Chabad - Today in Judaism - Today is: Sunday, 17 Sivan, 5774 - 15 June 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - Today is: Sunday, 17 Sivan, 5774 - 15 June 2014
Today in Jewish History:
Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (2105 BCE)
Seven months after the beginning of the Great Flood, and 17 days after the waters covering the earth began to subside, the Ark sheltering Noah, his family, and members of all animal species came to rest on the (still submerged) summit of Mount Ararat.
Links:
A Chronology of the Flood
The Torah's account of the Flood, with commentary (Parshat Noach)
More on The Flood
Hasmonean Victory (circa 140 BCE)
The Hasmonean fighters recaptured Migdal Tzur from the Greek enemy and proclaimed this day a holiday (Talmud, Megilat Taanit).
Link: The Macabees
Daily Study:

Chumash Parshat Korach, 1st Portion (Numbers 16:1-16:13) with Rashi
Chapter 16
1. Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi took [himself to one side] along with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben. א. וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת בֶּן לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן:
Korah… took: This portion is beautifully expounded on in the Midrash of R. Tanchuma, [as follows]:
ויקח קרח: פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא:
Korah… took: He took himself to one side to dissociate himself from the congregation, to contest the [appointment of Aaron to the] kehunah. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it וְאִתְפְּלֵג,“and he separated himself.” He separated himself from the congregation to persist in a dispute. Similarly, מה יקחך לבך, “Why does your heart take you away?” (Job 15:12) meaning, it removes you, to isolate you from others (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2). Another explanation: He attracted the heads of the Sanhedrin among them with amicable words. Similarly, “Take Aaron [with words]” (20:25); “Take words with you” (Hosea 14:3) (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 1). - [Num. Rabbah 18:2]
ויקח קרח: לקח את עצמו לצד אחד להיות נחלק מתוך העדה לעורר על הכהונה, וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס ואתפלג נחלק משאר העדה להחזיק במחלוקת, וכן (איוב טו, יב) מה יקחך לבך, לוקח אותך להפליגך משאר בני אדם. דבר אחר ויקח קרח משך ראשי סנהדראות שבהם בדברים, כמו שנאמר (במדבר כ, כה) קח את אהרן, (הושע יד, ג) קחו עמכם דברים:
the son of Izhar the son of Kohath the son of Levi: [The verse] does not mention, “the son of Jacob,” because he [Jacob] prayed not to be mentioned in connection with their quarrel, as it is stated, “my honor, you shall not join their assembly” (Gen. 49:6). And where is his name mentioned in connection with Korah? In (I) Chron. (6:22, 23), where their genealogy is traced for the service of the Levites on the platform [in the Temple], as it says, “the son of Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 4, Num. Rabbah 18:5]
בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי: ולא הזכיר בן יעקב, שבקש רחמים על עצמו שלא יזכר שמו על מחלוקתם, שנאמר (בראשית מט, ו) ובקהלם אל תחד כבודי. והיכן נזכר שמו על קרח, בהתיחסם על הדוכן בדברי הימים, שנאמר (ד"ה א' ו, כב - כג) בן אביאסף בן קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי בן ישראל:
Dathan and Abiram: Since the tribe of Reuben was settled in the south when they camped, thus being neighbors of Kohath and his children who were also camped in the south, they joined with Korah in his rebellion. Woe to the wicked, and woe to his neighbor! Now what made Korah decide to quarrel with Moses? He envied the chieftainship of Elizaphan the son of Uzziel whom Moses appointed as chieftain over the sons of Kohath by the [Divine] word. Korah claimed, “My father and his brothers were four [in number]” as it says, “The sons of Kohath were…” (Exod. 6:18). Amram was the first, and his two sons received greatness-one a king and one a kohen gadol. Who is entitled to receive the second [position]? Is it not I, who am the son of Izhar, who is the second brother to Amram? And yet, he [Moses] appointed to the chieftainship the son of his youngest brother! I hereby oppose him and will invalidate his word (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 1, Num. Rabbah 18:2). What did he do? He went and assembled two hundred and fifty men, heads of Sanhedrin, most of them from the tribe of Reuben, his neighbors. These were Elitzur the son of Shedeur and his colleagues, and others like him, as it says, “chieftains of the congregation, those called to the assembly.” And further it states, “These were the chosen ones of the congregation” (1:16). He dressed them with cloaks made entirely of blue wool. They came and stood before Moses and asked him, “Does a cloak made entirely of blue wool require fringes [’tzitzith’], or is it exempt?” He replied, “ It does require [fringes].” They began laughing at him [saying], "Is it possible that a cloak of another [colored] material, one string of blue wool exempts it [from the obligation of techeleth], and this one, which is made entirely of blue wool, should not exempt itself? - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2, Num. Rabbah 18:3]
ודתן ואבירם: בשביל שהיה שבט ראובן שרוי בחנייתם תימנה, שכן לקהת ובניו החונים תימנה, נשתתפו עם קרח במחלוקתו, אוי לרשע אוי לשכנו. ומה ראה קרח לחלוק עם משה, נתקנא על נשיאותו של אליצפן בן עוזיאל שמינהו משה נשיא על בני קהת על פי הדבור. אמר קרח, אחי אבא ארבעה היו, שנאמר (שמות ו, יח) ובני קהת וגו'. עמרם הבכור נטלו שני בניו גדולה, אחד מלך ואחד כהן גדול, מי ראוי ליטול את השניה, לא אני שאני בן יצהר שהוא שני לעמרם, והוא מנה נשיא את בן אחיו הקטן מכולם, הריני חולק עליו ומבטל את דבריו. מה עשה, עמד וכנס מאתים חמישים ראשי סנהדראות, רובן משבט ראובן שכיניו, והם אליצור בן שדיאור וחביריו וכיוצא בו, שנאמר נשיאי עדה קריאי מועד, ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר א, טז) אלה קרואי העדה, והלבישן טליתות שכולן תכלת. באו ועמדו לפני משה. אמרו לו טלית שכולה של תכלת חייבת בציצית או פטורה. אמר להם חייבת. התחילו לשחק עליו, אפשר טלית של מין אחר חוט אחד של תכלת פוטרה, זו שכולה תכלת לא תפטור את עצמה:
descendants of Reuben: Dathan and Abiram and On the son of Peleth.
בני ראובן: דתן ואבירם ואון בן פלת:
2. They confronted Moses together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, chieftains of the congregation, representatives of the assembly, men of repute. ב. וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם:
3. They assembled against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord's assembly?" ג. וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל משֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב לָכֶם כִּי כָל הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדשִׁים וּבְתוֹכָם יְהֹוָה וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ עַל קְהַל יְהֹוָה:
You take too much upon yourselves: You took by far too much greatness for yourselves.
רב לכם: הרבה יותר מדאי לקחתם לעצמכם גדולה:
are all holy: All of them heard [the] words [of the commandments] at Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty. - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 4]
כלם קדושים: כולם שמעו דברים בסיני מפי הגבורה:
So why do you raise yourselves: If you have taken kingship for yourself, you should not have chosen kehunah for your brother. Not only you heard at Sinai, “I am the Lord, your God” ; the entire congregation heard it. - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 4]
ומדוע תתנשאו: אם לקחת אתה מלכות לא היה לך לברר לאחיך כהונה, לא אתם לבדכם שמעתם בסיני אנכי ה' אלהיך (שמות כ ב), כל העדה שמעו:
4. Moses heard and fell on his face. ד. וַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה וַיִּפֹּל עַל פָּנָיו:
and fell on his face: because of the rebellion, for this was already their fourth offense. [When] they sinned with the calf, “Moses pleaded” (Exod. 32:11); by the episode of the complainers, “Moses prayed” (11:2); with the spies, “Moses said to God, ‘But the Egyptians will hear…’ ” (14:13), but now, at Korah’s rebellion, he became disheartened [literally, his hands were weakened]. This is comparable to a prince who sinned against his father, and his [father’s] friend placated the king on his behalf, once, twice, and three times. When he offended the fourth time, the friend became disheartened, and he said, “How much more can I trouble the king? Perhaps he will no longer accept my petition.” - [Midrash Tanchuma 4, Num. Rabbah 18: 6]
ויפול על פניו: מפני המחלוקת, שכבר זה בידם סרחון רביעי, חטאו בעגל (שמות לב, יא) ויחל משה, במתאוננים (במדבר יא, יב) ויתפלל משה, במרגלים (שם יד, יג) ויאמר משה אל ה' ושמעו מצרים, במחלוקתו של קרח נתרשלו ידיו. משל לבן מלך שסרח על אביו ופייס עליו אוהבו פעם ושתים ושלש, כשסרח רביעית נתרשלו ידי האוהב ההוא. אמר עד מתי אטריח על המלך, שמא לא יקבל עוד ממני:
5. He spoke to Korah and to all his company, saying, "In the morning, the Lord will make known who is His, and who is holy, and He will draw [them] near to Him, and the one He chooses, He will draw near to Him. ה. וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל קֹרַח וְאֶל כָּל עֲדָתוֹ לֵאמֹר בֹּקֶר וְיֹדַע יְהֹוָה אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְאֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו:
In the morning, the Lord will make known: Night is a time of drunkenness for us, and it is improper to appear before Him. His real intention was to delay, with the hope that they might retract [their opposition]. - [Midrash Tanchuma 5]
בקר ויודע וגו': עתה עת שכרות הוא לנו ולא נכון להראות לפניו והוא היה מתכוין לדחותם שמא יחזרו בהם:
In the morning, the Lord will make known who is His: For the Levitic services.
בקר ויודע ה' את אשר לו: לעבודת לויה:
and who is holy: For the kehunah.
ואת הקדוש: לכהונה:
and He will draw: them near to Him. Heb. וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו. And the Targum [Onkelos] proves this [that it is referring to both the Levites and the kohanim], for he renders the first phrase, “He will bring them close to Him” [and the second phrase]“He will bring into His service.” The Midrashic interpretation of בֹּקֶר, morning, [rather than מָחָר, tomorrow] is: Moses said to him [Korah], The Holy One, blessed is He, assigned boundaries to His world. Are you able to transform morning into evening? That is how possible it is for you to undo this, as it says,“It was evening and it was morning… and He separated (וַיַּבְדֵּל) ” (Gen. 1:5, 7); similarly,“Aaron was set apart (וַיִּבָּדֵל) to sanctify him…” (I Chron. 23:13). - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 3, Num. Rabbah 4]
והקריב: אותם אליו. והתרגום מוכיח כן ויקרב לקדמוהי יקרב לשמושיה. ומדרשו בקר, אמר לו משה, גבולות חלק הקב"ה בעולמו, יכולים אתם להפוך בקר לערב, כן תוכלו לבטל את זו, שנאמר (בראשית א, ה - ז) ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר ויבדל, כך (דה"א כג יג) ויבדל אהרן להקדישו וגו':
6. Do this, Korah and his company: Take for yourselves censers. ו. זֹאת עֲשׂוּ קְחוּ לָכֶם מַחְתּוֹת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
Do this!…Take for yourselves censers: Why did he see fit to speak to them thus? He said to them, “Among the nations, there are various forms of worship and many priests, and they do not all gather in one temple. We, however, have only one God, one ark, one Torah, one altar, and one kohen gadol, but you two hundred and fifty men are all seeking the kehunah gedolah ! I too would prefer that. Here, take for yourselves the service most dear-it is the incense, more cherished than any other sacrifice, but it contains deadly poison, by which Nadab and Abihu were burnt. Therefore, he warned them, ”and it will be the one whom the Lord chooses-he is the holy one“ [meaning,] that he is already in his [state of] holiness. Is it not obvious that [the one] who is chosen is the holy one? Rather, Moses told them,”I am telling you this so that you should not be found guilty. For the one He chooses will survive, and the rest of you will perish." - [Mid. Tanchuma 5, Bamidbar Rabbah 18:8]
זאת עשו קחו לכם מחתות: מה ראה לומר להם כך, אמר להם בדרכי הגוים יש נימוסים הרבה וכומרים הרבה ואין כולם מתקבצים בבית אחד, אנו אין לנו אלא ה' אחד, ארון אחד ותורה אחת ומזבח אחד וכהן גדול אחד ואתם מאתים וחמישים איש מבקשים כהונה גדולה, אף אני רוצה בכך, הא לכם תשמיש חביב מכל, היא הקטרת החביבה מכל הקרבנות וסם המות נתון בתוכו שבו נשרפו נדב ואביהוא, לפיכך התרה בהם והיה האיש אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, כבר הוא בקדושתו. וכי אין אנו יודעים שמי שיבחר הוא הקדוש, אלא אמר להם משה הריני אומר לכם שלא תתחייבו, מי שיבחר בו יצא חי, וכולכם אובדים:
censers: מַחְתּוֹת, vessels used for stoking (חוֹתִין) coals, which have a handle.
מחתות: כלים שחותין בהם גחלים ויש להם בית יד:
7. Place fire into them and put incense upon them before the Lord tomorrow, and the man whom the Lord chooses he is the holy one; you have taken too much upon yourselves, sons of Levi." ז. וּתְנוּ בָהֵן | אֵשׁ וְשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן | קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה מָחָר וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה הוּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ רַב לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי:
you have taken too much upon yourselves, sons of Levi: Heb. רַב לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי, [interpreted Midrashically as:] I have told you a very great thing. Were they not fools? For he warned them about it and they [still] took upon themselves to offer [the incense]. They sinned at the cost of their lives, as it says, “the censers of these who sinned at the cost of their lives” (17:3). But what did Korah, who was astute, see [to commit] this folly? His vision deceived him. He saw [prophetically] a chain of great people descended from him: Samuel, who is equal [in importance] to Moses and Aaron. He [Korah] said, “ For his sake I will be spared. [He also saw] twenty-four watches [of Levites] emanating from his grandsons, all prophesying through the holy spirit, as it says, ”all these were the sons of Heman“ (I Chron 25:5). He said, ” Is it possible that all this greatness is destined to emanate from me, and I should remain silent?“ Therefore, he participated [in the rebellion] to reach that prerogative, for he had heard from Moses that they would all perish and one would escape [death]: ”the one whom the Lord chooses-he is the holy one.“ He erred in thinking that it referred to him. He, however, did not ”see" properly, for his sons repented [and thus did not die at that time]. Moses, however, foresaw this. - [This is found in Mid.] Tanchuma [Korach 5, Num. Rabbah 18:8]
רב לכם בני לוי: דבר גדול אמרתי לכם. ולא טפשים היו שכך התרה בהם וקבלו עליהם לקרב, אלא הם חטאו על נפשותם, שנאמר את מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם. וקרח שפקח היה מה ראה לשטות זה, עינו הטעתו, ראה שלשלת גדולה יוצאה ממנו, שמואל ששקול כנגד משה ואהרן. אמר בשבילו אני נמלט, וכ"ד משמרות עומדות לבני בניו כולם מתנבאים ברוח הקודש, שנאמר (ד"ה א' כה, ה) כל אלה בנים להימן, אמר אפשר כל הגדולה הזאת עתידה לעמוד ממני ואני אדום, לכך נשתתף לבוא לאותה חזקה, ששמע מפי משה שכולם אובדים ואחד נמלט. אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, טעה ותלה בעצמו, ולא ראה יפה, לפי שבניו עשו תשובה, ומשה היה רואה. תנחומא:
you have taken too much upon yourselves: [The simple interpretation is:] You have taken too great a task upon yourselves, to rebel against the Holy One, blessed is He.
רב לכם: דבר גדול נטלתם בעצמכם לחלוק על הקב"ה:
8. Moses said to Korah, "Please listen, sons of Levi. ח. וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל קֹרַח שִׁמְעוּ נָא בְּנֵי לֵוִי:
Moses said…: He began to speak softly to him, but when he saw that he [Korah] was adamant [lit., stiff-necked], he [Moses] thought, “Before the other tribes [other versions: the rest of the tribe] join him and perish with him, I will speak to all of them as well.” He then began exhorting them [saying,], “Listen to me, sons of Levi.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 6, Num. Rabbah 18:9]
ויאמר משה אל קרח שמעו נא בני לוי: התחיל לדבר עמו דברים רכים, כיון שראהו קשה עורף, אמר עד שלא ישתתפו שאר השבטים ויאבדו עמו, אדבר גם אל כולם, התחיל לזרז בהם שמעו נא בני לוי:
9. Is it not enough that the God of Israel has distinguished you from the congregation of Israel to draw you near to Him, to perform the service in the Mishkan of the Lord and to stand before the congregation to minister to them? ט. הַמְעַט מִכֶּם כִּי הִבְדִּיל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶתְכֶם מֵעֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב אֶתְכֶם אֵלָיו לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁכַּן יְהֹוָה וְלַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לְשָׁרְתָם:
and to stand before the congregation: to sing on the platform.
ולעמוד לפני העדה: לשיר על הדוכן:
10. He drew you near, and all your brothers, the sons of Levi with you, and now you seek the kehunah as well? י. וַיַּקְרֵב אֹתְךָ וְאֶת כָּל אַחֶיךָ בְנֵי לֵוִי אִתָּךְ וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם גַּם כְּהֻנָּה:
He drew you near: to that service from which he has distanced the rest of the congregation of Israel.
ויקרב אתך: לאותו שירות שהרחיק ממנו שאר עדת ישראל:
11. Therefore, you and your entire company who are assembled are against the Lord, for what is Aaron that you should complain against him?" יא. לָכֵן אַתָּה וְכָל עֲדָתְךָ הַנֹּעָדִים עַל יְהֹוָה וְאַהֲרֹן מַה הוּא כִּי תַלִּינוּ עָלָיו:
Therefore: Because of this, “you and your entire company who are assembled” with you “are against the Lord,” for I acted as His messenger to give the kehunah to Aaron, and this rebellion is not with us [but with the Lord]. - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 6, Num. Rabbah 18:9]
לכן: בשביל כך אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים אתך על ה' כי בשליחותו עשיתי לתת כהונה לאהרן ולא לנו היא המחלוקת הזו:
12. Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, but they said, "We will not go up. יב. וַיִּשְׁלַח משֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא נַעֲלֶה:
Moses sent: From here we derive that one should not persist in a dispute, because Moses sought them out to conciliate them with peaceful words. — [Mid. Tanchuma Korach 10, Sanh. 110a]
וישלח משה וגו': מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת, שהיה משה מחזר אחריהם להשלימם בדברי שלום:
We will not go up: Their own mouths caused them to stumble, [to say] that they would have only a downfall. - [Mid. Tanchuma Korach 6, Num. Rabbah 10]
לא נעלה: פיהם הכשילם, שאין להם אלא ירידה:

13. Is it not enough that you have brought us out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert, that you should also exercise authority over us? יג. הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר:
-------
Daily Tehillim Psalms Chapters 83-87
Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.

7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
-------
Tanya Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 6
Lesson in Tanya:
Today's Tanya
Sunday, 17 Sivan 5774 - June 15, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 6
Earlier on, in ch. 4, the Alter Rebbe explained that the Supernal attributes of Chesed and Gevurah — the former finding expression in the diffusion of the Divine life-force that creates and animates created beings, and the latter finding expression in the obscuring of this life-force from them (so that they conceive of themselves as independently existing beings) — both possess one source. He explained there that since these two attributes are essentially one, the tzimtzum of Gevurah does not truly conceal, for “an entity cannot conceal its own self.”
All this applies to Chesed and Gevurah in the state in which they are found within their source. One might, however, think that in their revealed state (whether in a Sefirah, or in a mortal middah or attribute) they are indeed two separate and opposite entities — revelation and concealment, respectively. The Alter Rebbe therefore goes on to say in this chapter, that even when these attributes are revealed they are still in a state of hitkalelut, mutual incorporation, and both serve to bring about one result — a physical world with corporeal creatures. Were the Divine life-force to be revealed within these creatures they would be completely nullified within their source; there would be no such thing as created beings.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the tzimtzum brought about by Gevurah is also motivated by Chesed, for this concealment makes creation possible. Gevurah and Chesed are thus joined in a state of mutual incorporation. What makes this fusion possible is the fact that they are both united with the light of the Ein Sof. Hence, even when they are in a revealed state and appear to be two disparate entities, they are essentially one.
והנה שם אלקים הוא שם מדת הגבורה והצמצום
Now the Name Elokim is the Name which indicates the attribute of Gevurah and tzimtzum,
Each of G‑d’s Names denotes a particular Divine attribute. The Name pronounced Keil, for example, indicates the attribute of Chesed, as in the verse,1 “The kindness of Keil endures throughout the day.” Likewise, the Name that indicates the attribute of Gevurah or tzimtzum is Elokim; i.e., when the light of the Ein Sof garbs itself in the attribute of Gevurah to bring about its own tzimtzum and concealment, it is known by the Name Elokim.
ולכן הוא גם כן בגימטריא הטבע
hence it is also numerically equal to hateva (“nature”), which equals 86,
“Nature” signifies the ordered way of the world. Because of its repetitiveness, people become accustomed to it and it arouses no sense of wonder. No thought is given to the Divine power and life-force which is concealed in those things which have an established order and are repeated constantly.
לפי שמסתיר האור שלמעלה, המהוה ומחיה העולם
for it (the Divine Name Elokim) conceals the supernal light that brings the world into existence and gives it life,
The supernal light constantly creates the world ex nihilo — a feat more wondrous than the Splitting of the Red Sea. The Divine Name Elokim, however, conceals this light, so that it will not be visible to created beings,
ונראה כאלו העולם עומד ומתנהג בדרך הטבע
and it appears as though the world exists — without having to be constantly renewed, as if permanently programmed — and is conducted according to the laws of nature, independently of any supernatural influence.
Thus, even those things which are observed to undergo some degree of renewal are also perceived as “the way of nature,” inasmuch as they follow these seemingly immutable laws.
Chassidus explains that the wordטבע (“nature”), has a number of meanings, including “entrenched” and “submerged”. This means that the laws of nature are so “entrenched” in creation that it is difficult to detect the ongoing process of its renewal. Additionally, just as a submerged object is completely concealed by water, so, too, is the Divine life-force utterly “submerged” and concealed within created beings.
ושם אלקים זה
And this Name Elokim, not as it exists in its supernal source, but as it acts through the attribute of Gevurah, so that the world appears to be conducted in a natural manner,
הוא מגן ונרתק לשם הויה
is a shield and a sheath for the Name Havayah,
The Divine Name Havayah — as mentioned earlier, in explanation of the verse, “For a sun and a shield is Havayah Elokim”— is like the illuminating sun, while the Name Elokim conceals its light as does the sun’s shield, thereby enabling created beings to benefit from it.
להעלים האור והחיות הנמשך משם הויה, ומהוה מאין ליש
concealing the light and life-force which flows from the Name Havayah and bringing creation into existence from naught, this being the purpose of Havayah, the Name itself meaning “to bring into existence.” This light and life-force is concealed by Elokim:
שלא יתגלה לנבראים, ויבטלו במציאות
so that it should not be revealed to the creatures, which would thereby become absolutely nullified.
Since it is only through the concealment effected by the Name Elokim that created beings are able to exist:
והרי בחינת גבורה זו וצמצום הזה הוא גם כן בחינת חסד, שהעולם יבנה בו
The quality of this2 Gevurah and tzimtzum is also an aspect of Chesed, through which the world is built.
This is an allusion to the verse that states:3 “For I declared that the world be built through [the attribute of] Chesed.” For inasmuch as the world could not possibly have been created without the tzimtzum and concealment afforded by the Divine Name Elokim, it follows that the ultimate intent of this tzimtzum is actually Chesed.
וזו היא בחינת גבורה הכלולה בחסד
And this is the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed.4
I.e., this is a form of Gevurah through which an act of Chesed is accomplished. As such it is included within Chesed.5
FOOTNOTES
1.Tehillim 52:3.
2.Note of the Rebbe: “As distinct from that [Gevurah] of Part I, end of ch. 6.”
In this brief note, the Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe stresses here that specifically “this [manner of] Gevurah and tzimtzum is also a quality of Chesed.” His intention is to exclude thereby the Gevurah and tzimtzum discussed earlier, in the sixth chapter of the first part of Tanya. When he says there that the life-force of holiness descends through many degrees of tzimtzum that enable it to be invested within the kelipah and sitra achra so as to provide them with life, it is clear that there the tzimtzum is truly one of Gevurah and concealment, and by no means a quality of Chesed. For the Divine intent there is that there should be no revelation whatever.
3.Tehillim 89:3.
4.The Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe states that “this is the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed,” after having already said that “this quality of Gevurah and tzimtzum is also a quality of Chesed.”
The Alter Rebbe’s purpose here is to introduce a basic new point, and thereby to forestall a powerful question, which because of its apparent simplicity — says the Rebbe — seems to be overlooked.
The question is as follows: We are speaking here of G‑d’s infinite attributes. Just as the effect of His Chesed is limitless, creating as it does an infinite multitude of beings (see above, ch. 4), so too should the infinite effect of Gevurah be an infinite degree of concealment. This concealment should therefore only allow (heaven forfend) such creation of which it may be said (as the Alter Rebbe says in Tanya, ch. 36) that “there is none lower than it in terms of concealment of His light.” Accordingly, it would seem that the infinite concealment of Gevurah should only allow for the creation of an infinite multitude of creatures which are of the lowest level of this gross and material world, “the lowest in degree,” inasmuch as only within this lowest level is there to be found the utmost concealment — the infinite effect of Gevurah. How, then, did the rest of creation come about?
According to the analogy of the sun’s shield and sheath, as well as the above explanation that the purpose of the concealment is not concealment alone, but also that creation not be totally nullified within the Divine light, the question is resolved as follows.
The sun not only operates by means of its shield; being a luminary, it also shines — and may be seen — through it. Thus, the effect of the shield is also to allow the revelation of the sun.
The same is true of the infinite degrees of creation which emanate from the “sun” of Chesed and the infinite degrees of concealment emanating from the “shield” of Gevurah. Every level of the infinity of creatures created by Chesed is protected from being nullified in relation to its source, by the corresponding level of the infinity of shields brought into being through the infinite attribute of Gevurah.
This, then, is the new and basic point the Alter Rebbe indicates when he says that “this is the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed”: Within each of the infinite degrees and levels of creatures generated by Chesed, there is to be found the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed, so that they will not be nullified in relation to their source.
We thus have two novel points explained here by the Alter Rebbe: (a) The quality of Gevurah is not only an expression of concealment and tzimtzum, but also a quality of Chesed, for it makes creation possible; (b) this quality of Gevurah is included in Chesed.
This latter point finds expression in the fact that each level of creation and each creature was brought into being through a manner of tzimtzum that is likened to “individual droplets” of rain that are channeled and phased, rather than descending all at once like “the floodgates of heaven.” The “channeling” effect is thus twofold. On the one hand, it negates and limits the unbridled “floodgates of heaven”; at the same time, it causes the droplets to descend individually, so that they may be utilized in a profitable manner.
Another analogy: Smoked glass is used to protect one’s eyes from the sun’s rays by blocking the free passage of light that a lighter-colored glass would admit; at the same time, this same protective glass does permit some degree of light to enter, so that benefit may be derived from the sun’s rays.
The same is true in the analogue, regarding the two characteristics of tzimtzum and Gevurah. On one hand, tzimtzum makes it possible for the created being not to become totally nullified in relation to its source — something that would be certain to occur if creation were to derive from the attribute of Chesed alone; on the other hand, tzimtzum at the very same time is a partner in creation — an act of Chesed, as the verse states, “For I declared that the world be built through Chesed.” This is what is meant by “the quality of Gevurah which is included in Chesed”; i.e., that Gevurah which creates beings.
5.An example of this, notes the Rebbe, is the rainfall as described in note 4, above. So too, as discussed there, one can look at the sun only by using a darkened glass, which thus serves a function of Gevurah as included in Chesed. And the same is true in the analogue: Since the world is created by virtue of the concealment effected by Gevurah, this attribute thereby becomes a component of the attribute of Chesed.
-------
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah N94, N95, N96, N97, P86 - Sefer Hamitzvot
Sunday, 17 Sivan 5774 - June 15, 2014
Negative Commandment 94 (Digest)
Burning the Fats of a Blemished Animal on the Altar
"Nor shall you make a fire offering of them"—Leviticus 22:22.
It is forbidden to burn the fats of an animal with a permanent blemish on the altar.
And the 94th prohibition is that we are forbidden from burning the fats of a blemished animal [on the altar].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not place any of them on the altar as a burnt-offering." The Sifra says, "The verse, 'Do not place any of them as a burnt-offering,' refers to the fats. The phrase, 'Do not place,' implies [that a prohibi­tion exists only if one burns] all of them. How do I know [that it is prohibited to burn] even some of them? This is derived from the phrase, 'any of them' — i.e. even some of them." It is therefore clear that one who sacrifices a blemished animal transgresses four prohibi­tions [N91-94].
But this is true only if we count burning the fats as a single pro­hibition. However, if we would count burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats as two prohibitions, as this Sage does here, you would have a total of five prohibitions. This is because he considers "some" of the fats to be one thing, and "all" of them to be something else, as he said, "even any of them."
This is so even though it [burning the fats] is essentially one pro­hibition, because this Sage holds that one is lashed for [each element of] a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition].2 Therefore the Sifra says, "One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions: designating, slaughtering, sprinkling the blood, burning the fats, and burning a portion of the fats."
The Gemara says in Temurah,3 "In a case of one who brought the limbs of a blemished animal to the altar — Abaye says he is lashed separately for burning 'all' and for burning 'some.' Rava says, we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus." The Gemara then presents a contradiction: "But it says, 'One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions,' which shows that we do give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus! This disproves Rava!"4
This discussion shows that [the Sifra] counts them as five prohi­bitions because of the opinion that we give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, and therefore the prohibitions of burning "all" and "some" are counted separately. As is well known, this is Abaye's opinion in all cases, as we explained in the Ninth Principle that preceded this work. But according the Rava, who holds that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, one would receive only one set of lashes for burning the fats, as we ex­plained.
We have already explained that the final law is that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, as explained in tractate Sanhedrin5 and as we demonstrated in the Ninth Principle. Therefore, there are only four prohibitions, as indicated by Scripture, and one who designates and offers a blemished animal receives four sets of lashes for these four prohibitions, as we explained.
All these prohibitions refer to animals which are permanently blemished, as the verse6 enumerates, [an animal with] "an over­grown7 limb or unsplit hoof8 ...or genitals which are crushed, mashed,9 detached or severed10..." — which are all permanent blem­ishes.11
All animal blemishes, both permanent and temporary, are ex­plained in the sixth chapter of Bechoros. The laws regarding these four prohibitions dealing specifically with sacrificing a blemished animal are explained in various passages in tractates Zevachim and Temurah.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.As the Rambam explains below, and at length in the Ninth Introductory Principle, there is a disagreement in the Talmud regarding a lav she'b'klalus, an "inclusive prohibition," or a prohibition that has several elements. The Torah prohibits a Nazirite, for example, from eating grape skins and grape pits. If he eats both, how many sets of lashes does he re­ceive? According to Abaye, he receives two sets, but according to Rava, only one set, because he rules that we do not give lashes separately for each element of a lav she'b'klalus. (In our versions of the Talmud, the positions of Abaye and Rava are reversed. See Kapach, 5731, note 66.)
In our case of burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats, Abaye would dictate two sets of lashes, and Rava one set. Therefore, the Rambam says, the Sifra counts five prohi­bitions in accordance with Abaye's view. However, since the law is like Rava, there are only four prohibitions.
3.7b.
4.The Talmud answers this apparent contradiction, and, as the Rambam concludes below, the law is that there are four prohibitions.
5.63a.
6.Lev. 22:23-24.
7.See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 7:9, and notes 58, 59 in Rambam L'Am, 5723, ibid.
8.See Bechoros 40a. See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, ibid., where this blemish is apparently omitted, or perhaps explained in a different fashion.
9.Ibid. See note 48.
10.Ibid. See notes 49, 50, 52, 53.
11.In Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5, as well as in N95 below, the Rambam rules that these prohibitions apply to an animal with a temporary blemish as well. See Kapach 5731, note 70.
-------
Negative Commandment 95 (Digest)
Sacrificing Animals with Temporary Blemishes
"You shall not sacrifice to G‑d, your G‑d, any ox or sheep in which there is a blemish"—Deuteronomy 17:1.
It is forbidden to offer as a sacrifice an animal with a temporary blemish.
And the 95th prohibition is that we are forbidden from sacrific­ing an animal with a temporary blemish.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement in Deuteron­omy,1 "Do not sacrifice to G‑d your L‑rd any ox, sheep that has a blemish." The Sifri2 explains that this verse refers to a temporary blemish.
The penalty for transgressing this prohibition by bringing the animal as an offering is also lashes.3
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 17:1.
2.Our versions of the Sifri do not have this statement. See Heller, 5706, who points to "the Sifri that is called 'Midrash Tannaim.'"
3.See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5.
-------
Negative Commandment 96 (Digest)
Sacrificing Blemished Animals Presented by Non-Jew
"And from a foreigner's hand you may not offer the bread of your G‑d from any of these"—Leviticus 22:25.
It is forbidden to offer as a sacrifice an animal with a blemish that is presented by a non-Jew.
And the 96th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering blemished animals that are brought by non-Jews. We should not say, "since he is not Jewish, it may be offered even if blemished."1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not offer any such animal as a sacrifice to your G‑d, [even if it is] presented by a non-Jew."
One who transgresses and brings it as an offering is also pun­ished by lashes.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Non-Jews are allowed to bring sacrifices to G‑d even outside the Temple, and they can even offer blemished animals. This prohibition teaches that if they bring the animal to the Temple, it must conform to the requirements of all Temple animals, and blemished ani­mals are therefore invalid.
2.Lev. 22:25.
-------
Negative Commandment 97 (Digest)
Causing a Blemish in an Animal that was Designated for Sacrifice
"No blemish shall be in it"—Leviticus 22:21.
It is forbidden to cause a blemish to an animal designated for sacrifice [making it unfit for sacrificial use].
And the 97th prohibition is that we are forbidden from causing a blemish in a sanctified animal. This is known as being matil mum bakodshim, and the punishment for doing so is lashes — upon condi­tion that the Temple is standing and it therefore could be sacrificed, as explained in tractate Avodah Zorah.1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "It shall not have any blemish in it."
The Sifra says, "The verse, 'It shall not have any blemish in it,' means that one may not place a blemish in it."
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.13b.
2.Lev. 22:21.
-------
Positive Commandment 86 (Digest)
Redeeming a Blemished Offering
"However, as per your every desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in all your cities, according to the blessing of G‑d, your G‑d"—Deuteronomy 12:15.
We are commanded to "redeem" any animal consecrated for sacrificial use. The animal is then relieved of its holiness and may be eaten. [The redemption money is used to purchase a new animal for sacrifice.]
The 86th mitzvah is that we are commanded to redeem sancti­fied animals that develop a blemish, whereupon they become like regular animals and may be slaughtered and eaten.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants, so that you will be able to eat the meat that G‑d gives you as His blessing."
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants,' speaks of sanctified animals that have become invalid and were subsequently redeemed."
The details of this mitzvah of redeeming sanctified animals are explained in tractates Bechoros2 and Temurah,3 and a number of places in Chullin,4 Erachim,5 and Me'ilah.6
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 12:15.
2.15a.
3.32a.
4.130a.
5.4-5.
6.19b.
-------
1 Chapter a Day Shechenim - Chapter Seven
Shechenim - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
When a person has a window in his wall and a colleague comes and builds a courtyard next to it, the owner of the courtyard cannot tell the owner of the window: "Close this window, so that you will not look at me," for the owner of the window has established his right to maintain the window even though it is a source of damage.
If his colleague desires to build a wall opposite the window to block the invasion of his privacy, he must leave a space of four cubits next to the window, to avoid casting a shadow upon it.
Halacha 2
If the window was positioned low in the wall, the owner of the window may force the owner of the courtyard to build the wall four cubits away from the window and build it at least four cubits high, so that the owner of the courtyard cannot look through the window and watch the owner of the window.
Halacha 3
The following rules apply when the window was positioned high on the wall and the owner of the courtyard built a wall below the window. If there were more than four cubits from the top of the wall to the window, the owner of the window may not prevent the owner of the courtyard from building the wall even though he does not leave any space between his wall and the wall in which the window is located. For the new wall is not casting a shadow over his window, nor does it invade the privacy of the owner of the window.
If, however, there is less than four cubits between the top of the wall and the window, the owner of the window may force the owner of the wall either to lower the wall so that the owner of the courtyard will not be able to stand on the wall and look through the window; or he may force the owner of the courtyard to build his wall four cubits from the window, and build it more than four cubits higher than the wall. In this way, it will not cast a shadow, nor will the owner of the courtyard be able to look in and see him.
Halacha 4
When the owner of the courtyard builds one wall next to the window, he must build the wall at least a handbreadth away from the window, and must build the wall at least four cubits higher than the window or make the wall narrow on top, so that he will not sit on it, and look into the window and watch his neighbor.
Halacha 5
When a person builds two walls, one on either side of the window, there must be at least four cubits between them, and the window must be situated in the center of those four cubits. The owner of the courtyard may not place s'chach over the space between the walls, unless he leaves a space of four cubits between the s'chach and the wall where the window is located, so that it will not cast a shadow over it.
Accordingly, if a person comes to open a window - whether a large window or a small window - overlooking a courtyard belonging to a colleague, that colleague may prevent him from doing so, for he can tell the owner of the window: "You will be invading my privacy by looking at me. " Even if the window is located high on the inner wall, the owner of the courtyard may protest, saying: "You will climb up on a ladder and look at me."
Halacha 6
If a person has opened a window overlooking a courtyard belonging to a colleague, and the owner of the courtyard waived his right to protest or displayed his willingness to consent - e.g., he helped him in the window's construction or he knew about this source of damage and did not protest - the owner of the window has established his right to the window. The owner of the courtyard cannot come at a later date and protest that he must close it.
What are the laws that apply with regard to this window that he was allowed to open? If it is large enough for a person to insert his head, or it is less than four cubits high, even if it is not large enough for a person to insert his head into it, the owner of the courtyard may not build a wall opposite or at its side unless he moves four cubits away, as explained in the previous halachah.
Halacha 7
If, however, the window was too small for the head of a person to be inserted, and it is more than four cubits high, the owner of the courtyard may build a wall opposite it or at its sides. For he can claim: "I allowed you to open the window only because it is small and high, but it was not my intent to give you a right that would require me to move away my building."
When does the above apply? When the window was opened to be used or to allow air to enter. If, however, the window was opened so that light could enter, even if it was very small and very high, since the owner of the courtyard did not protest at the time of its construction, the owner of the window is granted a right to it. The owner of the courtyard may not build a structure opposite it or at its side unless he moves four cubits away, so that he does not cast a shadow against it, for he granted him the right to the light.
Similarly, if a person had a window for which he established a right, and the owner of the courtyard built opposite it or at its side without moving away, or he closed the window, and the owner of the window did not protest, the owner of the window cannot come at a later time protesting and demanding that the window be opened or that the structure be moved. Since he remained silent, he waived his right to protest. For a person will not remain silent while another person blocks his light unless he relinquishes his right.
Halacha 8
When a person has windows on the lower portion of his wall, and a person who owns an adjoining property desires to erect a building that would block them he is not permitted to do so. Even if he proposes: "I will open up new windows for you in this wall above these others, " the owner of the windows may prevent him from doing so, explaining "When you open the windows, you will shake the foundations of the wall and ruin it."
Even if the person who desires to build offers: "I will tear down your wall and rebuild it for you with windows higher up. And I will rent a home for you to live in until I build it, " the owner of the home can still prevent him. For he may say: "I do not want the trouble moving from one place to another."
Therefore, if there is no difficulty involved at all, and it is not necessary for him to leave his home, he cannot prevent him from performing this construction. We compel him to allow his friend to close the window below and build a new window for him higher up. Not to allow this would be following the traits of Sodom. Similarly, whenever there is a situation where one person will benefit and his colleague will not lose nor be lacking anything, we compel that person to cooperate.
Halacha 9
When, by contrast, the owner of a window desires to change the location of his window, whether to raise it or lower it, the owner of the adjoining courtyard can prevent him from doing so. This applies even if the window was large, and its owner says: "I will open only a small window in another place, and close this one. " Needless to say, he cannot make the window larger.
Halacha 10

The following rule applies when two brothers divide a courtyard that they received as an inheritance on their own accord, evaluating the building and the trees in each other's portion, but failing to pay attention to the value of the open space. Thus, one received the garden of the courtyard, and one received an excedra. If the brother who received the garden in the courtyard desires to build a wall at the end of his portion, in front of his brother's excedra, he may do so, even though he casts a shadow over it. For when dividing the estate, they did not pay attention to the value of the open space.
-------
Rambam:
3 Chapters a Day Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2, Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3, Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
There are a total of 50 blemishes that disqualify both a man1 and an animal.2 They have already been listed.3
Halacha 2
There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4 There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5 if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6 d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7 e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.
Halacha 3
f) If its outer tonsils8 were perforated; g) their substance was reduced, even though a portion of them remained; h) they shriveled; i) its inner tonsils were removed;9 [this is considered a blemish],10 because when it opens its mouths and shriek, it will be seen that they are missing.
Halacha 4
j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11 a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12 k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13 m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14 n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short.
To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15 If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.
Halacha 5
s) A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16 u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the termkalut mentioned in the Torah;17 w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,
Halacha 6
All of the 73 blemishes18 listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19 Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20 Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21 Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22 nor sacrificed.23
Halacha 7
There are four temporary blemishes [that disqualify] both a man and an animal:24 a) a moist skin eruption;25 b) a boil that does not resemble those of Egypt;26 c) water that descends in the eyes that is not a permanent condition;27 d) a degeneration of nerves in the eye that is not permanent.28
Halacha 8
The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29
They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it;30 b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained;31 c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled.32
If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed.33 Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish.34 If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.35
Halacha 9
Similarly, when a transgression was performed with a consecrated animal36or it killed a person, but [was observed] only by one witness or by the owner,37it is neither sacrificed not redeemed until it contracts a permanent blemish.
Halacha 10
When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39 For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40 Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41 [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42
Halacha 11
If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43 [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed a tereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44 Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45 Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46 Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47 An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48we count from the time it stopped seeing.
Halacha 13
How is it known that the water [in its eyes] are permanent?49 When it ate fresh grass from Rosh Chodesh Adar until the first half of Nisan50 and then51 ate dried grass during Elul and the first half of Tishrei52 and was not healed.53 This indicates that the water is permanent.
Halacha 14
How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54 an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55 They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56 and [the animal] should be neither offered,57 nor redeemed.58
Halacha 15
What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59 Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60 If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.
Halacha 16
There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal61 after they despaired of its recovery,62 there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore63 he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.64
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple.
2.From being offered as a sacrifice.
3.See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
4.See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified.
5.If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef Mishneh).
6.If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b).
7.Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6.
8.Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an alternate meaning, the animal's teeth.
9.If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes.
10.I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen.
11.Compare to Halachah 8.
12.Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
13.I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)].
14.Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish.
15.The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11 which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is considered such a limb; the ribs are not.
16.See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11.
17.Leviticus 22:23.
18.The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
19.These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13.
20.Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes."
21.Which would disqualify it in its own right.
22.Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice.
23.Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice.
24.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed.
25.See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4.
26.Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal.
27.And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not.
28.See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
29.The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
30.If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2.
31.Compare to Halachah 4.
32.Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed.
33.For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish.
34.At which point, it can be redeemed.
35.For its blemish did not disqualify it.
36.It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6.
37.Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
38.An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten.
39.See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin.
40.The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God.
41.For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain.
42.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11.
43.I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1.
If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz).
44.See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal as tereifah.
45.See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11.
46.And his hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general principle in Torah Law. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al.
47.Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
48.In the midst of the above period.
49.Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
50.In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh.
51.I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order.
52.In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried.
53.Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3).
54.Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value.
55.I.e., the two month and a half periods.
56.All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment.
57.For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed.
58.For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed.
59.But not at the appropriate time of year.
60.It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable.
61.Thus if the redemption was valid, the article used to redeem the animal is consecrated and the person who benefited from it transgressed. If, however, the redemption was not valid, the article is not given that status and hence, there is no transgression involved.
62.I.e., even if the benefit was derived after they despaired of its recovery in which instance, it was definitely permanently blemished, since it was redeemed before that time, the situation is still questionable as explained.
63.I.e., because the matter is unresolved.
64.See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:5; Hilchot Shegagot 9:11. As will be explained in the notes to those halachot, it is not necessary to bring a sacrifice conditionally, stipulating: "If I transgressed, this will serve as atonement for my transgression, and if I did not transgress, it will be considered a free-will offering" (Radbaz).
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Blemishes1 do not disqualify a fowl [as a sacrifice]. This applies both with regard to a male and to a female in the instance of a fowl, for the expression [Leviticus 22:18] "a perfect male" was stated only with regard to an animal.2
When does the above apply? With regard to small blemishes. Nevertheless, if the wing of a fowl became dried out, its eye was lost,3 or its foot was cut off, it is forbidden to [be offered on] the altar, for an animal that is lacking a limb is never offered.4 Similarly, if it incurred one of the factors that cause it to be deemed tereifah and forbidden to be eaten, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.5
Halacha 2
Small6 turtle-doves and large ordinary doves are unacceptable as [can be inferred from Leviticus 1:14]: "from the turtle doves and the children of the doves."7When it begins to sprout yellow feathers,8 it is unacceptable for both species.9
Until when are young ordinary doves acceptable? As long as when one pulls out [a feather from] the wing, the place from which it was pulled out will fill with blood. Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue.
Halacha 3
Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum10or an androgynus,11 they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: "a perfect male" and "a perfect female." [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl12 which is a tumtum or an androgynus is unacceptable for the altar.13
Halacha 4
Similarly, a hybrid animal, one born through Caesarian section, and one that is lacking in age are unacceptable even if they are unblemished. [These are all excluded through the exegesis of Leviticus 22:27]: "An ox, a lamb, and a goat..." - [this implies] each of the species must be separate; an animal should not be a hybrid between a lamb and a goat. "When it gives birth..." - this excludes one born through Caesarian section.14 "It will be seven days..." - This excludes one that it is lacking in age.15 "Together with its mother" - This excludes an "orphan," i.e., an animal born after its mother was slaughtered.16
Halacha 5
An animal which looks like a different species is unacceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar even though it is not a hybrid. What is implied? A ewe gave birth to an animal that resembled a goat or a she-goat gave birth to an animal that resembled a lamb. Even though it has some of the signs of its own species, it is unacceptable like an animal that has a permanent blemish. For there is no blemish greater than a change [in appearance].
Halacha 6
Similarly, an animal that had relations with a person,17 which was sodomized,18 which was set aside for pagan worship,19 or which was worshipped,20 even though it is permitted to be eaten,21 is unacceptable as a sacrifice for the altar. [This is derived as follows: When describing animals unfit for sacrifices, Leviticus 22:25] states: "For their perversion is in them." [Implied is that] any [animal] characterized by perversion is forbidden. With regard to forbidden [sexual behavior, Genesis 6:12] states: "For all flesh has perverted [its path]."22 With regard to pagan worship, [Exodus 32:7] states: "For your nation has perverted itself." Similarly, an animal or fowl which killed a person are considered equivalent to one that had relations with a person or which was sodomized and they are unacceptable for the altar.23
Halacha 7
It appears to me that even though all of these types of animals are unfit to be brought as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered them as a sacrifice, he is not worthy of lashes according to Scriptural Law, because the prohibition [against using these animals as sacrifices] is not explicitly stated in the Torah. An animal given as a present to a harlot or exchanged for a dog are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. One who offers a sacrifice from either of them or from both together is liable for one set of lashes, 24 as [Deuteronomy 23:19] states: "Do not bring a present to a harlot or the exchange of a dog [to the house of God]." Why is one liable for only one set of lashes for them both? Because they are both mentioned in one prohibition.
Halacha 8
It is a positive commandment25 to offer all of the sacrifices26 from the eighth day [of their lives] and onward, as [Leviticus 22:27] states: "It will be together with its mother for seven days and on the eighth day and onward, it will be desirable." Throughout these seven days, it is called lacking in age.27
Although an animal that is lacking in age is unacceptable as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered, he is not liable for lashes,28 because the negative commandment comes as a result of a positive commandment. The sacrifice, [however,] is not acceptable.29
Halacha 9
Turtle-doves that have not reached the stage of development when they are fit for sacrifice30 and young doves that matured beyond the appropriate stage31are all considered as blemished [animals].32 One who offers them is not liable for lashes,33 even though the sacrifice is invalid and is not acceptable.
Halacha 10
One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood,34 for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold35 and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires.36 It is not considered like a blemished animal,37 for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.38
When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog,39 it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish.40 Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.41
Halacha 11
Thus there are fourteen types of animals that are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar: a blemished animal, one that is not choice,42 one that is lacking an internal organ,43 a tereifah, a hybrid, one born from Caesarian section, one that had relations with a person, one that was sodomized, one that killed a person, one that was worshipped, one set aside for pagan worship, one given to a harlot as her fee, one exchanged for a dog, one which is lacking in age.
Halacha 12
All of the animals which are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar are forbidden regardless of the proportion in which they are intermingled. Even if one of them becomes mixed together with ten thousand,44 they are all disqualified and unacceptable for the altar.45
In all instances, the offspring [of these unacceptable animals] are acceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar, with the exception of the offspring of an animal that was sodomized, worshipped, set aside for worship, or which killed a person. The offspring of these animals are forbidden for the altar as they are.46
Halacha 13
When does the above47 apply? When the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person while it was pregnant, in which instance, the offspring was together with it when it became disqualified and was considered as one of its limbs.48 If, however, it became pregnant after the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person, its offspring is acceptable for the altar.49 Even if an animal was sodomized while it was consecrated and then it became pregnant, [the offspring is acceptable]. Needless to say, the offspring is acceptable if [the mother] was sodomized while it was of ordinary status and then it was consecrated and became pregnant. Similarly, a chick born from an egg from a tereifah is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar.50
Halacha 14
When a person bows down to standing grain, its kernels are permitted to be used for meal offerings, for their [form] has changed. They resemble the offspring of animals forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.51 Similarly, an animal that was fattened with vetch from a false deity is permitted [as a sacrifice] for the altar, for the [form of the vetch] has changed.52
Halacha 15
[Animals for] any of the sacrifices may be purchased from gentiles.53 We do not suspect that [the animal] had relations with a person, had been sodomized, set aside for pagan worship, or worshipped unless it is known that it was disqualified. [Support for this concept can be brought from I Samuel 15:16:] "From the Amalekites, they were brought, for the people had mercy on the prime quality sheep and cattle, to sacrifice [them] to God your Lord."54
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., those outlined in the previous chapter.
2.I.e., with regard to an animal, there are sacrifices which require a male and others which require a female. Such distinctions are not made with regard to sacrifices brought from fowl. All sacrifices are acceptable whether one brings a male or a female. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8.
3.The commentaries explain that the fact that the fowl lost its sight is not enough to disqualify it. It must be as if the eye has been removed.
4.See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.
5.See ibid.:10.
6.I.e., young, underdeveloped birds. They are considered as "lacking in age" (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8).
7.We have translated the verse literally so that the source for the concept derived is clear. None of the other animals prescribed for sacrifices are described as b'nai, "the children of." By using that term, the Torah sought to imply that the birds must be young and underdeveloped.
8.An intermediate stage of development.
9.It is unacceptable for turtle-doves, because such a fowl is still considered in its preliminary stages of development. It is not mature yet. Yet it is unacceptable for ordinary doves, because such a fowl has developed beyond its initial stages.
10.An animal whose sexual organs were covered by a mass of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined.
11.An animal with both a male and female sexual organ.
12.Which could be offered if it possessed a blemish.
13.Even though it makes no difference if a fowl is male or female, it must be definitely a male or definitely a female.
14.For Caesarian section is not considered as "birth."
15.See Halachah 8.
16.I.e., the mother was pregnant. It was slaughtered and the fetus was removed alive from its womb and then consecrated as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that since this animal is also born through Caesarian section, it is not mentioned as a separate category in the first clause of this halachah and in Halachah 11.
17.Either a male or a female. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3.
18.In Chapter 4, Halachah 2, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation where the forbidden sexual act was observed by only one witness, by the owners, or the animal was consecrated before being brought to court, or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If, however, the forbidden sexual act was performed by a Jew and observed by two witnesses, once the matter was ruled upon by the court, the animal must be executed and is certainly unacceptable as a sacrifice. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 3,5 for more details regarding the disqualification of such an animal.
19.Even if it had not been used for such worship as of yet. See Chapter 4, Halachah 4, which explains when such an animal is disqualified. As the Radbaz explains in his gloss to that halachah, this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
20.See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
21.This refers even to an animal that was worshipped or set aside for pagan worship, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1.
22.The commentaries to that verse explain that its intent is that even animals were mating with partners from different species. It is, however, unlikely that this is the Rambam's intent in citing that prooftext. Most probably, the intent is that only animals that shared relations with humans are forbidden.
23.See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, for more particulars concerning this category.
24.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 100) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 571) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the prohibition involves two subjects, not one, it is still considered as only one prohibition. See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, for more details on why the two prohibitions are considered as one mitzvah.
25.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 60) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 293) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
26.Rabbi Akiva Eiger postulates that this mitzvah applies only with regard to animals. Young doves, by contrast, may be offered even before their eighth day of life. This conclusion can be derived from the Rambam's wording in the following halachah and in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 3:10 which allows a chick to be slaughtered for food even on the day of its birth.
27.See ibid. 1:11-12 for more particulars. There the Rambam states that it is preferable to offer a sacrifice after it is at least one month old.
28.The Rambam adds this explanation, because in contrast to the disqualifying factors mentioned in Halachah 7, this factor is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).
29.As can be inferred from the prooftext cited.
30.See Halachah 2 which explains when these doves are fit to be offered.
31.That same halachah explains when these doves become unacceptable.
32.See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:7-9 which mentions other time factors that render an animal unfit to be sacrificed.
33.There is no specific prohibition forbidding such offerings. Instead, the manner in which the positive commandment is stated in the Torah makes it clear that a younger fowl is prohibited, as stated in the previous halachah.
34.Since these types of animals are not acceptable as sacrifices as explained in the previous halachot, the consecration is not effective.
35.Immediately; there is no need that one wait until the animal is blemished.
36.The Ra'avad emphasizes that the person's words are not entirely of no consequence. Instead, the animal must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. This, he explains, applies only when the person states: "This animal is consecrated to the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," his words are of no consequence and no holiness is attached to it at all.
37.I.e., if an animal with a blemish is consecrated, the animal itself becomes holy. Also, the one who consecrates it is liable for lashes (Radbaz).
See also Hilchot Temurah 1:14, 3:5, when one desires to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a blemished animal, the transfer is effective and the blemished animal is considered as consecrated. This does not apply with regard to these animals.
38.Were it to be unblemished. Therefore even when it is blemished, the holiness of an animal can be transferred to it.
39.Which are all unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachot.
40.For ultimately, it will come of age, and then be acceptable for sacrifice.
41.In Halachah 8. There the Rambam states that one who offers such a fowl is not liable. From that, we can infer that one who consecrates it is also exempt.
42.As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
43.As explained ibid.:11.
44.And the forbidden animal cannot be identified. Note the parallels in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:2.
45.Zevachim 73a,b states that the rationale is that animals are important and therefore are never nullified in a mixture. The Sages then ask: Let us have the herd in which the animal is mixed moved and then we will follow the principle: Whenever one is separated, we consider it to have separated from the majority (which in this instance is permitted). They reply that this is not done because of a Rabbinical decree, lest an animal be removed from the mixture while it is at rest.
46.Temurah 30b states that it is disrespectful to offer an animal that has been associated with such a transgression as a sacrifice. From the following halachah, it appears that the rationale is that it is considered to have actually taken part in the transgression.
47.The disqualification of the offspring in those four instances.
48.In keeping with the principle (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:12; Temurah, loc. cit.): "A fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother."
49.For in that instance, the animal was brought into being by two factors, one of which is associated with a source forbidden as a sacrifice (the mother) and another (the father) which was not (ibid.).
50.For a chick is an entirely new entity that was not directly associated with the forbidden animal (ibid. 31a).
51.As mentioned in the previous halachot. I.e., just as the offspring is the product of the forbidden animal, the flour is the product of the grain. See Avodah Zarah 46b-47a.
52.In this instance, it is not even remotely connected to the forbidden entity. See Temurah, loc. cit.
53.Similarly, an animal brought by a gentile to sacrifice as a burnt offering is acceptable (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2).
54.King Saul gave this explanation to the prophet Samuel after failing to destroy the herds of the Amalekites. Although that excuse was rejected, it was rejected only because God had explicitly stated that the Amalekites' herds must be destroyed. Had there not been such a command, presumably they - and by extension, animals belonging to any other gentile nation - would have been acceptable.
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
An animal or a fowl that was sodomized,1 which killed a person, which was set aside for pagan worship, or which was worshipped, are all unacceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar.2
Halacha 2
When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses.3 It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh.4 Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent5 or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present.6 If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 3
When sport was made with an animal and it was trained to gore until it killed a person, it is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar, because it is considered as having been compelled against its will.7
An animal is not disqualified because it had relations with a person or because it was sodomized unless the male who sodomized it was nine years old.8 Whether it was sodomized by a Jew, a gentile,9 or a servant, since it was sodomized by a human, it is disqualified. If a human was the recipient of sex from an animal, [the animal] is not disqualified unless the female with whom it had relations was three years old10 or the male with whom it had relations was nine years old.11
Halacha 4
When is an animal or a fowl disqualified because it was set aside for pagan worship?12 When the priests perform a deed with it, e.g., they shear it or work with it for the sake of pagan worship. With words alone, by contrast, it is not considered as set aside for pagan worship, for an entity cannot be consecrated to a false deity.13
Halacha 5
An animal that had relations with a person or that was sodomized becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] for the altar whether it belongs to the person with whom it shared relations or it belongs to a colleague14 and regardless of whether those relations were carried out under compulsion or voluntarily, whether they were willful or inadvertent, or whether they were performed before [the animal was] consecrated or afterwards.15
When, by contrast, an animal is set aside for pagan worship, it becomes disqualified if it belonged to the person who set it aside and he set it aside for pagan worship before he consecrated it as a sacrifice. If, however, one set aside an animal belonging to a colleague16 or [even] his own animal after he consecrated it as a sacrifice,17it is permitted [to be offered as a sacrifice].18 [The rationale is that] a person cannot set aside an entity that does not belong to him [for pagan worship].19
Halacha 6
[When an animal] has been worshipped as a false deity, it is forbidden [as a sacrifice] whether one served his own animal or one belonging to a colleague,20 whether he acted under compulsion or voluntarily, willfullly or inadvertently, whether he did so before the animal was consecrated or afterwards. [In the latter instance,] it should be left to pasture until it becomes permanently blemished and then it should be redeemed, as we stated.21
When an animal is worshipped, it and everything upon it22 are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. For it is forbidden to benefit from all coverings of entities worshipped as false deities.23 If, however, [an animal has merely been] set aside for pagan worship, it is forbidden, but the entities on it are permitted [as sacrifices for the altar].24
Halacha 7
When a person bows down to a mountain, although he may benefit from it,25 its stones are forbidden to [be used as part of] the altar.26 Similarly, when one bows down to a flowing stream in his land,27 its water is invalid28 for use as a libation.29
[Even though] an asherah30 has been nullified,31 one should not bring logs from it for the arrangement of wood on the altar.32 Similarly, when one bows down to an animal, just as it is disqualified [as a sacrifice] for the altar, its wool is disqualified for use in the priestly garments,33 its horns are disqualified for use as trumpets,34 its thighs are disqualified for use as flutes,35 and its intestines as strands [for the lyres].36 Everything is unacceptable.37
Halacha 8
Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it.38
What is meant by a present given to a harlot?39 When one tells a harlot, "This entity is given to you as your wages."40 This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man41 as an ervah42or by a negative commandment.43 If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest.44 Similarly, if a person's wife is a niddah,45 a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.46
Halacha 9
If a man married one of the women forbidden to him because of a negative commandment,47 whatever he gives her for the sake of intimate relations is considered as "the present [of a harlot]"48 and is forbidden [to be offered as a sacrifice]. A present given [by a male to] a male [for the purpose of intimacy] is forbidden [as a sacrifice].49 If a woman gives a present to a male for the purpose of intimacy, [it is not considered] "a present [of a harlot]" and is permitted [as a sacrifice].50
Halacha 10
When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an article for you. In return for it, have your [Canaanite] maidservant spend the night with my Jewish bondsman," it is considered "a present [of a harlot]."51 [The above applies] provided [the Jewish bondsman] does not have a wife and children. If, however, he does have a wife and children, he is permitted [to engage in intimacy] with a Canaanite maidservant, as will be explained.52 This also applies if one tells a harlot:53 "Here is an article for you. In return for it, engage in relations with so-and-so who is Jewish." [The present is considered as] "a present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 11
If a person made an agreement to give a harlot one lamb and [instead,] he gave her many - even if he gave her 1000 - they are considered as "presents [to a harlot]"54 and are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
If he gave her a present and did not engage in relations with her, but told her: "Let this be in your possession until I engage in relations with you," it becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] when he engages in relations with her.55 If she had it sacrificed before he engaged in relations with her, it is acceptable56 and if she was obligated to bring a sacrifice, she has discharged her obligation, provided when he gave it to he told her: "When you accept my [proposition], you acquire it from the present time."57 If he did not tell her so, [it is not acceptable] because she cannot bring an article that does not belong to her58 as a sacrifice.
Halacha 12
If she took the initiative and consecrated it [for a sacrifice] before he entered relations with her and afterwards, he engaged in relations with her [before it was sacrificed], there is an unresolved doubt59 whether it is considered "the present [of a harlot"] - because he engaged in relations with her before it was sacrificed - or whether it is not considered as such, since she consecrated it before relations.60 Hence, it should not be sacrificed,61 but if it is sacrificed, it is acceptable.62
Halacha 13
If he engaged in relations with her, but did not give her anything, and then afterwards - even many years afterwards - he gave it to her, it is considered "the present [of a harlot"].
When does the above apply?63 With regard to a gentile woman64 whom he told: "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb," for she does not have to draw it into her domain [to acquire it]65 or with regard to a Jewish woman when the lamb was left in her courtyard and he told her: "If I do not give you money on this day, [the lamb] is yours."66 If, however, he told her : "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb" without any further explanation and then engaged in relations and sent her the lamb afterwards, it is permissible [to be sacrificed; it is not considered] "the present [of a harlot]."
Halacha 14
Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money67 and she bought a sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
If he gave her grain and she had it made into fine flour; [he gave her] olives and she had oil made from them; [he gave her] grapes, and she had wine made from them, they are acceptable, because their form has changed.68
If he gave her a consecrated animal as her present, it does not become forbidden to the altar.69 Even if he designated her as one of those to eat from his Paschal sacrifice70 or his festive offering71 as a present, the consecrated animals are not disqualified, for the Temple already acquired them at the time they were consecrated.72 Similarly, if he gave her an entity that did not belong to him, he did not disqualify it, for a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be forbidden unless the owner despairs of its recovery.73
If, however, he gave her doves, even though they are consecrated, they can be considered as "a present to a harlot." This concept was conveyed as part of the Oral Tradition.74
Halacha 16
What is meant by "an exchange for a dog"?75 A person tells a colleague: "Take this lamb in exchange for this dog." Similarly, if he exchanged a dog for several animals or fowl, they are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
Halacha 17
When two partners divided [their goods], one took ten lambs and one took nine lambs and a dog, [the lambs] that are with the dog are permitted [as sacrifices], but [there are restrictions with regard to] the ten given in exchange for them. If the value of one of them is equivalent to the value of the dog or greater, it should be set aside and it [alone] is considered as "the exchange [for a dog]." The remainder are permitted [as sacrifices]. If the value of each of them is less than the value of the dog, they are all forbidden.76
Halacha 18
If [the entity given in] exchange [for the dog] underwent a change, for example, he exchanged a dog for wheat and ground it into flour, it is permitted.77
The present [given] to a dog78 and an exchange given for a harlot79are permitted. "A present to a harlot" and "the exchange for a dog" are permitted to be given to the Temple, for they undergo a change.80 The actual substance of a present [to a harlot] should not be used as beaten metal for the Temple, as [implied by Deuteronomy 23:19]: "For every vow," [which is interpreted81] as including sheet metal.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Rambam does not mention an animal that had relations with a person, for that is not possible with regard to a fowl.
2.The Rambam mentioned this concept in the previous chapter. In this chapter, he outlines the details of these restrictions. The point of this halachah is that the restrictions apply to a fowl as well as to an animal.
3.See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:16; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:1.
4.Even if slaughtered according to Jewish Law (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:22; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9).
5.In matters of financial law, the testimony of one witness is of consequence only that it can require an oath to be taken.
6.Similarly, the testimony of a person regarding his own property is of no consequence.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam mentions two other instances where this law applies: the animal was consecrated before being brought to court or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile.
7.See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:5 which explains that such an animal is not executed, because Exodus 21:28 requires such a punishment: "When an ox gores...," i.e., that it does so on its own initiative, and not when it was prompted to gore.
See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 3, Halachah 5, where he states that such an animal should be forbidden to the altar under all circumstances just like a sodomized animal is.
8.For relations with a male are not significant until that age (Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 1:16; et al).
9.See Hilchot Melachim 9:5-6 which states that although a gentile is liable to be executed for engaging in sexual relations with an animal, the animal itself is not executed. Nevertheless, involvement in the transgression disqualifies it as a sacrifice.
10.See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:8, et al, where it is explained that until a girl is three years old, sexual relations with her are not significant.
11.The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on the latter point, noting that the ages the Rambam mentions are relevant with regard to the punishment of execution by stoning. Nevertheless, he argues that since the animal is disqualified from being offered as a sacrifice, because it becomes offensive to offer it after it engaged in forbidden relations, that concept would seemingly apply regardless of the age of the human with whom it engaged in those relations. Moreover, since the animal derived pleasure, the sexual activity should be considered significant. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what is significant here is the halachic definition of sexual relations, not the pleasure the animal experiences. Since halachicly, the act is not considered as sex, the animal is not forbidden.
12.The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.
13.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that if one designated an animal as a false deity, that is sufficient to cause the animal to become repugnant and forbidden as a sacrifice, even if a deed is not performed. The Radbaz brings support for the Ra'avad's ruling from Isaiah 30:22 which when speaking about making the covering of idol's impure uses the expression: "Tell it: 'Be gone,'" implying that "telling it," i.e., speaking is sufficient to cause an article to be considered as an idol.
The difference between the Rambam's view and that of the Ra'avad results from a variation in the text of Temurah 29a. According to the Rambam, the passage is speaking about an animal dedicated to the service of a false deity, while according to the Ra'avad, it refers to an animal intended to be worshiped as a false deity. (The standard printed text supports the Rambam's version, although Rashi mentions the other version as well.). The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice only when it is forbidden to benefit from it. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, whether an animal is designated to be worshipped or as a sacrifice to a false deity, it does not become forbidden until a deed is performed. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the prohibition against benefiting from the animal is different from the prohibition against offering the animal as a sacrifice. More stringent rules apply in the latter context.
14.The Radbaz states that in an instance where two witnesses did not observe the transgression (as stated in Halachah 2), the person who engaged in relations with the animal is not at all liable to its owner financially, for he is not prohibited against benefiting from the animal.
15.In contrast to an animal which kills which is not disqualified if it was goaded into killing (see Halachah 3), an animal that engaged in relations with a human is disqualified in all instances. Since the act causes it to be considered loathsome, the circumstances under which the act was performed are of no consequence.
16.This applies even (as stated in the previous halachah), he performed a deed indicating that the animal was set aside for pagan worship (Radbaz).
17.For once he consecrated it as a sacrifice, it is as if it no longer belongs to him.
18.Since a transgression has not been performed with it as of yet, it is not considered as loathsome (Radbaz).
19.As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim (and in many other sources) a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
20.The Ra'avad quotes Avodah Zarah 54a which states that the above restriction applies only when one performs a deed with the article he worshipped. From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, it is apparent that he maintains that the principle that a person cannot cause property that does not belong to him to be forbidden to be used applies even if he actually worships the article as a false deity and even when he performs a deed. The Rambam here is speaking about causing the article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to the altar and for that, a deed is not necessary.
21.Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Since the animal was consecrated, it cannot be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed and it cannot be redeemed until it is blemished.
22.Any garments or ornaments used to adorn the false deity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Teumrah 6:1), the Rambam explains the reason for this restriction is that the ornaments were worshipped together with the false deity.
23.See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:7.
24.Since they have not been worshipped, one is permitted to benefit from them and they may even be used as sacrifices [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
25.See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 which states that "Any article that was not touched by human hands or made by man will is permitted to be used even though it was worshipped as a false deity."
26.Or any other part of the Temple building (Radbaz). As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16, the altar was made with whole stones, both large and small over which is poured a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead. In the above instance, since the stones were taken from a mountain that was worshipped, it is inappropriate for them to be used for the altar.
27.Implied is that if the water is not his own, it may be used even as a libation even though it was worshipped (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Radbaz notes that no such leniency is granted with regard to the stones mentioned in the previous clauae. He differentiates between the two as follows: The water of a spring is constantly flowing. Thus the water that was worshipped is not the same water that will be used for the libation. The stones of the mountain, by contrast, were worshipped themselves. Hence even though they are not a person's private property, they may not be used for the Temple.
28.In this instance as well, an ordinary person is permitted to use the water, but it is inappropriate to be used for the altar.
29.I.e., the water libation offered during the Sukkot holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-10.
30.A tree that is worshipped. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:3, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3; et al.
31.In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8, the Rambam writes that once a gentile nullifies the connection of a worshipped entity to paganism, it is permitted to benefit from it. The subsequent halachot in that chapter describe the process of nullification. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that although it is permitted to benefit from the article afterwards, the fact that it was once worshipped - or served as an accessory to an article worshipped - prevents it from being offered as a sacrifice.
32.Similarly, the branches of a palm tree that was worshipped should not be used as a lulav (Hilchot Lulav 8:1).
33.See the conclusion of the tractate of Kinnim which mentions how a sacrificial animal can be used for these purposes.
There the Mishnah states that the wool is unacceptable for use as techelet. The Kessef Mishneh notes that although in Chapter 3, Halachah 14, the Rambam ruled that even though wheat was worshipped, the flour made from it is not disqualified for use as a meal offering, because it underwent a change. In this and the other instances mentioned below, although the color and the form of the article may have undergone a change, that change does not alter its fundamental nature and it is still disqualified for the altar and its service.
Such wool is also disqualified for use in tzitzit or for any other purpose associated with a mitzvah. See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:8).
34.I.e., as shofarot that are sounded together with the trumpets (Hilchot Taaniot 1:4).
35.Among the instruments sounded in the Temple service were flutes (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:4-6). Apparently, the thighs of sacrificial animals were hollowed out and converted into such instruments.
36.Which were also employed in the Temple service (ibid.).
37.Because it was an integral part of an entity that was worshipped.
38.This general principle summarizes the concepts mentioned in the previous halachot. The Rambam now goes on to discuss other reasons why animals were forbidden as sacrifices.
39.Which is forbidden to be used as a sacrifice as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
40.I.e., in exchange for intimacy.
41.The Rambam is explaining that here the emphasis is on the halachic meaning of the term zonah ("harlot") and not its popular meaning. The point is not that the present is forbidden because it was given in exchange for intimacy, but that it was given in exchange for intimacy with a woman who meets the halachic definitions of that term. That definition is given in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1: "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah7 used by the Torah refers to one who is not a nativeborn Jewess (thus excluding a gentile woman or maidservant) [or] a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable" (excluding the prohibited relations the Rambam mentions).
42.Incestuous and adulterous sexual relations for which one is liable for karet (Hilchot Ishut 1:5). These forbidden relationships are mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18.
43.The nine forbidden relationships mentioned in Hilchot Isut 1:7.
44.I.e., although he is engaging in intimacy out of lust and in exchange for payment, the woman is not termed a harlot, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:2 states: "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone... she is not deemed as a zonah... for she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]."
45.I.e., she has experienced menstrual bleeding and has not purified herself afterwards.
46.For such relationships are also punishable by karet (see Hilchot Issurei Biah 4:1). Nevertheless, the fact that a woman is in the niddah state does not prevent the consecration of a woman from taking effect.
47.The consecration of such a woman is binding and she is considered as his wife (Hilchot Ishut 4:14).
48.Because he is forbidden to marry her and thus the present meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah.
49.See Temurah 29b.
50.The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that although in a strict halachic sense, there is no prohibition against offering such an article as a sacrifice, it is an abomination unto God and should not be offered.
51.There are two points expressed by this halachah: a) that, as stated above, a Canaanite maidservant is considered as a harlot;
b) that even though the present is not being given by the person engaging in the intimate relations, the present is still forbidden as a sacrifice.
52.Hilchot Avadim 3:3-4.
53.I.e., one might think that the law applies only with regard to a bondsman and his master, for the master has authority over the bondsman and has certain responsibilities toward him, but not with regard to two free men who are not associated in this manner (Kessef Mishneh).
54.And not an ordinary gift (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). This applies even when he does not explicitly say that he gave them to her because of the relations they shared (Radbaz).
55.Because it was given to her in exchange for relations. It is not significant whether it was given before the relations or afterwards.
56.Because they had not engaged in relations yet. We do not say that since it was designated as "a present for a harlot," it is forbidden as a sacrifice (Radbaz).
57.Thus she was the legal owner at the time it was sacrificed.
58.If he did not make such a stipulation, he remains the legal owner of the animal. It is in the woman's possession as security, but she is not its owner.
59.Temurah 29b considers this question and does not reach a conclusion.
60.And from the time an entity is consecrated, it is considered as having been given to the Temple. Hence, it could be considered as if it already had been sacrificed.
61.Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.
62.As evident from Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:20, this is the ruling whenever there is a question whether an substance offered as a sacrifice is acceptable.
63.The principle under which this halachah operates is that for a "present to a harlot" to be forbidden as a sacrifice, it must be acquired by the woman at the time of relations even though it does not come into her full possession until afterwards.(Temurah 29a).
64.I.e., if the gentile woman later desires to offer this animal as a sacrifice, it is not accepted from her. Although we do accept animals brought by gentiles as burnt offerings, the animals must be acceptable.
65.According to Scriptural Law, an exchange is completed when an exchange is made. Hence, at the time the two engaged in relations, the lamb became the woman's property. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that movable property is not transferred to the legal domain of the recipient until he acquires it through meshichah, physically drawing it into his possession (Hilchot Mechirah 3:1). Our Sages, however, did not impose this decree with regard to gentiles and transactions with them follow the original guidelines of Scriptural Law (see (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14). Hence a gentile harlot became the legal owner of the lamb directly after the relations. Hence it is considered as "the present of a harlot." The fact that it was not given to her until years afterwards is not significant.
66.Because a person's courtyard can acquire an article on his or her behalf when it is placed within (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:8). Hence, while the women is holding the lamb in lieu of the money, it is considered to have entered her possession.
67.Or other entities.
68.The finished product is considered as different from the raw material from which it is made.
69.For a consecrated article is not considered as his personal property. Hence, it is not his to give her (Temurah 30b).
70.To partake of a Paschal sacrifice, one must designated to partake of it from the outset.
71.This refers to the festive offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to accompany the Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:11.
72.Although the owner retains the right to give others to partake of the offerings, they are not considered as his private property. Instead, he is giving them the right to partake of consecrated property, not his own possessions.
73.For at that point - since the owner has despaired of its return and it has departed from the possession of the thief - the harlot becomes its legal owner (see Hilchot Geneivah 5:3). Accordingly, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.
74.I.e., the Rambam understands Temurah 30b as deriving this law from the exegesis of a verse. According to logic, we would apply the principle: A person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be become forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding the interpretation of the above passage. He maintains that it is speaking about ordinary doves. Nevertheless, since blemished doves are acceptable as sacrifices (Chapter 3, Halachah 1), one might think that a present to a harlot is also acceptable. Therefore, the Torah must teach us that this is not the case. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Ra'avad's understanding of the passage.
75.Which is forbidden for the altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
76.For a certain portion of each one is being given in exchange for the dog.
77.For the article being offered is not considered as the article exchanged.
78.I.e., a person sodomized a dog and separated a lamb as a fee.
79.I.e., a person gave a colleague a lamb in exchange for a maidservant that was a harlot.
80.I.e., the articles donated to the Temple treasury are sold and the money used for improvements. Thus the distasteful article itself is not becoming part of the Temple.
81.See Temurah 30a.
-------
Hayom Yom
Today's Hayom Yom
Sunday, 17 Sivan 5774 - June 15, 2014
Sunday, Sivan 17, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'lach, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: Ch. 6. Now, the name (p. 301)...included in Chesed. (p. 303).
Refraining from deriving pleasure - in the fullest sense - from this world, is only a fine preparation for avoda. Avoda itself is transforming the physical into a vehicle for G-dliness.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
-------
Daily Thought:
Investment In Everything
Look at each living being and you will note that it sees itself as the center of the universe. That is because the Creator has invested His very essence into each and every item of His creation. And He has decided to hide within those bounds until His creation discovers Him there.
When anything of this world is repaired and reconnected to its Source, its Creator in all His essence is redeemed. And if any one thing would be left behind, its Creator in all His essence would remain captive within it.
Each living being holds inside the center of creation.
-------