Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Eighteen Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the eighteenth 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 eighteen days, which are two weeks and four 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: Netzach sheb'Tifferet -- "Ambition in Harmony"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod,Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• Maharash Born (1834)
The fourth Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn (1834-1882), known by the acronym "Maharash", was born in the town of Lubavitch (White Russia) on the 2nd of Iyar of the year 5594 from creation (1834). His father, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (the 3rd Chabad Rebbe, known as the "Tzemach Tzeddek") once remarked that Rabbi Shmuel's birthday, coinciding with the 17th day of the Omer Count, is defined by the Kabbalistic masters as Tifferet sheb'Tifferet ("Beauty of Beauty")
Although Rabbi Shmuel was the youngest of Rabbi Menachem Mendel's seven sons, he was chosen to succeed his father as "rebbe" and leader of Chabad in the movement's capital, Lubavitch (four of his brothers established branches of Chabad Chassidism in other towns in White Russia and Ukraine). In addition to leading his Chassidim, guiding and advising their spiritual and material lives and authoring many maamarim (discourses of Chassidic teaching), Rabbi Shmuel traveled extensively throughout Europe, meeting with government and business leaders to exert pressure on the Czarist regime to halt its instigation of pogroms against the Jews of Russia.
Rabbi Shmuel passed away at age 48 on the 13th of Tishrei, 5643 (1882).
Links: Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch
Selected Teachings of Rabbi Shmuel
Rabbi Shmuel's and His Disciples' Melodies
Rabbi Shmuel's Biography
Daily Quote:
A boor cannot be sin-fearing, an ignoramus cannot be pious; a bashful one cannot learn, a short-tempered person cannot teach; nor does anyone who does much business grow wise.[Hillel (Ethics of the Fathers 2:5)]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 3rd Portion Leviticus 19:23-19:32 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 19
23When you come to the Land and you plant any food tree, you shall surely block its fruit [from use]; it shall be blocked from you [from use] for three years, not to be eaten. כגוְכִֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם֙ כָּל־עֵ֣ץ מַֽאֲכָ֔ל וַֽעֲרַלְתֶּ֥ם עָרְלָת֖וֹ אֶת־פִּרְי֑וֹ שָׁל֣שׁ שָׁנִ֗ים יִֽהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶ֛ם עֲרֵלִ֖ים לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל:
you shall surely block…[from use]: Heb. וַעִרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ, [lit.:] “And you shall block up its blockage,” i.e., [its fruit] shall be blocked and closed up from deriving benefit from it.
וערלתם ערלתו: ואטמתם אטימתו, יהא אטום ונסתם מליהנות ממנו:
it shall be blocked for you [from use] for three years: From when does one start counting [this three-year period]? From the time of its planting. — [Torath Kohanim 19:60] One might think that if one stores away the fruit [produced in the first three years], after the first three years have elapsed, [the fruit] will become permissible. Therefore, Scripture, says, “it shall be” -the fruit shall remain in its [forbidden] status [forever]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:62]
שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים: מאימתי מונה לו, משעת נטיעתו. יכול אם הצניעו, לאחר שלש שנים יהא מותר, תלמוד לומר יהיה, בהוייתו יהא:
24And in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to the Lord. כדוּבַשָּׁנָה֙ הָֽרְבִיעִ֔ת יִֽהְיֶ֖ה כָּל־פִּרְי֑וֹ קֹ֥דֶשׁ הִלּוּלִ֖ים לַֽיהוָֹֽה:
all its fruit shall be holy: Just like the second tithe, concerning which it is [also] written, “And every tithe of the Land…is holy to the Lord” (Lev. 27:30); just as the tithe may not be eaten outside the wall of Jerusalem, except after having been redeemed, so is this. — [see Torath Kohanim 19:66], and this thing is “a praise to the Lord,” for he carries it there [to Jerusalem,] to laud and give praise to Heaven.
יהיה כל פריו קדש: כמעשר שני שכתוב בו (ויקרא כז ל) וכל מעשר הארץ וגו' קדש לה'. מה מעשר שני אינו נאכל חוץ לחומת ירושלים אלא בפדיון, אף זה כן. ודבר זה הלולים לה' הוא, שנושאו שם לשבח ולהלל לשמים:
25And in the fifth year, you may eat its fruit; [do this, in order] to increase its produce for you. I am the Lord, your God. כהוּבַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַֽחֲמִישִׁ֗ת תֹּֽאכְלוּ֙ אֶת־פִּרְי֔וֹ לְהוֹסִ֥יף לָכֶ֖ם תְּבֽוּאָת֑וֹ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
to increase its produce for you: This commandment which you will observe, will be “[in order] to increase its produce for you,” because as its reward, I will bless for you the fruits of [your] plantings. Rabbi Akiva used to say, “The Torah stated this to counter man’s evil inclination: so that a person should not say, ”For four years I suffer with this tree for nothing!“ Scripture therefore says here, ” [in order] to increase its produce for you." - [Torath Kohanim 19: 68]
להוסיף לכם תבואתו: המצוה הזאת שתשמרו תהיה להוסיף לכם תבואתו, שבשכרה אני מברך לכם פירות הנטיעות. היה רבי עקיבא אומר דברה תורה כנגד יצר הרע, שלא יאמר אדם הרי ארבע שנים אני מצטער בו חנם, לפיכך נאמר להוסיף לכם תבואתו:
I am the Lord: I am the Lord Who promises regarding this and Who is faithful to keep My promise.
אני ה': אני ה' המבטיח על כך ונאמן לשמור הבטחתי:
26You shall not eat over the blood. You shall not act on the basis of omens or lucky hours. כולֹ֥א תֹֽאכְל֖וּ עַל־הַדָּ֑ם לֹ֥א תְנַֽחֲשׁ֖וּ וְלֹ֥א תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ:
You shall not eat over the blood: [This verse is] expounded in many different ways in Sanhedrin (63a) [as follows]: (a) It is a warning that one must not eat from the flesh of holy sacrifices before the dashing of the blood; (b) It is a warning against [anyone] who eats from an ordinary animal before its soul [contained in its blood] has [fully] departed; and in many more [ways this verse is expounded there].
לא תאכלו על הדם: להרבה פנים נדרש בסנהדרין (סג א) אזהרה שלא יאכל מבשר קדשים לפני זריקת דמים, ואזהרה לאוכל מבהמת חולין טרם שתצא נפשה, ועוד הרבה:
You shall not act on the basis of omens: like those who interpret [the sounds or actions of] a weasel or birds as omens [for good or bad], - [Torath Kohanim 19:71; Sanh. 66a], or [like those who interpret] bread falling from his mouth or a deer crossing his path [as signs for certain things]. — [Sanh. 65b]
לא תנחשו: כגון אלו המנחשין בחולדה ובעופות, פתו נפלה מפיו, צבי הפסיקו בדרך:
You shall not act on the basis of… lucky hours: [The expression תְעוֹנְנוּ] denotes times (עוֹנוֹת) and hours, that one would say, “Such and such a day is auspicious to begin your work,” or, “Such and such an hour is unlucky to embark [on a journey].” - [Sanh. 65b]
ולא תעוננו: לשון עונות ושעות, שאומר יום פלוני יפה להתחיל מלאכה, שעה פלונית קשה לצאת:
27You shall not round off the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the edge of your beard. כזלֹ֣א תַקִּ֔פוּ פְּאַ֖ת רֹֽאשְׁכֶ֑ם וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁחִ֔ית אֵ֖ת פְּאַ֥ת זְקָנֶֽךָ:
You shall not round off the corner of your head: This refers to someone who [cuts his hair in such a way that he] makes [the hair on] his temples even with that behind his ear and on his forehead [i.e., the front hairline], thereby causing [the hairline] surrounding his head to become a circle, since the main hairline behind the ears is at a much higher level than [the hair on] his temples. — [Mak. 20b]
לא תקפו פאת ראשכם: זה המשוה צדעיו לאחורי אזנו ולפדחתו, ונמצא הקף ראשו עגול סביב, שעל אחורי אזניו עקרי שערו למעלה מצדעיו הרבה:
the edge of your beard: [meaning:] The end of the beard and its borders. And these are five: two on each cheek at the top [edge of the cheek] near the head, where [the cheek] is broad and has two “corners” [i.e., extremities, one near the temple and the other at the end of the cheek bone towards the center of the face]-and one below, on the chin, at the point where the two cheeks join together. - [Torath Kohanim 19: 74; Mak. 20b]
פאת זקנך: סוף הזקן וגבוליו. והן חמש שתים בכל לחי ולחי למעלה אצל הראש שהוא רחב ויש בו שתי פאות, ואחת למטה בסנטרו מקום חבור שני הלחיים יחד:
28You shall not make cuts in your flesh for a person [who died]. You shall not etch a tattoo on yourselves. I am the Lord. כחוְשֶׂ֣רֶט לָנֶ֗פֶשׁ לֹ֤א תִתְּנוּ֙ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall not make] cuts [in your flesh] for a person [who died]: This was the practice of the Amorites: to make cuts in their flesh when a person [related] to them died.
ושרט לנפש: כן דרכן של אמוריים להיות משרטין בשרם כשמת להם מת:
etch a tattoo: Heb. וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, an inscription etched (מְחֻקֶּה) and sunken (שָׁקוּע), never to be erased, for one etches it with a needle, and it remains permanently black.
וכתבת קעקע: כתב המחוקה ושקוע שאינו נמחק לעולם שמקעקעו במחט והוא משחיר לעולם:
etched: Heb. קַעְקַע. Similar to the expression [found in the verses], “and hang (וְהוֹקַע) them” [lit., “and sink them”] (Num. 25:4), and, “and we will hang them (וְהוֹקַעְנוּם) ” [lit., “and we will sink them”] (II Sam. 21:6). They would thrust a pole into the ground, and hang the [guilty people] on it; in this way, [the ones hanged would appear as if] inserted and thrust into the ground [and thus the word קַעְקַע denoting “etched in and sunken” into the skin]; porpoynt in Old French [according to Greenberg, porpoint according to Gukovitzki].
קעקע: לשון (במדבר כה ד) והוקע אותם, (שמואל ב כא ו) והוקענום. תוחבין עץ בארץ ותולין אותם עליהם ונמצאו מחוקין ותחובין בקרקע, פורפויינ"ט בלע"ז [נעוץ]:
29You shall not defile your daughter by making her a harlot, lest the Land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with immorality. כטאַל־תְּחַלֵּ֥ל אֶת־בִּתְּךָ֖ לְהַזְנוֹתָ֑הּ וְלֹֽא־תִזְנֶ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ וּמָֽלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֖רֶץ זִמָּֽה:
You shall not defile your daughter by making her a harlot: [This is speaking of] a person who hands over his unmarried daughter to have relations that are not for the purpose of marriage.[Torath Kohanim 19:77; Sanh. 76a]
אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה: במוסר בתו פנויה לביאה שלא לשם קידושין:
lest the Land fall into harlotry: Heb. וְלֹאתִזְנֶה, for if you do so, the Land itself will cause its fruits to go astray (מְזַנֶּה), producing them elsewhere and not in your Land. And thus the verse says (Jer. 3:2-3), “[and you defiled the Land with your harlotries (בִּזְנוּתַיִ) …] Therefore, the rains were withheld.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:77]
ולא תזנה הארץ: אם אתה עושה כן הארץ מזנה את פירותיה לעשותן במקום אחר ולא בארצכם. וכן הוא אומר (ירמיה ג ג) וימנעו רביבים וגו':
30You shall observe My Sabbaths and revere My Sanctuary. I am the Lord. לאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֣י תִּשְׁמֹ֔רוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁ֖י תִּירָ֑אוּ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹֽה:
And revere My Sanctuary: One may not enter [the Temple Mount] with his [walking] staff, his shoes, with his money belt, or with the dust on his feet.[Yev. 6b] And although I warn you regarding the [holiness of the] Sanctuary, [says God,] nevertheless-“You shall observe My Sabbaths”-the construction of the Sanctuary does not supersede [the laws of the] Sabbath. — [Yev. 6a].
ומקדשי תיראו: לא יכנס בהר הבית לא במקלו ולא במנעלו ובאפונדתו ובאבק שעל רגליו. ואף על פי שאני מזהירכם על המקדש, את שבתותי תשמורו אין בנין בית המקדש דוחה שבת:
31You shall not turn to [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid'oni; you shall not seek [these and thereby] defile yourselves through them. I am the Lord, your God. לאאַל־תִּפְנ֤וּ אֶל־הָֽאֹבֹת֙ וְאֶל־הַיִּדְּעֹנִ֔ים אַל־תְּבַקְשׁ֖וּ לְטָמְאָ֣ה בָהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:
You shall not turn to [the sorcery of]: Ov or Yid’oni. This is a warning against one who practices the sorcery of Ov or Yid’oni. [And what are these forms of sorcery?] One who practices the sorcery of Ov is “Pithom the sorcerer” (see Rashi Deut. 18:11); [he communes with the dead, as it were, by raising the spirit of the dead, which then] speaks from his armpit. [And one who practices the sorcery of] Yid’oni inserts the bone of a creature called Yido’a (see Bartenura, Mishnah Kilayim 8:5) into his mouth, and the bone speaks [from there].-[Torath Kohanim 19:79; Sanh. 65b]
אל תפנו אל האבת: אזהרה לבעל אוב וידעוני. בעל אוב זה פיתום המדבר משחיו. וידעוני מכניס עצם חיה ששמה ידוע לתוך פיו והעצם מדבר:
you shall not seek: to occupy yourselves with these [types of sorcery], for if you do occupy yourselves with them, you will become defiled before Me [says God], and I will deem you abominable.
אל תבקשו: להיות עסוקים בם, שאם תעסקו בם אתם מיטמאין לפני ואני מתעב אתכם:
I am the Lord, your God: Know Whom you are exchanging for whom [i.e., you would be exchanging “the Lord, your God” for these futile sorceries]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:79]
אני ה' אלהיכם: דעו את מי אתם מחליפין במי:
32You shall rise before a venerable person and you shall respect the elderly, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord. לבמִפְּנֵ֤י שֵׂיבָה֙ תָּק֔וּם וְהָֽדַרְתָּ֖ פְּנֵ֣י זָקֵ֑ן וְיָרֵ֥אתָ מֵּֽאֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֹֽה:
You shall rise before a venerable person: One might think [that the commandment refers to rising before] an old person, [even though he may be] guilty [of transgression]. Scripture, therefore, says, זָקֵן the term זָקֵן exclusively refers to one who has acquired wisdom [see Num. 11:16, where the same term refers to great, wise men, and therefore not guilty of transgression]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:80; Kid. 32b]
מפני שיבה תקום: יכול זקן אשמאי, תלמוד לומר זקן, אין זקן אלא שקנה חכמה:
and you shall respect the elderly: What is meant by “respecting” [the elderly]? One may not sit in his place, speak in his stead [when it is the elder’s turn to speak], or contradict him. [Since one is obligated to rise before the elderly only when the latter enters within one’s four cubits,] one might think that he may close his eyes [when the elder approaches], as if he did not see him [and thus evade the obligation to rise before him]! Therefore Scripture adds here, “and you shall fear your God,” for this matter is privately known to the one who commits it, and no one knows about it except the person himself, and, concerning any matter known only in the heart [of one person,], Scripture says, “and you shall fear your God,” [for God knows man’s thoughts]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:80; Kid. 31b, 32b]
והדרת פני זקן: איזהו הדור, לא ישב במקומו ולא ידבר במקומו ולא יסתור את דבריו. יכול יעצים עיניו כמי שלא ראהו, לכך נאמר ויראת מאלהיך, שהרי דבר זה מסור ללבו של עושהו, שאין מכיר בו אלא הוא, וכל דבר המסור ללב נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 10 - 17• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 10
This psalm tells of the wicked one’s prosperity and his boasting of it, until he says: “There is neither law nor judge. God pays no attention to the actions of mere mortals.”
1. Why, O Lord, do You stand afar, do You hide Yourself in times of distress?
2. The wicked man in his arrogance pursues the poor; they are caught by the schemes they have contrived.
3. For the wicked man glories in the desire of his heart, and the robber boasts that he has scorned the Lord.
4. The wicked one in his insolence [thinks], “He does not avenge”; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5. His ways always succeed; Your retribution is far removed from before him; he puffs at all his foes.
6. He says in his heart, “I shall not falter; for all generations no evil will befall me.”
7. His mouth is full of oaths, deceit and malice; mischief and iniquity are under his tongue.
8. He sits in ambush near open cities; in hidden places he murders the innocent; his eyes stealthily watch for the helpless.
9. He lurks in hiding like a lion in his lair; he lurks to seize the poor, then seizes the poor when he draws his net.
10. He crouches and stoops, then the helpless fall prey to his might.
11. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, He conceals His countenance, He will never see.”
12. Arise, O Lord! O God, lift Your hand! Do not forget the lowly.
13. Why does the wicked man scorn God? Because he says in his heart, “You do not avenge.”
14. Indeed, You do see! For You behold the mischief and vexation. To recompense is in Your power; the helpless place their trust in You; You have [always] helped the orphan.
15. Break the strength of the wicked; then search for the wickedness of the evil one and You will not find it.
16. The Lord reigns for all eternity; the nations have vanished from His land.
17. Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; direct their hearts, let Your ear listen,
18. to bring justice to the orphan and the downtrodden, so that [the wicked] shall no longer crush the frail of the earth.
Chapter 11
This psalm declares that the suffering of the righteous one is for his own benefit, to cleanse him of his sins; whereas the wicked one is granted prosperity in this world-similar to the verse, "Wealth remains with its owner, to his detriment."
1. For the Conductor, by David. I have placed my trust in the Lord; [thus] how can you say of my soul, your mountain,1 that it flees like a bird?2
2. For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they have readied their arrow upon the bowstring, to shoot in darkness at the upright of heart.
3. They destroyed the foundations; 3 what [wrong] has the righteous man done?
4. The Lord is in His holy Sanctuary, the Lord's throne is in heaven, [yet] His eyes behold, His pupils probe [the deeds of] mankind.
5. The Lord tests the righteous, but He hates the wicked and the lover of violence.
6. He will rain down upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone; a scorching wind will be their allotted portion.
7. For the Lord is righteous, He loves [the man of] righteous deeds; the upright will behold His countenance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Your king (Metzudot).
2.And will eventually be captured by Saul (Metzudot).
3.Reffering to the murder of the priests in the city of Nob.
Chapter 12
This psalm admonishes informers, slanderers, and flatterers.
1. For the Conductor, upon the eight-stringed instrument, a psalm by David.
2. Help us, Lord, for the pious are no more; for the faithful have vanished from among men.
3. Men speak falsehood to one another; with flattering lips, with a duplicitous heart do they speak.
4. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks boastfully-
5. those who have said, "With our tongues we shall prevail, our lips are with us, who is master over us!”
6. Because of the plundering of the poor, because of the moaning of the needy, the Lord says, "Now I will arise!" "I will grant deliverance," He says to him.
7. The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in the finest earthen crucible, purified seven times.
8. May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation,
9. [in which] the wicked walk on every side; when they are exalted it is a disgrace to mankind.
Chapter 13
A prayer for an end to the long exile. One in distress should offer this prayer for his troubles and for the length of the exile.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. How long, O Lord, will You forget me, forever? How long will You hide Your countenance from me?
3. How long must I seek counsel within my soul, [to escape] the grief in my heart all day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
4. Look! Answer me, O Lord, my God; give light to my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.
5. Lest my enemy say, "I have overcome him," [and] my oppressors rejoice when I falter.
6. I have placed my trust in Your kindness, my heart will rejoice in Your deliverance. I will sing to the Lord, for He has dealt kindly with me.
Chapter 14
This psalm speaks of the destruction of the two Holy Temples-the first by Nebuchadnezzar, and the second by Titus.
1. For the Conductor, by David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" [Man's] deeds have become corrupt and abominable, no one does good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any wise man who searches for God.
3. They have all gone astray together, they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4. Indeed, all the evildoers, who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon the Lord, will [ultimately] come to know [the consequences of their actions].
5. There they will be seized with fright, for God is with the righteous generation.
6. You scorn the counsel of the lowly, that he puts his trust in the Lord.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When the Lord returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 15
This psalm speaks of several virtues and attributes with which one should conduct oneself. He is then assured that his soul will rest in Gan Eden.
1. A psalm by David. Who may abide in Your tent, O Lord? Who may dwell on Your holy Mountain?
2. He who walks blamelessly, acts justly, and speaks truth in his heart;
3. who has no slander on his tongue, who has done his fellowman no evil, and who has brought no disgrace upon his relative;
4. in whose eyes a despicable person is abhorrent, but who honors those who are God-fearing; who does not change his oath even if it is to his own detriment;
5. who does not lend his money at interest, nor accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never falter.
Chapter 16
When one is in need, he should not implore God in his own merit, for he must leave his merits for his children.
1. A michtam,1 by David. Watch over me, O God, for I have put my trust in You.
2. You, [my soul,] have said to God, "You are my Master; You are not obligated to benefit me.”
3. For the sake of the holy ones who lie in the earth, and for the mighty-all my desires are fulfilled in their merit.
4. Those who hasten after other [gods], their sorrows shall increase; I will not offer their libations of blood, nor take their names upon my lips.
5. The Lord is my allotted portion and my share; You guide my destiny.
6. Portions have fallen to me in pleasant places; indeed, a beautiful inheritance is mine.
7. I bless the Lord Who has advised me; even in the nights my intellect admonishes me.2
8. I have set the Lord before me at all times; because He is at my right hand, I shall not falter.
9. Therefore my heart rejoices and my soul exults; my flesh, too, rests secure.
10. For You will not abandon my soul to the grave, You will not allow Your pious one to see purgatory.
11. Make known to me the path of life, that I may be satiated with the joy of Your presence, with the bliss of Your right hand forever.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm that was especially precious to David
2.To fear and love God (Rashi)
Chapter 17
A loftily person should not ask God to test him with some sinful matter, or other things. If one has sinned, he should see to reform himself, and to save many others from sin.
1. A prayer by David. Hear my sincere [plea], O Lord; listen to my cry; give ear to my prayer, expressed by guileless lips.
2. Let my verdict come forth from before You; let Your eyes behold uprightness.
3. You have probed my heart, examined it in the night, tested me and found nothing; no evil thought crossed my mind; as are my words so are my thoughts.
4. So that [my] human deeds conform with the words of Your lips, I guard myself from the paths of the lawbreakers.
5. Support my steps in Your paths, so that my feet shall not falter.
6. I have called upon You, for You, O Lord, will answer me; incline Your ear to me, hear what I say.
7. Withhold Your kindness-O You who delivers with Your right hand those who put their trust in You-from those who rise up against [You].
8. Guard me like the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of Your wings
9. from the wicked who despoil me, [from] my mortal enemies who surround me.
10. Their fat has closed [their hearts]; their mouths speak arrogantly.
11. They encircle our footsteps; they set their eyes to make us stray from the earth.
12. His appearance is like a lion longing to devour, like a young lion lurking in hiding.
13. Arise, O Lord! Confront him, bring him to his knees; rescue my soul from the wicked [who serves as] Your sword.
14. Let me be among those whose death is by Your hand, O Lord, among those who die of old age, whose portion is eternal life and whose innards are filled with Your concealed goodness; who are sated with sons and leave their abundance to their offspring.
15. Because of my righteousness, I shall behold Your countenance; in the time of resurrection, I will be sated by Your image.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 44• Lessons in Tanya
• Hebrew Text• English Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5776 · May 10, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 44
• רק שאף על פי כן צריך לטרוח בשכלו להשיג ולהגיע גם לבחינת אהבת עולם הנזכרת למעלה, הבאה מהתבונה ודעת בגדולת ה׳
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5776 · May 10, 2016
Nonetheless a person must strain his intellect to apprehend and attain also the above-mentioned1 level ofahavat olam, which stems from an understanding and knowledge of the greatness of G‑d,
As such it differs from the loves of “My soul...” and “Like a son...” which essentially are inherited, and are only revealedthrough contemplation.
כדי להגדיל מדורת אש האהבה ברשפי אש ושלהבת עזה ולהב העולה השמימה, עד שמים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות וגו׳ ונהרות לא ישטפוה וגו׳
in order to fan the blaze of the fiery love, with glowing coals and an intense fire and a flame that rises heavenwards, so that2 “not even many waters which are enemies of the love can extinguish it..., nor rivers quench it....”
Love created purely as a result of contemplation is more passionate and fiery than love which is essentially inherited, even when the inherited love is revealed through contemplation.
כי יש יתרון ומעלה לבחינת אהבה כרשפי אש ושלהבת עזה וכו׳ הבאה מהתבונה ודעת בגדולת אין סוף ברוך הוא, על שתי בחינות אהבה הנזכרות למעלה כאשר אינן כרשפי אש ושלהבת כו׳
For there is a superiority and excellence in the quality of love burning like fiery coals and an intense flame,... which comes from an understanding and knowledge of the greatness and transcendence of the blessed Ein Sof, over the two categories of love referred to above, when they are not like fiery coals3 and a blaze,... but merely result from feeling (or contemplating) G‑d’s closeness to a Jew, inasmuch as He is “the Source of our life” and “our true Father.” The superiority of this love is:
כיתרון ומעלת הזהב על הכסף וכו׳ כמו שכתוב לקמן
similar to the superiority and excellence of gold over silver, and so forth, as will be explained later.4
Not only is gold worth more than silver ounce for ounce, in which case a preponderance of silver would be more valuable, but gold is intrinsically of greater value in that it possesses a distinctive gleam which people find highly attractive.
So, too, with regard to love that results wholly from contemplation: it is not a higher level of love; on the contrary, the level of love that comes from above and is termed ahavah rabbah, “great love,” is the higher form of love. The superiority of love that results entirely from contemplation lies in its fiery passion and yearning of the soul. This is one reason why the two previously-mentioned kinds of love that Jews inherit do not suffice; they lack passion when compared to love emanating entirely from one’s intellect.
The Alter Rebbe now provides yet another reason why wholly contemplative love is necessary: It is important to attain contemplative love not only because of the superiority of the resulting passion, but because the contemplation is an end unto itself. By contemplating G‑d’s greatness, one fulfills the whole purpose of creation — that created beings should come to know and understand G‑d’s greatness.
וגם כי זה כל האדם ותכליתו
Besides, this is the whole man and his raison d‘etre:
למען דעת את כבוד ה׳ ויקר תפארת גדולתו, איש איש כפי אשר יוכל שאת, כמו שכתוב ברעיא מהימנא, פרשת בא: בגין דישתמודען ליה וכו׳ וכנודע
that one may know the glory of G‑d and the majestic splendor of His greatness, each according to the limit of his capacity, as is written in Ra‘aya Mehemna, Parshat Bo: “In order that they may know Him,” and so forth, as is known.
Thus, there is a special quality and purpose in contemplation (that leads to love) itself. Contemplation of G‑d’s greatness is exercised to a much greater degree in the love that is created from contemplation, than it is found in a love which is merelyrevealed through contemplation, as is the case in the two aforementioned kinds of love.
In order to merely reveal the love of “My soul...” by contemplating how G‑d is the “true Source of life,” or to reveal the love of “Like a son..,” by contemplating how G‑d is “our true Father,” one’s meditation need not be exceedingly profound. A much deeper understanding and more profound mode of meditation is necessary in order to create a love of G‑d based solely on intellectual comprehension.
As a result, the divine intention “that they may know Him” — that created beings come to know G‑dliness — is realized to a much greater extent through wholly contemplative love. This is the additional reason as to why the kinds of love inherited from the Patriarchs do not suffice, and it is necessary to exert oneself to attain a love of G‑d that stems entirely from contemplating His greatness.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Ch. 43. |
| 2. | Shir HaShirim 8:7. |
| 3. | Commenting on the words “when they are not like fiery coals,” the Rebbe notes that it is indeed possible for the loves of “My soul...” and “Like a son...” to possess the quality and passion of “fiery coals.” This comes about when the contemplation which leads to the revelation of these two loves focuses [not on His nearness, but] on the transcendence of “our true Father” and the “Source of our life”; the majestic exaltedness of the Father arouses a thirsting and longing love in the son. Briefly, the matter is as follows: There are two general modes of contemplating G‑dliness — contemplating His transcendence and exaltedness (or conversely, the distance of the worlds from G‑d), and contemplating G‑d’s close relationship with us. The former will result in the thirsting and longing love of “fiery coals,” while the latter will result in a Jew’s feeling close to G‑d. This love is known as “love similar to water.” Each of these two modes of contemplation has two possible results: (1) it leads to the revelation of a love (or fear) that already exists in the soul (as an inheritance from the Patriarchs), or (2) it creates love (or fear). The Rebbe concludes: “It is noteworthy that [love resulting from contemplating G‑d’s] transcendence must refer to a form of transcendence that has some relationship to the person; otherwise the result will be self-abnegation. The same is true with regard to [contemplating the world’s] distance [from G‑d]. Cf. references cited in note to Kuntres Etz HaChayim, ch. 2.” |
| 4. | In ch. 50. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5776 · May 10, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 90
Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
"The flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:19.
We are commanded to burn any sacrifice that has become ritually impure.
This mitzvah also includes the obligation to burn Terumah oil that has become ritually impure.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 90
Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
"The flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire"—Leviticus 7:19.
We are commanded to burn any sacrifice that has become ritually impure.
This mitzvah also includes the obligation to burn Terumah oil that has become ritually impure.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• Burning Sacrifices that Contracted Ritual Impurity
Positive Commandment 90
Translated by Berel Bell
The 90th mitzvah is that we are commanded to burn sacrifices which have become impure.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Any [sacrificial] meat which comes in contact with something impure may not be eaten; it must be burned in fire."
When explaining the reason why on a holiday one may not burn oil of terumah which became impure, the Talmud in Shabbos2 says, "Refraining from work [on a holiday] is a positive commandment, giving the holiday both a positive commandment and a prohibition. A positive commandment alone cannot push aside both a positive commandment and a prohibition."
The explanation of this is as follows: Doing work on a holiday is prohibited, and if one does work, he transgresses a positive commandment, because he violated the positive commandment regarding the holiday,3 "It shall be for you a day of rest." He also transgresses a prohibition, namely,4 "No work may be done on these [days]," i.e. the holidays.
Burning holy things that became impure, however, is only a positive commandment. Therefore, because of the principle just mentioned, that "a positive commandment alone cannot push aside both a positive commandment and a prohibition," one may not burn them on a holiday.
Another statement there5 indicating the same point6 is, "Just as it is a commandment to burn sacrifices that have become impure, so too it is a commandment to burn terumah that has become impure."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate Pesachim7 and at the end of Temurah.8
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:19.
2.24b.
3.Lev. 23:24. This speaks of Rosh HaShanah, and the same applies to the other holidays.
4.Ex. 12:16.
5.Shabbos 95a.
6.I.e. that the burning is a positive commandment.
7.82a.
8.33b.
• 1 Chapter: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a woman says: "I pledge a pair of doves when I give birth to a male," when she gives birth to a male she must bring four doves: two because of her vow, they are burnt offerings, as we explained,1 and two which she is obligated to bring because of the birth,2 one, a burnt-offering and the other, a sin-offering. Therefore the priest must offer three doves on the upper portion of the altar and one dove on the lower portion.
If he erred and offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion,3and he did not consult [with the woman],4she must bring another dove and offer it on the upper portion of the altar.5
When does the above apply? When she brought all four doves from one type; either they were all turtle doves or young doves. If, however, she brought two turtle doves and two young doves and two6 were offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and two7 on the lower portion,8 she must bring one more turtle dove and one more young dove on the upper portion to fulfill her obligation.9 For if at the outset, two turtle doves were offered on the lower portion, another turtle dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation.10 [Or] if two young doves were offered on the lower portion, another young dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation. For a person should not bring a pair to fulfill his obligation that comprises one turtle dove and one young dove.11 Instead, either they should both be turtle doves or both be young doves.
Halacha 2
If she made her vow explicit, telling the priest: "These12 are for my vow and these are for my obligation," and the priest offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion without knowing which ones he offered on the upper portion and which ones he offered on the lower portion,13she must bring three doves, two for her vow and one to complete her obligation.14 The two should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. [The rationale is that] she made her vow explicit and possibly the two brought because of her vow were offered on the lower portion, thus disqualifying them.15
When does the above apply? When she brought the four doves from which she explicitly defined two as being for her vow from one type. If, however, [she brought them from] two types, she must bring four other doves:16 the two from the type she designated explicitly for her vow should be offered for her vow and the other two may be from either type she desires for her obligation. One should be offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and one on the lower portion.
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply if a woman] defined17 [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow, saying: "If I give birth to a male, I pledge two turtle doves," and she gave birth and brought four doves:18 two for her vow and two for her obligation. The priest offered two on the upper portion [of the altar] and two on the lower portion, but did not know which were offered on the upper portion and which were offered on the lower portion and she also forgot and did not know the type of doves she had pledged for her vow, whether turtle doves or young doves. She should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow.19[All] four should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. She should bring another dove to complete her obligation and it should be offered on the lower portion. 20
When does the above apply? When originally she brought all of the four of one type. If, however, they were of two types, she must bring six other doves: two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow21 and for her obligation, she should bring either two turtle doves or two young doves22 and offer one on the upper portion of the altar and one on the lower portion.
Similarly, if she gave them to the priest23 and forgot what she gave him and the priest went and offered them, but was not aware where he offered all of the doves, whether he offered them all on the upper portion, all on the lower portion, or half above and half below, she should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow24 and two turtle doves or two young doves for her obligation.
Halacha 4
If she defined [which type of offering25 to be offered to fulfill] her obligation and [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow and forgot what she defined, it is [also] possible that her obligation was a lamb for a burnt-offering and a dove - either a turtle dove or a young dove - as a sin-offering. Therefore she must bring six doves - four for her vow26 and two for her obligation.27 And she must bring one sin-offering, either a young dove or a turtle dove, with a lamb.28 Thus she will have brought seven doves and a lamb.
Halacha 5
None of these sin-offerings should be eaten, because they are all offered because of a doubt.29
FOOTNOTES
1.
The commentaries note that there is no explicit source which states that the doves pledged by a woman should be offered as burnt-offerings. They do, however, point to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:14 which states that a fowl is never brought as a peace-offering. Hence, the only alternative is for them to be offered as burnt-offerings.
2.
I.e., when she is poor, as stated in Leviticus, ch. 14; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.
3.
As would be appropriate in most instances, for pairs of doves are generally required to be offered, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.
4.
If he did not consult with her, it is his prerogative to determine which dove should be offered as a sin-offering and which as a burnt-offering, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 8.
5.
To fulfill her vow to bring a pair of doves as burnt-offerings.
6.
I.e., of one type.
7.
Of the other type.
8.
This is speaking about a situation where the priest offering the sacrifice forgot which type he offered on the upper portion of the altar and which type on the lower portion [Ra'avad; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5)]. Were he to know which type he had offered on which portion, it would be sufficient to bring only one more dove.
9.
I.e., to serve as the burnt-offering for the pair she was obligated to bring because of the birth, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
10.
And the two young doves offered on the upper portion are considered as having been brought to fulfill her vow.
11.
As the Kessef Mishneh states, it is not merely that it is unlikely for a person to do so, through Biblical exegesis, the Sifraderives that it is forbidden to do so.
12.
I.e., this pair of doves.
13.
And thus he is unsure if he fulfilled the woman's instructions.
14.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that since it is possible that the two doves designated for her vow were offered on the lower portion of the altar (as sin-offerings instead of burnt-offerings), it is possible that her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two other doves instead. Were that to have been the case, of the two offered on the upper portion of the altar, only one was acceptable and another dove must be brought as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
The above explanations are based of Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently, stating that this situation is considered like a burnt-offering that became intermingled with an unspecified group. See in Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
15.
For they are burnt-offerings which must be offered on the upper portion of the altar.
16.
Here the difficulty is that since the woman specified that the doves for her vow should come from a specific type and the priest did not remember whether he in fact offered that pair of doves as a burnt-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5), the Rambam explains this law. In the original sacrifice, perhaps the two turtle doves that were intended as burnt-offerings were sacrificed on the lower portion of the altar and were thus disqualified. Thus her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two turtle doves. The two young doves were offered on the upper portion of the altar as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary for another young dove to be offered on the lower portion as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
It is, however, also possible that the two young doves were offered on the lower portion of the altar. In that instance, she would have to bring another young dove to be offered on the upper portion as a burnt-offer to fulfill her obligation. Hence she must bring a total of two turtle doves and two young doves.
17.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains the difference between this instance and the one mentioned in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, we are speaking about an instance where the woman defined which doves were to be offered for which sacrifice at the time she gave them to the priest to offer and the priest forgot how he had offered them. In this instance, in addition to defining them when giving them to the priest, she pledged to bring them from a specific type and then she forgot which type of doves she pledged to bring for each particular sacrifice.
18.
Of one type, as stated below.
19.
The doves offered previously as a burnt-offering are of no consequence, because we are not certain that her vow was fulfilled. Because she is in doubt regarding which type she had specified in her vow, she must bring both types to fulfill it.
20.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this follows the same rationale as above. One of the burnt-offerings is acceptable. Hence it is necessary to bring a sin-offering to complete her obligation. He continues explaining that this decision is somewhat of a leniency, because it is possible that she will be offering the sin-offering from a different type of dove than the burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since we do not know of which type the original four doves were, this leniency is granted.
The above explanations are based on Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently. Similarly, this explanation requires - as suggested by theKessef Mishneh - amending the standard printed text of theMishneh Torah to read:
it should be offered on the upper portion, for two were already offered on the lower portion as sin-offerings.
21.
To be offered as burnt-offerings, for as above, it is possible that the ones designated as her vow were not offered as burnt-offerings and she does not remember which type she specified.
22.
In contrast to the previous situations, she must bring two doves to fulfill her obligation. In this instance, one of those that were offered as a burnt-offering is not acceptable, because we know for certain that the offerings originally brought were of two types and we do not know which type of dove was brought as a burnt-offering so that a sin-offering could be brought from the same type of dove. Hence she must bring an entire pair to fulfill her obligation.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's rulings based on his interpretation of the Mishnah inKinnim (which is also supported by Rashi). Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's understanding.
23.
Four doves. This is speaking about a situation where the woman designated two doves as a burnt-offering for her vow and two for her obligation, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. She forgot which type of doves she vowed, which she brought to the priest, and how she designated them.
24.
To be offered as burnt-offerings. It is necessary to bring these offerings, because it is possible that no burnt-offerings were offered or those designated as burnt-offerings were not offered for that purpose. It is necessary to bring both types, because the woman does not know which type she pledged as a burnt-offering.
25.
I.e., whether she would bring a lamb, the burnt-offering brought by a woman of means brings after childbirth, or a dove the burnt-offering brought when one lacks adequate means.
26.
Two turtle doves and two young doves. This is necessary, because she forgot what type of dove she specified that she would bring to fulfill her vow.
27.
Of one type, either young doves or turtle doves, for perhaps she intended to bring the sacrifice of a poor woman.
28.
In the event she intended to bring the sacrifice of a woman of means.
It must be noted that Kinnim 3:5, the source for the Rambam's ruling, does not mention a lamb at all. The Rambam mentions it, both here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, because otherwise, there is no clear reason why an extra dove should be brought as a sin-offering (Kessef Mishneh).
29.
Instead, it should be burnt, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5776 · May 10, 2016 • "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17
Halacha 1
Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable.1
If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance.2
In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained3 - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable,4even if all the other presentations were made as required.
Halacha 2
If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar]5 and had no specific intent6 regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.
Halacha 3
[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering7 [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul.8
What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar].
Halacha 4
If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.
Halacha 5
What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow,"9 [the offering] is notpiggul, because presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.
Halacha 6
If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood]10 on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] ispiggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.
Halacha 7
A [disqualifying intent] concerning a thanksgiving-offering causes the bread [that accompanies it] to become piggul, but a [disqualifying intent] concerning the bread does not cause the thanksgiving-offering to become piggul.11
What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is notpiggul.12
Halacha 8
Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads are piggul and the sheep are not piggul.13 If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread14 tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul15 and the thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul.
Halacha 9
When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.16
Halacha 10
When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.17
Halacha 11
If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.18
Halacha 12
Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.
Halacha 13
If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering19- whether before the casting on the altar20 or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.
Halacha 14
If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.
Halacha 15
If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul.21Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].
Halacha 16
If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.22
Halacha 17
If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.
Halacha 18
The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered.
What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified.23
If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified.
Halacha 19
When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].24
Halacha 20
When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent.25 If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time26 after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not.27
FOOTNOTES
1.
Hence the person(s) bringing the sacrifice are not required to bring another one.
2.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
Chapter 16, Halachah 1, states that when a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul. In the present instance, it is placed in the more severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the sacrifice piggul, the subsequent intentions the priest had are of no consequence.
3.
Chapter 2, Halachah 3.
4.
However, it is not piggul. TheKessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations.
5.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot5:7.
6.
Literally, the Rambam's words mean: "Remained silent with regard to the others."
7.
See ibid.:8.
8.
The commentaries note that this ruling appears to run contrary to the statements of Zevachim 44a: "If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offeringpiggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul." Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar the author of the statement cited does not accept the concept that one's intent when immersing one's finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam's ruling here.
9.
When they should be presented on the day the sacrificial animal is slaughtered.
10.
On the outer altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:10).
11.
For the bread is secondary to and dependent on the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not dependent on the bread [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.
12.
Rashi's commentary to Menachot15a implies that it is forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely.
13.
Here, also, the bread is considered as secondary to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not secondary to the meat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
14.
I.e., half an olive-sized portion of meat and half an olive-sized portion of bread (Rashi,Menachot, loc. cit.).
15.
Menachot, loc. cit., mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuos and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuos, for they are interrelated as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20). It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh).
16.
For it is the offering of the bowls of frankincense that enable the breads to be eaten.
17.
For the two loaves are considered as a single offering.
18.
Here too both arrangments are considered as a single offering.
19.
The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction to Chapter 12, Halachah 14. See the notes to that halachah.
20.
Of the blood of the sacrifices or the frankincense for the showbreads [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2)].
21.
For he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to the entire offering that would enable the bread to be eaten.
22.
In this context, each of the sheep is considered as an independent entity.
23.
It appears that the Rambam follows the view of Ravva (Menachot 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten .
24.
The place where the bread is located is not of consequence.
25.
For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire.
26.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error and the text should read "with an intent for another sacrifice." This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah.
27.
According to the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room to say that they have been disqualified. A question concerning this issue was raised by Menachot 47b. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that according to the Rambam, the question was left unresolved. Rashi maintains that the question is rhetorical and that the meat is disqualified.
The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam's descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider their meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18
Halacha 1
Anyone who has an incorrect intent [while performing] sacrificial service violates a negative commandment,1 for [Leviticus 7:18] states: "He may not intent this."
Halacha 2
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that included in this prohibition is not to cause sacrificial offerings to be disqualified through thought, for this is comparable to causing a blemish in sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, [a transgressor] is not punished by lashes,2 for thought is not considered as deed.3
Halacha 3
Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable - whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent."4
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,]7 they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained.8 Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.
Halacha 6
Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained,9anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet,10 as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin."11 If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering.12
Halacha 7
One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar.13 If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet.Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression ofkaret is not involved.
What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal]14 intentionally, he is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burnt-offering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar.
[The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep15 on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit the showbread to [be eaten by] the priests. Sacrificial entities that do not have entities that permit them [to be consumed either by the altar or by man], e.g., the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt or the meal-offerings that are burnt, are never deemed as piggul.
Halacha 8
These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul:16 the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine - whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings17 or wine that is offered independently;18 and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite.
If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten,20 as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices.21
One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected22 by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment,23 as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."
Halacha 10
One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet.24 If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto God; [that soul] shall be cut off."
From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn.25 If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,26 he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day.
Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy."27 This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it.
Halacha 11
Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion28 [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that became piggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].
Halacha 12
It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure,29 for he disqualifies them.30 One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes,31 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten."
The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained32 or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity33 or a derivative of impurity34 of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct.35
[Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food.36 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 13
Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable for karet for entering the Temple37 who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure38 - intentionally is liable for karet,39 as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering.40
What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure?41 [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off."42 The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar.
Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."43
Halacha 14
According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement,44 he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him.45
Halacha 15
If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food].46 Needless to say, he is not liable forkaret. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 16
One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure.47
This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet.48Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar],49 he is liable for karet.
Halacha 17
It was already explained for you,50 that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notaror because the object contracted ritual impurity?
What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances.
Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained,51 one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it.52
Halacha 18
When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet.
Halacha 19
[If an impure person] partook53 of Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage].54
It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul and notar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice.55 [The rationale is that]piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight.
The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure.
Halacha 22
When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], theallal,58 the murah,59 from the giddim,60 the horns, and the hoofs, the nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers,61 or its eggs, he is not liable for karet.62 Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 23
If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.63
Halacha 24
[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles.64 Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained.65 Similarly, one is not liable for karet66 for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure67 for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].68
FOOTNOTES
1.
The wording used by the Rambam is often employed when referring to one of the 613 mitzvot. Nevertheless, neither in the listing at the beginning of these halachot, nor in Sefer HaMitzvot, does he count this charge in that reckoning. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 4) does give this charge that distinction. Megilat Esther explains that this charge is part of the directive to offer sacrifices in the proper manner and hence need not be considered as a separate mitzvah. See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 144) where the issue is discussed.
2.
As is one who causes a blemish to sacrificial animals (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:7).
3.
And lashes are given only when one violates a transgression while performing a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 469) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
5.
See the Sifri to the verse cited.
6.
The Rambam is emphasizing this point lest one think that the charge also refers to other prohibited substances. This stress is necessary, for otherwise the prohibition could be considered a prohibition of a general nature (lav shebiklalut). Lashes are not given for violating a prohibition of this nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).
7.
After they have been redeemed. As the Rambam LeAmelaborates, in addition to contracting a blemish, an animal dedicated as a sacrifice must be redeemed before the prohibition against partaking of its meat is lifted. (This constitutes a difference between the laws pertaining to such an animal and a firstborn animal.) Even after the Scriptural prohibition is lifted, there is a Rabbinic prohibition to partake of its meat until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. (This prohibition was instituted as a penalty lest one intentionally inflict such a blemish. See Bechorot 34b.)
8.
The Rambam's wording has aroused the attention of the commentaries, for this law is stated in Hilchot Bechorot 2:7, where the entire law stated here is mentioned. As such, it would have been more correct for the Rambam to have stated "as will be explained." Some have suggested that the intent here is to the concept that a sacrificial animal that has contracted a blemish may be eaten after being redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:10.
9.
In various halachot from Chapter 13, Halachah 1, onward.
10.
Literally, that the soul is cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50,Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
11.
Since this phrase is also used with regard to notar (sacrificial meat left beyond its limit) inLeviticus 19:8 and the punishment of karet is explicitly stated with regard to that prohibition in that verse, the Siframakes an equation with regard to the punishment for the two transgressions.
12.
This term is used to differentiate between this offering and an adjustable guilt-offering in which instance, the sacrifice the person required to bring is dependent on the person's means. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3-4.
13.
Entities eaten by a person or consumed by the altar's pyre.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:3), the Rambam explains this concept as follows: The prohibition of piggulis derived from Leviticus 7:18which pertains to the peace-offerings. Our Sages explain that the peace-offerings are unique in that they involve both consumption by the altar and consumption by man and that there is an act that permits such consumption (the offering of the blood permits the fats and organs to be offered and offering them permits the meat to be eaten). Hence this is established as a general rule with regard to all sacrifices.
14.
I.e., the portion to be eaten by man.
15.
The sheep themselves, however, can also become piggul, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 16.
16.
For there is no other act performed that enables these to be offered.
17.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.
18.
Ibid. 17:12.
19.
See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah4:2.
It must be noted that the latter point is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the log cannot become piggul, while Rabbi Meir maintains that it can for the reasons stated here. Although the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah states that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon's view (as the Rambam rules here), Rav Kappach notes that all the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah state that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
20.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 120) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 142) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
21.
Nevertheless, Sefer HaMitzvot(negative commandments 117-119) does count the prohibitions against leaving over the meat of the Paschal sacrifice, thechagigah offering, and the second Paschal sacrifice as separate commandments.
22.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions this point. True, it is mentioned byPesachim 84a, but that passage follows the opinion that lashes can be given for the violation of a prohibition even if a deed is not involved. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) maintains that lashes are not given unless the transgression involves a deed. Hence, seemingly, he does not have to add the explanation given here.
23.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 131) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 215) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
25.
The first shining of the light on the eastern horizon, between 72 and 120 minutes before sunrise according to the various authorities.
26.
With the exception of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram for which one is liable from dawn of the day following their sacrifice.
27.
The commentaries note that the Rambam's citation of the verse is not entirely exact. See also Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.
28.
From the wording of the Mishnah (Meilah 4:3), one might think that these two prohibitions are not combined. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Meilah 17b) states that the Mishnah is speaking about the impurity of one's hands, but that with regard to the prohibition against partaking of the food, they may be combined.
29.
Although the Rambam's wording implies that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, he does not include it as one of the 613 mitzvot. See a parallel in Hilchot Terumah 12:1.
30.
The Or Sameach comments that the Rambam's wording implies that if the sacrificial foods were disqualified for other reasons, it is permitted to cause them to contract impurity. See Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6.
31.
Partaking of sacrificial foods that have become impure is considered by Sefer HaMitzvot(negative commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 145) as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
32.
The attainment of atonement refers to the casting of the blood on the altar.
Although the sacrifice became impure before the blood was cast on the altar, after the fact, it is acceptable, because the forehead plate of the High Priest causes such sacrifices to be considered acceptable (Menachot 25b). And since, after the fact, it is acceptable, one is liable for partaking of it if it became piggul.
33.
In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," an object deemed inherently impure by Scripture decree which has the potential to make other objects impure. See the Rambam's introduction to the Order of Taharot in his Commentary to the Mishnah and also, Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7 for more details regarding this and the term mentioned in the following note.
34.
In the original, a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity," an object that contracts ritual impurity through contract with a primary source of impurity, which in certain instances can impart impurity to other substances.
35.
The punishment given anyone who violates a Rabbinic ordinance.
36.
Because such a sacrifice is disqualified and, as an initial preference, its blood should not be offered on the altar. TheMishneh LiMelech states that he is, however, liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.
37.
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash3:13-14. As mentioned in theKessef Mishneh, there are certain states of ritual impurity for which one is not liable for karetfor entering the Temple. This prohibition, however, focuses only on those concerning which this penalty can be incurred, because of an association between the words mikdash, "sanctuary," and kodesh, "sacrificial food."
38.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:2) because there are two prohibitions involved: the prohibition against partaking of impure sacrificial meat and the prohibition against a person who is impure partaking of sacrificial meat. Rabbi Yossi maintains that since the meat is impure and unfit to be eaten, we are not concerned whether the person is impure or not. The Sages, by contrast, maintain that since the impure person is forbidden to partake of pure sacrificial food, the prohibition also applies when partakes of impure sacrificial food. The Rambam accepts the Sages' opinion. See also Halachah 16.
39.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 167) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
40.
An obligation for which the offering changes dependent on the person's financial capacity (see Leviticus, ch. 5; Hilchot Shegagot 10:1).
41.
For one could interpret the above verse as referring to sacrificial food that contracted ritual impurity.
42.
This verse clearly indicates that the passage is speaking about a person who has contracted ritual impurity.
43.
The interpretation of the verse is explained in the following halachah.
44.
As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, to be permitted to partake of sacrificial food or to enter the Temple, a zav (a male who has secretions similar to those produced by gonorrhea), azavah (a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle), a woman who gives birth or miscarries, and a person afflicted by the skin condition of tzara'atmust do the following after they are fit to emerge from their ritual impurity: a) immerse in themikveh, b) wait until nightfall after immersion, and c) bring the appropriate sacrifice.
45.
Since the person has already immersed in the mikveh, a certain dimension of his or her ritual impurity has been removed. Hence, although he or she is liable for lashes for this transgression, there is no liability for karet.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even in such a situation, one is liable for karet. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash3:9, the Kessef Mishneh cites Talmudic passages which could be used as support for both positions.
46.
For according to Scriptural Law, he is not liable. Compare to Halachah 12.
47.
In this instance as well, according to the Mishneh LiMelech, the person would be liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot11:1,4.
48.
See Halachah 13 and notes.
49.
For afterwards, they are ready to be burnt.
50.
I.e., this conclusion can be reached by comparing Halachah 7 with the previous halachah. An equation is made between sacrificial meat that is notar and that which contracted ritual impurity.
51.
In Halachah 7.
52.
I.e., the prohibition against partaking of blood, which appears uniformly, both to the blood of sacrificial animals and to that of ordinary animals. Since it is already prohibited, none of the other prohibitions apply to it. SeeZevachim 4:5.
53.
This is the version accepted by the R. Shabsi Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different version of the text.
54.
I.e., although these activities are necessary for these sacrifices to be acceptable, a person can still be held liable for partaking of the sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity.
55.
This is a general rule. There are several particular aspects to it, as explained in Keritot 14a.
56.
This is speaking about a situation where there is an olive-sized portion of all the prohibited substances. Nevertheless, one might think that the presence of one might nullify the other. The person receives a set of lashes for each prohibition he violates.
57.
Instead, as stated in Halachah 11, they are combined together.
The commentaries have noted that this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam's own ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:18, that orlah nullifies the presence of terumah. See also the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah98.
It can be explained that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where there is sufficient amount of kosher food to nullify the prohibited substance according to Scriptural Law (for only a majority is required). Hence, for the additional amount required by Rabbinic Law, a forbidden substance is also sufficient. In this instance, however, the substances are not nullified according to Scriptural Law. Hence, one forbidden substance cannot nullify another.
58.
In Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Rambam defines this as: "the meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide."
59.
The thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten (ibid.).
60.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.
61.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed.
62.
For these entities are not considered as fit to be eaten.
63.
Based on a comparison to Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Ra'avad explains this should be understood as meaning that if one intended to eat the meat of a sacrifice after the time when it was supposed to be eaten, the entire sacrifice, even the fetus and the placenta, become piggul. If, however, one's intent is to partake of the fetus or the placenta, the sacrifice does not become piggul.
64.
As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2, burnt-offerings brought by a gentile may be offered on the altar. According to the Rambam, even though such sacrifices are acceptable, these prohibitions do not apply.
The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling appears to reflect the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 4:3 and, most authorities - including the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah - follow the view of Rabbi Yossi who differs. It can, however, be explained that Rabbi Shimon's opinion concerns only "one who offers them outside the Temple." The preceding clause of the mishnah concerning piggul and the like is accepted by all opinions (Kessef Mishneh).
In truth, the Rambam's opinion concerning this issue is somewhat problematic. His acceptance of Rabbi Yossi's view in his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:16. Nevertheless, his ruling in Hilchot Me'ilah 5:15, like the one here, appears to follow Rabbi Shimon's view.
65.
Halachah 17 above.
66.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it reflects the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in the above mishnah. Rav Kapach notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, his original writing was rubbed out and his final statement is: "The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon." TheKessef Mishneh offers a resolution to the difficulty explaining that the Rambam is postulating that the transgressor is liable for lashes and not forkaret. The exemption for karet is accepted by all opinions. Rabbi Shimon exempts the transgressor from lashes as well, but the initial opinion of the mishnah - which is accepted by the Rambam - holds him liable on that account.
67.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam equates a person partaking of them while he is impure with one partaking of them while they are impure. The Kessef Mishnehdebates the Rambam's intent here.
68.
Although wood does not usually contract impurity, sacrificial wood may [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to burn all the sacrifices that have become impure,1 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the meat that will touch anything that [imparts] impurity may not be eaten. It must be burnt with fire."
Halacha 2
Halacha 3
There is an unresolved doubt with regard to the bulls and the goats which are to be burnt6 whether leaving them overnight or taking them outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the time to take them out7 disqualifies their meat as it would their fats and organs or not.8 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if they were disqualified and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.9
Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt if half [such] an animal was taken out [including] the majority of one limb.10Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if it was disqualified and it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.
Similarly, if five people carried [such] an animal to take it outside the Temple Courtyard and three departed from [the Courtyard] and two remained, but the three removed half of the animal, [such animals] are disqualified because of the doubt and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.11 It appears to me that in such instances,12 it is not necessary to wait until the following day. [The rationale is that] regardless [such animals] will be burnt,13 even if they are not disqualified.
Halacha 4
[The following laws apply when] meat is found in the Temple Courtyard: [Whole] limbs are [considered as parts of] burnt-offerings. Pieces [of meat] are considered as parts of sin-offerings.14 Pieces which are found in Jerusalem are considered as parts of peace-offerings.15 Everything should be left until the following day and then taken out to the place where sacrifices are burnt lest it be notar.16
[One might ask: If so,] of what benefit will it be that it be considered as [part of] a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering? [To define the law for one] who transgressed and partook of it.17
Notar is burnt only during the day, as stated: "On the third day,18 [it] shall be burnt with fire."
Halacha 5
Although peace-offerings are forbidden to be eating from the beginning of the night of the third day,19 [the remainder] is only burnt during the day, whether [it is burnt] at the appropriate time or not at the appropriate time.20 Similarly,piggul is burnt only during the day.21
Burning [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, or piggul does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] festivals.22 Needless to say, it does not supersede [the prohibition against work on] the Sabbath.
It is permitted to burn [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, and piggul together.23
Halacha 6
When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard].24[This applies] whether it became impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity.25
The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity - and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree - with meat that contracted impurity from a derivative of impurity,26 even though this would increase the level of its impurity.27 For [an entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place.28 Moreover, even oil that became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day,29 which is of third degree impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp30 that was touched by a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of impurity.31 Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified.
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a person] left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat34 in his possession. If he already passed Mt. Scopus,35 he should burn it where he is. If not36 and it is the size of an olive-sized portion, he should return and burn it in Jerusalem.37 If he is a guest who does not have a home, he should burn it before the Temple38with wood designated for the arrangement of wood [of the altar].39
Halacha 9
All of the bones of the sacrifices that do not have marrow need not be burnt40with the exception of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.41 We already explained42 that when a sacrifice was disqualified after it was skinned, its hide should be given to the priests43 or to the owners, in the instance of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness. If, however, [a sacrifice] was disqualified before it was skinned, the hide is considered as the meat and it should be burnt in its entirety.44
Similarly, if a sacrifice was skinned and then it was discovered to be tereifah or it was disqualified because of an improper thought concerning time or place, since the sacrifice was not accepted, the hide should be burnt. [This applies] both to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If, however, a sacrifice was offered for the sake of a different intent, even though the obligation of the owners was not fulfilled, since it is acceptable,45 the hide is given to the priests or the owners, as explained [above]. When a sacrifice was skinned before the blood was cast [on the altar46 and the sacrifice was disqualified afterwards, the hide] is not disqualified.
Halacha 10
These are the entities that should be burnt:47 sacrificial meat that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, and also a meal-offering that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, a conditional guilt-offering in an instance when it became known to the transgressor that he definitely did not sin before its blood was cast [on the altar],48a sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt,49the hair of a nazirite who is ritually pure,50 and [produce that is] orlah51 or kilei hakerem.52Entities that are not fit to be burnt - e.g., liquids that are orlah or kilei hakerem - should be buried.
Halacha 11
These are the entities that should be buried: sacred animals that died, whether they were consecrated to [be offered on] the altar or for the sake of the Temple treasury - when sacred animals miscarry and discharge a fetus or a placenta, it should be buried - an ox that is stoned to death,53 a calf whose neck is broken,54 the fowl [used for the purification of] a person afflicted with tzara'at,55 the hair of a nazirite who became impure,56 a firstborn donkey [which was not redeemed],57a mixture of milk and meat,58 and ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.59
Halacha 12
Halacha 13
[If] any of the entities that must be buried [are burnt], it is forbidden to benefit from their ashes. It is permitted to benefit from the ashes of all of the entities that must be burnt, [even if] they are sacred, with the exception of the ashes of the outer and inner altars and the ashes of theMenorah.63
Halacha 14
None of the entities to be burnt should be buried64 and none of the entities to be buried should be burnt. [The rationale for the latter point is that] even though he is stringent by burning it, he is being lenient with regard to its ash, for the ashes of the entities that are buried are forbidden.65
Halacha 15
If a person was offering sacrifices together with [a priest] and he told him: "[The sacrifices became] piggul," or if he was involved with entities that are ritually pure with a person and he told him, "They became impure," his word is accepted.66A Jew is not suspected of lying in such an instance.67 If, by contrast, he told him: "The sacrifices which I offered for you on this and this day became piggul" or "those pure objects became impure," [different rules apply]. If [the person is one] whom he trusts, he should rely on his word. If not, according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon. One who wishes to be stringent68 is praiseworthy.69
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 146) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There the Rambam states that the commandment was instituted to correct the transgression of leaving the meat past its required time. See Chapter 18, Halachah 9.
3.
This is speaking about a peace-offering which may be eaten on the day it was offered and on the following day. If it was left for a third day, it must be burnt.
4.
In the Temple Courtyard, but not on the altar. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4 which states that there are three places where sacrifices are burnt.
5.
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 understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.
Leaving the sacrifice until the next day disqualifies it and requires it to be burnt. Since initially there was a doubt involved, this is the desired course of action.
6.
I.e., they are burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem after their fats and organs were offered on the altar's pyre.
7.
I.e., before their blood is cast upon the altar.
8.
The fats and the organs would definitely be disqualified in such circumstances. Zevachim 104b questions whether this would also apply with regard to the meat of a sacrifice and leaves that question unresolved.
9.
Rav Yosef Corcus and theKessef Mishneh question the Rambam's decision, because the Talmud's query seems to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish (Zevachim 89b) who maintains that when the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness was removed from the Temple Courtyard before their blood was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. According to Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that in such an instance, the sacrifice is not disqualified, seemingly, these sacrifices are also not disqualified.
Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the issue, explaining that even Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the meat of those sacrifices is disqualified. Hence, there is reason to question what his opinion would be in this instance.
10.
If the majority of an animal is not taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it is not disqualified.Zevachim 105a speaks about a situation where only half an animal was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, but included that half was the majority of one limb. If the remainder of that limb was considered as outside the Temple Courtyard, the majority of the animal would be considered to be outside.
11.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on both of these instances, maintaining that the Talmudic passage which is the Rambam's source (Zevachim104b-105a) can be interpreted differently. The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the Rambam's interpretation can be substantiated.
12.
All three instances mentioned above.
13.
I.e., they will definitely be burnt. The question is only where they will be burnt, whether in the Temple Courtyard, like sacrifices that are disqualified or outside Jerusalem, as is required for these bulls and goats. When, by contrast, a doubt arises with regard to other sacrificial animals, there is no obligation to burn them unless they are disqualified. On the contrary, burning them would be considered as degrading for sacred articles (Rav Yosef Corcus). Hence they are required to be left until the next day, so that they will definitely be disqualified.
14.
Even though it is permitted to cut the meat of burnt-offerings into portions (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:19), the priests were not accustomed to doing so. Rather a burnt-offering was cut up into several large portions and then brought to the altar. Hence if the meat of an animal was cut up into smaller pieces, one could assume that it was a sin-offering (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:3)]. The meat of such offerings must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.
It is also possible that the meat was from a guilt-offering, but sin-offerings are more common and hence, they were mentioned. The meat could also have come from a peace-offering - for such offerings are also cut up into smaller pieces - but out of respect to the stringencies associated with sin-offerings, it is considered in that category.
15.
Since peace-offerings may be eaten throughout Jerusalem, we can assume that meat found there was left over from such an offering.
16.
Which is forbidden to be eaten or offered on the altar. Since it is possible that the meat was left beyond its appointed time, it must be burnt as required for such meat. Nevertheless, since it is also possible that it had been sacrificed on this day, it cannot be burnt immediately. Instead, we wait until the following day when it is certainly required to be burnt and burn it at that time. For peace-offerings, it is necessary to wait two days.
17.
I.e., since it is possible that the sacrificial meat had not been left for an extra day, if a person who is permitted to eat such a sacrifice partakes of it, he is not obligated to bring a guilt-offering to atone for misusing sacrificial meat.
18.
Since the verse mentions the day, it must be burnt during those hours.
19.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot10:6.
20.
I.e., even if it is discovered at night, several days after the meat should have been consumed, it should be burnt on the following day and not immediately at night.
21.
The verse regarding notar serves as the basis for the ruling regarding all sacrifices that must be burnt.
22.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:10), the Rambam states the rationale: The prohibition of work on festivals is mandated by both a positive and negative commandment, while the charge to burn notar is merely a positive commandment and a positive commandment never overrides the observance of both a positive and negative commandment. See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:8.
23.
Although it is forbidden to cause sacrificial meat to contract ritual impurity - and by mixing notar orpiggul with impure meat, one would be doing so - since notaror piggul are already considered impure, this provision is granted (Pesachim 15b).
24.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot7:3-4.
25.
In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," and a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity." See Chapter 18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.
26.
The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6), even though - as he states in his Commentary to the Mishnah - the intent is "a derivative of a derivative," i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus we are speaking about meat that touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh and others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah should be emended to reflect that understanding.
27.
The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
28.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin4:15.
29.
To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a person has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain entities (Tivul Yom 2:1).
30.
But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an earthenware utensil never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
31.
For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of impurity.
32.
Which may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
33.
There is no necessity to bring it to the Temple and have it burnt there.
34.
Meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.
35.
The last place from the surroundings of Jerusalem from which the Temple can be seen. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:8.
36.
And thus the difficulty in returning is not so great.
37.
If, however, it is smaller, it is not significant and can be burnt wherever he is.
38.
The Hebrew term birah is used to refer to the entire Temple complex.
39.
This provision was made lest guests refrain from burning the sacrificial meat because of a lack of wood. See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:3 which touches on related matters.
40.
It is sufficient to merely discard them.
41.
See Hilchot Pesachim 10:1-2 which explain that the bones of the Paschal sacrifice are burnt together with its meat, because according to the Rambam, the prohibition against breaking a bone from the Paschal sacrifice applies even after the mitzvah to partake of the sacrifice is concluded, it is therefore desirable to burn the bones so that the do not become a cause of transgression. The Ra'avad mentions, based on Pesachim83a, it can be concluded that only bones that had marrow and which were cracked open and the marrow removed must be burnt. If they have no marrow at all, there is no need to burn even the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.
According to this view, the difference between the law governing the bones of the Paschal sacrifice and those of other sacrifices can be explained as follows. It is forbidden to break open the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. Therefore if the bones of a Paschal sacrifice were broken open, we can assume that this was done after the Paschal sacrifice becamenotar, for, according to many authorities, there is no prohibition against breaking the bones of a Paschal sacrifice once it has been disqualified. In such a situation, the bones are forbidden, because they servednotar (i.e., the marrow). (See the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelechwho notes that in Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:6, the Rambam writes that even in such a situation, it is forbidden to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice, and offers a possible resolution.)
With regard to other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no prohibition against breaking their bones even during the time the sacrifice is acceptable. Hence we can assume that they were broken during that time and the marrow removed. Thus there is little likelihood that they servednotar and thus became forbidden. According to this understanding, if a sacrifice wasnotar, any bone that contains marrow should be burnt. See the gloss of the Meiri to Pesachim, loc. cit., who implies that the Rambam should have been more explicit in his statements.
42.
Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot5:20.
43.
In the instance of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity.
44.
As the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:2) states: "Whenever the altar did not acquire the flesh [of a sacrifice], the owners do not acquire the hide."
45.
See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.
46.
This is a violation of the norms of sacrificial practice (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:18). Nevertheless, it does not disqualify a sacrifice.
47.
It is forbidden to benefit from these entities. They should be burnt so that they are destroyed entirely.
48.
A conditional guilt-offering is brought when a person suspects he has violated a negative commandment, but has no definite knowledge that he did so. If he receives knowledge that he is guiltless after the animal has been slaughtered, but before its blood is cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. Once its blood has been cast on the altar, the sacrifice is acceptable even if the person receives definite knowledge that he is guiltless. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.
49.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
50.
A nazirite's hair is considered "holy" and it is forbidden to be benefit from it. Therefore at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, he shaves his head and burns his hair in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in the southeastern corner of the Women's Courtyard (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3).
51.
Produce that grows in the first three years after the planting of a tree. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 10, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 10.
52.
Species of grain or vegetables sown in a vineyard. See Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 5.
53.
An ox - or any other animal - that killed a person. The ox is stoned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh at all (Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10).
54.
When a wayfarer is found murdered and it is not known who killed him, a calf is brought as atonement. See Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 9.
55.
As stated in Leviticus, ch. 14,Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at, ch. 11, when a person's whose body had been afflicted with tzara'atbecomes pure, he must bring two birds as part of the purification ritual.
56.
As stated in Hilchot Nizirut 6:11, when a nazirite becomes impure because of contact with a human corpse, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the seventh day. This shaving need not be performed in the Temple Courtyard.
57.
The firstborn male offspring of a donkey must be redeemed for a sheep. If it is not redeemed, it is executed and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh (Exodus 13:13, Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).
58.
Which is forbidden not only to be eaten but also to derive benefit from (Exodus 23:19; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:1).
59.
It is forbidden to benefit from the meat of such animals, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.
60.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sitinto Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning "the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger." Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam's words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This he maintains is two thumbreadths.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between "the width of a sit" and "the full length of a sit." As indicated byHilchot Shabbat 9:20, "the full length of a sit" is two thumbreadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), "the width of asit" is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three thumbbreadths.
61.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3).
62.
Generally, the hair of an unredeemed firstborn donkey need only be buried, as stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, in this instance, the cloth must be burnt lest the forbidden substance not be recognized and the cloth considered as permitted (Temurah 34a).
63.
Temurah, op. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of the statements of Leviticus 25:3 with regard to the ash of the inner altar. From those statements, a parallel is established with regard to the other ashes mentioned here.
The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that it is only forbidden to benefit from the ashes which the priest removes when taking out the ash in the morning. He maintains that the ash on the altar is permitted. The Rambam, by contrast, maintains that all of the ash of the altar is forbidden.
64.
Because in all these instances, the mitzvah is that the article be burnt.
65.
While the ash of entities that are to be burnt is permitted.
66.
The Ra'avad states that, on the basis of Gittin 54b, both of these statements should be understood as applying while the article in question is in that person's hands. The rationale is that since he could now make the articlepiggul or impure, his word is accepted when he says that it was previously brought to that state.
The Kessef Mishneh states that although that is the opinion of Abbaye in Gittin, loc. cit., Ravva differs, maintaining that the law applies even when the articles in question are not in his hand. Generally, the halachah follows Ravva's opinion, but in this instance, Abbaye's view is favored.
67.
For this would cause acceptable sacrifices to be burnt unnecessary articles and pure entities to be destroyed.
68.
And accept the other person's statements.
69.
The wording of the Talmud that the Rambam quotes, "according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon," implies that it is desirable to go beyond the letter of the law. See the parallels in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8.
• English Text | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 2, 5776 · May 10, 2016 • "Today's Day"
Friday Iyar 2, 17th day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 10-17.
Tanya: Nonetheless a person (p. 237)...and as is known. (p. 237).
My grandfather (the Rebbe Maharash) was born on this day in 5593 (1833).
When he was seven years old he was once tested in his studies by his father, the Tzemach Tzedek. My grandfather did so well in the test that his teacher was enormously impressed. Unable to restrain himself he said to the Tzemach Tzedek, "Well, what do you say? Hasn't he done marvelously?" The Tzemach Tzedek responded: "What is there to be surprised about when tiferet-within-tiferet does well?"1
FOOTNOTES
1.There are seven midot or Divine attributes, the first (and major) three being chessed (kindness), gevura (severity) and tiferet (beauty). Each attribute contains elements of the others, chessed-within-chessed, gevura-within-chessed, etc. 49 combinations in all, corresponding to the 49 days of the omer. The Rebbe Maharash was born on Iyar 2, the day of tiferet-within-tiferet, an extraordinarily high spiritual level.
• Daily Thought:
Flight
When human beings decided they could fly, two paths lay before them: To build vehicles lighter than air, or to use the air’s resistance to their advantage.
In the end, the path of resistance proved more successful.
It turns out that when you wish to fly above, resistance is to your advantage. In fact, resistance can carry you higher than the ethereal angels.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment