Today's Laws & Customs:
• Count "Thirty-Two Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the thirty-second 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 thirty-two days, which are four 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'Hod -- "Ambition in Humility"
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:
• The Manna (1313 BCE)
Manna, the "bread from heaven" which sustained the Children of Israel during their 40 years of wandering through the desert, began to fall on the 16th of Iyar of the year 2448 from creation--one month after the Exodus (see "Today in Jewish History" for yesterday, Iyar 15).
Links:
The Manna (the Torah's account with readings from Talmud, Midrash and Commentaries)
Our Daily Bread (meditations on earning a living)
Bread From Heaven
More on the manna
• Romans Razed Jerusalem Wall (70)
In the year 70 CE (3830 from Creation), Titus and the Roman army laid siege upon Jerusalem, greatly weakening its defenders. On the 16th of Iyar, the Romans razed the middle wall of Jerusalem. The city was later burned, its inhabitants massacred, and the Temple destroyed on the 9th of Av.
Link: Destruction of the Second Temple - Historical Background
• "Nuremberg Laws" Passed in Hungary (1939)
The Nazi Nuremberg Laws, depriving Jews the rights citizenship, were passed by the government of Nazi Germany in 1935. In 1939, on the 16th of Iyar, the laws went into effect in Nazi-allied Hungary.
• Dachau Liberated (1945)
Dachau was the first Nazi concentration camp and the model for the other concentration camps. During the war, 200,000 Jews were housed in Dachau. More than 30,000 were killed and tens of thousands died due to the conditions and spread of disease in the camp.
The camp was freed by the 45th Infantry Division of the U.S. Seventh Army on the 16th of Iyar, 1945. It was the second concentration camp to be liberated following the end of WWII.
The U.S. troops forced the citizens of the local community to come to the camp, observe the conditions, and help clean the facilities.
• Witold Pilecki Executed (1948)
On this day in 1948 (5708) Witold Pilecki was executed by the Communist Polish government after a show trial where he was found guilty of espionage. A leader of the Polish resistance, he volunteered to be imprisoned in Auschwitz, where he remained from 1940 to 1943. During that time, smuggled out information on the mass killings and other atrocities that the Germans were committing. They were the first comprehensive reports of the Nazi killing machine to reach the West.
Daily Quote:
When the litigants stand before you, consider them both equally culpable; and when they leave your courtroom, having accepted the judgment, regard them as equally righteous[advice to judges trying civil cases, from Talmudic sage Judah ben Tabbai]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Behar, 3rd Portion Leviticus 25:19-25:24 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 25
19And the land will then yield its fruit and you will eat to satiety, and live upon it securely. יט וְנָֽתְנָ֤ה הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ פִּרְיָ֔הּ וַֽאֲכַלְתֶּ֖ם לָשׂ֑בַע וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח עָלֶֽיהָ:
And the land will then yield [its fruit…and you will…] live upon it securely: i.e., you will have no worry about a year of drought.
ונתנה הארץ וגו' וישבתם לבטח עליה: שלא תדאגו משנת בצורת:
and you will eat to satiety: There will be a blessing in it even inside your innards.
ואכלתם לשבע: אף בתוך המעים תהא בו ברכה:
20And if you should say, "What will we eat in the seventh year? We will not sow, and we will not gather in our produce!" כוְכִ֣י תֹֽאמְר֔וּ מַה־נֹּאכַ֖ל בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑ת הֵ֚ן לֹ֣א נִזְרָ֔ע וְלֹ֥א נֶֽאֱסֹ֖ף אֶת־תְּבֽוּאָתֵֽנוּ:
and will not gather in: to the house [for storage (Sefer Hazikkaron)].
ולא נאסף: אל הבית:
our produce: for example, wine and fruit of the trees and aftergrowth that grew spontaneously [and that, therefore, was not sown by you]. — [Pes. 51b]
את תבואתנו: כגון יין ופירות האילן וספיחין הבאים מאליהם:
21[Know then, that] I will command My blessing for you in the sixth year, and it will yield produce for three years. כאוְצִוִּ֤יתִי אֶת־בִּרְכָתִי֙ לָכֶ֔ם בַּשָּׁנָ֖ה הַשִּׁשִּׁ֑ית וְעָשָׂת֙ אֶת־הַתְּבוּאָ֔ה לִשְׁל֖שׁ הַשָּׁנִֽים:
for three years: for part of the sixth year from Nissan [when the crop is reaped] until Rosh Hashanah, for the [entire] seventh [Shemittah] year, and for the eighth [year, namely,] for they will sow [a new crop] in Marcheshvan of the eighth year and reap [this new crop] in Nissan [while still eating of the sixth year’s crop].
לשלש השנים: למקצת הששית מניסן ועד ראש השנה, ולשביעית ולשמינית, שיזרעו בשמינית במרחשון ויקצרו בניסן:
22And you will sow in the eighth year, while [still] eating from the old crops until the ninth year; until the arrival of its crop, you will eat the old [crop]. כבוּזְרַעְתֶּ֗ם אֵ֚ת הַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁמִינִ֔ת וַֽאֲכַלְתֶּ֖ם מִן־הַתְּבוּאָ֣ה יָשָׁ֑ן עַ֣ד | הַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַתְּשִׁיעִ֗ת עַד־בּוֹא֙ תְּב֣וּאָתָ֔הּ תֹּֽאכְל֖וּ יָשָֽׁן:
until the ninth year: Until the Festival of Succoth in the ninth year, the time the crop of the eighth year is brought into the house, for throughout the summer season, it was kept in granaries in the field. In Tishrei-that is the time the crop is gathered into the house. Now, there were occasions when it would need to yield for four years, namely: in the sixth year preceding the seventh Shemittah, when they would refrain from doing work on the land for two consecutive years, the seventh year and the Jubilee year. Our verse, however, refers to all the other Shemittah years [i.e., the first through sixth cycles of Shemittah]. — [see Ned. 61a]
עד השנה התשיעת: עד חג הסכות של תשיעית, שהיא עת בוא תבואתה של שמינית לתוך הבית, שכל ימות הקיץ היו בשדה בגרנות, ובתשרי הוא עת האסיף לבית. ופעמים שהיתה צריכה לעשות לארבע שנים, בששית שלפני השמטה השביעית, שהן בטלין מעבודת קרקע שתי שנים רצופות השביעית והיובל, ומקרא זה נאמר בשאר השמטות כולן:
23The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to Me, for you are strangers and [temporary] residents with Me. כגוְהָאָ֗רֶץ לֹ֤א תִמָּכֵר֙ לִצְמִתֻ֔ת כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֧ים וְתֽוֹשָׁבִ֛ים אַתֶּ֖ם עִמָּדִֽי:
The land shall not be sold [permanently]: [Although this is already understood from the earlier verses in our passage (10 and 13), it is stated here] to impose a negative commandment regarding the reversion of fields to their [original] owners in Jubilee, that the purchaser must not seize [the land] forcibly [in an effort to keep it as a “permanent” sale].
והארץ לא תמכר: ליתן לאו על חזרת שדות לבעלים ביובל, שלא יהא הלוקח כובשה:
permanently: לִצְמִתֻת, irreversibly. [Thus, the לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת, has the meaning of] a permanent, irreversible sale.
לצמתת: לפסיקה, למכירה פסוקה עולמית:
for the land belongs to Me: [Says God:] Do not be selfish about the land [hesitating to return it to its rightful owner at Jubilee], because the land does not belong to you. - [Torath Kohanim 25:39]
כי לי הארץ: אל תרע עינך בה שאינה שלך:
24Therefore, throughout the land of your possession, you shall give redemption for the land. כדוּבְכֹ֖ל אֶ֣רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶ֑ם גְּאֻלָּ֖ה תִּתְּנ֥וּ לָאָֽרֶץ:
throughout the land of your possession: [The seemingly superfluous word here, “throughout,”] comes to include [the right of relatives to redeem] houses [of walled cities (Sifthei Chachamim , Rashi on Kid. 21a)] and a Hebrew slave. This matter is explained in the first chapter of Tractate Kid. (21a). And according to its simple meaning, [this] is connected to the passage that follows, that one who sells his property is permitted to redeem it after two years-either he or his relative, and that the purchaser cannot impede [this redemption].
ובכל ארץ אחזתכם: לרבות בתים ועבד עברי, ודבר זה מפורש בקידושין בפרק ראשון (דף כא א). ולפי פשוטו סמוך לפרשה שלאחריו, שהמוכר אחוזתו רשאי לגאלה לאחר שתי שנים או הוא או קרובו, ואין הלוקח יכול לעכב:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 79 - 82• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument crafted in Gath (Metzudot).
2.The cooking vessels used to prepare food for their captors (Rashi)
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 48• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, Iyar 16, 5776 · May 24, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 48
• אך ידיעתו יתברך המיוחדת במהותו ועצמותו, כי הוא המדע והוא היודע והוא הידוע
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 16, 5776 · May 24, 2016
But His knowledge which is united with His essence and being, for “He is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known,
It has been previously explained (in ch. 2) that G‑d’s knowledge and intellect are totally different from man’s. When a mortal being knows something, three distinct identities are involved: (a) the “knower” — the person in possession of the knowledge; (b) the “knowledge” — the intellectual faculty which enables him to know; (c) the “known” — the particular item of knowledge which he knows. G‑d, however, “...is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known.” He that knows, and the vehicle through which He knows, and that which He knows — are all Himself. Thus His knowledge is wholly united, wholly identified, with His essence.
ובידיעת עצמו, כביכול, יודע כל הנבראים
and knowing Himself, as it were, He knows all created beings,
ולא בידיעה שחוץ ממנו, כידיעת האדם
though not with a knowledge that is external to Himself, like the knowledge of a human being,
Human knowledge requires getting to know something which is external to the knower himself. Not so G‑d’s knowledge: it comes from His knowing Himself,
כי כולם נמצאים מאמיתתו יתברך
for all of [the created beings] are derived from His true reality,
G‑d’s true reality and existence is the source of all created beings. By knowing Himself, therefore, as mentioned just above, He knows all of creation.
ודבר זה אין ביכולת האדם להשיגו על בוריו וכו׳
and this thing is not within the power of human beings to comprehend clearly...,“ —*
The human mind cannot possibly grasp the concept of “Knowledge, Knower and Known” all being one and the same. For whatever matter a man may desire to comprehend, he imagines how it exists within himself — bearing in mind, of course, that when the matter at hand is the knowledge of G‑dliness, it is to be conceived on a more exalted and abstract plane than that of simple human existence. Since G‑d’s manner of knowledge is totally dissimilar from man’s, it is thus impossible for him to picture it at all. It must forever remain beyond his ken.
הגהה
*NOTE
“He is the Knowledge, the Knower...” and so on, is a quotation from Rambam (Maimonides). There are prominent sages who take issue with this view, among them Maharal (Rabbi Yehudah Loewe) of Prague.
In the introduction to his Gevurot HaShem, Maharal raises a number of objections to the thesis of Rambam. One of his most telling arguments: The descriptive term “knowledge” or “intellect” is one of limitation. By terming something as being “intellect” we are thereby saying that it is not anything other than intellect — such as feelings, action, or whatever. Yet how can we possibly say that G‑d is limited in any way? For He is the ultimate in indivisible simplicity, not a complex amalgamation of distinct, limited attributes.
Even if we posit that G‑d’s knowledge and man’s are totally dissimilar, and that man is incapable of comprehending how G‑d is both simultaneously “Knowledge, Knower, and Known,” yet the fact still remains that knowledge is a specific attribute: we are speaking of knowledge, to the exclusion of all else. This cannot possibly serve as a description of G‑d’s essence.
Maharal goes on to point out that the Sages of the Talmud refer to G‑d as “the Holy One, blessed be He,” not as “the Intellect, blessed be He.” For “holy” means separate and apart — utterly transcending anything that is within the realm of description. And it is specifically because He is above everything and beyond all description that everything derives from Him. For He is limited in no respect that might preclude the existence of anything.
Intellect, Maharal teaches, is merely one of G‑d’s creations. Seen in this light, “And G‑d knew” is no different from “And G‑d said” or “And G‑d made.” Just as G‑d’s speech and action are not His essence but faculties which He brought into being, so, too, with regard to knowledge — the attributes of knowledge and intellect are His creations.
The Alter Rebbe explains in this note that the scholars of the Kabbalah subscribed to the view of Rambam that Divine knowledge ought to be considered in terms of “Knowledge, Knower, and Known.” However, they specify, this only appliesafter the light of the Ein Sof contracted into the ten Sefirot of Atzilut — Chochmah, Binah, Daat (wisdom, knowledge and understanding) and so on, i.e., after the “clothing of the light in vessels.” Only after the light of Chochmah clothed itself in the vessel of Chochmah, the light of Binah in the vessel of Binah, and so forth — i.e., only after these entities already exist — is it possible to say that this knowledge and intellect is totally at one with G‑d. However, before the contraction within theseSefirot, G‑d supremely transcends intellect and wisdom, even as they exist in their most abstract and rarefied form.
According to the teachings of Chassidut, following along the lines of Rabbi Isaac Luria’s interpretation of the doctrine oftzimtzum (“contraction”), the views of both Rambam and Maharal are correct.
G‑d’s essential existence and being, before any contraction of G‑dliness, is as described by Maharal — an existence of unqualified simplicity, beyond the pale of knowledge and intellect in whatever form they may take, even so subtle a form as “Knowledge, Knower, and Known.” However, once the contraction took place, and the Sefirot came into being, then His vestiture in them may properly be described by saying, in the words of Rambam, that “He is the Knowledge....”
This is because the Sefirot are emanations of G‑dliness rather than created beings. As such they are wholly united with G‑d. This is expressed in the statement of Tikkunei Zohar: “He and His life-giving emanations (i.e., the orot, the ”lights“ of the ten Sefirot of the World of Atzilut) are one; He and His causations (i.e., the kelim, the ”vessels“ of the ten Sefirot of Atzilut) are one....” That is to say, the Ein Sof-light is one with the lights and vessels of Atzilut. This is exactly the same as saying “He is the Knowledge...,” for the knowledge of the Sefirot is truly one with G‑d (and not a created being), as Maharal insists.
For the view of Maharal, too, is fraught with difficulties. Firstly, we note that Scripture does ascribe knowledge to G‑d Himself, as in the verse, “...and His understanding is beyond reckoning.” Furthermore, it appears unreasonable to argue that G‑d’s knowledge is dependent on a created entity.
According to the explanation of Chassidut, then, all these difficulties — both those in the view of Maharal and those in the view of Rambam — are satisfactorily resolved: G‑d’s essence is indeed beyond description, yet He is still the “Knowledge, the Knower and the Known” as He unites Himself with the Sefirot of Atzilut, after their having come into being through the medium of “contraction”.
In the words of the Alter Rebbe:
כמו שכתב הרמב״ם ז״ל
As Rambam, of blessed memory, has written — that G‑d is “Knowledge, Knower, and Known,
והסכימו עמו חכמי הקבלה, כמו שכתוב בפרדס מהרמ"ק ז"ל
and the scholars of the Kabbalah have agreed with his views, as is stated in Pardes of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, of blessed memory.
וכן הוא לפי קבלת האריז"ל
This is also in accord with the Kabbalah of our master, Rabbi Isaac Luria, of blessed memory,
It was Rabbi Isaac Luria, the AriZal, who first revealed the doctrine of tzimtzum (“contraction”), which taught that G‑d’s exalted essence is even more removed from the Sefirot than was thought before then. It would thus be logical to assume that since he stresses this infinite distance from the Sefirot (the Sefirah of Chochmah, for example), he would be unable to accept the statement that “He is the Knowledge....” Nevertheless this teaching holds true even according to him — but with the proviso:
בסוד הצמצום והתלבשות אורות בכלים, כמו שכתוב לעיל, פרק ב׳
in the mystery i.e., the doctrine of “contraction” and the clothing of the lights [of the Sefirot] in the vessels [of theSefirot], as has been explained previously, in ch. 2.
The unity of G‑d with the Divine Sefirot is so absolute that even according to Rabbi Isaac Luria one may safely say of this unity, “He is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known.”
END OF NOTE
Before the above note the Alter Rebbe stated that G‑d’s knowledge is united with His essence and being; since He is infinite His knowledge is infinite as well. It is therefore impossible for this knowledge to pervade the earth, and it must encompass it. This is true, of course, not only of G‑d’s knowledge of the earth but of creation as a whole.
הרי ידיעה זו, מאחר שהיא בחינת אין סוף, אינה נקראת בשם מתלבשת בכדור הארץ, שהוא בעל גבול ותכלית, אלא מקפת וסובבת
this knowledge, then, since it is of an infinite order, is not described as clothing itself in the orb of the earth, which is finite and limited, while G‑d’s knowledge is limitless, but as encircling and encompassing it,
אף שידיעה זו כוללת כל עביו ותוכו בפועל ממש
even though this knowledge embraces its entire thickness and interior in actual reality,
Unlike the knowledge of a human being, which encompasses only the image of an object and not its reality, G‑d’s knowledge embraces the object in actual reality,
ומהווה אותו על ידי זה מאין ליש
thereby giving it existence ex nihilo,
Creation does not come about from the minute glimmer of G‑dliness found within the object, which sustains it only at the inanimate and vegetative level, but from the Supernal Knowledge that encompasses and encircles it. And although this knowledge is responsible for the object’s existence, it is still described as encompassing. For inasmuch as the knowledge is infinite while the created being is finite, this knowledge is unable to clothe itself within the created being.
וכמו שכתוב במקום אחר
as is explained elsewhere — that creation ex nihilo can take place only as a result of the “encompassing light.”
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 16, 5776 · May 24, 2016
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 70
The "Doubtful" Guilt Offering
"If a person sins and commits one of the commandments of G‑d which may not be committed, but he does not know, he is guilty, and he shall bear his transgression. He shall bring an unblemished ram from the flock, with the value for a guilt offering, to the kohen. The kohen shall then make atonement for his unintentional sin which he committed and did not know."—Leviticus 5:17-18.
One who is uncertain whether he committed a sin whose transgression would require him to bring a Sin Offering – e.g., two pieces of fat were before him, one permitted and one forbidden; he consumed one of them and the other was then lost (so as impossible to identify whether it was of the forbidden or permitted variety) – he must then bring an Asham Taluy (a "Doubtful Guilt Offering").
(If afterwards it was conclusively ascertained that he ate of the forbidden fats, he must bring a standard Sin Offering [even if has already brought his Asham].)
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 70
The "Doubtful" Guilt Offering
"If a person sins and commits one of the commandments of G‑d which may not be committed, but he does not know, he is guilty, and he shall bear his transgression. He shall bring an unblemished ram from the flock, with the value for a guilt offering, to the kohen. The kohen shall then make atonement for his unintentional sin which he committed and did not know."—Leviticus 5:17-18.
One who is uncertain whether he committed a sin whose transgression would require him to bring a Sin Offering – e.g., two pieces of fat were before him, one permitted and one forbidden; he consumed one of them and the other was then lost (so as impossible to identify whether it was of the forbidden or permitted variety) – he must then bring an Asham Taluy (a "Doubtful Guilt Offering").
(If afterwards it was conclusively ascertained that he ate of the forbidden fats, he must bring a standard Sin Offering [even if has already brought his Asham].)
Full text of this Mitzvah »
• The "Doubtful" Guilt Offering
Positive Commandment 70
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 70th mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring a sacrifice called an asham talui, ("suspended guilt-offering") when in doubt regarding a sin [as to whether or not it has been committed. The type of sin referred to is one] which when done intentionally is punishable by kares, and when done unintentionally, one must bring a fixed sin-offering.1
An example of a doubt which would necessitate an asham talui is as follows: a person had two pieces of fat lying before him — one from the kidneys [and therefore prohibited] and the other from the heart [which is permitted]. The person ate one of them and the other was either eaten by someone else or lost. The person is now in doubt as to whether he ate the permissible piece or the prohibited piece. In this case, because of his doubt, he must bring a sacrifice in order to obtain atonement. This sacrifice is known as an asham talui.
If later on it became clear that he ate fat from the kidneys, we now know that he definitely committed an unintentional transgression and must bring a fixed sin-offering.
The verse which speaks of this offering is G‑d's statement in the Torah portion Leviticus,2 "If a person sins by violating one of G‑d's prohibitions without knowing [for sure], he still bears responsibility. He must bring an unblemished ram with the prescribed value to the kohen as a guilt offering. The kohen shall then make atonement for the inadvertent sin that the person committed without knowing." [The phrase "without knowing"] refers to his not knowing whether he actually did or did not unintentionally perform the transgression. Our Sages3 refer to this as lo hodah.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Kerisus.4
FOOTNOTES
1.See P69.
2.5:17-18.
3.Kerisus, Ch. 1, Mishneh 2.
4.17a.
• 1 Chapter: Avodat Yom haKippurim Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Avodat Yom haKippurim - Perek 5
Halacha 1
All of the services which the High Priest performs while wearing the white garments inside the Temple Building must be performed in the order in which we mentioned. If he performed one of them before another, his acts are of no consequence.
Halacha 2
If the High Priest took a handful of incense before he slaughtered the bull, his act is of no consequence. Although taking the handful of incense is performed in the Courtyard, it is necessary for service performed inside the Temple Building. Similarly, if the goat was slaughtered before the blood of the bull was presented inside the Holy of Holies, the act is of no consequence. Although the slaughter is performed in the Temple Courtyard, its blood is brought within the Temple Building.
Halacha 3
If the ram and the goat from the additional sacrifices of the day were offered before the service of the day in the Holy of Holies was performed, they are of no consequence.
Halacha 4
If the blood of the goat was presented in the Holy of Holies before the blood of the bull, i.e., before the High Priest completes its service, he should sprinkle the blood of the bull as commanded. Afterwards, he should bring another goat, slaughter it, and sprinkle its blood as commanded. The first goat is disqualified.
If, when sprinkling the blood on the parochet in the Sanctuary, he sprinkled the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull, he should sprinkle the blood of the goat a second time after the blood of the bull.
Halacha 5
If the blood of the goat spilled before he completed presenting it in the Holy of Holies, he should bring other blood and begin sprinkling it anew in the Holy of Holies.
Halacha 6
If he completed the presentation of the blood in the Holy of Holies and began presenting it in the Sanctuary and the blood was spilled before he completed them, he should bring other blood and begin from the first sprinklings in the Sanctuary.
Halacha 7
If he completed the first part of the presentation of the blood in the Sanctuary and began to apply the blood to the Golden Altar and the blood spilled before the applications were completed, he should bring other bloodand begin from the first applications to the altar. For each set of presentations of blood represents a separate phase of atonement.
Halacha 8
If he completed the application of the blood to the altar and then the blood spilled, he does not have to bring other blood, for pouring the remainder of the blood on the outer altar is not a binding requirement. If the blood of the bull was spilled before he completed all of the presentations, he should bring another bull and take a handful of incense before slaughtering the bull. He should offer the incense, then bring the blood of the second bull and sprinkle its blood.
Halacha 9
The only one which causes the priests and their clothes to become impure and which is burnt in the ashpile is the last bull with which the atonement was completed.
Halacha 10
If the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat before the High Priest completed the sprinklings, he should sprinkle from the mixture once upward and seven times downward for the sake of the bull and then sprinkle from the mixture once upward and seven times downward for the sake of the goat. If they became mixed together before the last sprinkling, he should sprinkle once downward for the sake of the bull and then sprinkle once upward and seven times downward for the sake of the goat.
Halacha 11
If the cups containing the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat become mixed together and the High Priest does not know which is the cup containing the blood of the bull and which is the cup containing the blood of the goat, he should sprinkle from one of them once upward and seven times downward and then sprinkle from the second one, once upward and seven times downward. And then he sprinkles again from the blood in the first cup, once upward and seven times downward. Thus regardless he will have sprinkled from the blood of the bull and afterwards, from the blood of the goat.
Halacha 12
The following rules apply when the High Priest received the blood of the bull in two cups and the blood of the goat in two cups and some of the cups became mixed together and it was not known which of the cups contained the blood of the bull and which, the blood of the goat. He should perform all the sprinklings as required by law from the cups that were not mixed together. He should then pour the remainder of the blood from the cups from which he sprinkled on the base of the altar, as required. The cups that were mixed together should be poured into the drainage channel.
Halacha 13
Even though the High Priest would purchase the bull sacrificed on Yom Kippur from his own resources, as implied by Leviticus 16:6: "The bull for the sin-offering that is his," the Omnipresent nullified his ownership of it in favor of all of his priestly brethren. For if they did not have a share of it, they could not derive atonement through its sacrifice.
Accordingly, if the High Priest died before the bull was slaughtered, the priest who assumes his position does not bring a different bull. Instead, he slaughters the first one, It is not considered a sin-offering whose owners have died which is itself consigned to death, for a sin-offering owned by many is never consigned to death,
If the High Priest slaughtered the bull, but died before sprinkling its blood to gain atonement, the second priest enters the Temple with this blood and performs the sprinkling that brings atonement.
Halacha 14
The desired manner of performing the mitzvah is that the two goats of Yom Kippur should be alike with regard to their appearance, their size, and their worth. They should be purchased at the same time. Nevertheless, even if they were not alike, they were acceptable. Similarly, if one was purchased on one day and the other on the following day, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
The following rules apply if one of these goats die. If it dies before the lottery was held, he should take another one as a pair for the remaining one. If it died after the lottery, he should bring two new goats and conduct the lottery again as he did originally.
He sees which one died. If it was the one to be sacrificed to G‑d, he says: "This one for which the lot for God was chosen should replace it." If the dead goat was the one to be sent to Azazel, he says: "This one for which the lot for Azazel was chosen should replace it." The other one of the pair from which the second lottery was made should be left to pasture until it receives a disqualifying blemish. Then it should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. This course of action is taken, because a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death.
Halacha 16
When the bull and/or the goat to be offered on Yom Kippur became lost, others were separated in their stead and offered and then the first ones were found, those first ones should pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, they should be redeemed and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. Similarly, if the first ones were found before the second were offered, the first ones should be sacrificed. The second ones should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, they should be redeemed and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. The rationale for these rulings is that a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death.
Halacha 17
A disqualifying blemish - even a temporary blemish - renders the goat sent to Azazel unfit. Similarly, if it becomes unfit to be sacrificed because of a time factor, it is disqualified. For example, its mother was slaughtered to feed a sick person on Yom Kippur. Although the pertinent prohibition involves "slaughtering" an animal and its offspring on the same day, pushing the goat to Azazel is equivalent to slaughtering it.
Halacha 18
If the goat was treifah, it is unacceptable, for Leviticus 16:10 states: "It shall stand alive."
Halacha 19
If the goat becomes sick and is unable to walk, the one taking it to Azazel should carry it on his shoulders, even on the Sabbath.
Halacha 20
If the one designated to take it becomes sick, it should be sent with another person.
Halacha 21
If the one designated to take it becomes impure, he should enter the Temple take it and depart, as Leviticus 16:21 states: "to the desert in the hands of a designated person." Implied is that it should be sent in the hands of the one designated even if he became ritually impure.
Halacha 22
If that person pushed the goat off the cliff and it did not die, he should descend after it and kill it with any article that will serve that purpose. It is permitted to benefit from the limbs of this goat.
Halacha 23
If the roof of the Temple Building was opened, the High Priest should not sprinkle the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, because ibid.:17 states: "in the Tent of Meeting."
Halacha 24
When the inner altar had not been dedicated by the offering of incense previously, the High Priest should not sprinkle the blood upon it, as ibid. 4:7 states: "the altar of the incense offering."
Halacha 25
If the incense offering was lacking one of its spices or the smoke-raising herb, the High Priest is liable for death, as Leviticus 16:2 states: "He shall not die, because in a cloud I will appear on the kaporet." Similarly, he is liable for death for entering the Holy of Holies while he is not performing a mitzvah. Therefore, if he transgressed inadvertently by entering, but purposely offered an unacceptable incense offering or offered a complete incense offering together with the one that was lacking, he is liable for death.
Halacha 26
If he offered an olive-sized portion of the incense offering to be offered in the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary, he is liable for death.
Halacha 27
Taking a handful of incense is considered as an element of the Temple service and improper thoughts can disqualify it. Similarly, the scooping of the coals for the incense offering can be disqualified by improper thoughts, for performance of the preparatory acts necessary to bring a sacrifice is considered as bringing the sacrifice itself.
Halacha 28
There is doubt regarding the proper ruling in all of the following incidents:
a) he collected the incense with his fingertips, with the sides of his hands, or scooped from below upward;
b) he gathered the incense with both hands and then brought them together;
c) the incense was scattered on the earth from his hand and he collected it;
d) a colleague gathered the incense and put it in his hands; or
e) a High Priest collected the incense and died and his replacement entered the Holy of Holies with the incense collected by the first.
In all these instances, as an initial preference, he should not offer such incense. If he did, it is acceptable.
Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.
• 3 Chapters: Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 6, Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 7, Shegagot Shegagot - Perek 8 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Shegagot - Perek 6
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 16, 5776 · May 24, 2016• Iyar 16, 31st day of the omer
Audio: Listen | Download• Shegagot - Perek 6
Halacha 1
The laws concerning inadvertent consumption of foods are the same as those concerning inadvertent intimate relations. Therefore if one partook of the same type of forbidden food many times in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering even though there were many days in the interim.
What is implied? One partook of forbidden fat on a given day and did so also on the following day, and the day following that in one state of lapsed awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering, even if they were cooked in different pots. If, by contrast, one inadvertently partook of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he became aware of the transgression and then again inadvertently partook of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and became aware of the transgression, he is liable for each time he ate. For gaining awareness causes each inadvertent transgression to be considered as distinct.
If one partook of half an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and then partook of another half of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in one state of lapsed awareness, they are joined together, even though they were cooked and served in different pots and he made an interruption between partaking of them. For the different pots do not cause the inadvertent transgressions to be considered as distinct. This applies provided he did not take more than the time to eat three eggs between the two times he ate, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot. Just as anything eaten in this time is combined to comprise a minimum measure to make a person who did so willfully liable for lashes, so too, anything eaten in this time is combined to comprise a minimum measure to make a person who did so inadvertently liable to bring a sacrifice.
Halacha 2
If a person partook of notar from five different sacrifices, an olive-sized portion from each sacrifice, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering, even if he partook of them in five different pots. The rationale is that they are all included in one prohibition and the different pots do not cause the inadvertent transgressions to be considered as distinct. Nor do the different bodies of the sacrifices cause the inadvertent transgressions to be considered as distinct. There is no difference whether one partakes of meat that is notar from one sacrifice or from many sacrifices.
Similarly, when one slaughters five sacrificial animals outside the Temple Courtyard in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering. To what can the matter be compared? To one who bows down to five forbidden images in one lapse of awareness.
Halacha 3
If one let the blood of his animal and received it in two cups and drank them both in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering.
Halacha 4
When a person eats foods that are forbidden because of different prohibitions in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for one sin-offering for every type of prohibition.
What is implied? One partook of an olive-sized portion of each of the following: forbidden fat, blood, notar, and piggul, in one lapse of awareness must bring four sin-offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Anyone who eats a single olive-sized portion of food that is forbidden because of many different prohibitions in one lapse of awareness must bring a sin-offering for every prohibition, provided the prohibitions either cause the entity to be forbidden to additional people, the scope of the latter prohibition encompasses other entities together with the entity that was originally prohibited, or the two prohibitions take effect at the same time.
For this reason, if a person who is ritually impure partook of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat that was notar on Yom Kippur, he must bring four sin-offerings and a guilt-offering: one sin-offering, because he was impure and he partook of consecrated food, one, because he partook of forbidden fat, one, because he partook of notar, and one, because he ate on Yom Kippur, provided another food is combined with this olive-sized portion so that it comprises a date-sized portion. And he must bring a guilt-offering for the misappropriation of consecrated property, for he inadvertently derived benefit from consecrated property.
Halacha 5
When a person eats and drinks on Yom Kippur in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Eating and drinking is considered as a single act.
Halacha 6
When a person performs a forbidden labor on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath, he is liable for two sin-offerings, because they are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time.
Halacha 7
When a person eats a half of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and half an olive-sized portion of blood in one lapse of awareness, he is not liable for an offering. Just as the prohibitions are not combined to make one liable for lashes, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, so too, they are not combined to make him liable for a sacrifice.
Halacha 8
When a person inadvertently partook of half an olive-sized portion of a forbidden substance and then became aware of his transgression, but forgot and partook of another half an olive-sized portion of the same substance in a second lapse of awareness, he is not liable for an offering. The rationale is that he became aware in the interim and awareness causes a distinction to be made even with regard to half the required measure.
Similarly, if one wrote one letter on the Sabbath inadvertently and then became aware of the matter and then forgot and then wrote another letter next to the first in a second lapse of awareness, he is not liable for a sin-offering. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
In a like vein, if a person transferred an article two cubits in the public domain on the Sabbath inadvertently, transferred it another two cubits in conscious violation of the Sabbath laws and then transferred it two cubits inadvertently, he is liable if he transferred it by throwing it. The rationale is not that his gaining awareness after half the measure is not significant, but rather that, after throwing the article, he is unable to bring it back. Therefore the awareness he gained in the interim is of no avail. If he transferred the article by passing it, he is exempt, because gaining awareness after half the required measure has been completed is significant.
Halacha 9
The following rules apply when a person ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and then a second olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness. If he became aware of the first transgression and then became aware of the second, he must bring two sin-offerings, because the difference in his becoming aware of the transgressions creates a distinction even though he did not set a side a sacrificial animal yet. If, however, he became aware of both of them at the same time, he should bring only one sin-offering. Similarly, it appears to me that the law is the same with regard to forbidden sexual relations.
Halacha 10
If one ate an olive-sized portion and a half of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness, then became aware that he partook of the olive-sized portion and then, partook of another half of an olive-sized portion while he is unaware of partaking of the other half, he is only liable for one sin-offering. The rationale is that the second half of an olive-sized portion is not combined with the first half, even though it was eaten during its lapse of awareness, because he had become aware of part of the transgression performed in the initial lapse of awareness.
Halacha 11
A person partook of two olive-sized portions of forbidden fat and then became aware of eating one of them. He then partook of another olive-sized portion while he was unaware of the second transgression and then brought a sin-offering to atone for the first transgression. The first and the second transgressions are atoned for by this sacrifice, but not the third. Instead, when he becomes aware of it, he should bring another sin-offering.
If he brought a sin-offering for the third transgression, it secures atonement for the second and the third, because they both were committed during a single lapse of awareness, but atonement for the first is not secured by this sacrifice.
If he brought a sin-offering for the middle transgression, atonement is secured for all three. The rationale is that both the first and the third were performed during the same lapse of awareness that involved the second. Hence when he becomes aware of the first and the third transgressions, he does not have to bring an additional sin-offering.
Halacha 12
A person ate one of two pieces of fat, one, kosher and one, forbidden and he was unsure whether he had eaten the permitted fat or the forbidden fat and then he ate another piece in a similar mixture and again he was unsure whether he had eaten the permitted fat or the forbidden fat. If, afterwards, he gained definitive knowledge that he ate forbidden fat on both occasions, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Although the lack of certainty concerning whether or not he transgressed is sufficient to create a distinction with regard to a tentative guilt-offering, it is not considered as gaining awareness to require a distinction between the sin-offerings brought for atonement.
Shegagot - Perek 7
Halacha 1
When a person prostrates himself to a false deity, poured a libation to it, offers a burnt-offering to it, and slaughters an animal as a sacrifice to it in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for four sin-offerings. Similarly, if he defecated to Peor or threw a rock to Mercuryin one lapse of awareness, he is liable for two sin-offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. The person will be liable for every act of service performed.
When does the above apply? When he consciously desired to serve a false deity, but was unaware that these acts constituted service. If, however, he willfully performed these acts, but inadvertently served a false deity, he is liable for only one sin-offering.
What is implied? He knew that a particular image was a false deity and that it is forbidden to serve it, but did not know that bowing down to it or pouring a libation constituted a transgression and bowed down and poured a libation, he is liable for two sin-offerings. If, however, he knew that these were ways in which false deities were served and that it is forbidden to perform these acts in service of a false deity, but did not know that a particular image was considered a false deity, because it was not made of gold or silver and he was under the mistaken impression that only images of gold and silver were considered as false deities and hence, performed all these acts of service to it, he is liable for only one sin-offering.
Halacha 2
A great general principle was stated with regard to the violation of the Sabbath prohibitions: Anyone who forgets the fundamental principle of the Sabbath, failing to recall that the Jews were commanded to observe the Sabbath or was captured and taken among gentiles while a child or converted in his childhood and remained living among gentiles, he is liable for only one sin-offering even though he performed many forbidden labors on many different Sabbaths, for it is all one lapse of awareness.
Similarly, he is liable for one sin-offering for all the forbidden fat that he ate, one sin-offering for all the blood that he ate. Similar laws apply to all analogous situations regarding these sins. Whenever one knows the fundamental principle of the Sabbath, but forgot that a given day was the Sabbath and thought it was an ordinary day, he is liable for only one sin-offering for the entire day, even though he performed many forbidden labors on it. Similarly, he is liable for a sin-offering for every Sabbath that he inadvertently desecrated.
Halacha 3
Anyone who knows that a given day is the Sabbath, but inadvertently performed forbidden labors without knowing that these labors are forbidden or knew that they were forbidden, but did not know that one was liable for karetfor their violation, is liable for a sin-offering for every general category of forbidden labor. Even if he performed all 39 forbidden labors in one lapse of awareness, he must bring 39 sin-offerings.
Halacha 4
If he forgot that the day is the Sabbath and also forgot that these labors were forbidden, he is only liable for one sin-offering.
Halacha 5
When a person performs an action that is the primary forbidden activity of a particular category of labor and also a derivative in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Needless to day, if he performs many derivatives of one category of forbidden labor, he is only liable for one sin-offering.
Halacha 6
If he performs derivatives of one category of forbidden labor and derivatives of another category of forbidden labor in one lapse of awareness, it appears to me that he is liable for two sin-offerings.
Halacha 7
If he performs several activities comprising a single category of forbidden labor in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he sowed, extended a vine by replanting one of its branches, grafted a branch onto a tree, he is liable for only one sin-offering. In Hilchot Shabbat, it has already been explained which activities are primary labors, which are derivatives, and which activities comprise a single category of forbidden labor.
Halacha 8
When a person performs activities comprising a single category of forbidden labor on many Sabbaths, whether he was aware that it was the Sabbath, but unaware that he was performing forbidden labors or he was unaware that it was the Sabbath, but aware that the labor he performed is forbidden on the Sabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering for every forbidden labor he performs.
What is implied? He knew that it was the Sabbath and sowed on that day, because he did not know that sowing constituted forbidden labor. Similarly, on the following Sabbath, he knew that it was the Sabbath and planted because he did not know that planting constituted forbidden labor. Similarly, on the third Sabbath, he extended a vine, because he did not know that extending constituted forbidden labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for each one, even though they all comprise a single category of forbidden labor, because the different Sabbaths are considered like different bodies.
Halacha 9
When a person was unaware that it was the Sabbath and sowed upon it, although he knew that sowing is a forbidden labor, on the following Sabbath, he forgot that it was Sabbath and planted, although he knew that planting is a forbidden labor, and on the third Sabbath, he forgot that it was Sabbath and extended, although he knew that extending is a forbidden labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for every Sabbath. The rationale is that the days between each Sabbath are considered equivalent to gaining awareness of one's transgression and create a distinction.
Halacha 10
When a person harvested and ground a dried-fig-sized measure of grain without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden on the Sabbath, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Afterwards, he harvested and ground a dried-fig-sized measure of grain while aware that it is the Sabbath, but forgetting that these labors were forbidden, in which instance, he is liable for a sin-offering for every forbidden labor. He then became aware of the harvesting performed without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden on the Sabbath. In such an instance, the one act of harvesting draws the other after it and the one act of grinding draws the other after it. Thus it is as if he performed all four acts without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden on the Sabbath, in which instance he is liable for only one sin-offering. After he brings that sin-offering, he has secured atonement for all the other forbidden labors he performed. When he later becomes aware of them, he does not have to bring another sin-offering.
If, however, he first becomes conscious of the harvesting performed while aware that it is the Sabbath, but forgetting that these labors were forbidden, and brings a sin-offering, he receives atonement for the harvesting that he became aware of and on the harvesting and grinding performed without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that these labors are forbidden, because the two are considered as one labor and the harvesting and grinding are drawn after the harvesting performed when he was aware that it was the Sabbath. Thus there remains without atonement, only the grinding performed when he was aware that it was the Sabbath until he becomes aware of it and brings a second sin-offering.
If a person harvested half a dried-fig-sized measure without being aware that it is Sabbath, but knowing that this labor is forbidden and then harvested half a dried-fig-sized measure while aware that it is Sabbath, but not aware that this labor is forbidden, these two activities are combined. One harvesting draws the other after it. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations with regard to the other forbidden labors.
Halacha 11
When, on the Sabbath, a person had the intent to cut an object that was already severed from the ground, but instead, cut an object that was connected to the ground, even though he had the intent to cut, since his desired intent was not fulfilled, he is exempt from a sin-offering. He is considered as one who is merely busying himself and the Torah forbade only purposeful labor, as we explained several times.
Halacha 12
The following rule applies when a person stirs coals on the Sabbath, in which instance, he extinguishes the upper ones and ignites the lower ones. If he intended to extinguish and ignite, he is liable for two sin-offerings. If he stirred the coals to become warm and they were ignited on their own, he is liable, because one is liable for performing a forbidden labor even if he has no need for the actual labor he performed, as explained in Hilchot Shabbat. Just as he is liable for karet for the intentional performance of forbidden labor, he is liable for a sin-offering for unintentional violation.
Shegagot - Perek 8
Halacha 1
Every transgression for which one is liable for a fixed sin-offering if he transgressed inadvertently carries liability for a provisional guilt-offering if he is unsure whether he violated it.
What does being unsure mean? If a person is in doubt whether he inadvertently violated this transgression or not, he is obligated to bring a guilt-offering, as Leviticus 5:17-18 states: "If he was unaware and became guilty, he shall bear his iniquity. He shall bring an unblemished ram from sheep, of the given value, as a guilt-offering." This is referred to as a provisional guilt-offering, for it brings atonement when the person is in doubt, tentatively, until he knows with certainty that he sinned inadvertently, at which time, he brings a sin-offering.
Halacha 2
A person is not liable for a provisional guilt-offering unless there is a prohibition that is established. What is implied? A person partook of forbidden fat, but was in doubt whether there was an olive-sized portion or not. There was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of permitted fat before a person and he partook of one of them, but he did not know which one he ate. His wife and his sister were with him at home. He was intimate with one of them, but did not know with whom. Both the Sabbath and a weekday passed and he performed a forbidden labor on one of them, but did not know the day on which he acted. He performed a deed on the Sabbath, but did not know whether it falls into a category of forbidden labor. In all these and similar instances, he should bring a provisional guilt-offering.
If, however, a prohibition has not definitely been established, he is not liable for a provisional guilt-offering. Thus if there was one piece of fat before a person and he was unsure whether it was permitted or forbidden and he partook of it, he is exempt, for there is no established prohibition. Similarly, one who partakes of the fat of a ko'i is exempt from a provisional guilt-offering, for there is not an established prohibition.Similarly, when a man is intimate with a woman who is unsure whether or not she is in the niddah state or we are unsure whether she is an ervah due to family connections, he is exempt from a provisional guilt-offering.
Therefore a man who is intimate with a woman is exempt from this sacrifice, if: a) she finds blood on the examination cloth she uses after time has transpired, or
b) he married his yevamah within three months of his brother's death and she gave birth and it is not known whether the child was conceived by her first husband and was born after a nine-month pregnancy or he was conceived by her second husband and was born after a seven-month pregnancy.Similar laws apply in all analogous situations, for there is no established prohibition.
Halacha 3
An individual can be required to bring a provisional guilt-offering in the following circumstances:
a) he who ate a piece of fat and one witness states: "What you ate was forbidden fat," while the other states; "You did not partake of forbidden fat;
b) a woman said that he partook of forbidden fat and another woman said that he did not. Since he does not know whether he partook of the forbidden fat or not and the existence of the prohibited substance has been established, he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt-offering.
Similarly, if one was intimate with a married woman about whom one witness states: "Her husband died," but another states: "He did not die," he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt-offering. This law also applies when there is a question if a woman is divorced, for the prohibition was established.If, however, there is a doubt whether or not a woman was consecrated, one who is intimate with her is not liable, because the prohibition has not been established.
Halacha 4
A person is liable for a provisional guilt-offering in the following situations: There were two pieces of fat before him: one forbidden and one permitted. He ate one inadvertently and a gentile or a dog came and ate the second. The gentile or the dog ate the first and a Jew ate the second. One ate the first intentionally and the second, inadvertently, or he ate the first inadvertently and the second, intentionally. In all these situations, he is liable, because the existence of a prohibited substance had been established.
If, however, he partook of both of them intentionally, he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. And if he ate them both inadvertently, he must bring a sin-offering. If he ate the first inadvertently and another person came and ate the second inadvertently, they are both obligated to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 5
A transgressor is exempt from bringing a sacrifice in the following situations. There was a piece of forbidden fat and piece of notar before him. He ate one of them inadvertently, but did not know which one he ate. His wife who was in the niddah state and his sister were at home with him. He was intimate with one of them inadvertently, but did not know which one. The Sabbath and Yom Kippur followed directly after each other, he performed a forbidden labor in the twilight between them. He does not bring a sin-offering, because he does not know which transgression he performed, as we explained. Nor does he bring a provisional guilt-offering, because he knows with certainty that he transgressed.
Halacha 6
Whenever a person performs a deed that obligates him for one fixed sin-offering when he knows with certainty that he transgressed, he is liable for a provisional guilt-offering if he is unsure whether he transgressed. Whenever a person performs a deed that obligates him for many fixed sin-offerings when he knows with certainty that he transgressed, he is liable for many provisional guilt-offerings, matching the number of sin-offerings, if he is unsure whether he transgressed.
What is implied? Just as a person who ate forbidden fat, blood, notar, andpiggul in one lapse of awareness is liable for four sin-offerings,so, too, if he is uncertain whether he partook of them or not, he must bring four provisional guilt-offerings. Similarly, if he is unsure if the woman with whom he was intimate is his wife or so-and-so, another woman who is forbidden to him as an ervah and for whom he would be liable eight sin-offerings if he was intimate with her, he must bring eight provisional guilt-offerings.
Halacha 7
When a person ate one of two pieces of fat and he was unsure whether he ate forbidden fat or permitted fat, and after that doubt arose in his mind, he ate another one of two pieces of fat and he was unsure whether he ate forbidden fat or permitted fat, he must bring two provisional guilt-offerings.
Halacha 8
Just as the definitive knowledge that one transgressed creates a distinction with regard to sin-offerings, so too, the awareness that one possibly transgressed creates a distinction with regard to provisional guilt-offerings. Therefore if one partook of five olive-sized portions of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness and then became aware of the possibility that he sinned with regard to one of them and later, became aware of the possibility that he sinned with regard to a second one, and then with regard to the subsequent ones, he is liable for a provisional guilt-offering for each one.
Halacha 9
When there is a piece of permitted fat and a piece of forbidden fat and a person ate one of them without knowing which and thus brought a provisional guilt-offering and then partook of the second piece of fat, he must bring a sin-offering. If another person partook of the second piece, that second person must bring a provisional guilt-offering, as stated.
Halacha 10
When there is a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notarand a person ate one of them without knowing which one, he must bring a sin-offering to atone for partaking of forbidden fat and a provisional guilt-offering because of the possibility that he partook of notar. If he ate the second piece in a second lapse of awareness, he must bring three sin-offerings. If the piece of notar was worth a p'rutah, he must also bring a definitive guilt-offering because of the misappropriation of consecrated articles.
If he ate one of the two pieces and another person came and ate the second, he should bring a sin-offering and a provisional guilt-offering and the second person should bring a sin-offering and a provisional guilt-offering. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
• English Text | Video Class• Tuesday, Iyar 16, 5776 · May 24, 2016• Iyar 16, 31st day of the omer
Friday Iyar 16, 31st day of the omer 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'har, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82.
Tanya: But His blessed (p. 255)..as is explained elsewhere. (p. 255).
After my father pared his nails, he would place a small piece of wood among them before burning them.
In terms of scholarship and aptitude the Chassid Reb Elyeh Abeler was a simple man. Once, when he came into yechidus, my grandfather said to him: "Elyeh, I envy you. You travel to various fairs, you meet many people. Sometimes, in the middle of a business transaction, you get into a warm discussion about a Jewish saying, a saying from the Ein Yakov etc., and you arouse the other fellow's interest in studying nigleh (Talmud, halacha etc.) and Chassidus. This causes joy On High, and the A-lmighty rewards such "trade" with the blessings of children, health and sustenance; the larger the fair the more work there is and the greater is the livelihood earned."
• Daily Thought:
Youthful Wisdom
Wisdom lives in the future, and from there it speaks to us. There is no such thing as wisdom of the past.
Wisdom preceded the world and wisdom is its destiny. With each passing moment, wisdom becomes younger as we come closer to the time when it breaks out of its womb and breathes the air of day.
Our ancient mothers and fathers, the sages, all those from whom we learn wisdom—they are not guardians of the past. They are messengers of the future.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment