמִן־הַגֵּר֙ הַגָּ֣ר בְּתוֹכָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָצ֜וּד צֵ֥יד חַיָּ֛ה אוֹ־ע֖וֹף אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵֽאָכֵ֑ל וְשָׁפַךְ֙ אֶת־דָּמ֔וֹ וְכִסָּ֖הוּ בֶּֽעָפָֽר:
who traps: [Had the verse stated only this phrase,] we would know only [that this law applies to] creatures that require trapping. But how would we know [that the law includes also] geese and roosters, [which do not require trapping]? Scripture, therefore, adds [the word] צֵיד -a quarry, meaning in any way [even if not trapped]. But if so, why is it stated, “who traps”? [To teach us] that one should not eat flesh except with this preparation, [meaning, that just as one does not go out to trap every day, neither should one eat meat regularly at all his meals, as if he had to go out and trap it]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:111; Chul. 84a]
אשר יצוד: אין לי אלא ציד, אווזין ותרנגולין מנין, תלמוד לומר ציד, מכל מקום. אם כן למה נאמר אשר יצוד, שלא יאכל בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת:
that may be eaten: [This comes] to exclude unclean creatures [which are prohibited to be eaten, that their blood does not require covering]. — [Torath Kohanim 17:112]
אשר יאכל: פרט לטמאים:
14For [regarding] the soul of all flesh its blood is in its soul, and I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the soul of any flesh is its blood all who eat it shall be cut off. ידכִּי־נֶ֣פֶשׁ כָּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר דָּמ֣וֹ בְנַפְשׁוֹ֘ הוּא֒ וָֽאֹמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל דַּ֥ם כָּל־בָּשָׂ֖ר לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֑לוּ כִּ֣י נֶ֤פֶשׁ כָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ דָּמ֣וֹ הִ֔וא כָּל־אֹֽכְלָ֖יו יִכָּרֵֽת:
its blood is in its soul: Its blood is in the place of its very soul, because the soul is dependent upon it.
דמו בנפשו הוא: דמו הוא לו במקום הנפש, שהנפש תלויה בו:
for the soul of any flesh is its blood: [The word הִוא, meaning here “it is,” is feminine in gender.] “for the soul […] is the blood.” [For] the words דָּם and בָּשָׂר are masculine in gender, while the word נֶפֶשׁ is feminine in gender. [Hence, the antecedent of הִוא is נֶפֶשׁ.]
כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא: הנפש היא הדם. דם ובשר לשון זכר, נפש לשון נקבה:
15And any person, whether a native or a stranger, who eats carrion or what was torn, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in the waters, and shall remain unclean until evening, and then he shall become clean. טווְכָל־נֶ֗פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֹּאכַ֤ל נְבֵלָה֙ וּטְרֵפָ֔ה בָּֽאֶזְרָ֖ח וּבַגֵּ֑ר וְכִבֶּ֨ס בְּגָדָ֜יו וְרָחַ֥ץ בַּמַּ֛יִם וְטָמֵ֥א עַד־הָעֶ֖רֶב וְטָהֵֽר:
who eats carrion or what was torn: Scripture is speaking about the carcass of a clean bird [i.e., a kosher species of bird], which transmits defilement only at the time it is swallowed into the esophagus. And it teaches you here, that it defiles [the person], when he eats it. [The trefah, the bird mortally wounded by a wild beast, or stricken with a terminal illness, however, does not transmit defilement. Consequently,] the torn one mentioned here was written only to expound upon it. Thus we learned: One might think that the carcass of an unclean bird [also] defiles when it is swallowed into the esophagus. Scripture, therefore, says, “or what was torn,” [referring to a type of bird] that may fall under the category of טְרֵפָה [i.e., a kosher bird, which is prohibited only if it is torn], thus, excluding the case of an unclean bird, which can never fall under the category of טְרֵפָה, [because it is prohibited in any case]. - [Torath Kohanim 17:126]
אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה: בנבלת עוף טהור דבר הכתוב, שאין לה טומאה אלא בשעה שנבלעת בבית הבליעה, ולמדך כאן שמטמאה באכילתה, ואינה מטמאה במגע. וטרפה האמורה כאן לא נכתבה אלא לדרוש. וכן שנינו יכול תהא נבלת עוף טמא מטמאה בבית הבליעה, תלמוד לומר טרפה, מי שיש במינו טרפה, יצא עוף טמא שאין במינו טרפה:
16But if he does not immerse [his garments] or immerse his flesh, he shall bear his sin. טזוְאִם֙ לֹ֣א יְכַבֵּ֔ס וּבְשָׂר֖וֹ לֹ֣א יִרְחָ֑ץ וְנָשָׂ֖א עֲוֹנֽוֹ:
he shall bear his sin: If he [subsequently] eats holy sacrifices or enters the Sanctuary [in his unclean state], he is punished by excision because of this uncleanness, like all other cases of uncleanness. — [Torath Kohanim 17: 129]
ונשא עונו: אם יאכל קדש או יכנס למקדש חייב על טומאה זו ככל שאר טומאות:
[But if he does not]…immerse his flesh, he shall bear his sin: For [not] immersing his body he is punished by excision. However, for [not] immersing his garments, [and entering the Mishkan wearing them,] he is punished by lashes. — [Torath Kohanim 17:129]
ובשרו לא ירחץ ונשא עונו: על רחיצת גופו ענוש כרת ועל כבוס בגדים במלקות:
Leviticus Chapter 18
1And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: אוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord, your God. בדַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
I am the Lord, your God: I am the One Who said at Sinai, “I am the Lord, your God” (Exod. 20:2), and you accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves [at that time]; consequently, accept My decrees. Rabbi [Yehudah Hanassi] says: “It is openly known before Him, that they would eventually be scourged by [transgressing the laws of] immoral relations, in the days of Ezra. Therefore, [concerning these laws,] God came to them with the decree: I am the Lord, your God! You should know Who is placing these decrees upon you-the Judge Who exacts retribution (אלֹקִים), but Who is faithful also to pay a reward ('ה)!”- [Torath Kohanim 18:138]
אני ה' אלהיכם: אני הוא שאמרתי בסיני (שמות כ ב) אנכי ה' אלהיך, וקבלתם עליכם מלכותי, מעתה קבלו גזרותי. רבי אומר גלוי וידוע לפניו שסופן לנתק בעריות בימי עזרא, לפיכך בא עליהם בגזירה אני ה' אלהיכם, דעו מי גוזר עליכם, דיין להפרע ונאמן לשלם שכר:
3Like the practice of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelled, you shall not do, and like the practice of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do, and you shall not follow their statutes. גכְּמַֽעֲשֵׂ֧ה אֶֽרֶץ־מִצְרַ֛יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּ֖הּ לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ וּכְמַֽעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֶֽרֶץ־כְּנַ֡עַן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶתְכֶ֥ם שָׁ֨מָּ֨ה לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֔וּ וּבְחֻקֹּֽתֵיהֶ֖ם לֹ֥א תֵלֵֽכוּ:
Like the practice of the land of Egypt […and like the practice of the land of Canaan]: [This verse] informs [us] that the deeds of the Egyptians and the Canaanites were more corrupt than those of all other nations, and moreover, that the [Egyptians residing in that] region [of Egypt] in which the Israelites had dwelt, were the most corrupt of all. — [Torath Kohanim 18:138]
כמעשה ארץ מצרים: מגיד שמעשיהם של מצריים ושל כנעניים מקולקלים מכל האומות, ואותו מקום שישבו בו ישראל מקולקל מן הכל:
and like the practice of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you: [This verse] informs [us] that those [Canaanite] peoples whom the Israelites conquered, were more corrupt than any other [people, even the Egyptians]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:138]
אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה: מגיד שאותן עממין שכבשו ישראל מקולקלים יותר מכולם:
and you shall not follow their statutes: What did Scripture omit [until now] that it did not state [and includes in this clause]? However, these are their social practices, things that assumed the status of law (חָקוּק) for them, for example, [certain days set aside for attendance at] theaters and stadiums. Rabbi Meir says: These [practices referred to here,] are the “ways of the Amorites,” [the superstitious practices] enumerated by our Sages. — [see Shab. 67ab; Torath Kohanim 18: 139]
ובחקתיהם לא תלכו: מה הניח הכתוב שלא אמר, אלא אלו נמוסות שלהן, דברים החקוקין להם, כגון טרטיאות ואצטדיאות. רבי מאיר אומר אלו דרכי האמורי שמנו חכמים:
4You shall fulfill My ordinances and observe My statutes, to follow them. I am the Lord, your God. דאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֧י תַּֽעֲשׂ֛וּ וְאֶת־חֻקֹּתַ֥י תִּשְׁמְר֖וּ לָלֶ֣כֶת בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
You shall fulfill My ordinances: These are the laws stated in the Torah in justice, [i.e., which human intellect deems proper,] which, had they not been stated [in the Torah], would have been deemed worthy to be stated [e.g., not to steal, not to murder, etc.]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:140]
את משפטי תעשו: אלו דברים האמורים בתורה במשפט, שאלו לא נאמרו, היו כדאי לאמרן:
and observe My statutes: These are the “King’s decrees” [without apparent rationale to man], against which the evil inclination protests, “Why should we keep them?” Likewise, the nations of the world object to them. Examples are: [The prohibition of] eating pig and wearing shaatnez [a mixture of wool and linen] (see Lev. 19:19), and the purification procedure effected by purification water [the mixture including the ashes of the red cow] (see Num., Chapter 19). Therefore it says, “I am the Lord.” I have decreed [these] upon you; you are not permitted to exempt yourselves [from fulfilling them]. — Torath Kohanim 18:140]
ואת חקתי תשמורו: דברים שהם גזירת המלך, שיצר הרע משיב עליהם, למה לנו לשומרן, ואומות העולם משיבין עליהם, כגון אכילת חזיר ולבישת שעטנז וטהרת מי חטאת, לכך נאמר אני ה' גזרתי עליכם, אי אתם רשאים להפטר:
to follow them: Do not take leave from [studying] them, i.e., you shall not say, “I have learned the wisdom of Israel-now I will go and learn the wisdom of the [other] nations.” - [Torath Kohanim 18:141]
ללכת בהם: אל תפטר מתוכם, שלא תאמר למדתי חכמת ישראל אלך ואלמד חכמת האומות:
5You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, which a man shall do and live by them. I am the Lord. הוּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתָ֛ם הָֽאָדָ֖ם וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall observe My statutes and My ordinances: [This comes to include other details of [laws pertaining to] this passage, that Scripture did not mention explicitly. — [Torath Kohanim 18:142] Another explanation: [This clause, “You shall observe My statutes and My judgments, which a man shall do,” was added,] in order to apply “observance” (שְׁמִירָה) and fulfillment (עֲשִׂיָּה) to statutes, and to apply “observance” (שְׁמִירָה) and “fulfillment” (עֲשִׂיָּה) to ordinances. For [up till now,] Scripture had mentioned only “fulfillment” regarding ordinances and “observance” regarding statutes (see previous verse). - [Torath Kohanim 18:134]
ושמרתם את חקתי וגו': לרבות שאר דקדוקי הפרשה, שלא פרט הכתוב בהם. דבר אחר ליתן שמירה ועשייה לחוקים ושמירה ועשייה למשפטים, לפי שלא נתן אלא עשייה למשפטים ושמירה לחוקים:
and live by them: in the World-To-Come. For if you say [that the verse refers to living] in this world, does he not eventually die? [Torath Kohanim 18:134]
וחי בהם: לעולם הבא, שאם תאמר בעולם הזה, והלא סופו הוא מת:
I am the Lord: faithful to pay a reward [an attribute represented by the Name ה ]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:134]
אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 120 - 134• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
FOOTNOTES
1.Which remain hot on the inside while appearing cool to the touch (Rashi).
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
1. A song of ascents. I lift my eyes to the mountains-from where will my help come?
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 43• 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
• Thursday, Nissan 27, 5776 · May 5, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 43
• It has previously been noted that the higher level of love can come about only after one’s fear of G‑d is total. However, the lower level of love may sometimes come about, as shall soon be explained, even without being preceded by the fear of G‑d.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Nissan 27, 5776 · May 5, 2016
והנה בחינת אהבה זו, פעמים שקודמת ליראה, כפי בחינת הדעת המולידה, כנודע שהדעת כולל חסדים וגבורות, שהם אהבה ויראה
This [latter] category of love sometimes precedes fear, according to the quality of the Daat which fathers it, as is known. (1For Daat incorporates both Chassadim and Gevurot, which are love and fear; Chessed is love and Gevurah is fear. Daat reveals both these emotions. Thus, binding one’s Daat intensely to the greatness of G‑d gives rise to both feelings, fear and love,
ופעמים שהחסדים קודמים לירד ולהתגלות
and sometimes the Chassadim descend and manifest themselves first).
The Chassadim may sometimes precede the Gevurot; this means that Daat may sometimes evoke love before fear.
ולכן אפשר לרשע ובעל עבירות שיעשה תשובה מאהבה הנולדה בלבו, בזכרו את ה׳ אלקיו
Therefore it is possible for a wicked and sinful person to repent by virtue of the love that is born in his heart at the time he remembers the L‑rd his G‑d.
Although up to the point of his repentance he was wicked, and lacked a fear of G‑d, still there may be born in him a love for G‑d that will lead him to repent.
ומכל מקום, היראה גם כן כלולה בה ממילא, רק שהיא בבחינת קטנות והעלם, דהיינו, יראת חטא למרוד בו, חס ושלום, והאהבה היא בהתגלות לבו ומוחו
At any rate, fear, too, is included therein — in the love, as a matter of course, except that it is [there] in a state of “minuteness” and “concealment”, namely, as the fear of sin — of rebelling against Him, G‑d forbid, while the love is in a revealed state in his heart and mind, so that consciously the individual is only aware of a love for G‑d.
אך זהו דרך מקרה והוראת שעה בהשגחה פרטית מאת ה׳ לצורך שעה, כמעשה דרבי אלעזר בן דורדייא
However, such a case — where the wicked and sinful person should suddenly attain a love of G‑d and become a penitent — where love precedes fear is an extraordinary occurrence, and an “emergency prescription,” through G‑d’s particular providence as the occasion requires, as happened with Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya,2 who had been sinful, and suddenly became a penitent, repenting out of a love for G‑d. Indeed, so intense was his penitence that it caused his soul to depart his body.
This was an “emergency prescription” required for that occasion. For it is written3 that Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya was agilgul — the reincarnated soul — of Yochanan the High Priest, who served in that office for eighty years and then became a Sadducee.4 All the Torah and mitzvot fulfilled by Yochanan were elevated through the transmigration of his soul into the body of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya, whose life-story followed the reverse course, that of a sinner who ultimately repented out of his love for G‑d.5
אבל סדר העבודה הקבועה ותלויה בבחירת האדם, צריך להקדים תחלה קיום התורה והמצות על ידי יראה תתאה, בבחינת קטנות על כל פנים, בסור מרע ועשה טוב
However, the [regular] order of divine service, which is determined by and depends on a man’s choice, is to begin with the fulfillment of the Torah and mitzvot through yirah tata‘ah in its state of “minuteness” at least, departing from evil and doing good, i.e., refraining from committing any sins and performing all the mitzvot,
להאיר נפשו האלקית באור התורה ומצותיה
so as to illuminate his divine soul with the light of the Torah and its commandments,
ואחר כך יאיר עליה אור האהבה
whereupon the light of love will also shine upon it,
כי ואהבת בגימטריא ב׳ פעמים אור, כידוע ליודעי ח״ן
(6for the word ve‘ahavta, (“And you shall love [the L‑rd your G‑d]”) has a numerical value twice that of or(“light”), as is known to those who are familiar with the Esoteric Discipline [of the Kabbalah]).
Thus, first must come the illumination earned by the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot; only then can one be granted the illumination of experiencing a love of G‑d.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 2. | See Avodah Zarah 17a. |
| 3. | In Likkutei Torah of the AriZal, Tehillim 32. |
| 4. | See Berachot 29a. |
| 5. | The Rebbe cites the letter of the previous Rebbe, printed at the end of Kuntres HaAvodah, which states that the Alter Rebbe here speaks of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya’s love for G‑d, even though the plain meaning of the narrative would seem to highlight only his repentance. True enough, the experience of ahavat olam alone would not be expected to bring about klot hanefesh, the expiry of his soul. Both love and repentance, however, were present here; indeed, his teshuvahwas so intense that his soul left his body while he shed tears of contrition. |
| 6. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Thursday, Nissan 27, 5776 · May 5, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 132
Rejected Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
"...shall not eat of them, because they are holy"—Exodus 29:33.
It is forbidden to eat the flesh of a sacrifice that was "damaged" through an invalid thought on the part of the priest who was offering it—i.e. if the priest had in mind that the sacrifice would be consumed after the time limit for eating the sacrifice has elapsed, or if he had in mind to offer the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burnt on the altar after the proper time to do so.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 132
Rejected Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
"...shall not eat of them, because they are holy"—Exodus 29:33.
It is forbidden to eat the flesh of a sacrifice that was "damaged" through an invalid thought on the part of the priest who was offering it—i.e. if the priest had in mind that the sacrifice would be consumed after the time limit for eating the sacrifice has elapsed, or if he had in mind to offer the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burnt on the altar after the proper time to do so.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Rejected Sacrificial Meat ("Pigul")
Negative Commandment 132
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 132nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating pigul. Pigul is a sacrifice which becomes invalid because of an improper thought at the time of its slaughter or offering.1 As we explained and clarified in [the Commentary on the Mishneh] chapter 2 of Zevachim, this means that the one who performs the sacrifice had in mind that it will be eaten after the proper time or that the parts which need to be burned will be burned after the proper time.
The source of the prohibition of eating pigul is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not eat them, because they are holy," as we explained in the previous commandment.3 The punishment is derived from the verse4 in the Torah portion Tzav es Aharon regarding pigul, "If he eats from the offering on the third day, [the sacrifice] will not be accepted. It will be pigul and it will not be counted in his favor. Any person who eats it will bear his guilt."
The Oral Tradition explains that the verse refers to an offering which became invalid because of [improper] thought at the time of the offering, and this is what is called pigul; and that the phrase, "if he eats," refers only to one who had in mind that it will eaten on the third day. Our Sages say,5 "Pay attention and listen: this verse refers to one who thinks about his offering that it will be eaten on the third day." The offering becomes invalidated as a result of this thought, and one who eats from it after there was such a thought is punished by kares, as the verse says,6 "Any person who eats it will bear his guilt." [We know that this refers to kares] as it is written regarding nosar,7 "One who eats them8 shall bear his guilt [...This person shall be cut off (spiritually) from his people]." Our Sages say in tractate Kerisus9 "Don't treat a gezeira shava10 lightly, for pigul is one of the essential laws of Torah, and it is taught solely through a gezeira shava: comparing the word 'guilt' with the word 'guilt' used regarding nosar. Here it is written,11 'Any person who eats it will bear his guilt,' and there it is written,12 'One who eats them shall bear his guilt.' Just as there it refers to kares, so too here it refers to kares."
One who eats pigul accidentally must bring a sin offering.
The details of pigul and nosar have been explained in different places in Seder Kodshim.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. when receiving the blood in a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar. Hilchos P'sulei HaMukdashin, 13:4.
2.Ex. 29:33.
3.N131.
4.Lev. 7:18.
5.Zevachim 29a.
6.Lev. 7:18.
7.Ibid., 19:8.
8.See N131.
9.5a.
10.One of the 13 methods of deriving laws; when Scripture uses the same expression for two different laws. This is only valid when there is an unbroken Oral Tradition from Mt. Sinai for this comparison.
11.Lev. 7:18.
12.Ibid., 19:8.
• 1 Chapter: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering and dies, the money should be [thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.1 Similarly, when a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, another sin-offering is offered in its place, and then the [initial] money is found after atonement was achieved, [the money should be thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.2
Halacha 2
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside other money in its stead, but did not have the opportunity to purchase a sin-offering with the later funds before the first funds were found, he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.3 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.4
Halacha 3
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering in its stead, but before he sacrificed it, the [original] funds were found and the [animal was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.5 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.
Halacha 4
When a person set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside money in its stead, but was not able to purchase [an animal] as a sin-offering with it before the [first] animal was found, but it [was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
If he set aside [an animal for] a sin-offering or the money for a sin-offering, because he thought that he was obligated [to bring one] and then he discovered that he was not so obligated, [the animal or the money] is of ordinary status; it is not consecrated.8
If he set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings or the money for two [animals] because he thought was obligated to bring both and then it was discovered that he was only liable to bring one, he should bring one as a sacrifice and the other should be used for freewill offerings.9
Halacha 7
When he picks up coins in his hand or was in the process of collecting them and said: "I will bring my sin-offering from these," the remainder are not consecrated.10Similarly, it appears to me11 that an inference can be drawn [from this ruling] to [similar situations involving] other sacrifices and the remainder are not considered as consecrated.12
Halacha 8
When a person sets aside money for a meal-offering of a sinner13 and brings a meal-offering from those funds, or he set aside a meal-offering itself, and [in either of the above instances, money] was left over, the remainder should be used to bring a freewill meal-offering.14Any extra [meal15 left after] the tenth of the ephah that is brought by the High Priest as his chavitin offering16 should be left to rot.17Similarly, the remainder [of meal left after preparing] the bread for a thanksgiving offering or the bread for a nazirite's offering18 should be left to rot.19
Halacha 9
[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] pairs of doves forzavim, zavot or for women after childbirth,22 sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings should be used for freewill offerings. They should be offered as burnt-offerings, as explained.23
[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] burnt-offerings should be used for burnt-offerings, [to purchase] peace-offerings, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] meal-offerings, for meal-offerings, [to purchase] a Paschal sacrifice, for peace-offerings,24[to purchase] nazirite-offerings, for nazirite-offerings,25 [to purchase] the offerings for a particular nazirite, for [freewill] offerings to be brought by that nazirite.26
When does the ruling that [money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] a sin-offering should be used for freewill offerings apply? With regard to a fixed sin-offering. When, however, one was obligated to bring an adjustable guilt offering27 and set aside money for a sin-offering of an animal and became poor, he should bring a fowl instead.28He may transfer the holiness from those funds to the fowl and benefit from them.29 Similarly, if he set aside money for a fowl and became poor, he should bring a [meal-offering] of a tenth of an ephahinstead.30 He may transfer the holiness from those funds to [the meal] and benefit from them.
Halacha 10
If a person set aside an animal [for an adjustable guilt-offering], it contracted a disqualifying physical blemish, [and he became poor],31 it may be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a fowl.32 If, however, he set aside a fowl [for such an offering], it was disqualified, [and he became poor], he may not sell it and bring a tenth of an ephah from the proceeds of the sale, for a fowl [that was consecrated] may not be redeemed, as stated in [Hilchot] Issurei HaMizbeiach.33
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply to] all those obligated by the Torah34 to bring pairs of doves35 who set aside money for those doves. If they desired to use all the money for sin-offerings of fowl alone, they may.36 If they desire to use it for burnt-offerings of fowl, they may. Even if they had [originally] said: "This is the money for my sin-offering and this is the money for my burnt-offering," he may mix the money together and buy the two offerings together, or use the money solely for sin-offerings, or solely for burnt-offerings. [The rationale is that the identity of] pairs of doves is designated only when purchased by the owners or when offered by a priest.37
Halacha 12
Therefore if one set aside money for a pair of doves without making a determination and died, all of the money that was undetermined should be used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it is all fit to used for a burnt-offering.38
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply when someone] was obligated to bring a sin-offering and he said: "I pledge a burnt-offering," and set aside money saying: "This is for my obligation." If he desires, he may use them to bring an animal as a sin-offering or he may use them to bring an animal as a burnt-offering.39 If he died and left the money, it should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea.40
FOOTNOTES
1.
The ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering whose owner died mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Since this money was set aside to be used for a sin-offering, it may not be used for any other purpose. Hence, it should be cast in a place where no one will benefit from it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:2).
Although the term Yam HaMelech is generally translated as "the Dead Sea," it literally means "the Salt Sea." In several places in his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam interprets the term as referring to the Mediterranean.
2.
I.e., this ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering which was lost and the owner attained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, as stated in Chapter 4, op. cit.
3.
Since both sets of money were set aside for the purchase of a sin-offering, they should be used primarily for that purpose. It is preferable to purchase a more expensive animal for a sin-offering than to have more money left over to purchase burnt-offerings.
4.
Since the money was not used as of yet and the person did not yet gain atonement, any funds that remain can be used for another purpose.
5.
For the same reasoning as in the previous halachah.
6.
He should not, combine the two to purchase a single offering.
7.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.
8.
For the consecration was made in error and hence is not binding. See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.
9.
I.e., with regard to money, the money should be used to purchase freewill offerings. With regard to an animal, the animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. It should then be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings (Kessef Mishneh). Since he did not specify which of the animals should be associated with the particular sin and he is liable for one sin-offering, the remaining animal is not considered to have been consecrated in error (Rav Yosef Corcus).
10.
Since he said, "from these," the implication is that all of the coins were not consecrated, only those necessary to purchase the animal for the sin-offering.
11.
This phrase introduces a conclusion drawn by the Rambam through logic that is not based on any explicit prior Rabbinic source. The rationale is that when bringing a sin-offering it is likely that the person feels remorse and is willing to give more to attain atonement. Nevertheless, none of the extra money is consecrated. It follows logically that this principle should also apply with regard to a freewill offering in which instance the donor may not be as powerfully motivated.
12.
The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's conclusion with regard to sacrifices that one is obligated to bring, but differs with regard to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings that one gives of his own volition. In those instances, he maintains that the extra money should be used for those sacrifices. The Kessef Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam's approach.
13.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:4;Hilchot Shegagot 10:4.
14.
Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5) which states that since we are speaking about what remains after bringing a sin-offering, it should be used to bring freewill burnt-offerings.
15.
I.e., in this and the following situations, the person required to bring a meal-offering brought more than the required amount.
16.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2.
17.
For the concept that the remainder of what was set aside should be used for burnt-offerings was stated with regard to sin-offerings and not these types of sacrifices (Menachot 108a).
18.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:5 which states that the bread are integral parts of these two types of offerings.
19.
The rationale is that these breads are not considered as independent sacrifices, but as elements of the thanksgiving or nazirite offerings. Hence they were consecrated - and may only be used for - those sacrifices.
20.
For wine libations are sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. Hence the laws governing them are the same as those governing sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.
21.
Hilchot Shekalim 3-13.
22.
The requirement for these individuals to bring doves as sacrifices is mentioned inHilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.
23.
Ibid. 2:2-3, and in several instances in this and the previous chapter.
24.
For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5)].
25.
See Hilchot Nizirut 9:1 which states: "[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of [poor] nazirites, those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds." In his Commentary to the Mishnah,op. cit., the Rambam interprets this teaching as referring to nazirites who desire to pool their offerings.
26.
Since the money was designated for the offerings of that particular person, it cannot be used for the sacrifices of another nazirite.
27.
See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.
28.
As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase an animal as a sacrifice.
29.
Keritot 27b derives this law through a process of Biblical exegesis.
30.
As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase doves as a sacrifice.
31.
The bracketed additions are based onHilchot Shegagot 10:11.
32.
Even though the animal had already been purchased for the sacrifice, since it was disqualified and his status changed, he is allowed to use the proceeds from its sale to bring a lesser offering.
33.
Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4. This applies only to a fowl itself. Money set aside for a fowl may be redeemed, as stated in the previous halachah.
34.
I.e., the individuals mentioned at the beginning of Halachah 9.
35.
Generally, a pair of doves includes one to be offered as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering.
36.
The person must, however, bring another dove(s) for the other burnt- or sin-offerings, he or she is obligated to bring.
37.
I.e., if the owners specify which doves are to be offered for which specific offering, the fowl is designated for that purpose. Alternatively, if such a distinction was not made, they become designated by the priest at the time he offers them (Keritot 28a; see Chapter 8, Halachah 8).
38.
Were, however, the fowl to have been designated for sin-offerings, they would be consigned to die, as evident from Halachah 1. See also the previous chapter.
39.
The Ra'avad differs and, based on Nazir27a, maintains that the text should read: "He should not bring a sin-offering.... He should not bring a burnt-offering." He also explains that this version is preferable, for, otherwise, there would be no reason why the money mentioned in the following clause should be consigned to be destroyed. Seemingly, there is no difference between that clause and the situation mentioned in the previous halachah.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that text. Because of the difficulties, the Ra'avad raised, the Kessef Mishneh suggests a third version: If he desires to bring a sin-offering, he should. If he desires to bring a burnt-offering, he should not.
40.
According to the Rambam, since he has an obligation to bring a sin-offering and did not clarify his intent, we must accept the possibility that the money is associated with a sin-offering and must be done away with, as stated in Halachah 1.
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Nissan 27, 5776 · May 5, 2016• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated.1Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance.2Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar."3 [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.
Halacha 2
Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it,4 the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."
Halacha 3
With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar,5 if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."
Halacha 4
If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.6
Halacha 5
If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.7
Halacha 6
If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.8
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
If one changed [the order] of corners11 [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar12 or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar13 - [the sacrifice] is disqualified.14 If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.
Halacha 9
If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.
Halacha 10
When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar15 was presented below it;
if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar,16but it was presented above it;
if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple]17 and was presented on the outer altar;
if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; or
if blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],18
[in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable.19Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement.
When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],20 the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of life remains.21 Instead, an acceptable person should receive the remainder of the blood of life and cast it [on the altar] in its appropriate place.
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood22 or between two cups of blood.23 If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood],24 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations,25 four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four,26 one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture].27
If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar],28 all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel29 and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering30 is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.31
Halacha 12
If [blood from a sin-offering32 became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering]33 and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable.34 If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion.35 He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].
Halacha 13
If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building36 became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.37 If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable.38
When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside.39 If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be present outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten40 - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]."41
Halacha 14
When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship45 which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood.46
Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur47 whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there,48 was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified.49[The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed.50
Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.51
Halacha 15
If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering52 was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed.53 If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering that was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary.54 If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.55
Halacha 17
If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary,56 it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].
Halacha 18
When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.57
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.65
Halacha 22
When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood,66 it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified.67 When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.68
Halacha 23
When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal.69 Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable.
Halacha 24
If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand72 or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.
Halacha 25
When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hinmeasure,73 or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.
Halacha 26
When one arranged the limbs [of a burnt-offering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them74or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not.75 Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact, even one presentation of blood is sufficient.
2.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the corners of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement.
3.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that rather than use the method of exegesis stated inZevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in several other places in theMishneh Torah where the Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of Biblical verses even though the traditional Rabbinic approach is to derive the idea from other sources.
4.
Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner.
5.
This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yom Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered.
6.
If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of the presentations should also be made.
7.
For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Hence, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, the remaining presentations should not be made.
8.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.
9.
The Torah uses the term haza'ah, "sprinkling," with regard to the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner altar.
10.
For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant. See Zevachim 15a.
11.
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version.
12.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.
13.
See ibid.:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.
14.
Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the altar.
15.
As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar.
16.
This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices.
17.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself.
18.
The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot 57b;Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself.
19.
Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if "the blood of life" remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required.
20.
Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling.
21.
Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not performed at all. Hence, if more "blood of life" remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened.
22.
Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup.
23.
The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained.
24.
E.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot5:17.
25.
Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another.
26.
I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest corners of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. 5:6.
27.
The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments (see Zevachim8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah's commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act when doing so.
28.
See the notes to Halachah 10.
29.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11.
30.
I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar.
31.
For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar's base. It should not be poured on the altar's wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations.
32.
Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar.
33.
Which should be poured on the altar's base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus, based onZevachim 81b.
34.
As an initial preference, he should not have presented the blood on the upper portion of the altar as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there, thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be poured on the base of the altar.
35.
I.e., on the altar's base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar's base.
36.
See Halachah 10.
37.
Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary.
38.
For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner.
39.
I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner.
40.
The Kessef Mishnehnotes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text.
41.
Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten.
42.
The term huvah has as its root the word bawhich means "come," leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 16:5.
43.
See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary.
44.
For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.
45.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices.
46.
I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies.
47.
See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.
48.
But the required number of sprinklings were not completed.
49.
Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are completed.
50.
Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it.
The Ra'avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam's ruling was based and hence, objects. The Kessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam's understanding.
51.
The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable.
52.
That should be offered on the outer altar.
53.
For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains.
54.
Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified.
55.
Even if it was not sprinkled inside. TheKessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradictZevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishnehconcludes that although the Rambam's ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation.
56.
Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim92b).
57.
This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was "brought into" the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own.
58.
I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle.
59.
For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.
60.
With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25.
61.
Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard.
62.
Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal unto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar was that granting permission (but not negating, presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b).
63.
The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19.
64.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
65.
Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar's base. Yoma 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:26 states: "Its blood should be poured on the altar's base," implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there.
66.
I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice.
67.
This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. From every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of blood (Zevachim 77b).
68.
See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.
69.
In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh).
70.
Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
71.
Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh).
72.
Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam's ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the Rambam's ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced.
73.
This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:17-18.
74.
Instead of placing them above the logs.
75.
More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered on the top of the altar, it is as if they were slaughtered in the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard],1 as [Exodus 20:21] states: "You shall slaughter upon it2 your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This teaches that the entire altar is an appropriate place for the slaughter of burnt-offerings3 and peace-offerings.4
Halacha 2
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered on the top of the altar or it was slaughtered below [on the ground of the Temple Courtyard] and then brought up to the top of the altar, it should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below5 and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin should be taken down and given to the priests.6
Halacha 3
Similarly, when [other] sacrifices that had been slaughtered were brought up to the altar, they should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin and the meat should be taken down and given to the owners. The remainder [of the sacrifice] should be offered on the altar's pyre.
Why shouldn't he bring down the entire [carcass] instead of skinning it and cutting it up on the top of the altar? Because anything that is fit to be offered on the pyre7 if it was brought up to the top of the altar should not be taken down,8 as [indicated by ibid. 29:36]: "Everything that touches the altar shall be sanctified."
Does [the above principle apply] even when [the entity brought to the top of the altar] is not fit [to be offered on the altar's pyre]? It is taught [Leviticus 6:2] "It is the burnt-offering on the pyre." Just as the burnt-offering is fit to be consumed by the altar's pyre should not be taken down once it was taken up [to the altar], so too, any entity that is fit for the altar's pyre9 if it is brought up, it should not be brought down.
Halacha 4
When [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering is brought up to the top of the altar while alive, it should be brought down, because it is not yet fit [to be consumed by the altar's pyre].
Halacha 5
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
[Different rules apply] if, by contrast, sacrificial animals were left over night - whether their blood, their meat, or their fats and organs were left over night;15
a sacrificial animal was taken out of the Temple Courtyard;
it became impure or disqualified because of a disqualifying thought concerning the time [it was to be eaten] or the place [it was to be eaten];
it was sacrificed for the sake of a different offering;16
impure [priests] received its blood and cast it on the altar; [this is significant] since they are fit to perform Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity;17
when the blood was presented in an improper place;18
or sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard or their blood was received there.19
Although in all of these situations, [the sacrifices] are disqualified, if [the meat, fats, and/or organs] were brought to the top of the altar, they should not be taken down.
Halacha 8
[This is the general principle:] Whenever an entity is disqualified in the Temple Courtyard,20 the holiness [of the altar] accepts it.21 Just as when these entities were brought up, they should not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they should not be brought up a second time. For they have been disqualified.
Halacha 9
If the [altar's] fire took hold of them22 [before they were brought down from the altar], they should be brought up again [so that] they will be consumed by its fire.
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
When limbs, fats, and handfuls of meal were left overnight on the top of the altar, it is as if they were left overnight in the Temple Courtyard.25 If they were brought down from the altar, they should not be brought up again. If, however, they were not brought down, they should be offered on the altar's pyre in all situations.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When an unacceptable sacrifice and unacceptable wine libations32 were brought up to the altar, the sacrifice should not be taken down as we explained. The wine libations, [by contrast,] should be taken down.33 Similarly, when wine libations are brought independently and they were disqualified and brought to the top of the altar, they should be taken down.
Halacha 15
When melikah was performed on a fowl by a non-priest and then it was brought to the top of the altar, it should not be taken down.34 If, [by contrast,] a handful of meal was taken by a non-priest and brought to the top of the altar, it should be brought down. Even though both of these acts disqualify [the offerings], [the handful from the meal-offering] is considered as if it was never consecrated at all.35 [These laws apply to] a non-priest as well as to anyone else who is disqualified [from performing sacrificial service].36
Halacha 16
The following, however, should be taken down [even though] they were brought up to the top of the altar, anything that is not fit37 for the altar's pyre. [This includes:] the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order, the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,38 the remainder of the omer, the remainder of the meal-offerings,39 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], the showbread,40the incense offering,41 the wool that is on the heads of sheep, the hair on the beards of goats, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hoofs if they are not attached to [the animal's body].42 [In all these instances,] if [these entities] were brought to the top [of the altar], they should be brought down.
Halacha 17
If some of the oil from the handful of meal was squeezed out on a bone43[that had been laying on the altar] and then the bone was taken down, it should be returned [to the altar]. [The rationale is that] there is an unresolved doubt whether entities attached to entities that should be brought up [to the altar]44are considered as if they should be brought up as well.
Halacha 18
The inner altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it,45 but the outer altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it, as we explained.46
What is implied? When sacrifices that were disqualified are brought up to the outer altar, they should not be brought down. If an unfitting incense offering47was offered upon it, it should be brought down, because an incense offering is not fit for the outer altar. If, by contrast, a handful of meal from the meal-offering was placed on the inner altar, it should not be taken off, whether it was fit or not fit. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Just as the altar sanctifies any entity that is fit for it, so too, the ramp, and other sacred utensils, sanctify what is fit for them. For with regard to the sacred utensils, [Exodus 30:29] states: "Any entity that touches them will be sanctified." Thus when an entity that is fit for it reaches the ramp, it should not be brought down even though it is disqualified.48 Similarly, if any entity that is fit for a sacred vessel reaches a sacred vessel, it should never be redeemed even though it was disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach.49
Halacha 19
Vessels made for liquids do not consecrate solids and vessels made for solids do not consecrate liquids.
Halacha 20
Sacred vessels only consecrate [entities] in the Temple.53 Also, they only consecrate [entities placed in them] willfully,54 from their insides,55 and when intact. [The following rules apply if] a hole was made within them. If they could still be used to perform the original task for which they were used when intact, they consecrate what is placed within. If not,56 they do not consecrate [their contents].
They consecrate [their contents] only when they are full. The measures do not consecrate their contents when they are lacking unless one intends to fill them. If one does not intend to fill them, they consecrate their contents only in that [the contents] could [later] be disqualified,57but not to have them offered.58
Halacha 21
[When an entity is placed] in a sacred vessel at an inappropriate time, it is consecrated only to the extent that is disqualified, not that it should be offered.
What is implied? When an entity whose mitzvah is performed during the day is placed into a sacred vessel at night, it is disqualified.59 It should be burnt,60but not sacrificed. For example, if a handful is taken from a meal-offering at night and that handful is placed in a sacred vessel, it should be burnt.
Halacha 22
When an altar became damaged,61 all of the sacrificial animals that were in the Temple and had been slaughtered, but whose blood had not been cast on the altar, are disqualified.62 For there is no altar on which to cast the blood and [Exodus 20:21] states: "And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." Implied is that when you slaughter [your offerings,] it shall be intact and not blemished.
Halacha 23
Sacrificial animals that were alive and located in the Temple Courtyard at the time [the altar] became damaged are not disqualified. Instead, when the altar is repaired, they should be sacrificed. [The rationale is that] living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.63
Halacha 24
If animals were consecrated before the altar was built, they should be sacrificed after the altar was built, for the fact that they could not [be sacrificed] originally is not a disqualifying factor.
Halacha 25
Similarly, sacrificial meat should not be eaten while the altar is damaged, as [Leviticus 10:12] states: "You shall eat it64 as unleavened bread near the altar."65 This also applies to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity; they should not be eaten in Jerusalem while the altar is damaged until it is repaired.
FOOTNOTES
1.
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot5:2, sacrifices of the most sacred order must be sacrificed in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard. Now, the altar is located in the southern portion. Nevertheless, based on the prooftext the Rambam cites, Zevachim 85a derives that it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals on the top of the altar.
2.
The altar.
3.
Since it is acceptable for burnt-offerings, our Sages assumed that it was also acceptable for other sacrifices of the most-sacred order.
4.
Peace-offerings are sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity which may be sacrificed anywhere in the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). Nevertheless, it is necessary to state that they may be sacrificed on the top of the altar, because one might think that since there is ample space to sacrifice them, they would have to be sacrificed on the ground (Zevachim, loc. cit.; Gittin 67a).
5.
For it is not respectful to clean out the wastes on the top of the altar.
6.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:19.
7.
This refers to an entity like the carcass of a sacrifice which in its present state is not fit to be offered on the altar, but is not lacking any great tasks like slaughter.
8.
This general principle (stated in Zevachim9:1) is the subject of discussion in the following halachot.
9.
But only an article that is fit to be consumed by the fires.
10.
Unless a meal offering is consecrated in a sacred vessel, it is unacceptable.
11.
Animals forbidden to be sacrificed, e.g., one that was worshipped, one that is treifah, or one which killed a person or the like. SeeHilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.
The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention animals with disqualifying physical blemishes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:3) he rules that even if they were brought to the top of the altar, they should be brought down. And if the Rambam changed his mind, it would have been appropriate to say so explicitly. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that such animals are also included in the general category of "entities forbidden to be offered on the altar," as stated inHilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit..
12.
The leniency that every entity brought up to the altar should be offered upon it applies only to entities that were disqualified after having been fit to be offered upon it. As our Sages taught (Zevachim 84a; see Halachah 8) whenever an entity was disqualified in the Temple, if it was brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered. In this instance, these substances were never fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
13.
This addition is obvious from a comparison to the following halachah.
14.
Even though it was disqualified in the Temple, nevertheless, it was disqualified before the time its meat and/or fats and organs were to be offered on the altar's pyre (see Zevachim 84a,b).
15.
Once blood is left past sunset, it is disqualified (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot4:1) and if the meat of a burnt-offering is left overnight, it is disqualified (ibid.:2). Nevertheless, since the meat of a peace-offering is acceptable if left overnight, this is not a serious enough disqualifying factor to prevent these entities from being offered on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).
16.
See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors.
17.
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10-12.
18.
In which instance, after the fact, in many instances, the sacrifice is acceptable, as stated in Chapter 2.
19.
Rather than in the north as required (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2).
20.
Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Zevachim 84a.
21.
After the fact, as stated above.
22.
See Chapter 18, Halachah 21, where the Rambam speaks of the fire taking hold of the majority of the entity. Seemingly, that concept would apply here as well.
23.
See Chapter 13, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term.
24.
For the handful of meal is considered as an integral entity.
25.
I.e., they are disqualified. Nevertheless, they should be offered on the altar's pyre, because they are on the top of the altar.
26.
Thus even if the disqualified sacrificial entities were not placed down on the altar, but held by a person standing on the altar, the above concepts apply (see Zevachim88a). Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Talmud mentions also a situation where a person is standing in the Temple Courtyard and holds a disqualified sacrificial entity over the altar with a pole. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that since the Talmud does not reach a final decision whether such an entity should be offered on the altar's pyre or not, because of the doubt, they should not be taken down from above the altar.
27.
Certainly, this applies to the fats and the organs of sacrifices of the most sacred order (Kessef Mishneh).
28.
Instead of afterwards, as required.
29.
Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh).
30.
I.e., if one was lost, the other would be sacrificed (Rashi, Meilah 7a).
31.
The blood of the second animal should be cast on the altar and then its fats and organs offered. Since two animals were slaughtered and one offering can be carried out in a perfectly desirable manner, that is preferable to performing the offering in a manner that is effective only after the fact. Since the second animal will be offered in an effective manner, the blood of the first should not be cast on the altar. And since its blood should not be cast on the altar, the fat and the organs should not be offered on the altar's pyre (ibid.).
32.
This clause is speaking about wine libations that were brought as accompanying offerings for a sacrifice.
33.
This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:1, who maintains that for a disqualified entity to be offered on the altar, it must be fit for the altar's pyre and wine libations are poured over the altar and not on its pyre.
34.
The rationale is that in the era when sacrifices could be brought on individual altars (see the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1), it was possible for a non-priest to perform melikah on a fowl that was offered on a sacrifice. Hence, even after the Temple was built, when a non-priest performs melikah on a fowl, that act is significant enough to endow with holiness to the extent that if the fowl is brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered on the pyre (Zevachim 69a).
35.
One might ask: Why isn't the handful of meal acceptable? When offerings were brought on an individual altar, a handful of meal could also be separated by a non-priest. In resolution, however, it is explained that in the Temple, the handful of meal was afterwards placed in a sacred utensil (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12) and then offered on the altar and such service was not performed by a non-priest on an individual altar (Zevachim, loc. cit.).
36.
E.g., a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity; one who is intoxicated; one in the state of severe onein mourning (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah).
37.
I.e., halachically not fit to be offered, but either eaten, offered on the inner altar, or discarded.
38.
The meat of these sacrifices should not be offered on the altar, but rather eaten by the priests and, with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the owners.
39.
After a handful of meal is taken from theomer and the meal-offerings, the remainder should not be offered on the altar, but eaten by the priests.
40.
These breads are eaten by the priests.
41.
This is not fit to be offered on the pyre of the outer altar, but instead, on coals on the inner altar.
42.
Once these entities are separated from an animal's body, they should be discarded rather than offered on the altar's pyre. SeeHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:2.
43.
The Rambam's ruling is derived from the version of Menachot 23a in his possession. Ra'avad, Rashi, as well as the standard published text of that passage follow a different version which reads eitzim, wood, rather than etzem,, bone.
44.
The oil is the entity that should be returned to the altar and the bone is the entity attached to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). Although on its own accord, the bone should not be returned to the altar as stated in the previous halachah, since it is attached to the oil, it should be returned, lest this be considered as treating sacred articles with disdain (Kessef Mishneh).
45.
The inner altar has an added measure of holiness, because it was anointed and thus is comparable to a sacred vessel (Rashi,Zevachim 23b).
46.
See Halachah 16.
47.
This includes all incense offerings, because no incense offerings are ever offered on the outer altar.
48.
Instead, it should be offered on the altar's pyre.
49.
Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.
50.
Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash 1:16-17. The rationale is that these vessels were anointed only for the sake of measuring and only for measuring the particular types of substances - liquids or solids - intended for them.
51.
The receptacles used to receive the blood from the sacrificial animal and then cast it on the altar.
52.
Since they were anointed to serve as receptacles, they consecrate anything placed inside of them.
53.
If, by contrast, an entity is placed within a sacred vessel outside the Temple Courtyard, it is not consecrated.
54.
And not something that fell in accidentally.
55.
If, however, solids are piled up over the edges of a sacred container, they are not consecrated. Note the apparent contrast toHilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19 which states that liquid measures consecrate the overflow that drips down their sides.
56.
I.e., the hole prevents them from being used as a container.
57.
I.e., if they remained overnight or were taken out of the Temple Courtyard.
58.
This refers to offerings of flour and the like. As mentioned in the previous halachah, blood that is placed in such utensils is sanctified to be offered on the altar.
59.
I.e., placing it in the sacred utensil is significant - for if it was not significant, it would not have been disqualified, and would have been able to be used on the following day.
60.
As are sacred entities which became disqualified.
61.
The square of the altar must be totally intact, even a slight chip disqualifies it, as stated inHilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14-16; 2:18.
62.
Even if the altar is repaired before sunset, the blood of these sacrifices should not be cast upon it. Since at the outset, the altar was fit to have their blood cast upon it and then there was a time when that service could not be performed, the blood is disqualified forever.
63.
This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 6, Halachah 1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; et al.
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:15, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's initial position on the matter.
64.
The meal-offering brought as part of the dedication of the altar. As the verse states, it was considered as a sacrifice of the most holy order.
65.
Zevachim 60a explains that there is no obligation to eat sacrificial food near the altar. Rather the intent is as explained here.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
[All of the following:]
a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and
d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement,1 should be consigned to die.
[In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt2 if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.3Therefore4 it should be consigned to death.
What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher.
All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured - whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit5- should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold.6 The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings.7
Halacha 2
When the bull11 and/or the goat12 of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings.13 [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities14 are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found].
Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].15
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death.16 If he asks the advice [of the court],17 he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.18
If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed.19If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar],20 it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].21 If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.22
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish].23 If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture.24 If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.25
Halacha 5
When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety,26 he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 6
When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.27
Halacha 7
If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed,28 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.
Halacha 8
Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement,29 - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed30 - it is not consigned to death.31 Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed,32 since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.
Halacha 9
If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death].33
Halacha 10
If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it].36 Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
Halacha 11
All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.
Halacha 14
When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive.
When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained.39[Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering.40 [If] its owner died or received atonement,41 it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
Halacha 15
[If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself,42 it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.43
Halacha 16
When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.44 [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering.45If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.46
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
If, however, an ordinary person49 set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering,50a king51 set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering,52 or an anointed priest set aside a cow,53 these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated,54 nor is their worth consecrated.55 Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.56
Halacha 19
[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering57and then discovered that he did not sin58 or that he definitely sinned.59 [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.60 [The rationale61 is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses62 and the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah,63[the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out64 and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified.65 If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.66
Halacha 20
[This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal.67 There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried.68If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.69
Halacha 21
When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety,70 he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.71[Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.72 Needless to say,73 this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.
Halacha 22
All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life74 and their price should be [two] silvershekalim75 with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at76 and the guilt offering brought by a nazirite77 which should be brought in their first year of life78 and their cost has no limit.
A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones.79According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim.
Halacha 23
If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance].80 He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.
Halacha 24
If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] onesela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement,81 it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own,82a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property.83
If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable.84 If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained.85 To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared.
Halacha 25
[The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering86 and the other should be left to be pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.87
Halacha 26
If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old,88and instead, brought one that was two years old,89 brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come,90 it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day91 and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.
This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guilt-offering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.92
Halacha 27
When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite,93 a woman who gives birth,94 or a person who is being purified after tza'arat,95was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come,96 it is acceptable97 and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought.
This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13.
2.
The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented.
3.
When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.
4.
For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed.
5.
It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.
6.
When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.
7.
I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].
8.
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring.
9.
Hilchot Temurah 1:1.
10.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.
11.
Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1
12.
The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.).
13.
The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests.
14.
See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.
15.
For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.
16.
Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi,Temurah 23a).
This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov toTemurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above.
17.
And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death.
18.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.
19.
And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above.
20.
The act that brings about atonement.
21.
This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]."
22.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
23.
Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death.
24.
For the same reason as stated in the previous note.
25.
For both of these share a direct connection with the second.
26.
So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering."
27.
And he can offer either as a sacrifice.
28.
A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.
29.
Through the offering of another sacrifice.
30.
And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. TheKessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate.
31.
According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death.
32.
In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death.
33.
As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.
34.
Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.
35.
Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.
36.
As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.
37.
Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal's existence, it is not consigned to death.
38.
As stated in Halachah 1.
39.
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to performsemichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.
40.
The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot1:6.
41.
Through the sacrifice of another animal.
42.
I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering.
43.
For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.
44.
All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.
45.
For it was consecrated for that purpose.
46.
If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.
47.
All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.
48.
The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.
49.
In contrast to a king or a High Priest.
50.
All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15).
51.
This is the interpretation of the term nasiused by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot15:6).
52.
Instead of a he-goat as required.
53.
Instead of a bull as required.
54.
So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.
55.
In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.
56.
The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution.
57.
Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering,
58.
In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all.
59.
In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead.
60.
I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.
61.
I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated.
62.
I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat.
63.
Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).
Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well.
64.
In the drainage channel.
65.
See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
66.
For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.
67.
Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all.
68.
I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.
69.
See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
70.
I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.
71.
As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.
72.
Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances.
73.
The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.
74.
More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old.
75.
As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man.
76.
A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12.
77.
When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12.
78.
As specifically stated in the Torah.
79.
This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torahand in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by theKessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice.
80.
He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less.
81.
I.e., when it was sacrificed.
82.
I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus).
83.
I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.
84.
For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount.
85.
Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.
86.
Since it is of the required worth.
87.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if there is any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.
88.
I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite.
89.
As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings.
90.
E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unaceeptable.
91.
We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (seePesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.
92.
Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.
93.
When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.
94.
The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned inLeviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah1:3..
95.
See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.
96.
See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus.
97.
I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.
• English Text | Video Class• Thursday, Nissan 27, 5776 · May 5, 2016• "Today's Day"
Sunday Nissan 27, 12th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: This quality of (p. 231)...The Esoteric Discipline. (p. 231).
The permissible, when done for one's pleasure,1 is completely evil, as the Alter Rebbe writes in Tanya, Chapter 7, for we are commanded, "sanctify yourself with what is permitted to you."2 One must introduce sanctity into those matters that are permissible so that they serve the purpose of enhancing one's Torah, mitzvot, fear-of-G-d and good character traits.
FOOTNOTES
1.E.g. eating kosher meat but like a glutton, etc.
2.Vayikra 19:2 and Ramban; Yevamot 20a.
• Daily Thought:
G-d's Question
Before He brought the cosmos into being, all that now exists was no more than a question in His mind, a counterpoint of ideas, pondering, “Should it be? Or should it not?”
Then, from that thought He created all things, and out of all things He formed Adam.
“And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Adam became a living being.”
So Adam awoke and he began to ponder: Is there really a world? Should there be a world? Why should there be anything at all? Is it worthwhile?
And now that is the struggle within each of us.[Maamar Zeh Hayom 5741, sec. 5.]
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment