TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• ROSH CHODESH OBSERVANCES
Today is the second of the two Rosh Chodesh ("Head of the Month") days for the Hebrew month of "Tammuz" (when a month has 30 days, both the last day of the month and the first day of the following month serve as the following month's Rosh Chodesh).
Special portions are added to the daily prayers: Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is recited -- in its "partial" form -- following the Shacharit morning prayer, and the Yaaleh V'yavo prayer is added to the Amidah and to Grace After Meals; the additional Musaf prayer is said (when Rosh Chodesh is Shabbat, special additions are made to the Shabbat Musaf). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
Many have the custom to mark Rosh Chodesh with a festive meal and reduced work activity. The latter custom is prevalent amongst women, who have a special affinity with Rosh Chodesh -- the month being the feminine aspect of the Jewish Calendar.
Links: The 29th Day; The Lunar Files
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• BIRTH AND PASSING OF JOSEPH (1562 and 1452 BCE)
Joseph, the son of the patriarch Jacob, was born in Charan (Mesopotamia) on the 1st of Tammuz of the year 2199 from creation (1562 BCE), the first child of Jacob's most beloved wife, Rachel, born after 7 childless years of marriage. He passed away on the same date 110 years later, in Egypt.
When Joseph was six years old, Jacob and his family returned to the Holy Land, eventually settling in Hebron. Though younger than 10 of his 11 brothers, he was his father's favorite, and a great rivalry existed between him and his brothers, whose animosity toward him increased when he related two dreams he had forecasting that he is destined to rule over them.
When Joseph was 17, he was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken to Egypt; when he refused the advances of his master's wife, she had him placed in prison, where he languished for 12 years. At age 30, he interpreted a pair of mysterious dreams dreamt by Pharaoh, and was appointed viceroy of Egypt to oversee the gathering and storage of grain in preparation for the seven years of famine that Pharaoh's dreams had predicted. He married Asnat, and had two children, Menasseh and Ephraim.
The great famine brought his brothers to Egypt to purchase grain; after subjecting them to a series of trials to test their loyalty to each other and their remorse over what they had done to him, Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers, was reconciled with them, and settled his father and entire family -- 70 souls in all -- in Egypt.
Joseph passed away in Egypt on his 110th birthday. The first of his brothers to die, he transmitted to them the divine promise to Jacob that his children will be taken out of Egypt and restored to their homeland, and made them promise to take his remains with them when they go.
Links:
Joseph and his Brothers
More on Joseph
DAILY QUOTE:
There is nothing higher than pleasure(Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Formation))
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: with Rashi
• Chapter 22
2. Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. ב. וַיַּרְא בָּלָק בֶּן צִפּוֹר אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֱמֹרִי:
Balak… saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites: He said, “These two kings whom we relied on could not resist them; we certainly cannot.” Consequently, “Moab became terrified.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 2, Num. Rabbah 20:2]
וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי: אמר אלו שני מלכים שהיינו בטוחים עליהם לא עמדו בפניהם, אנו על אחת כמה וכמה. לפיכך ויגר מואב:
3. Moab became terrified of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab became disgusted because of the children of Israel. ג. וַיָּגָר מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי הָעָם מְאֹד כִּי רַב הוּא וַיָּקָץ מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
[Moab] became terrified: [Heb. וַיָּגָר is] a term denoting dread, as in,“Fear (גּוּרוּ) for yourselves” (Job 19:29). - [Machbereth Menachem p. 59, third def.]
ויגר: לשון מורא, כמו (איוב יט, כט) גורו לכם:
Moab became disgusted: They became disgusted with their own lives, as in“I am disgusted (קַצְתִּי) with my life” (Gen. 27:46). This is an abbreviated verse.
ויקץ מואב: קצו בחייהם:
4. Moab said to the elders of Midian, "Now this assembly will eat up everything around us, as the ox eats up the greens of the field. Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. ד. וַיֹּאמֶר מוֹאָב אֶל זִקְנֵי מִדְיָן עַתָּה יְלַחֲכוּ הַקָּהָל אֶת כָּל סְבִיבֹתֵינוּ כִּלְחֹךְ הַשּׁוֹר אֵת יֶרֶק הַשָּׂדֶה וּבָלָק בֶּן צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב בָּעֵת הַהִוא:
to the elders of Midian: But did they not always hate each other, as it says, “who defeated Midian in the field of Moab” (Gen. 36:35), when Midian came against Moab in battle? However, because of their mutual fear of Israel they made peace with each other. And what did Moab see to take counsel with Midian? Since they saw that Israel was supernaturally victorious [in their battles], they said, “The leader of these [people] was raised in Midian. Let us ask them what his character is.” They told them, “His strength is solely in his mouth.” They said,“We too will come against them with a man whose strength is in his mouth.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 3, Num. Rabbah 20:4]
אל זקני מדין: והלא מעולם היו שונאים זה את זה, שנאמר (בראשית לו, לה) המכה את מדין בשדה מואב, שבאו מדין על מואב למלחמה. אלא מיראתן של ישראל עשו שלום ביניהם. ומה ראה מואב ליטול עצה ממדין, כיון שראו את ישראל נוצחים שלא כמנהג העולם, אמרו מנהיגם של אלו במדין נתגדל, נשאל מהם מה מדתו. אמרו לו אין כחו אלא בפיו. אמרו אף אנו נבא עליהם באדם שכחו בפיו:
as the ox eats up: Whatever the ox has eaten up no longer contains blessing [because the ox uproots the plants it eats (Da’ath Zekenim)]. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 3, Num. Rabbah 20:4]
כלחוך השור: כל מה שהשור מלחך אין בו ברכה:
at that time: He was not entitled to the monarchy. He was one of the Midianite nobles [according to some: of the nobles of Sihon (Josh. 13:21)], and when Sihon died, they appointed him over them on a temporary basis. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:4]
בעת ההוא: לא היה ראוי למלכות. מנסיכי מדין היה, וכיון שמת סיחון מנוהו עליהם לצורך שעה:
5. He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, "A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they have covered the "eye" of the land, and they are stationed opposite me. ה. וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹ לִקְרֹא לוֹ לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא ישֵׁב מִמֻּלִי:
to Pethor: Heb. פְּתוֹרָה, like this money changer, to whom everyone rushes coins, so did all the kings rush their letters to him [asking him for advice]. [In Aramaic, פְּתוֹרָא means table, denoting the counter over which currency transactions take place. This is synonymous with the Hebrew שֻׁלְחָן, table.Thus, a money changer is שֻלְחָנִי]. According to the simple meaning of the verse, it [Pethor] is a place-name. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]
פתורה: כשולחני הזה שהכל מריצין לו מעות, כך כל המלכים מריצין לו אגרותיהם. ולפי פשוטו של מקרא כך שם המקום:
the land of his people: [I.e.,] Balak’s [people]. He came from there. This one [Balaam] prophesied, telling him, “You are destined to rule.” If you ask, “Why did God bestow His Shechinah on a wicked gentile?” [The answer is] so the nations should not have an excuse to say, “Had we had prophets we would have repented.” So He assigned them prophets, but they breached the [morally] accepted barrier, for at first they had refrained from immorality, but he [Balaam] advised them to offer themselves freely for prostitution. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 1, Num. Rabbah 20:1]
ארץ בני עמו: של בלק. משם היה, וזה היה מתנבא ואומר לו עתיד אתה למלוך. ואם תאמר מפני מה השרה הקב"ה שכינתו על גוי רשע, כדי שלא יהא פתחון פה לאומות לומר אלו היו לנו נביאים חזרנו למוטב, העמיד להם נביאים והם פרצו גדר העולם, שבתחלה היו גדורים בעריות וזה נתן להם עצה להפקיר עצמן לזנות:
to call for him: This invitation was for him, [i.e.,] for his benefit, for he promised him a large sum of money. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]
לקרא לו: הקריאה שלו היתה ולהנאתו, שהיה פוסק לו ממון הרבה:
A people has come out of Egypt: And should you ask,“How does it harm you?”
עם יצא ממצרים: ואם תאמר מה מזיקך:
“behold, they have covered the ‘eye’ of the land”: Sihon and Og, who were our guardians-they attacked them and killed them. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]
הנה כסה את עין הארץ: סיחון ועוג שהיו שומרים אותנו עמדו עליהם והרגום:
and they are stationed opposite me: Heb. מִמֻּלִי. It [the word מִמֻּלִי] is spelled defectively [lacking a 'vav’]; they are close by, ready to cut me down, as in“for I will cut them down (אֲמִילֵם)” (Ps. 118:10). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]
והוא יושב ממלי: חסר כתיב, קרובים הם להכריתני, כמו (תהלים קיח, י) כי אמילם:
6. So now, please come and curse this people for me, for they are too powerful for me. Perhaps I will be able to wage war against them and drive them out of the land, for I know that whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is cursed." ו. וְעַתָּה לְכָה נָּא אָרָה לִּי אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי עָצוּם הוּא מִמֶּנִּי אוּלַי אוּכַל נַכֶּה בּוֹ וַאֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר תְּבָרֵךְ מְבֹרָךְ וַאֲשֶׁר תָּאֹר יוּאָר:
Perhaps I will be able to wage war against them: Heb. נַכֶּה. I with my nation will wage war against them [hence the first person plural form of נַכֶּה]. Another interpretation: It נַכֶּה is a mishnaic term, as in,“he deducts (מְנַכֶּה) from the price for him” (B.M. 105b) [so the meaning here is,] to diminish them somewhat. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]
נכה בו: אני ועמי נכה בהם. דבר אחר לשון משנה היא (ב"מ קה ב) מנכה לו מן הדמים, לחסר מהם מעט:
for I know: through the war of Sihon [against Moab] you helped him defeat Moab. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]
כי ידעתי וגו': ע"י מלחמת סיחון שעזרתו להכות את מואב:
7. So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian went, with magic charms in their hands, and they came to Balaam and conveyed Balak's message to him. ז. וַיֵּלְכוּ זִקְנֵי מוֹאָב וְזִקְנֵי מִדְיָן וּקְסָמִים בְּיָדָם וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו דִּבְרֵי בָלָק:
with magic charms in their hands: All types of charms, so he could not say,“I don’t have my tools with me.” Another interpretation: The elders of Midian took this omen (קֶסֶם) with them, saying, “If he comes with us this time, there is something to him, but if he pushes us off, he is useless.” Thus, when he said to them, “Lodge here for the night” (verse 8), they said, “He is hopeless” ; so they left him and went away, as it says, “The Moabite nobles stayed with Balaam” (ibid.), but the Midianite elders left. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:8]
וקסמים בידם: כל מיני קסמים, שלא יאמר אין כלי תשמישי עמי. דבר אחר קסם זה נטלו בידם זקני מדין, אמרו אם יבא עמנו בפעם הזאת יש בו ממש, ואם ידחנו אין בו תועלת, לפיכך כשאמר להם לינו פה הלילה, אמרו אין בו תקוה, הניחוהו והלכו להם, שנאמר וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם, אבל זקני מדין הלכו להם:
8. He said to them, "Lodge here for the night, and I will give you an answer when the Lord speaks to me." So the Moabite nobles stayed with Balaam. ח. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה וַהֲשִׁבֹתִי אֶתְכֶם דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֵלָי וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב עִם בִּלְעָם:
Lodge here for the night: The Divine Spirit rested on him only at night, and the same applied to all gentile prophets. So it was with Laban, [God came to him] in a dream at night, as it says,“God came to Laban the Aramite in a dream at night” (Gen. 31:24), like a man going to his concubine in secret. — [Mid. Lev. Rabbah 1:13]
לינו פה הלילה: אין רוח הקודש שורה עליו אלא בלילה, וכן לכל נביאי אומות העולם, וכן לבן בחלום הלילה, שנאמר (בראשית לא, כד) ויבא א-להים אל לבן הארמי בחלום הלילה. כאדם ההולך אצל פלגשו בהחבא:
when the Lord speaks to me: If He advises me to go with people like you, I will go with you. But perhaps it is beneath His dignity to allow me to go with anyone but higher ranking nobles than you.
כאשר ידבר ה' אלי: אם ימליכני ללכת עם בני אדם כמותכם אלך עמכם, שמא אין כבודו לתתי להלוך אלא עם שרים גדולים מכם:
stayed: Heb. וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, a term denoting remaining. - [Onkelos]
וישבו: לשון עכבה:
9. God came to Balaam and said, "Who are these men with you?" ט. וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ:
Who are these men with you: It came to delude him. [Rashi means: “the ways of the Lord are straight, and the righteous shall walk in them, and the rebellious shall stumble on them” (Hosea 14:10). By asking, “Who are these men with you,” God meant to enter into a conversation with him, as Rashi states in the section Bereishith (3:9) on the word, “Where are you?” But it came to Balaam to delude him, for he erred.] He [Balaam] said,“Sometimes, not everything is revealed before Him, for He is not always omniscient. I will find a time when I am able to curse, and He will not realize it.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]
מי האנשים האלה עמך: להטעותו בא. אמר פעמים שאין הכל גלוי לפניו, אין דעתו שוה עליו, אף אני אראה עת שאוכל לקלל ולא יבין:
10. Balaam said to God, "Balak the son of Zippor the king of Moab has sent [them] to me, [saying]: י. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים בָּלָק בֶּן צִפֹּר מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב שָׁלַח אֵלָי:
Balak the son of Zippor: Although I am not important in Your eyes, I am considered important in the eyes of the kings. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]
בלק בן צפור וגו': אף על פי שאיני חשוב בעיניך, חשוב אני בעיני המלכים:
11. "Behold the people coming out of Egypt, a nation, has covered the 'eye' of the earth. Come and curse them for me, perhaps I will be able to fight against them and drive them out." יא. הִנֵּה הָעָם הַיֹּצֵא מִמִּצְרַיִם וַיְכַס אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ עַתָּה לְכָה קָבָה לִּי אֹתוֹ אוּלַי אוּכַל לְהִלָּחֶם בּוֹ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּיו:
curse it: Heb. קָבָהלּי. [This expression used by Balaam] is stronger than אָרָהלּי [used by Balak in verse 6], for it specifies and details [the curse]- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]
קבה לי: זו קשה מארה לי, שהוא נוקב ומפרש:
and drive it out: of the world. Balak said only, “and I will drive him out of the land” (verse 6). [His intention was:] I want only to get them away from me, but Balaam hated them more than did Balak. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]
וגרשתיו: מן העולם. ובלק לא אמר אלא ואגרשנו מן הארץ, איני מבקש אלא להסיעם מעלי, ובלעם היה שונאם יותר מבלק:
12. God said to Balaam, "You shall not go with them! You shall not curse the people because they are blessed." יב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא:
You shall not go with them: He said to Him, “If so, I will curse them in my place.” He replied to him, “You shall not curse the people.” He said, “If so, I will bless them.” He replied, “They do not need your blessing, ‘for they are blessed.’ ” As the saying goes, “We say to the wasp (Other editions: the bee), ‘Neither your honey, nor your sting.’ ” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]
לא תלך עמהם: אמר לו אם כן אקללם במקומי. אמר לו לא תאור את העם. אמר לו אם כן אברכם. אמר לו אינם צריכין לברכתך, כי ברוך הוא. משל אומרים לצרעה לא מדובשיך ולא מעוקציך:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 1 - 9
• Chapter 1
This psalm inspires man to study Torah and avoid sin. One who follows this path is assured of success in all his deeds, whereas the plight of the wicked is the reverse.
1. Fortunate is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the path of sinners, nor sat in the company of scoffers.
2. Rather, his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night.
3. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that yields its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and all that he does shall prosper.
4. Not so the wicked; rather, they are like the chaff that the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not endure in judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the Lord minds the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
Chapter 2
This psalm warns against trying to outwit the ways of God. It also instructs one who has reason to rejoice, to tremble—lest his sins cause his joy to be overturned.
1. Why do nations gather, and peoples speak futility?
2. The kings of the earth rise up, and rulers conspire together, against the Lord and against His anointed:
3. “Let us sever their cords, and cast their ropes from upon us!”
4. He Who sits in heaven laughs, my Master mocks them.
5. Then He speaks to them in His anger, and terrifies them in His wrath:
6. “It is I Who have anointed My king, upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7. I am obliged to declare: The Lord said to me, “You are my son, I have this day begotten you.
1
8. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. Smash them with a rod of iron, shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”
10. Now be wise, you kings; be disciplined, you rulers of the earth.
11. Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling.
12. Yearn for purity—lest He become angry and your path be doomed, if his anger flares for even a moment. Fortunate are all who put their trust in Him
Chapter 3
When punishment befalls man, let him not be upset by his chastisement, for perhaps--considering his sins—he is deserving of worse, and God is in fact dealing kindly with him.
1. A psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
2. Lord, how numerous are my oppressors; many rise up against me!
3. Many say of my soul, “There is no salvation for him from God—ever!”
4. But You, Lord, are a shield for me, my glory, the One Who raises my head.
5. With my voice I call to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain, Selah.
6. I lie down and sleep; I awake, for the Lord sustains me.
7. I do not fear the myriads of people that have aligned themselves all around me.
8. Arise, O Lord, deliver me, my God. For You struck all my enemies on the cheek, You smashed the teeth of the wicked.
9. Deliverance is the Lord’s; may Your blessing be upon Your people forever
Chapter 4
This psalm exhorts man not to shame his fellow, and to neither speak nor listen to gossip and slander. Envy not the prosperity of the wicked in this world, rather rejoice and say: “If it is so for those who anger Him . . . [how much better it will be for those who serve Him!”]
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by David.
2. Answer me when I call, O God [Who knows] my righteousness. You have relieved me in my distress; be gracious to me and hear my prayer.
3. Sons of men, how long will you turn my honor to shame, will you love vanity, and endlessly seek falsehood?
4. Know that the Lord has set apart His devout one; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.
5. Tremble and do not sin; reflect in your hearts upon your beds, and be silent forever.
6. Offer sacrifices in righteousness, and trust in the Lord.
7. Many say: “Who will show us good?” Raise the light of Your countenance upon us, O Lord.
8. You put joy in my heart, greater than [their joy] when their grain and wine abound.
9. In peace and harmony I will lie down and sleep, for You, Lord, will make me dwell alone, in security.
Chapter 5
A prayer for every individual, requesting that the wicked perish for their deeds, and the righteous rejoice for their good deeds.
1. For the Conductor, on the nechilot,1 a psalm by David.
2. Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my thoughts.
3. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God, for to You I pray.
4. Lord, hear my voice in the morning; in the morning I set [my prayers] before you and hope.
5. For You are not a God Who desires wickedness; evil does not abide with You.
6. The boastful cannot stand before Your eyes; You hate all evildoers.
7. You destroy the speakers of falsehood; the Lord despises the man of blood and deceit.
8. And I, through Your abundant kindness, come into Your house; I bow toward Your holy Sanctuary, in awe of You.
9. Lead me, O Lord, in Your righteousness, because of my watchful enemies; straighten Your path before me.
10. For there is no sincerity in their mouths, their heart is treacherous; their throat is an open grave, [though] their tongue flatters.
11. Find them guilty, O God, let them fall by their schemes; banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against You.
12. But all who trust in You will rejoice, they will sing joyously forever; You will shelter them, and those who love Your Name will exult in You.
13. For You, Lord, will bless the righteous one; You will envelop him with favor as with a shield.
Chapter 6
This is an awe-inspiring prayer for one who is ill, to pray that God heal him, body and soul. An ailing person who offers this prayer devoutly and with a broken heart is assured that God will accept his prayer.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music for the eight-stringed harp, a psalm by David.
2. Lord, do not punish me in Your anger, nor chastise me in Your wrath.
3. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I languish away; heal me, O Lord, for my bones tremble in fear.
4. My soul is panic-stricken; and You, O Lord, how long [before You help]?
5. Relent, O Lord, deliver my soul; save me for the sake of Your kindness.
6. For there is no remembrance of You in death; who will praise You in the grave?
7. I am weary from sighing; each night I drench my bed, I melt my couch with my tears.
8. My eye has grown dim from vexation, worn out by all my oppressors.
9. Depart from me, all you evildoers, for the Lord has heard the sound of my weeping.
10. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord accepts my prayer.
11. All my enemies will be shamed and utterly terrified; they will then repent and be shamed for a moment.
Chapter 7
Do not rejoice if God causes your enemy to suffer—just as the suffering of the righteous is not pleasant. David, therefore, defends himself intensely before God, maintaining that he did not actively harm Saul. In fact, Saul precipitated his own harm, while David’s intentions were only for the good.
1. A shigayon 1 by David, which he sang to the Lord concerning Kush the Benjaminite.
2. I put my trust in You, Lord, my God; deliver me from all my pursuers and save me.
3. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, crushing me with none to rescue.
4. Lord, my God, if I have done this, if there is wrongdoing in my hands;
5. if I have rewarded my friends with evil or oppressed those who hate me without reason—
6. then let the enemy pursue and overtake my soul, let him trample my life to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust forever.
7. Arise, O Lord, in Your anger, lift Yourself up in fury against my foes. Stir me [to mete out] the retribution which You commanded.
8. When the assembly of nations surrounds You, remove Yourself from it and return to the heavens.
9. The Lord will mete out retribution upon the nations; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and my integrity.
10. Let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous—O righteous God, Searcher of hearts and minds.
11. [I rely] on God to be my shield, He Who saves the upright of heart.
12. God is the righteous judge, and the Almighty is angered every day.
13. Because he does not repent, He sharpens His sword, bends His bow and makes it ready.
14. He has prepared instruments of death for him; His arrows will be used on the pursuers.
15. Indeed, he conceives iniquity, is pregnant with evil schemes, and gives birth to falsehood.
16. He digs a pit, digs it deep, only to fall into the trap he laid.
17. His mischief will return upon his own head, his violence will come down upon his own skull.
18. I will praise the Lord according to His righteousness, and sing to the Name of the Lord Most High
Chapter 8
This psalm is a glorious praise to God for His kindness to the lowly and mortal human in giving the Torah to the inhabitants of the lower worlds, arousing the envy of the celestial angels. This idea is expressed in the Yom Kippur prayer, “Though Your mighty strength is in the angels above, You desire praise from those formed of lowly matter.”
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by David.
2. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth, You Who has set Your majesty upon the heavens!
3. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have established might, to counter Your enemies, to silence foe and avenger.2
4. When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place—
5. what is man that You should remember him, son of man that You should be mindful of him?
6. Yet, You have made him but a little less than the angels, and crowned him with honor and glory.
7. You made him ruler over Your handiwork, You placed everything under his feet.
8. Sheep and cattle—all of them, also the beasts of the field;
9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea; all that traverses the paths of the seas.
10. Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your Name throughout the earth.
Chapter 9
One should praise God for saving him from the hand of the enemy who stands over and agonizes him, and for His judging each person according to his deeds: the righteous according to their righteousness, and the wicked according to their wickedness.
1. For the Conductor, upon the death of Labben, a psalm by David.
2. I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will recount all Your wonders.
3. I will rejoice and exult in You; I will sing to Your Name, O Most High.
4. When my enemies retreat, they will stumble and perish from before You.
5. You have rendered my judgement and [defended] my cause; You sat on the throne, O righteous Judge.
6. You destroyed nations, doomed the wicked, erased their name for all eternity.
7. O enemy, your ruins are gone forever, and the cities you have uprooted—their very remembrance is lost.
8. But the Lord is enthroned forever, He established His throne for judgement.
9. And He will judge the world with justice, He will render judgement to the nations with righteousness.
10. The Lord will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.
11. Those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, Lord, have not abandoned those who seek You.
12. Sing to the Lord Who dwells in Zion, recount His deeds among the nations.
13. For the Avenger of bloodshed is mindful of them; He does not forget the cry of the downtrodden.
14. Be gracious to me, O Lord; behold my affliction at the hands of my enemies, You Who raises me from the gates of death,
15. so that I may relate all Your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion, that I may exult in Your deliverance.
16. The nations sank into the pit that they made; in the net they concealed their foot was caught.
17. The Lord became known through the judgement He executed; the wicked one is snared in the work of his own hands; reflect on this always.
18. The wicked will return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
19. For not for eternity will the needy be forgotten, nor will the hope of the poor perish forever.
20. Arise, O Lord, let not man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your presence.
21. Set Your mastery over them, O Lord; let the nations know that they are but frail men, Selah.
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 9
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Sunday, Tammuz 1, 5774 • June 29, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 9
אבל לגבי הקב״ה, מדרגת החכמה שהיא תחלת מחשבה וראשיתה, היא סוף מעשה אצלו
In regard to the Holy One, blessed be He, however, the level of wisdom — which [in all created beings] is the beginning of thought and its genesis — is to Him the final stage of action;
דהיינו שנחשבת כאילו היא בחינת ומדרגת עשייה לגבי הקב״ה
i.e., in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, [wisdom] is considered as if it were the quality and level of action,
כדכתיב: כולם בחכמה עשית
as it is written,1 “You have made them all with wisdom.”
At first glance, it would seem more appropriate for the verse to have said something such as “You have ‘intellected’ them all.” Why instead does it state, “You have made...,” when speaking of wisdom?
והיינו לומר, שכערך החיות שבעשיה גופנית וגשמיית לערך חיות החכמה
That is to say that [wisdom relative to Him] is as the quality of the life-force in physical and material action is in relation to the quality of the life-force of wisdom,
שהיא ראשית ומקור החיות באדם וכל הברואים גשמיים
[wisdom being] the beginning and source of the life-force in man and all the physical creatures.
I.e., the life-force of physicality is incomparably lower than wisdom, which is the source of all life-force.
שהוא כאין לגבי חיות שבאותיות הדבור, שהוא כאין לגבי חיות שבאותיות המחשבה
[For the life-force of physicality] is as nothing in comparison with the life-force in the letters of speech, which [in turn] is as nothing compared to the life-force in the letters of thought,
שהוא כאין לגבי חיות ומעלת המדות שמהן נמשכה מחשבה זו
which [in turn] is as nothing in comparison to the life-force and level of the emotive attributes from which this thought is derived,
For, as explained earlier, all letters of thought emanate from some emotion which brings them into being, so that the individual concerned should think these particular letters. Clearly, the life-force of these letters of thought bears no comparison to the life-force of the emotions from whence these letters emanate.
שהוא כאין לגבי חיות ומעלת ומדרגת החכמה בינה ודעת, מקור המדות
which [in turn] is as nothing in comparison to the life-force and level and degree of wisdom, understanding and knowledge, the source of the emotive attributes.
Thus, from the level of action to the lofty level of wisdom in the World of Atzilut there are but five levels, each of which is of no account in comparison to the level above it. Clearly, then, the lowest level of action is surely of absolutely no account in comparison to the highest level, which is the level of wisdom in the World of Atzilut. And just as action is infinitely distant from the wisdom of Atzilut, —
כן ממש ערך מדרגת ומעלת החכמה, שהיא ראשית ומקור החיות שבכל העולמות
Exactly so is the quality and level of wisdom, the beginning and source of the life-force in all the worlds,
For we are speaking here of the Sefirah of Chochmah of the World of Atzilut, which is the source of the entire World of Atzilut, the highest of all the worlds. As such it is also the source of all the worlds below it. Now this level of wisdom is as nothing —
לגבי הקב״ה בכבודו ובעצמו
in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Glory and Essence,
המרומם והמתנשא ריבוא רבבות מדרגות רוממות יותר מרוממות מדרגתהחכמה על בחינת חיות שבעשיה
Who is elevated and exalted by myriads of degrees of elevation more than the quality of wisdom is elevated over the quality of the life-force in action,
שהיא רוממות חמש מדרגות לבד, שהן מדרגות בחינות עשיה ודבור ומחשבה ומדות ושכל
for this is an elevation of only five degrees, namely, the levels of action, speech, thought, the emotive attributes, and intellect.
אבל הקב״ה רם ומתנשא ממדרגת החכמה רבבות מדרגות כאלו עד אין קץ
The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is “high and exalted” above the level of wisdom by infinite myriads of such degrees.
This being so, why do we compare the distance of wisdom from G d to the distance of action from wisdom, when in actuality wisdom is infinitely more distant from Him?
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 104:24.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah (Maimonides) - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Sunday, Tammuz 1, 5774 • June 29, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 131
Consuming Leftover Sacrificial Meat
"But a stranger shall not eat of them, because they are holy"—Exodus 29:33.
It is forbidden to eat sacrificial meat after the deadline for their consumption has passed.
Consuming Leftover Sacrificial Meat
Negative Commandment 131
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 131st prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating nosar, i.e. the meat of a sacrifice which remains after the time for its consumption has passed.
The Torah does not explicitly prohibit consuming it, but it does state in Scripture that one who eats nosar is punished by kares. This is G‑d's statement in the Torah portion Kedoshim,1 when speaking of the peace offering, "But anything left over until the third day must be burned in fire. If one [even plans to] eat it on the third day, it is considered pigul and it is not acceptable. One who eats them has desecrated that which is holy to G‑d, and he shall bear his guilt. This person shall be cut off [spiritually] from his people."
From here it is clear that [the punishment is] kares if one acts intentionally. If one ate unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.
The punishment is written in Scripture, but the actual prohibition is [derived] from what is written regarding the Inauguration sacrifices,2 "Do not eat them, because they are holy." The expression, "them,"3 includes any sacrifice which became invalid and thereby prohibited from consumption, such as nosar.
The Mishneh4 says, "Pigul and nosar are not counted together,5 because they have different names."
Our Sages, in tractate Me'ilah,6 say on this, "This statement only applies to impurity of the hands,7 which is of Rabbinic origin. As far as eating is concerned, they are counted together,8 as the Beraisa says, 'R. Eliezer says, the verse, "Do not eat them, because they are holy," adds a prohibition to eat any holy things which became invalid.'" Since both pigul and nosar are sacrifices which became invalid, the statement, "Do not eat them, because they are holy," prohibits the consumption of each one of them.
We have already explained that the punishment for [eating] nosar is kares.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 19:6-8.
2.Ex. 29:33. These sacrifices inaugurated Aaron and his sons into the priesthood.
3.It is difficult to understood it literally as plural, because only one animal is discussed in the verse (the others having been completely burned). See Kapach 5731, note 71. Heller, 5706, note 12.
4.Me'ilah 17b.
5.I.e. if one has half an ounce of pigul and half and ounce of nosar, they are not counted together as one ounce of "invalid sacrificial meat."
6.17b.
7.There is a Rabbinic decree that if one touches pigul or nosar, his hands are deemed impure. This is only if there is the minimum amount (either a kezayis or k'beitzah — see Pesachim 121b) of either pigul or nosar. But if it is half pigul and half nosar, they are not counted together and his hands remain pure.
8.Therefore, if one ate half a kezayis of pigul and half a kezayis of nosar, they are counted together as if he ate a full kezayis of prohibited meat.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Seven
Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
When a person gives money to a colleague to use for business purposes without making any stipulation, or explicitly states that they will share the profit and the losses equally, and the money is lost, there is an opinion that states that if only a portion of the money is lost, the administrator should pay the investor one third, as we have explained. It appears to me, however, that the administrator should pay the half that is a loan. Our Sages' statement that he should bear one third of the loss applies when the loss is not great enough for the investor to receive less than half of his money.
What is implied? Reuven gave Shimon 120 dinarim to invest in a business. Shimon did business with the money and lost ninety dinarim. Shimon should pay 30. Thus, Reuven receives 60.
If, however, Shimon lost 105 dinarim, we do not say that Shimon must pay only 35 dinarim. For if so, Reuven will receive only 50, and Reuven should never receive less than 60.
For this reason, if a legal document recording an investment contract involving the deceased father of orphans was presented against them, the possessor of the contract must take an oath. Afterwards, he is entitled to collect the half that is a loan. This applies even though we always advance arguments in support of an heir. Thus, we can derive from this that an investor never receives less than half.
Why do I not say that the extent of the loss the administrator must bear should be reduced in consideration of his wage for taking care of the portion of the investment considered as an entrusted article? Because the entire half considered as an entrusted article was lost, and no portion remained. Hence, it is not appropriate to say that if he does not receive a wage, his efforts will appear as interest. For all that he receives is the portion that he gave as a loan.
Similarly, if it is stipulated that the administrator would receive one fourth of the profit, in the event of the loss of the entire investment, he must pay the entire fourth that was given to him as a loan. If, however, enough of the money remains so that if the administrator adds one sixth of the loss to the small portion that remains, the investor would receive a fourth or more of his original investment, the administrator is required to pay only one sixth of the loss, because of the reasons we have explained.
Halacha 2
When an administrator loses money and then labors until he profits, he cannot tell the investor: "Let us first calculate the loss that we suffered originally, of which you will bear two thirds. And then we will calculate the profit that we accrued at the end, of which you will receive only a third." Instead, we calculate only the profit or the loss that was ultimately arrived at. And the administrator receives only a share of the profit that he gained beyond the principal.
Halacha 3
When an investor gives an administrator 200 curtains for 200 dinarim in an iska agreement, and composes two separate legal documents concerning the partnership, the administrator may calculate each legal document as a separate investment. The investor caused himself a loss.
If he gave him 100 curtains for 100 dinarim and then gave him another investment of 100 barrels of wine for 100 dinarim, but wrote one investment contract for 200 dinarim, they must consider it a single contract. The administrator caused himself a loss.
What is implied? If he sold the 100 curtains for 130 dinarim and the hundred barrels for 70, the investor receives the entire amount, because one contract was composed, and the administrator did not make any profit. If, however, he had left them as two separate investments as they originally were, the administrator would have earned a profit of 20 dinarim in the deal involving the cloth, and would have lost 10 in the deal involving the barrels. Thus, he would have earned a total profit of 10 dinarim. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 4
An administrator may not divide the money or the merchandise he was entrusted, saying; "I will take the half that I was given as a loan for myself and do business with it, and I will place the half that is considered an entrusted object in the court for safekeeping." For he was given this money solely with the intent that he do business with the entire amount. If he dissolved the investment contract and did the above, even if he entrusted the money to the nation's highest court, his actions are of no consequence. The profit or the loss should be divided among them according to the principles we have explained.
Halacha 5
When an administrator gives other people a present from movable property belonging to the investment agreement or from money belonging to the investment, and the investor brings clear proof that this movable property or this money belongs to the investment, it may be expropriated from the recipient. Even if the recipient changed it, sold it or gave it away as a present to others, or destroyed it, the administrator is obligated to pay for it, provided the investor brings definite proof that the recipient was given property or funds belonging to the investment.
We have already explained that if the administrator dies, the investor may take an oath and collect half of the money invested. If there are witnesses who testify that merchandise was purchased with the money of the investment, the investor may take it without taking an oath. Similarly, no other creditors or wives of the administrator may expropriate anything from these goods unless there was a profit. For the portion of the profit belonging to the deceased belongs to his heirs, and from that portion, his creditors and wives may expropriate money that is due them.
Halacha 6
When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce, with the profits to be split among them, and the colleague fails to do so, all the investor has against him are complaints. If he has definite proof that he purchased produce and then sold it, he may expropriate the profit from him against his will.
Halacha 7
When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce with the profits to be split among them, the colleague may purchase any type that he desires. He should not, however, buy garments, wood or the like.
When a person hires a colleague to run a store with the profits to be split among them, if the person hired as the storekeeper is a craftsman, he should not work at his craft, for his attention is not focused on the store while he is working at his craft. If, however, his partner was present in the courtyard at that time, it is permitted. The person hired as the storekeeper should not purchase and sell other merchandise. If he does, the profit should be split.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
When a sin-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with a burnt-offerings of doves or a burnt-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with sin-offerings of doves,1 even one in a myriad, they should all be consigned to death.2
When does the above apply? When their identity had been explicitly determined when they were purchased by the owner, [saying]: "This is a sin-offering. This is a burnt-offering." Different rules apply, however, of one brought doves to fulfill his obligation, some [for] a sin-offering and some for a burnt-offering, without stating explicitly [what each was, instead, they were brought] without specification and then a [dove designated as] a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering became mixed with these undesignated [doves] brought to fulfill his obligation.
Halacha 2
What are the appropriate laws? If [a dove designated as] a sin-offering becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves] brought to fulfill one's obligation, only the number of doves to be brought as sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable.3 The number of burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the sin-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a sin-offering has become intermingled with burnt-offerings.4
Halacha 3
Therefore if the unspecified [group] is [at least] twice as large as the number of sin-offerings [that became intermingled with them], half of the unspecified group is acceptable,5 and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the lower portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a sin-offering.6
Halacha 4
Similarly, if a burnt-offering7 becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves], only the number of doves to be brought as burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable. The number of sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the burnt-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a burnt-offering has become intermingled with sin-offerings.8
Whether there are more doves in the unspecified group than the number of burnt-offerings that became intermingled with them, there were more burnt-offerings than doves in the unspecified group, or they were of equal amounts, only the amount of burnt-offerings in the unspecified group are acceptable. Therefore if the unspecified group was twice as large as the number of doves that became intermingled with them, half of the unspecified group is acceptable, and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the upper portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a burnt-offering.
Halacha 5
When one unspecified group becomes intermingled with another unspecified group - whether they were all for one purpose, e.g., doves brought by zavim together with doves brought by zavim, or for two purposes, doves brought by zavim together with doves brought by women after childbirth, whether they were both brought by the same person, or they were brought by two separate people, if they were both similar, half are acceptable and half are disqualified.9 [This applies] whether [the priest] offered all of them on the upper portion of the altar or all on the lower portion of the altar, or half were offered on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, half are always acceptable and half are always disqualified, because half [of the mixture] are burnt-offerings and half are sin-offerings and a sin-offering is offered on the lower portion of the altar and a burnt-offering is offered on the upper portion.
[To explain:] If he offered them all on the upper portion, half are acceptable and they are burnt-offerings.10 If he offered them all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.11 If half were offered on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion, half of the half offered on the upper portion are acceptable [and the other half are disqualified,] because of the mixture.12 [The acceptable ones] are burnt-offerings. And half of the half of those offered on the lower portion are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply if] two unspecified groups became intermingled with each other and one was larger than the other, e.g., one had four doves and one had six. If he offered them all on the upper portion of the altar, or all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are disqualified for the reason we explained.13 [Different laws apply] if he offered half on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion. If he did this after he asked,14 the lesser amount are acceptable.15 If he did this on his own initiative, the greater amount are acceptable.16
Halacha 7
This is the general principle: Whenever, on his initiative, the priest offered half on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, and it is impossible that [the doves of] one [owner] will not have been offered on both halves of the altar, the greater amount is acceptable.17 Since it is known that a portion of [this person's]18 sacrifices will be [offered] on the upper portion of the altar and a portion on the lower half, all of his sacrifices are acceptable.
Halacha 8
When two individuals purchase pairs of doves together or give the money for them to the priest [to purchase them], the priest may offer whichever he desires as sin-offerings and whichever he desires as burnt-offerings.19 For [the identity of the sacrifices] in the pair is determined only when purchased by the owners or when offered by the priest, as we explained.20
Halacha 9
If there were [groups of doves], some [groups of] sin-offerings and others, burnt-offerings, before a priest and he offered21 both [groups] on the upper portion of the altar or both on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.22 If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion without knowing whether it was the sin-offerings or the burnt-offerings that he offered on the lower portion, they are all unacceptable. For we surmise that it was the burnt-offering that were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.
Halacha 10
If there were three groups of doves before him:23 one sin-offerings, one burnt-offerings, and one undefined, half burnt-offerings and half sin-offerings, without the purpose [for any given dove] being defined, if he offered all of them on the upper portion or on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.24
Halacha 11
If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion,25 only the group that was undefined that was offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion is acceptable.26 It is divided between the owners27 and [the portion allotted to] each one is considered as valid for them, for the priest does not know which groups were specified [as being sin-offerings] and which one was left undefined. The two specified groups are not acceptable, because it is not known which one was offered on the upper portion of the altar and which one, on the lower portion and it is possible that the burnt-offerings were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.
FOOTNOTES
1.As mentioned in the previous chapter and notes, a zav, a zavah, and a woman who gave birth are required to bring two doves as offerings, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. The designation of the doves for these offerings is made either by the owner at the time of purchase or - and this is the most common instance - by the priest when he offers them. If the person bringing the doves did not designate them, the doves are referred to as a chovah, which we have translated as "the unspecified group."
2.A dove designated as a sin-offering may not be offered as a burnt-offering, nor may one designated as a burnt-offering be offered as a sin-offering, as explained in Chapter 7, Halachot 5-8. Since the identity of the dove is not known, some of the offerings will be unacceptable. Hence none are offered and instead, they are consigned to die.
3.The rationale is that half of the doves in the unspecified group are sin-offerings. Hence even if another dove that was designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a group of four unspecified doves, there are definitely two doves that can be selected to be offered as sin-offerings (either two are from the unspecified group or one is from the unspecified group and one is the sin-offering that became intermingled).
A third sin-offering may not be brought because it is possible that the third dove is from the unspecified group and it should be designated as a burnt-offering.
4.Either the dove designated as the sin-offering is among the three. Or the three are from the unspecified group and two are burnt-offerings and one is a sin-offering.
5.For example, if five sin-offerings become intermingled with an unspecified group of ten, there are five acceptable sin-offerings in the intermingled group of fifteen.
6.The expression "It appears to me" indicates a conclusion the Rambam reached through the process of deduction without any clearcut prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam is saying that all of the doves, even those which are disqualified, should be offered on the lower half of the altar. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam, asking how is it possible for him to suggest that unacceptable doves should be offered as sacrifices. (If, he states, the Rambam's intent was that all of the sin-offerings should be offered on the bottom half of the altar, that is obvious and does not need the introduction "It appears to me.")
The Kessef Mishneh states that with the expression "It appears to me," the Rambam is introducing a new idea. The previous halachah is speaking about an instance where the priest offered only half the doves in the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar. If, however, he offers more than half of the doves (half of the unspecified group and the number of doves designated as sin-offerings that became intermingled with them) on the lower half of the altar, not only is half the unspecified group acceptable, the sin-offerings that became mixed with the unspecified group are also acceptable. The priest is allowed to offer the majority of the unspecified group on the lower half of the altar because the other doves were never specified as burnt-offerings. Although they would have to be offered as burnt-offerings (and hence, are disqualified), since they were never specified as such, they may be offered on the lower half of the altar. Rav Yosef Corcus adds that according to the Rambam, the intent is the sacrifices are acceptable. It is just that the owners can fulfill their obligation only for half of them.
7.In addition to burnt-offerings from the pairs mentioned above, this could also refer to doves donated for freewill offerings which are all burnt offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:3)].
8.I.e., the same principles applied in Halachot 2-3 with regard to a sin-offering are applied here with regard to a burnt-offering.
9.Here the problem is that perhaps unknowingly, the priest will be offering all the doves from one unspecified group as sin-offerings and all of the other, as burnt-offerings, instead of offering them, half and half, as required.
10.The other half are unacceptable, because they were sin-offerings and they were offered as burnt-offerings.
11.The other half are unacceptable, because they were burnt-offerings and they were offered as sin-offerings.
12.As explained in note 8.
13.In the previous halachah.
14.I.e., he consulted with the women and asked them what he should do [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 1:4)]. Others interpret this as meaning that he consulted the court.
15.For example, Leah brought six doves and Rachel, four. If the priest offered five on the upper portion of the altar and five on the lower portion, it is possible that three are from Leah's group and she intended for them to be sin-offerings not burnt-offerings. Hence only two of the doves offered on the upper portion are acceptable. The same applies with regard to those offered on the lower portion (see the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus).
16.For the reason explained in the next halachah.
17.Because the distinction of the sacrifices as burnt-offerings and sin-offerings was left to the priest to determine.
18.I.e., the person who brought the larger group.
19.They are all acceptable, because when offering them, he is determining which is a sin-offering and which, a burnt-offering.
20.Chapter 5, Halachah 11.
21.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:2), the Rambam states that this is speaking about an instance where the groups were not intermingled. The identity of the groups was left for the priest to determine. After doing so, he forgot how he had determined the identity of the groups and offered them in the manner described. Afterwards, he remembered they were of different types and inquired what was the outcome of his deeds. If, however, the groups became intermingled at the outset, they should all be consigned to death, as stated in Halachah 1 (see Kessef Mishneh).
22.I.e., the groups contained an equal number of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Thus if they are all offered as one type, half will be unacceptable.
23.This too is speaking about an instance where the groups are not intermingled, but rather three groups were brought to a priest to define their status and to offer them. Afterwards, he forgot and offered them without being conscious of their different status [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].
24.This is a combination of the previous halachah and Halachot 2 and 4.
25.This refers to a situation similar to that described in note 23, except that here, he offered one group on the upper portion of the altar, one group one the lower portion, and one group, half and half.
26.For it was offered as required, half on the upper portion of the altar and half, on the lower portion.
27.Each of the people who brought sacrifices are credited with an equal share of the sacrifices offered. Thus each one is considered to have brought half their sacrifices and must bring the other half.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a dove from an unspecified group flies to free spaces or among doves that are consigned to death,1 or one of the doves dies, a second one should be taken for its pair.
Halacha 2
If it flies among [doves] that are fit to be offered, it is disqualified and it disqualifies one [of the group], for when a dove flies from an unspecified group to among those which will be offered, it becomes disqualified and it disqualifies another one corresponding to it.2
What is implied? A dove from a group of unspecified doves flies to an unspecified group of ten doves. If [the priest] offered five on the lower portion [of the altar] and six on the upper portion, five of the burnt-offerings from the six offered on the upper portion are acceptable3 and four of the sin-offerings from the five offered on the lower portion are acceptable. [The rationale is that] one says: "Perhaps the dove that flew is one of the five offered on the lower portion."4
Similarly, if he offered six on the lower portion and five on the upper portion, five sin-offerings and four burnt-offerings are acceptable. For one might say: "Perhaps the dove [that flew] is one of the five offered on the upper portion." Thus from the ten [from the second group], nine are acceptable and [the dove] disqualified one.
Halacha 3
[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of four doves and another unspecified group of four doves. If one from the first group flew to the second group, it disqualified one of the second group.5 If, after it became intermingled among them,6 one of the second group flew to the first group, it disqualifies one of the first group.7 Thus there are only two doves in the first group that are acceptable.8
Halacha 4
If, again, one of the first group flew back to the second group, even if [they continue flying back and forth] the entire day, they do not add to the number disqualified,9 for even if they become entirely intermingled with each other, half are acceptable and half are disqualified, as we explained.10
Halacha 5
[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of two doves, a second group of four doves, a third of six, a fourth of eight, a fifth of ten, a sixth of twelve, and a seventh of fourteen. If one of the first group flew to the second,11 one of the second12 flew to the third, one of the third to the fourth, one of the fourth to the fifth, one of the fifth to the sixth, and one of the sixth to the seventh - and then, one flew back from group to group until one returned to the first group from which the original one had flown, one dove is disqualified in the first movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the first and second groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the third group has two; the fourth, four; the fifth, six; the sixth, eight, and the seventh, twelve.13
If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a second time and then one flew back from the last [group], going from group to group until it reaches the first, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. The third14 and the fourth groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the fifth group has two; the sixth, four, and the seventh, ten.
If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a third time and then one flew a fourth time, going from group to group, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the fifth and the sixth are disqualified entirely and the seventh has eight acceptable doves remaining, i.e., when the fourteen doves are offered [on the altar], seven on the upper portion and seven on the lower portion, eight will be acceptable and six will be disqualified because of the intermingling of the doves that flew back and forth.
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when there was] a group of doves that was unspecified and another group [in which the doves for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering] had already been specified. If one of the doves from the unspecified group flew to the group that had been specified, [the owner of the unspecified group] should take a partner for the remaining dove.15
If [the above group became intermingled and then of the doves] returned [to the unspecified group] or [at the outset,] one of the doves from the specified group flew to the unspecified group and it was not known whether it was the one designated as a burnt-offering or the one designated as the sin-offering,16 all of the doves in the unspecified group should be consigned to death. [The rationale is that] if it was the one designated as a burnt-offering that became intermingled, all of the sin-offerings [in that group] are disqualified.17 And if it was the one designated as a sin-offering that became intermingled, all of the burnt-offerings [in that group] are disqualified. Therefore,18 they should all be consigned to death.
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply when there were] a group of doves that were designated as sin-offerings on one side, others designated as burnt-offerings on the other side, and an unspecified group in the middle. If one of the unspecified group flew to the group on one side and another, to the other group, nothing is lost. Instead, the owner should say: "The one which flew to the sin offerings is a sin-offering. The one which flew to the burnt-offerings is a burnt-offering."19
If, after they became intermingled, one from each of the sides returned to the center, the two in the center should be consigned to death, for they are a burnt-offering and a sin-offering mixed together and those on the sides should be offered - these as sin-offerings and these as burnt-offerings - as was their original state.
If those [which returned to] the center flew to the sides, they must all be consigned to death for perhaps20 the burnt-offering became intermingled with the sin-offerings and the sin-offering became intermingled with the burnt-offerings.
FOOTNOTES
1.Because they have become intermingled with a dove designated as a sin-offering.
2.The redundancy in the Rambam's ruling is a quote from Kinim 2:1.
3.I.e., it is obvious that one of the six offered as burnt-offerings is unacceptable, because there only five in the second group. The sixth is either one of the original group that should have been offered as a burnt-offering and is thus unacceptable. Or it is the one that flew into it, in which instance, it is unacceptable, because perhaps it was to be offered as a sin-offering. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:1).
4.And one of the sin-offerings in that group had been offered together with the burnt-offerings.
5.As described in the previous halachah.
6.If, however, it is obvious that the dove that flew from the first group flew back to it, none of the doves are disqualified (ibid.).
7.And it is disqualified itself.
8.They should be offered one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Similarly, in the second group, only one pair of doves should be offered, for we surmise that it was one of the three that was acceptable that flew to the first group.
9.I.e., each group has two acceptable doves and two which are disqualified.
10.Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
11.And became intermingled there. The dove that flies into the group is unacceptable and it disqualifies another dove in the group. Thus of the group of four, only two acceptable doves remain. This principle applies every time one dove flies from one group to another, as evident from Halachah 3.
12.If it is discernable that the dove that flew from the first group to the second flew from the second to the third, etc., all of these rules do not apply [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:3)].
13.More acceptable doves remain in the last group because only two doves are disqualified in each circuit, while in all the other groups four are disqualified each time.
14.As mentioned above, all of the doves in the first and second group were disqualified in the first phase of movement.
15.One should be offered as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. With regard to the doves from the group that had been specified. We are speaking about a situation where the identity of one of the doves - for argument's sake, the burnt-offering - is still known and the one designated as the sin-offering has become intermingled with the dove that flew into that group. Hence one burnt-offering and two sin-offerings should be offered and only one of the sin-offerings is acceptable. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinim 2:4).
16.If, however, the identity of the dove which became intermingled is known, different laws apply, as explained in Chapter 8.
17.The rationale is that since the doves are intermingled and it is known that one was a burnt-offering, none may be offered on the lower portion of the altar.
18.I.e., since we do not know whether it was a burnt-offering or a sin-offering that was intermingled.
19.Determining their identities with that statement. The fact that the priest offering the doves does not know which doves were brought by which person is not significant. See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
20.And even the possibility warrants that the doves be consigned to death.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a woman says: "I pledge a pair of doves when I give birth to a male," when she gives birth to a male she must bring four doves: two because of her vow, they are burnt offerings, as we explained,1 and two which she is obligated to bring because of the birth,2 one, a burnt-offering and the other, a sin-offering. Therefore the priest must offer three doves on the upper portion of the altar and one dove on the lower portion.
If he erred and offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion,3and he did not consult [with the woman],4 she must bring another dove and offer it on the upper portion of the altar.5
When does the above apply? When she brought all four doves from one type; either they were all turtle doves or young doves. If, however, she brought two turtle doves and two young doves and two6 were offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and two7 on the lower portion,8 she must bring one more turtle dove and one more young dove on the upper portion to fulfill her obligation.9 For if at the outset, two turtle doves were offered on the lower portion, another turtle dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation.10 [Or] if two young doves were offered on the lower portion, another young dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation. For a person should not bring a pair to fulfill his obligation that comprises one turtle dove and one young dove.11 Instead, either they should both be turtle doves or both be young doves.
Halacha 2
If she made her vow explicit, telling the priest: "These12 are for my vow and these are for my obligation," and the priest offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion without knowing which ones he offered on the upper portion and which ones he offered on the lower portion,13 she must bring three doves, two for her vow and one to complete her obligation.14 The two should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. [The rationale is that] she made her vow explicit and possibly the two brought because of her vow were offered on the lower portion, thus disqualifying them.15
When does the above apply? When she brought the four doves from which she explicitly defined two as being for her vow from one type. If, however, [she brought them from] two types, she must bring four other doves:16 the two from the type she designated explicitly for her vow should be offered for her vow and the other two may be from either type she desires for her obligation. One should be offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and one on the lower portion.
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply if a woman] defined17 [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow, saying: "If I give birth to a male, I pledge two turtle doves," and she gave birth and brought four doves:18 two for her vow and two for her obligation. The priest offered two on the upper portion [of the altar] and two on the lower portion, but did not know which were offered on the upper portion and which were offered on the lower portion and she also forgot and did not know the type of doves she had pledged for her vow, whether turtle doves or young doves. She should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow.19[All] four should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. She should bring another dove to complete her obligation and it should be offered on the lower portion. 20
When does the above apply? When originally she brought all of the four of one type. If, however, they were of two types, she must bring six other doves: two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow21 and for her obligation, she should bring either two turtle doves or two young doves22 and offer one on the upper portion of the altar and one on the lower portion.
Similarly, if she gave them to the priest23 and forgot what she gave him and the priest went and offered them, but was not aware where he offered all of the doves, whether he offered them all on the upper portion, all on the lower portion, or half above and half below, she should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow24 and two turtle doves or two young doves for her obligation.
Halacha 4
If she defined [which type of offering25 to be offered to fulfill] her obligation and [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow and forgot what she defined, it is [also] possible that her obligation was a lamb for a burnt-offering and a dove - either a turtle dove or a young dove - as a sin-offering. Therefore she must bring six doves - four for her vow26 and two for her obligation.27 And she must bring one sin-offering, either a young dove or a turtle dove, with a lamb.28 Thus she will have brought seven doves and a lamb.
Halacha 5
None of these sin-offerings should be eaten, because they are all offered because of a doubt.29
FOOTNOTES
1.The commentaries note that there is no explicit source which states that the doves pledged by a woman should be offered as burnt-offerings. They do, however, point to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:14 which states that a fowl is never brought as a peace-offering. Hence, the only alternative is for them to be offered as burnt-offerings.
2.I.e., when she is poor, as stated in Leviticus, ch. 14; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.
3.As would be appropriate in most instances, for pairs of doves are generally required to be offered, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.
4.If he did not consult with her, it is his prerogative to determine which dove should be offered as a sin-offering and which as a burnt-offering, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 8.
5.To fulfill her vow to bring a pair of doves as burnt-offerings.
6.I.e., of one type.
7.Of the other type.
8.This is speaking about a situation where the priest offering the sacrifice forgot which type he offered on the upper portion of the altar and which type on the lower portion [Ra'avad; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5)]. Were he to know which type he had offered on which portion, it would be sufficient to bring only one more dove.
9.I.e., to serve as the burnt-offering for the pair she was obligated to bring because of the birth, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
10.And the two young doves offered on the upper portion are considered as having been brought to fulfill her vow.
11.As the Kessef Mishneh states, it is not merely that it is unlikely for a person to do so, through Biblical exegesis, the Sifra derives that it is forbidden to do so.
12.I.e., this pair of doves.
13.And thus he is unsure if he fulfilled the woman's instructions.
14.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that since it is possible that the two doves designated for her vow were offered on the lower portion of the altar (as sin-offerings instead of burnt-offerings), it is possible that her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two other doves instead. Were that to have been the case, of the two offered on the upper portion of the altar, only one was acceptable and another dove must be brought as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
The above explanations are based of Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently, stating that this situation is considered like a burnt-offering that became intermingled with an unspecified group. See in Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
15.For they are burnt-offerings which must be offered on the upper portion of the altar.
16.Here the difficulty is that since the woman specified that the doves for her vow should come from a specific type and the priest did not remember whether he in fact offered that pair of doves as a burnt-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 3:5), the Rambam explains this law. In the original sacrifice, perhaps the two turtle doves that were intended as burnt-offerings were sacrificed on the lower portion of the altar and were thus disqualified. Thus her vow was not fulfilled and she must bring two turtle doves. The two young doves were offered on the upper portion of the altar as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary for another young dove to be offered on the lower portion as a sin-offering to fulfill her obligation.
It is, however, also possible that the two young doves were offered on the lower portion of the altar. In that instance, she would have to bring another young dove to be offered on the upper portion as a burnt-offer to fulfill her obligation. Hence she must bring a total of two turtle doves and two young doves.
17.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains the difference between this instance and the one mentioned in the previous halachah. In the previous halachah, we are speaking about an instance where the woman defined which doves were to be offered for which sacrifice at the time she gave them to the priest to offer and the priest forgot how he had offered them. In this instance, in addition to defining them when giving them to the priest, she pledged to bring them from a specific type and then she forgot which type of doves she pledged to bring for each particular sacrifice.
18.Of one type, as stated below.
19.The doves offered previously as a burnt-offering are of no consequence, because we are not certain that her vow was fulfilled. Because she is in doubt regarding which type she had specified in her vow, she must bring both types to fulfill it.
20.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this follows the same rationale as above. One of the burnt-offerings is acceptable. Hence it is necessary to bring a sin-offering to complete her obligation. He continues explaining that this decision is somewhat of a leniency, because it is possible that she will be offering the sin-offering from a different type of dove than the burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since we do not know of which type the original four doves were, this leniency is granted.
The above explanations are based on Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The initial version (preserved in the standard printed texts) reads differently. Similarly, this explanation requires - as suggested by the Kessef Mishneh - amending the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah to read:
it should be offered on the upper portion, for two were already offered on the lower portion as sin-offerings.
21.To be offered as burnt-offerings, for as above, it is possible that the ones designated as her vow were not offered as burnt-offerings and she does not remember which type she specified.
22.In contrast to the previous situations, she must bring two doves to fulfill her obligation. In this instance, one of those that were offered as a burnt-offering is not acceptable, because we know for certain that the offerings originally brought were of two types and we do not know which type of dove was brought as a burnt-offering so that a sin-offering could be brought from the same type of dove. Hence she must bring an entire pair to fulfill her obligation.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's rulings based on his interpretation of the Mishnah in Kinnim (which is also supported by Rashi). Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's understanding.
23.Four doves. This is speaking about a situation where the woman designated two doves as a burnt-offering for her vow and two for her obligation, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. She forgot which type of doves she vowed, which she brought to the priest, and how she designated them.
24.To be offered as burnt-offerings. It is necessary to bring these offerings, because it is possible that no burnt-offerings were offered or those designated as burnt-offerings were not offered for that purpose. It is necessary to bring both types, because the woman does not know which type she pledged as a burnt-offering.
25.I.e., whether she would bring a lamb, the burnt-offering brought by a woman of means brings after childbirth, or a dove the burnt-offering brought when one lacks adequate means.
26.Two turtle doves and two young doves. This is necessary, because she forgot what type of dove she specified that she would bring to fulfill her vow.
27.Of one type, either young doves or turtle doves, for perhaps she intended to bring the sacrifice of a poor woman.
28.In the event she intended to bring the sacrifice of a woman of means.
It must be noted that Kinnim 3:5, the source for the Rambam's ruling, does not mention a lamb at all. The Rambam mentions it, both here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, because otherwise, there is no clear reason why an extra dove should be brought as a sin-offering (Kessef Mishneh).
29.Instead, it should be burnt, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Sunday, Tammuz 1, 5774 • 29 June 2014
"Today's Day"
Sunday, Tamuz 1, 2nd day of Rosh Chodesh, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chukat, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 1-9.
Tanya: Ch. 9. In regard (p. 325) ...these ad infinitum. (p. 325).
Mesirat nefesh (self-sacrifice) for Torah-scholars means, "When a man dies in a tent,"1 as interpreted by our sages,2 to "put to death" all pleasure-taking in worldly matters - for even trivial wordly delights are obstacles to being thoroughly devoted and dedicated to the "tent" of Torah.
FOOTNOTES
1. Bamidbar 19:14.
2. See Berachot 63b: "From whence do we know that Torah knowledge permanently remains only in an individual who gives his very life (as it were) for it? From the verse, When a man dies in a tent, i.e. he gives his very life to be in the "tent of Torah," renouncing all wordly pleasures.
-------
Daily Thought:
The Tzaddik's Prayer
The enlightened master knows he lacks nothing
and so he prays for his people.
But if he lacks nothing,
then he knows that in truth they also lack nothing,
and if so, for what is he praying?
He prays they should have open eyes to see
and open hearts to know
that in truth they lack nothing.
But how can one who lacks nothing pray?
Because he knows he himself lacks nothing,
but deeper, at his very core,
he is his people
and he prays as one of them.
-------
Chabad - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: MONDAY, TAMMUZ 2, 5774 • JUNE 30, 2014
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• PASSING OF RABBI NACHMAN OF HORODENKA (GORODENKA) (1765)
Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka was a close colleague of the Baal Shem Tov. His son, Rabbi Simcha, married the Baal Shem Tov’s granddaughter, Feiga. Their son, the famed Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, became the founder of Breslov Chassidism. The Baal Shem Tov once asked Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka to deliver a letter to Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritch (who later became known as the Mezritcher Maggid) in which he attempted to persuade Rabbi Dov Ber to become his disciple. Upon receiving the letter, Rabbi Dov Ber said, “I see an auspicious sign in the student who bears this letter. If Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka is such a holy tzaddik, how much more so is his teacher—the Baal Shem Tov.” Rabbi Dov Ber then agreed to meet with the Baal Shem Tov and later to join the Chassidic movement.
DAILY QUOTE:
Abraham fulfilled the entire Torah - before it was given(Talmud, Yoma 28b)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: with Rashi
• Chapter 22
13. When Balaam arose in the morning, he said to Balak's nobles, "Return to your country, for the Lord has refused to let me go with you." יג. וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל שָׂרֵי בָלָק לְכוּ אֶל אַרְצְכֶם כִּי מֵאֵן יְהֹוָה לְתִתִּי לַהֲלֹךְ עִמָּכֶם:
to go with you: Only with greater nobles than you. This shows us that he was conceited and unwilling to reveal that he was under the control of the Omnipresent except in an arrogant manner. Therefore, “But Balak sent… again…” (verse 15) - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Balak Num. Rabbah 20:10]
להלך עמכם: אלא עם שרים גדולים מכם. למדנו שרוחו גבוהה ולא רצה לגלות שהוא ברשותו של מקום אלא בלשון גסות, לפיכך ויוסף עוד בלק:
14. Moab's nobles arose and came to Balak and said, "Balaam refuses to come with us." יד. וַיָּקוּמוּ שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בָּלָק וַיֹּאמְרוּ מֵאֵן בִּלְעָם הֲלֹךְ עִמָּנוּ:
15. So Balak continued to send dignitaries, more and higher in rank than these. טו. וַיֹּסֶף עוֹד בָּלָק שְׁלֹחַ שָׂרִים רַבִּים וְנִכְבָּדִים מֵאֵלֶּה:
16. They came to Balaam and said to him, "So said Balak the son of Zippor, 'Please do not hesitate to come to me. טז. וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ כֹּה אָמַר בָּלָק בֶּן צִפּוֹר אַל נָא תִמָּנַע מֵהֲלֹךְ אֵלָי:
17. For I will honor you greatly and do whatever you tell me to do. So please come and curse this people for me.'" יז. כִּי כַבֵּד אֲכַבֶּדְךָ מְאֹד וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלַי אֶעֱשֶׂה וּלְכָה נָּא קָבָה לִּי אֵת הָעָם הַזֶּה:
For I will honor you greatly: I will give you more than you have ever received in the past. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]
כי כבד אכבדך מאד: יותר ממה שהיית נוטל לשעבר אני נותן לך:
18. Balaam answered and said to Balak's servants, "Even if Balak gives me a house full of silver and gold, I cannot do anything small or great that would transgress the word of the Lord, my God. יח. וַיַּעַן בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַבְדֵי בָלָק אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה:
a house full of silver and gold: This shows us that he was greedy and coveted other people’s money. He said, “He ought to give me all his silver and gold, since he has to hire many armies, and even then, it is questionable whether he will be victorious or not, whereas I will certainly succeed.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak; Num. Rabbah 20:10]
מלא ביתו כסף וזהב: למדנו שנפשו רחבה ומחמד ממון אחרים. אמר, ראוי לו ליתן לי כל כסף וזהב שלו, שהרי צריך לשכור חיילות רבות, ספק נוצח ספק אינו נוצח, ואני ודאי נוצח:
I cannot… transgress: He unwillingly admitted that he was under the control of others. Here he prophesied that he could not annul the blessings with which the patriarchs had been blessed by the mouth of the Divine Presence. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]
לא אוכל לעבור: על כרחו גלה שהוא ברשות אחרים, ונתנבא כאן שאינו יכול לבטל הברכות שנתברכו האבות מפי השכינה:
19. Now, you too, please remain here overnight, and I will know what the Lord will continue to speak with me." יט. וְעַתָּה שְׁבוּ נָא בָזֶה גַּם אַתֶּם הַלָּיְלָה וְאֵדְעָה מַה יֹּסֵף יְהֹוָה דַּבֵּר עִמִּי:
you too: His mouth tripped him up [into telling them the truth]: You too, will end up leaving disappointed like the first group. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]
גם אתם: פיו הכשילו, גם אתם סופכם לילך בפחי נפש כראשונים:
what [the Lord] will continue: He will not change his mind from a blessing to a curse, but if only He does not continue to bless [them]! Here he prophesied that He [God] would add to their blessings through him. — [See Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]
מה יסף: לא ישנה דבריו מברכה לקללה הלואי שלא יוסיף לברך, כאן נתנבא שעתיד להוסיף להם ברכות על ידו:
20. God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If these men have come to call for you, arise and go with them, but the word I speak to you-that you shall do." כ. וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים | אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה:
If these men have come to call for you: If the calling is for you, and you expect payment for it, arise and go with them.
אם לקרא לך: אם הקריאה שלך וסבור אתה ליטול עליה שכר, קום לך אתם:
but: In spite of yourself, “the word I speak to you-that you shall do.” Nevertheless, “Balaam went.” He said, Perhaps I can persuade Him and He will consent [to my cursing them].
ואך: על כרחך את הדבר אשר אדבר אליך אותו תעשה, ואעפ"כ וילך בלעם, אמר שמא אפתנו ויתרצה:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 10 - 17
• Chapter 10
This psalm tells of the wicked one’s prosperity and his boasting of it, until he says: “There is neither law nor judge. God pays no attention to the actions of mere mortals.”
1. Why, O Lord, do You stand afar, do You hide Yourself in times of distress?
2. The wicked man in his arrogance pursues the poor; they are caught by the schemes they have contrived.
3. For the wicked man glories in the desire of his heart, and the robber boasts that he has scorned the Lord.
4. The wicked one in his insolence [thinks], “He does not avenge”; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5. His ways always succeed; Your retribution is far removed from before him; he puffs at all his foes.
6. He says in his heart, “I shall not falter; for all generations no evil will befall me.”
7. His mouth is full of oaths, deceit and malice; mischief and iniquity are under his tongue.
8. He sits in ambush near open cities; in hidden places he murders the innocent; his eyes stealthily watch for the helpless.
9. He lurks in hiding like a lion in his lair; he lurks to seize the poor, then seizes the poor when he draws his net.
10. He crouches and stoops, then the helpless fall prey to his might.
11. He says in his heart, “God has forgotten, He conceals His countenance, He will never see.”
12. Arise, O Lord! O God, lift Your hand! Do not forget the lowly.
13. Why does the wicked man scorn God? Because he says in his heart, “You do not avenge.”
14. Indeed, You do see! For You behold the mischief and vexation. To recompense is in Your power; the helpless place their trust in You; You have [always] helped the orphan.
15. Break the strength of the wicked; then search for the wickedness of the evil one and You will not find it.
16. The Lord reigns for all eternity; the nations have vanished from His land.
17. Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; direct their hearts, let Your ear listen,
18. to bring justice to the orphan and the downtrodden, so that [the wicked] shall no longer crush the frail of the earth.
Chapter 11
This psalm declares that the suffering of the righteous one is for his own benefit, to cleanse him of his sins; whereas the wicked one is granted prosperity in this world-similar to the verse, "Wealth remains with its owner, to his detriment."
1. For the Conductor, by David. I have placed my trust in the Lord; [thus] how can you say of my soul, your mountain,1 that it flees like a bird?2
2. For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they have readied their arrow upon the bowstring, to shoot in darkness at the upright of heart.
3. They destroyed the foundations; 3 what [wrong] has the righteous man done?
4. The Lord is in His holy Sanctuary, the Lord's throne is in heaven, [yet] His eyes behold, His pupils probe [the deeds of] mankind.
5. The Lord tests the righteous, but He hates the wicked and the lover of violence.
6. He will rain down upon the wicked fiery coals and brimstone; a scorching wind will be their allotted portion.
7. For the Lord is righteous, He loves [the man of] righteous deeds; the upright will behold His countenance.
Chapter 12
This psalm admonishes informers, slanderers, and flatterers.
1. For the Conductor, upon the eight-stringed instrument, a psalm by David.
2. Help us, Lord, for the pious are no more; for the faithful have vanished from among men.
3. Men speak falsehood to one another; with flattering lips, with a duplicitous heart do they speak.
4. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks boastfully-
5. those who have said, "With our tongues we shall prevail, our lips are with us, who is master over us!”
6. Because of the plundering of the poor, because of the moaning of the needy, the Lord says, "Now I will arise!" "I will grant deliverance," He says to him.
7. The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in the finest earthen crucible, purified seven times.
8. May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation,
9. [in which] the wicked walk on every side; when they are exalted it is a disgrace to mankind.
Chapter 13
A prayer for an end to the long exile. One in distress should offer this prayer for his troubles and for the length of the exile.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. How long, O Lord, will You forget me, forever? How long will You hide Your countenance from me?
3. How long must I seek counsel within my soul, [to escape] the grief in my heart all day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
4. Look! Answer me, O Lord, my God; give light to my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.
5. Lest my enemy say, "I have overcome him," [and] my oppressors rejoice when I falter.
6. I have placed my trust in Your kindness, my heart will rejoice in Your deliverance. I will sing to the Lord, for He has dealt kindly with me.
Chapter 14
This psalm speaks of the destruction of the two Holy Temples-the first by Nebuchadnezzar, and the second by Titus.
1. For the Conductor, by David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God!" [Man's] deeds have become corrupt and abominable, no one does good.
2. The Lord looked down from heaven upon mankind, to see if there was any wise man who searches for God.
3. They have all gone astray together, they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4. Indeed, all the evildoers, who devour My people as they devour bread, who do not call upon the Lord, will [ultimately] come to know [the consequences of their actions].
5. There they will be seized with fright, for God is with the righteous generation.
6. You scorn the counsel of the lowly, that he puts his trust in the Lord.
7. O that out of Zion would come Israel's deliverance! When the Lord returns the captivity of His people, Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice.
Chapter 15
This psalm speaks of several virtues and attributes with which one should conduct oneself. He is then assured that his soul will rest in Gan Eden.
1. A psalm by David. Who may abide in Your tent, O Lord? Who may dwell on Your holy Mountain?
2. He who walks blamelessly, acts justly, and speaks truth in his heart;
3. who has no slander on his tongue, who has done his fellowman no evil, and who has brought no disgrace upon his relative;
4. in whose eyes a despicable person is abhorrent, but who honors those who are God-fearing; who does not change his oath even if it is to his own detriment;
5. who does not lend his money at interest, nor accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never falter.
Chapter 16
When one is in need, he should not implore God in his own merit, for he must leave his merits for his children.
1. A michtam,1 by David. Watch over me, O God, for I have put my trust in You.
2. You, [my soul,] have said to God, "You are my Master; You are not obligated to benefit me.”
3. For the sake of the holy ones who lie in the earth, and for the mighty-all my desires are fulfilled in their merit.
4. Those who hasten after other [gods], their sorrows shall increase; I will not offer their libations of blood, nor take their names upon my lips.
5. The Lord is my allotted portion and my share; You guide my destiny.
6. Portions have fallen to me in pleasant places; indeed, a beautiful inheritance is mine.
7. I bless the Lord Who has advised me; even in the nights my intellect admonishes me.2
8. I have set the Lord before me at all times; because He is at my right hand, I shall not falter.
9. Therefore my heart rejoices and my soul exults; my flesh, too, rests secure.
10. For You will not abandon my soul to the grave, You will not allow Your pious one to see purgatory.
11. Make known to me the path of life, that I may be satiated with the joy of Your presence, with the bliss of Your right hand forever.
Chapter 17
A loftily person should not ask God to test him with some sinful matter, or other things. If one has sinned, he should see to reform himself, and to save many others from sin.
1. A prayer by David. Hear my sincere [plea], O Lord; listen to my cry; give ear to my prayer, expressed by guileless lips.
2. Let my verdict come forth from before You; let Your eyes behold uprightness.
3. You have probed my heart, examined it in the night, tested me and found nothing; no evil thought crossed my mind; as are my words so are my thoughts.
4. So that [my] human deeds conform with the words of Your lips, I guard myself from the paths of the lawbreakers.
5. Support my steps in Your paths, so that my feet shall not falter.
6. I have called upon You, for You, O Lord, will answer me; incline Your ear to me, hear what I say.
7. Withhold Your kindness-O You who delivers with Your right hand those who put their trust in You-from those who rise up against [You].
8. Guard me like the apple of the eye; hide me in the shadow of Your wings
9. from the wicked who despoil me, [from] my mortal enemies who surround me.
10. Their fat has closed [their hearts]; their mouths speak arrogantly.
11. They encircle our footsteps; they set their eyes to make us stray from the earth.
12. His appearance is like a lion longing to devour, like a young lion lurking in hiding.
13. Arise, O Lord! Confront him, bring him to his knees; rescue my soul from the wicked [who serves as] Your sword.
14. Let me be among those whose death is by Your hand, O Lord, among those who die of old age, whose portion is eternal life and whose innards are filled with Your concealed goodness; who are sated with sons and leave their abundance to their offspring.
15. Because of my righteousness, I shall behold Your countenance; in the time of resurrection, I will be sated by Your image.
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 9
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Monday, Tammuz 2, 5774 • June 30, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 9
רק מפני שאין בנבראים כח להשיג רק ההשתלשלות ממדרגת החכמה, שהיא ראשיתם, למדרגת עשיה השפלה
But inasmuch as it is within the power of created beings to comprehend only the descent from the level of wisdom, which is their beginning, to the level of action, which is the lowliest of levels,
לכך אנו אומרים שלגבי הקב״ה נחשבת מדרגת החכמה כמדרגת עשיה ממש
therefore we say that in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, the level of wisdom is considered exactly as the level of action.
We use this example simply because there is no greater descent in the realm of human experience than the descent from wisdom to action.
דהיינו לומר, שהוא רם ונשא ונעלה עילוי רב מאד מאד ממדרגת החכמה
That is to say: [G d] is “high and exalted” and very greatly elevated above the level of wisdom,
ולא שייך כלל לייחס אצלו שום ענין המתייחס לחכמה, אפילו בדרך מעלהמעלה ועילוי רב
and it is not at all appropriate to ascribe to Him anything that pertains to wisdom, even in a very lofty and sublime form, i.e., even if by doing so we mean to express how He transcends wisdom;
כגון לומר עליו שאי אפשר לשום נברא, עליונים ותחתונים, להשיג חכמתו או מהותו
for example, to say of Him that it is beyond the capacity of any higher or lower creature to comprehend His wisdom or His Essence.
Even this negative reference to wisdom is inappropriate, —
כי ענין ההשגה מתייחס ונופל על דבר חכמה ושכל, לומר שאפשר להשיגו או אי אפשר להשיגו מפני עומק המושג
For comprehension pertains and applies to a matter of wisdom and intellect, about which one can say that it can or cannot be understood because of the profundity of the concept.
אבל הקב״ה, שהוא למעלה מן השכל והחכמה, לא שייך כלל לומר בו שאיאפשר להשיגו מפני עומק המושג
However, concerning the Holy One, blessed be He, Who transcends intellect and wisdom, it is not at all appropriate to say that one cannot comprehend Him because of the profundity of the concept,
כי אינו בבחינת השגה כלל
for He is not within the realm of comprehension at all.
והאומר עליו שאי אפשר להשיגו, הוא כאומר על איזה חכמה רמה ועמוקהשאי אפשר למששה בידים מפני עומק המושג
He who states that it is impossible to comprehend Him, is like one who says of some lofty and profound concept that it cannot be touched with the hands because of the depth of the concept.
שכל השומע יצחק לו, לפי שחוש המישוש אינו מתייחס ונופל אלא על עשייה גשמית, הנתפשת בידים
Whoever hears [this] will mock him, because the sense of touch refers and applies only to physical objects, which may be grasped by the hands.
וככה ממש נחשבת לגבי הקב״ה מדרגת השכל וההשגה כעשייה גשמית ממש
Exactly so, the level of intellect and comprehension in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, is considered as actual physical action.
ואפילו השגת שכלים שבעולמות עליונים, ואפילו מדרגת חכמה עילאה, המחיה את כולם
Even the comprehension of the [superior and spiritual] Intelligences in the higher worlds, and even the level of Supernal Wisdom of the World of Atzilut which gives life to them all [is considered so in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He],
כדכתיב: כולם בחכמה עשית
as it is written,1 “You have made them all with wisdom.”
All of creation is rooted in the wisdom of Atzilut. Nevertheless, even the Supernal Wisdom of Atzilut is considered as action in relation to G d, for G d transcends it infinitely. It is thus impossible to say that G d can or cannot be apprehended through intellect, inasmuch as intellect and wisdom are not at all the means by which G d can be grasped.
ומה שהקב״ה נקרא חכם בכתוב, וגם חז״ל כינו לו מדרגת ומעלת החכמה
As for the Holy One, blessed be He, being called “Wise” in Scripture, and our Sages, of blessed memory, have also referred to Him with epithets denoting the quality and level of wisdom,
היינו משום שהוא מקור החכמה, שממנו יתברך נמשך ונאצל מהות מדרגת חכמה עילאה, שבעולם האצילות
this is because He is the source of wisdom, for from Him issues and emanates the essence of the level of Supernal Wisdom, which is in the World of Atzilut.
וכן רחום וחסיד, על שם שהוא מקור הרחמים והחסדים
Likewise [He is called] Merciful and Kind, even though He utterly transcends mercy and kindness, because He is the source of mercy and kindness;
וכן שאר המדות
and likewise regarding the other emotive attributes; G d is referred to by the names of the other attributes because He is their source,
שכולן נמשכו ונאצלו ממנו יתברך
for they all proceed and emanate from Him.
ודרך וענין ההמשכה והאצילות, איך ומה, ידוע למשכילים
The manner and nature of the flow and emanation — how and what — i.e., how the intellectual and emotive attributes emanate from the Ein Sof which totally transcends them, and exactly what they are, for after they have emanated from Him they are wholly united with Him, is known to the savants.2
FOOTNOTES
1. Tehillim 104:24.
2. Note of the Rebbe: “This is explained at greater length in many places in Chassidut, e.g., in Mitzvat Haamanat Elokut [in Derech Mitzvotecha of the Tzemach Tzedek].”
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Tammuz 2, 5774 • June 30, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 130
Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
"And the flesh that touches any impurity shall not be eaten"—Leviticus 7:19.
It is forbidden to eat of sacrificial meat that is ritually impure.
Consuming Ritually Impure Sacrificial Meat
Negative Commandment 130
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 130th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating sacrificial meat which has become impure.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten."
One who transgresses this prohibition by eating is punished by lashes. The Tosefta in Zevachim2 explains that when a person is pure and he eats impure meat, he receives 40 lashes. Our Sages say in the second chapter of tractate Pesachim,3 "If the person is impure, the punishment is kares, and if the meat is impure, it is [just] a prohibition."4
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:19.
2.Ch. 5
3.24a.
4.Therefore punished by lashes, not kares.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 129Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
"She shall not touch any holy thing"—Leviticus 12:4.
It is forbidden for a ritually impure individual to partake of sacrificial meat.
Consuming Sacrificial Meat while Ritually Impure
Negative Commandment 129
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 129th prohibition is that a person who is impure is forbidden from eating from the sacrifices.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 regarding a woman after childbirth, "She shall not touch anything holy."
The Sifra says, "The verse says, 'She shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the Temple.' Just as one who enters the Temple when impure is punished by kares, so too, one who eats from the sacrifices when impure is punished by kares."
The explanation — that the phrase, "She shall not touch," refers to one who eats — relies on the principle2 explained in tractate Makkos3 on G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "She shall not touch anything holy."
This is the passage from tractate Makkos: "For an impure person who eats sacrifices, the punishment is clearly written,4 'An impure person who eats meat of a peace-sacrifice to G‑d will be cut off [from his people].' What is the source of the actual prohibition? From the verse, 'She shall not touch anything holy.' "
The Talmud continues, "The verse, 'She shall not touch anything holy,' prohibits one from eating. You say it prohibits eating? You could think it prohibits touching! The Torah therefore writes,5 'She shall not touch anything holy and shall not enter the Sanctuary,' to compare sacrifices to the Temple: just as [entering] the Temple [when impure] is at the cost of one's life,6 so too [the prohibition regarding] the sacrifices is for something which costs one's life. And for touching, what loss of life is there!7 It must therefore refer to eating." And G‑d uses the word "touch," when it means, "eat," to teach that touching is [prohibited] like eating.8
From these passages it is clear to you that an impure person who eats from the sacrifices intentionally is punished by kares. If he does so accidentally, he must bring an adjustable sacrifice (korban oleh v'yored), as explained in Positive Commandment 72.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the 13th chapter of tractate Zevachim.9
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 12:4.
2.Chavel, 5727, translates, "willfully based on the principle," rather than, "relies on the principle." Kapach, 5731, points out that the 5718 Hebrew edition upon which Chavel's translation is based, is itself in error.
3.14b.
4.Ibid., 7:20.
5.Ibid.
6.I.e. kares.
7.Obviously that there is no kares for touching the sacrifice!
8.See Hilchos P'sulei HaMukdashin 18:12.
9.106a.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Sheluchin veShuttafin Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Eight Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
When a person gives eggs to a chicken farmer with the intent that the chicken farmer have chickens sit on the eggs until they hatch, and then for the chicken farmer to raise the chicks with the profits to be divided between them, the owner of the eggs must provide the chicken farmer with a wage for his work and sustenance.
Similarly, when a person evaluates calves and ponies and then entrusts them to a caretaker with the intent that he tend to them until they grow into large animals with the profits to be divided between them, the owner of the animals must provide the caretaker with a wage for his work and sustenance for every day, like an unemployed worker. He must raise calves until they are three years old, and a donkey until it is capable of bearing a burden. He cannot sell the animal without the consent of his partner until this time.
Similarly, if one evaluates animals and then entrusts them to a caretaker to fatten them, with the profits to be divided between them, the owner of the animals must provide the caretaker with a wage for his work, like an unemployed worker. If the owner tells the caretaker: "Take the head and the fat tail for yourself in exchange for your work, aside from your share of the profits," it is permitted.
If the caretaker has other animals that he was also working to fatten in addition to this one that was evaluated, and similarly, if one has other calves, ponies or eggs, since he is caring for his own at the same time as he is caring for his colleagues', even if the owner gives him only a small amount as a wage for the entire period of the partnership, it is acceptable, and they may divide the profits equally. If the caretaker was already employed as the owner's sharecropper and he is taking care of animals belonging to both himself and the owner of the field, the owner does not have to pay him anything as a wage.
Halacha 2
When a person has calves or ponies evaluated, he has chickens sit on eggs, or he has an animal evaluated to be fattened with the profits to be divided between them and he does not pay a wage to the caretaker, the laws that govern such a relationship are the same as those that govern an investment of money. We see how much the animals or the eggs were evaluated for and how much profit was made, and the caretaker is given two thirds of the profit. If there is a loss, he is required to bear one third of the loss.
Halacha 3
We evaluate a cow, a donkey and any other animal that usually performs work and eats, and the profits are divided between the owner and the caretaker. For although care is required, the caretaker is able to derive other profit for himself because of the work of the animals. For he may hire them or work with them himself and benefit from the fee or their work.
One should not evaluate a calf together with its mother, or a pony with its mother. For the calf or the pony does not perform any work, and yet it requires care.
Halacha 4
When a person has an animal evaluated and entrusts it to a colleague, until when is the colleague obligated to care for it? For a female donkey, 18 months. For an animal that lives in a corral - e.g., sheep or cattle - 24 months. If the owner desires to divide the profits within this period, the caretaker can prevent him from doing so, because they entered into a partnership without making any stipulations.
We set these rules because the care and profit ratio for an animal for the first year cannot be compared to that of the second year. In the first year, it requires much care and brings little profit, because at the beginning it becomes heavier only with much difficulty. In the second year, by contrast, it requires little care and there is much profit, because it becomes much heavier, gaining every day. Therefore, the caretaker may prevent him from dissolving the partnership until the end of the second year.
If the animal that was evaluated gives birth while in the possession of the caretaker, the calf is considered part of the profit and is divided between them. In a place where the custom is that the caretaker raises the offspring, he should raise them and afterwards sell them. In a place where it is not customary that the caretaker raise the offspring, he is nevertheless required to care for the offspring for a limited period. For a lightweight animal, he is required to care for it for 30 days. For a large animal, he is required to care for it for 50 days. Afterwards, the offspring is sols and the profits are divided.
If the caretaker desires to care for them longer than this period, he should evaluate them before three men on the thirtieth or fiftieth day. Afterwards, any profit that is made should be divided between them as follows: The caretaker should receive three fourths of the profit, and his partner, one fourth. The rationale is that the caretaker owns half of the offspring and because he cares for the half belonging to his colleague, he is given half of that half - i.e., a total of three fourths. If the caretaker did not make such a stipulation in the presence of three witnesses, he is considered to have waived this extra profit, and the offspring are divided equally among them.
In a place where it is customary to figure in a porter's fee to the money invested, that fee should be added. The entire fee that the administrator receives for carrying the merchandise should be figured into the profit on the investment. Similarly, if it is the local custom to add an extra fee for handling an animal, it should be added. In a place where it is customary to add an extra fee to the caretaker's wages for handling offspring, it should be added. Whenever a person enters into an investment or partnership agreement, he should not deviate from the local business practices.
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when Reuven owns a field and invites Shimon to till it, to sow it or to plant within it, to manage the expenses spent on its account, to sell the produce, and to divide between them the profit that exceeds the cost. Whether they agreed to divide the profits equally or they agreed that Reuven would receive a larger share, whether all the expenses were undertaken by Reuven or by Shimon, any such arrangement is permitted. Even "the shade of interest" is not involved.
Shimon, who takes care of working the land, managing the expenses and selling the produce, is called a sharecropper. If the sharecropper claims: "I agreed to till the field for half the profits," but the owner of the field claims that they agreed on a third, we follow the local custom. The one whose claim departs from the local custom must bring proof to support his position.
Halacha 6
The following laws apply when a husband hires sharecroppers to till property belonging to his wife, and then he divorces her. If the husband is himself a sharecropper, since the husband does not have any connection to the property any longer, the sharecroppers' connection also ceases. If the value of the field increases, they are granted only the share of their expenses equal to the field's increase in value. And they must support their claim with an oath.
If the husband is not a sharecropper, we assume that the sharecroppers were hired according to the custom of the land, and they are given the share granted to other sharecroppers.
Halacha 7
When brothers or other heirs do not divide the estate of their benefactor, but instead, they all use it together, they are considered partners in all matters.
If one of a group of brothers or one of a group of partners was appointed to the service of the king, the profit he receives is divided among them. If one of them becomes ill and is cured, the expenses required for his cure should be shared. If, however, he became sick because of his own negligence, he went out in the snow, or in the sun during the summer until he became ill or the like, he is responsible for bearing the expenses for his cure by himself.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering,1 the offering is disqualified.2Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense,3 the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.
Halacha 2
[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4
a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable;
b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil;
c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.
Halacha 3
If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5
Halacha 4
If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6 and it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7
Halacha 6
[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:
it was not placed in a sacred utensil,
the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,
it was brought to the altar8 while not in a sacred utensil,9
or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10
Halacha 7
All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11 or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12 a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful...." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13 Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.
Halacha 8
When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15 of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16 "on all its frankincense."17
Halacha 9
If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugim for every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18 it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.
Halacha 10
If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19 or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20 If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21 If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].
Halacha 11
If one placed oil on the remnants [of such a meal-offering] after the handful was removed, he is not liable for lashes,22 nor does he disqualify the offering,23 for the handful is acceptable.
Halacha 12
If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24 on an olive-sized portion25 of the meal-offering,26 he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27 unless he places an olive-sized portion28 [on the offering].
Halacha 13
Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.
Halacha 14
If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29 that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.
Halacha 15
A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.
Halacha 16
If one offered the handful [of meal30 on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31 for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32 When a meal-offering was lacking33 before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34 not placing it into a sacred vessel.
Halacha 17
When a person donates a handful35 of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36 are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38 If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.
Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40 [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.
Halacha 19
When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41 the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42
If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.
Halacha 20
If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43 was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44 or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45 If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46
Halacha 21
If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47 If one did, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 22
If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48
Halacha 23
If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49 If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50
Halacha 24
If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,51 the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].
Halacha 25
If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53 If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].
Halacha 26
[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55 and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron].
If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56 The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57 If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58
Halacha 27
Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59 may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60 If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61 [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62 For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.
[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63
Halacha 28
When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64 the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65 or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66 They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.
Halacha 29
[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.
Halacha 30
When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67 If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
Halacha 31
If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68 it69 it should not be offered.70 If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
FOOTNOTES
1.See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:13.
2.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by a person unacceptable, it is disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a non-priest.
3.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense.
4.The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the deed may be corrected.
5.The frankincense should be shifted to side before the handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful is lacking [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].
6.Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12).
7.And the meal-offering is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26).
8.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar.
9.Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred utensil for each of these stages of service.
10.Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot9b).
11.As required for certain meal-offerings; see Leviticus 2:6.
12.See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the waving process which is necessary for certain meal-offerings.
13.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23.
14.One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7).
15.A handful per offering (ibid.).
16.There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam. Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam.
17.The use of a plural term indicates that one particle is not sufficient.
18.Double the usual measure.
19.Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: "You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense." See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7.
20.Because of the transgression involved.
21.Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified.
22.For the violation of the above prohibition.
23.The Rambam's wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so.
24.Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering.
25.For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant.
26.Before the handful of meal is removed.
27.I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error.
28.For here also anything less is not considered significant.
29.Leviticus 7:10 speaks of a meal-offering "mixed with oil or that is dry."
30.The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted.
31.Although Menachot 18a states: "If salt was not placed on it, it is acceptable," it is explained (ibid. 20a): "If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did."
32.Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other sacrifices.
33.I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.
34.Hence it must be complete at that time.
35.This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13.
36.See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2.
37.Doubling the minimum requirement.
38.And thus the offering is acceptable.
39.Doubling the minimum requirement.
40.On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar.
41.The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered.
42.See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me'ilah 3:9, et al.
43.Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified.
44.Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified.
45.And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
46.Menachot 9b derives this concept from Leviticus 2:3: "The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons." Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants.
47.For the handful must be taken from an isaron of flour and since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if the isaron was brought in two containers which is unacceptable (Menachot 24a).
48.Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity.
49.Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner.
50.The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above.
51.15 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high.
52.I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam's wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).
53.Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved.
54.The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified.
55.Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection.
56.For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering.
57.For as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection.
58.For they both share a connection with it.
59.In its entirety.
60.Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah).
61.The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable.
62.As the Rambam continues to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron.
63.Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.
64.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.
65.See ibid. 2:1.
66.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.
67.I.e., one might desire to offer the entire mixture so that he will have fulfilled his obligation to offer the handful. This, however, is undesirable for one will have offered a meal-offering without separating the handful from it.
68.Our translation reflects the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries have questioned it and have suggested that the text should read: "or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering." This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn't the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard printed text. Moreover, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements.
69.In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder.
70.Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes betal - it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance, Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not become betal to the remainder of the offering.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],1 the showbread,2 and the omer that is waved,3 they are disqualified.
Halacha 2
With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering4 and the cakes of a nazirite5 that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice6 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.
Halacha 3
Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.
Halacha 4
And with regard to the showbread, if lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8 it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9 If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11
What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12 If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13 they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14
When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15 [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16 Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.
Halacha 7
Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated,17 the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.18
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19 If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20 need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21
When does the above22 apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23 When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24 Its offspring does not require bread.25 [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27 and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28 The third one, however, requires bread.29
If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.30 The first one, however, requires bread.31 If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.32
Halacha 10
[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving offering, but it does not require bread.33 It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34
Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35 Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36 The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.
Halacha 11
[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37 If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38 [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.
Halacha 12
When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40 it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41 [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42 Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43
Halacha 14
When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44 If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45 the remainder of the breads are acceptable.
If the bread46 was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47 The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48
If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49 for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.
Halacha 15
When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50 If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51
Halacha 16
When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,52 the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.53
Halacha 17
If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54
Halacha 18
If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55 the bread is sanctified.56 If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58 the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59
FOOTNOTES
1.See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1.
2.Ibid. 5:1.
3.And offered on the day following Pesach; ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.
4.See ibid. 9:17-22.
5.Ibid.:23.
6.The animal offered with the loaves.
7.The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot.
8.Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17.
9.In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire.
10.According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note.
11.Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages in Menachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.
The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.
12.I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified.
13.And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it.
14.The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them. For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4).
15.I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which the accompanying offering was brought is not nullified.
16.For the court does not make such stipulations about them.
17.I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peace-offering.
18.For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.
19.See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
20.I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgiving-offering.
21.The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.
22.That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the above situations.
23.I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgiving-offering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice.
24.Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.
With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transformed, Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred.
25.I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah 4:1.
26.Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.
27.This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice.
28.The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second.
29.For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.
30.For the third animal takes the place of the second.
31.For it is not associated with the third animal.
32.Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.
33.For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8.
34.For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.
35.I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering.
36.Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering.
37.Setting aside a specific animal and bread.
38.Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains.
39.Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a).
40.Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose.
41.And bread should not be brought with such an offering.
As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8.
42.Which requires bread.
43.At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.
44.The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar.
45.Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic.
46.This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced.
47.Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard.
48.And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text of Menachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.
49.A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18).
50.Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated.
51.The commentaries question why the loaves must be redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40? Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be consecrated.
52.This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5): patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)].
53.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.
54.For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered.
55.See the following chapters which discuss these issues at length.
56.Because the disqualification came at the time of the slaughter of the animal and not beforehand. Since the bread becomes sanctified, it is considered as piggul
57.An animal that will die within a year. In these instances, since the animal was never acceptable for sacrifice - even if that was not discovered before its slaughter - the breads are not consecrated.
58.I.e., it was slaughtered with the intent of it being offered as another type of sacrifice. In this instance, even though the disqualifying factor took place at the time the animal is slaughtered, the bread is disqualified. For based on Leviticus 7:12, the Sifra states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering.
59.I.e., for this offering is also accompanied by bread. The same concepts also apply with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuos and the two lambs brought at that time. See Chapter 17, Halachah 18.
Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1 for a different purpose,2 the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3 [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose."
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4 with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5 These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place.
What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.7
Halacha 2
According to the Oral Tradition,8 we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9 The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice.
Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10 the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.
Halacha 3
When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it,11 but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained.
The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.
Halacha 4
We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12
Halacha 5
A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services: melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13
Halacha 6
The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14
Halacha 7
If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15 when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16 or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
Halacha 8
Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all.
What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17
a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18 or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19
b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20
c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22 on the upper portion,
d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23 on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24 on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber,
e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it,
f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service,
g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood;
h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25
i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt26 outside its proper time or outside its proper place;
With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.
Halacha 9
We already explained27 that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29 having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30
FOOTNOTES
1.The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6.
2.I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
3.Zevachim 1:1 states: "All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner's obligation with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice." Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:10.
4.I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner.
5.Sacrifices of the most sacred order must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.
6.Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day.
7.Leviticus 7:18; 19:7. The term has the implication of "rejected" (Targum Onkelos) and "abhorrent" (Rav Saadia Gaon).
8.Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3).
9.I.e., the verse states: "if it was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable." Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering disqualifies it from the outset.
Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah's words. The above verse uses the term: "the one who offers it," implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav ("and it will be considered"), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought.
10.Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a twofold construction for the term "eat," haechol yaechol, our Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption: consumption by the altar and consumption by man.
11.See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition.
12.The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim 1:4.)
13.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that performing melikah is equivalent to slaughter and squeezing a fowl's blood on the altar equivalent to casting an animal's blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to the altar.
14.For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim 13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal, equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal.
15.All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable.
16.These services are performed before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services performed before slaughter which do not disqualify an animal.
17.All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however, we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the service intended that they be performed.
18.While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night.
19.Which would disqualify them.
20.And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.
21.Burnt-offerings.
22.Sin-offerings.
23.I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and individual offerings.
24.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:11.
25.Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9).
26.See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these sin-offerings. As related there, they are burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or on the following night.
27.Chapter 1, Halachah 23.
28.Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.
29.He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it - but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi, Zevachim 16b).
30.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion in Zevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest's intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam's understanding.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Monday, Tammuz 2, 5774 • 30 June 2014
"Today's Day"
Monday, Tamuz 2, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Chukat, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 10-17.
Tanya: But inasmuch as (p.325) ...the teachings of Kabbalah). (p.329).
The Alter Rebbe writes in his Siddur1: It is proper to say before prayer, I hereby take upon myself to fulfill the mitzva - "Love your fellowman as yourself." This means that the precept of ahavat yisrael2 is the entry-gate through which man can pass to stand before G-d to daven. By merit of that love the worshipper's prayer is accepted.
FOOTNOTES
1. Page 12.
2. To love a fellow Jew.
-------
Daily Thought:
High Souls
To one whose self is his body, death of the body is death of the self. But for one whose self is his love, awe and faith, there is no death, only a passing. From a state of confinement in the body, he makes the passage to liberation. He continues to work within this world, and even more so than before.
The Talmud says that Jacob, our father, never died. Moses, also, never died. Neither did Rabbi Judah the Prince. They were very high souls who were one with Truth in an ultimate bond—and since Truth can never die, neither could they.
Yes, in our eyes we see death. A body is buried in the ground, and we must mourn the loss. But this is only part of the falseness of our world. In the World of Truth, they are still here as before.
And the proof: We are still here. For if these high souls would not be with us in our world, all that we know would cease to exist.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment