Today in Jewish History:
Jewish Books Spared (1510)
In 1509, Emperor Maximilian of Germany ordered that all Jewish books in the cities of Cologne and Frankfurt am Main be destroyed. This followed the request of Pfefferkorn, a baptized Jew, who claimed that Jewish literature was insulting to Christianity. The Jews appealed to the Emperor to reconsider this edict, and Maximilian agreed to investigate the matter. He appointed Johann Reuchlin, a famed German scholar, to conduct the investigation. The report issued by Reuchlin was very positive. He demonstrated that the books openly insulting to Christianity were very few and viewed as worthless by most Jews themselves. The other books were needed for Jewish worship, and contained much value in the areas of theology and science.
The Emperor rescinded his edict on the 14th of Sivan, 1510
Daily Study:
Today's Chumash:
Chumash with Rashi Parshat Shlach, 5th Portion (Numbers 15:8-15:16)
Chapter 15
8. If you prepare a young bull as a burnt offering or sacrifice by expressing a vow, or for a peace offering for the Lord, ח. וְכִי תַעֲשֶׂה בֶן בָּקָר עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ שְׁלָמִים לַיהֹוָה:
9. with the young bull he shall offer up a meal offering consisting of three tenths fine flour mixed with half a hin of oil. ט. וְהִקְרִיב עַל בֶּן הַבָּקָר מִנְחָה סֹלֶת שְׁלשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים בָּלוּל בַּשֶּׁמֶן חֲצִי הַהִין:
10. And you shall offer half a hin of wine for a libation, a fire offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. י. וְיַיִן תַּקְרִיב לַנֶּסֶךְ חֲצִי הַהִין אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:
a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance: This refers only to the meal-offering and oil, but the wine is not a fire-offering, since it is not placed on the fire.
אשה ריח: אינו מוסב אלא על המנחה והשמן, אבל היין אינו אשה, שאינו ניתן על האש:
11. So shall it be done for each ox or ram, or for a young sheep or young goat. יא. כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לַשּׁוֹר הָאֶחָד אוֹ לָאַיִל הָאֶחָד אוֹ לַשֶּׂה בַכְּבָשִׂים אוֹ בָעִזִּים:
Or for a young sheep…: Whether it is a sheep [lamb] or a goat. כֶּבֶשׂ and שֶׂה are the names given to sheep or goats within their first year. - [Parah 1:3]
או לשה: בין שהוא בכבשים בין שהוא בעזים כבש ושה קרוים בתוך שנתם:
ram: Heb. אַיִל, [the name given] from the age of thirteen months and one day. - [Parah 1:3]
איל: בן י"ג חדש ויום אחד:
12. In accordance with the number you offer up, so shall you present for each one, according to their numbers. יב. כַּמִּסְפָּר אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כָּכָה תַּעֲשׂוּ לָאֶחָד כְּמִסְפָּרָם:
In accordance with the number you offer up: In accordance with the number of animals you offer up as a sacrifice, so shall you present libations for each of them, according to the number of animals shall be the number of libations.
כמספר אשר תעשו: כמספר הבהמות אשר תקריבו לקרבן, ככה תעשו נסכים לכל אחד מהם:
13. Every native born shall do it in this manner, to offer up a fire offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יג. כָּל הָאֶזְרָח יַעֲשֶׂה כָּכָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לְהַקְרִיב אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:
14. If a proselyte resides with you, or those among you in future generations, and he offers up a fire offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord, as you make it, so shall he make it. יד. וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר אוֹ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכְכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם וְעָשָׂה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה:
15. One rule applies to the assembly, for yourselves and for the proselyte who resides [with you]; one rule applies throughout your generations just as [it is] for you, so [it is] for the proselyte, before the Lord. טו. הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר יִהְיֶה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה:
just as [it is] for you, so [it is] for the proselyte: Heb. כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר, lit., like you like the proselyte, just as it for you, so it is for the proselyte. This is the style of the Hebrew language; “like the garden of the Lord, like the Land of Egypt” (Gen. 13:10) [meaning] so was the Land of Egypt [like the garden of the Lord] (Compare Rashi on Gen. 13:10);“like me, like you, like my people, like your people” (I Kings. 22:4) [meaning, I am like you, and your people like my people].
ככם כגר: כמותכם כן גר וכן דרך לשון עברית, (בראשית יג, י) כגן ה' כארץ מצרים, כן ארץ מצרים, (מ"א כב, ד) כמוני כמוך כעמי כעמך:
16. There shall be one law and one ordinance for you and the proselyte who resides [with you]. טז. תּוֹרָה אַחַת וּמִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם:
-------
Tehillim Psalms Chapters 72-76
Chapter 72
David composed this psalm for Solomon, praying that he be granted the wisdom to provide justice for the poor.
1. For Solomon. O God, impart Your justice to the king, and Your righteousness to the son of the king.
2. May he judge Your people with righteousness, Your poor with justice.
3. May the mountains bear peace to the nation, also the hills, in [reward for their] righteousness.
4. May he judge the nation's poor, save the children of the destitute, and crush the oppressor,
5. so that they will fear You as long as the sun [shines] and the moon endures, generation after generation.
6. May [his words] descend like rain upon cut grass, like raindrops that water the earth.
7. In his days may the righteous flourish, with much peace until the moon is no more.
8. And may he rule from sea to sea, and from the river until the ends of the earth.
9. May nobles kneel before him, and may his enemies lick the dust.
10. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will return tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11. All kings will bow to him, all nations will serve him;
12. for he rescues the needy one who cries out, the poor one who has no one to help him.
13. He pities the impoverished and needy, and saves the souls of the destitute.
14. He redeems their soul from deception and violence, and their blood is precious in his eyes.
15. He revives [the poor], and gives him of the gold of Sheba; and so [the poor] pray for him always, and bless him all day.
16. May there be abundant grain in the land, upon the mountaintops; may its fruit rustle like the [cedars of] Lebanon, and may [people] blossom from the city like the grass of the earth.
17. May his name endure forever; may his name be magnified as long as the sun [shines]. And all nations will bless themselves by him, they will praise him.
18. Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone performs wonders.
19. Blessed is His glorious Name forever, and may the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen.
20. The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are concluded
Chapter 73
This psalm addresses the question of why the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper, and prays for an end to our long exile. Read, and you will find repose for your soul.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.
2. But as for me, my feet nearly strayed; in an instant my steps would have been swept aside.
3. For I envied the revelers when I saw the tranquility of the wicked.
4. For there are no bonds1 to their death, and their health is sound.
5. They have no part in the toil of men, nor are they afflicted like other mortals;
6. therefore they wear pride as a necklace; their bodies are enwrapped in violence.
7. Their eyes bulge from fat; they surpassed the fantasies of their heart.
8. They consume [others], and talk wickedly of oppression-from on high do they speak.
9. They set their mouths against Heaven, while their tongues walk upon the earth.
10. Therefore His people return here,2 and suck the full [cup of bitter] waters.
11. And they say, "How can it be that God knows? Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
12. Behold these are the wicked, and they are ever tranquil, they have gained much wealth.
13. Surely in vain have I purified my heart, and washed my hands in cleanliness;
14. for I was afflicted all day, and my rebuke came each morning.
15. Were I to say, "I shall tell it like it is," behold I would turn the generation of Your children to rebels.
16. And when I pondered to understand this, it was unjust in my eyes;
17. until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and perceived their end.
18. Only on slippery places do You set them, You cast them into darkness.
19. How they have become desolate in an instant! They came to an end, they were consumed by terrors,
20. like a dream upon awakening. O my Lord, disgrace their image in the city.
21. When my heart was in ferment, and my mind was sharpened,
22. I was a boor and did not understand, like an animal was I with You.
23. Yet I was always with You; You held my right hand.
24. Guide me with Your counsel, and afterward, receive me with honor.
25. Whom do I have in heaven [besides You]? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.
26. My flesh and my heart yearn; God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.
27. For behold, all those who are far from You perish, You cut down all who stray from You.
28. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have put my trust in my Lord, God, that I may recount all Your works.
Chapter 74
The psalmist mourns and weeps over all the synagogues and study halls that have been burned: the Philistines destroyed the Tabernacle of Shiloh; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple. We have been in exile for so long, without seeing any signs of redemption! When will the redemption come? Read, and you will find lamentation and consolation.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Why, O God, have You abandoned us forever, does Your wrath fume against the sheep of Your pasture?
2. Remember Your congregation which You acquired long ago, the tribe of Your inheritance whom You redeemed [and brought to] Mount Zion, where You rested Your Presence.
3. Lift Your steps to inflict eternal ruin, because of all the evil done by the enemy in the Sanctuary.
4. Your foes roared in the midst of Your meeting place; they considered their omens to be [genuine] signs.
5. The axes in the thicket of trees2 were reckoned as bringing [an offering] to the Above.
6. And now, all her ornaments together are smashed by hammer and hatchet.
7. They set Your Sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the Abode of Your Name to the ground.
8. Their rulers thought together in their hearts; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
9. We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long.
10. How long, O God, will the adversary disgrace, will the enemy blaspheme Your Name forever!
11. Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand? Cast it out from within Your bosom!
12. For God is my King from long ago, working salvations in the midst of the earth.
13. In Your might, You divided the sea; You shattered the heads of the sea-monsters on the waters.
14. You crushed the heads of the Leviathan,3 leaving him as food for the nation [wandering in] the wilderness.
15. You split [the rock, bringing forth] fountain and brook; You dried up mighty streams.
16. Yours is the day, the night is also Yours; You established the moon and the sun.
17. You set all the boundaries of the earth; summer and winter-You created them.
18. Remember this, how the enemy reviled the Lord, and the vile nation blasphemed Your Name.
19. Do not give the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast; do not forget the life of Your poor forever.
20. Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence.
21. Do not turn back the oppressed in disgrace; [then] the poor and needy will praise Your Name.
22. Arise, O God, champion Your cause; remember Your insults from the perverse all day long.
23. Forget not the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of Your opponents ascends always.
Chapter 75
How great is Israel! During their holidays they do not engage in frivolity, but in song and praise, and the study of the holiday's laws. Also, when they proclaimed (at the giving of the Torah), "We will do and we will hear!" they allowed the world to remain in existence. This psalm also admonishes those who indulge in worldly pleasures and attribute their prosperity to their own efforts.
1. For the Conductor, a plea not to be destroyed. A psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. We gave thanks to You, O God, we gave thanks; and Your Name was near [when] they1 told of Your wonders.
3. When I choose the appointed time, I will judge with fairness.
4. When the earth and all its inhabitants were melting, I established its pillars forever.
5. I said to the perverse, "Do not pervert [Israel]," and to the wicked, "Do not raise your pride.”
6. Do not raise your pride heavenward, nor speak with an arrogant neck
7. For not from the east or the west, nor from the desert does greatness come.
8. For God is Judge; He humbles one, and elevates the other.
9. For there is a cup [of punishment] in the hand of the Lord, with strong wine of full mixture; He pours from this, and all the wicked of the earth will drink, draining even its dregs.
10. But as for me, I will tell of it forever; I will sing to the God of Jacob.
11. I will cut off all glory of the wicked, but the glory of the righteous will be raised up.
Chapter 76
This psalm contains the prophecy of when the vast army of Sennacherib was seized with a deep slumber that rendered the hands of the soldiers powerless to raise their weapons; thus did they all fall in battle.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. God is known in Judah, His Name is great in Israel.
3. His Tabernacle was in Shalem,1 and His dwelling place in Zion.
4. There He broke the flying arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword and battle-forever.
5. You are illumination, mightier than the mountains of prey.
6. The stout-hearted were without sense, they slept their sleep, and all the warriors were unable to find their strength.
7. At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, chariot and horse were stunned.
8. You, awesome are You! Who can stand before You once You are enraged.
9. From heaven You let the verdict be heard; the earth feared and was still,
10. when God rose to pass judgement, to save all the humble of the earth forever.
11. The anger of man will cause us to thank You;2 You will restrain the residue of wrath.
12. Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them; all who surround Him will bring tribute to the Awesome One.
13. He cuts down the spirit of nobles; He is awesome to the kings of the earth.
-------
Tanya Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 4
Lessons in Tanya
Today in Tanya
Thursday, 14 Sivan 5774 - June 12, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 4
והנה כמו שמדה זו היא שבחו של הקב״ה לבדו
Now, this attribute of “HaGadol”, the attribute of Chesed that spreads forth His life-force into all the worlds so as to create them ex nihilo, is exclusively the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He,
שאין ביכולת שום נברא לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו
for no created thing can create a being out of nothing and give it life.
Creatio ex nihilo is utterly beyond the realm of created beings. In the words of the Midrash:1 “Even if all mankind were to gather together they would not be able to create even the wing of a gnat and animate it.”
וגם מדה זו היא למעלה מהשכלת כל הברואים והשגתם
This attribute of benevolence, whereby G‑d creates ex nihilo, is also beyond the cognition of all creatures and their understanding,
שאין כח בשכל שום נברא להשכיל ולהשיג מדה זו ויכלתה לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו
for it is not within the power of the intellect of any creature to comprehend through the faculty of Chochmah or understand through the faculty of Binah this attribute and its ability to create a being out of nothing and vivify it.
כי הבריאה יש מאין היא דבר שלמעלה משכל הנבראים, כי היא ממדת גדולתו של הקב״ה
For creatio ex nihilo is a matter which transcends the intellect of all creatures, inasmuch as it stems from the Divine attribute of Gedulah.
והקב״ה ומדותיו אחדות פשוט, כדאיתא בזהר הקדוש: דאיהו וגרמוהי חד
Now the Holy One, blessed be He, and His attributes are a perfect unity, as the holy Zohar states,2 “He and His causations i.e., His attributes are One,”
וכשם שאין ביכולת שום שכל נברא להשיג בוראו, כך אינו יכול להשיג מדותיו
and just as it is impossible for the mind of any creature to comprehend its Creator, so is it impossible for it to comprehend His attributes, for they are One with Him.
Until now we have been speaking of the specific attribute of Gedulah, or Chesed. The Alter Rebbe will now say that just as this attribute, which is responsible for creation, is unfathomable, so too with regard to the attribute of Gevurah, or “contraction”. The function of this attribute is to conceal from created beings the activating force within them, enabling them to exist as tangible entities, instead of being utterly nullified within their source.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
וכמו שאין ביכולת שום שכל נברא להשיג מדת גדולתו, שהיא היכולת לברוא יש מאין ולהחיותו, כדכתיב: עולם חסד יבנה
And just as it is impossible for the mind of any creature to apprehend His attribute of Gedulah, which is the ability to create a being out of nothing and give it life, as it is written,3 “The world is built by i.e., created through the attribute of kindness,”
כך ממש אין ביכלתו להשיג מדת גבורתו של הקב״ה, שהיא מדת הצמצום ומניעת התפשטות החיות מגדולתו
exactly so is it impossible for it to apprehend the Divine attribute of Gevurah (“might,” “restraint”), which is the faculty of tzimtzum (“condensation,” “contraction,”), restraining the spreading forth of the life-force from His attribute of Gedulah,
מלירד ולהתגלות על הנבראים, להחיותם ולקיימם בגילוי, כי אם בהסתר פנים
preventing it from descending upon and manifesting itself to the creatures, and providing them with life and existence in a revealed manner, but rather with His Countenance concealed; i.e., the Divine activating force is at work within creation in a concealed manner.
Thus, it is the attribute of Gevurah and tzimtzum that enables the life-force to be concealed from the very creature it is creating.
שהחיות מסתתר בגוף הנברא, וכאילו גוף הנברא הוא דבר בפני עצמו
For the life-force conceals itself in the body of the created being, [making it appear] as if the body of the created being had independent existence,
ואינו התפשטות החיות והרוחניות כהתפשטות הזיו והאור מהשמש, אלא הוא דבר בפני עצמו
and [making it appear as though] the created being was not [merely] an extension of the life-force and the spirituality that creates it — just like the diffusion of the radiance and light of the sun — but an independently existing entity.
ואף שבאמת אינו דבר בפני עצמו, אלא כמו התפשטות האור מהשמש
Although, in reality, [the created being] has no independent existence, and is only like the diffusion of the light from the sun,
Just as the sun’s rays are merely a diffusion from the sun, so, too, all of creation is but a diffusion of G‑d’s activating force. Since, however, created beings are continuously found within their source (unlike the sun’s rays which do leave their source), their Divine source should cause them to be completely nullified within it, just as the light of the sun is in a state of complete nullification when found within the sun.
מכל מקום הן הן גבורותיו של הקב״ה, אשר כל יכול
nevertheless, this nullification is not felt by created beings even though they are but a diffusion of G‑d’s activating force, for this [capacity for self-concealment] is the very restraining power of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who is Omnipotent,
G‑d’s omnipotence expresses itself not only in His ability to bring forth light and bestow life, but also in His ability to conceal this same light and life from the beings He creates.
לצמצם החיות והרוחניות הנשפע מרוח פיו ולהסתירו
[and hence able] to condense the life-force and spirituality which issues from the “breath of His mouth” and to conceal it,
שלא יבטל גוף הנברא במציאות
so that the body of the created being shall not become nullified out of existence, and hence, notwithstanding the fact that the created being is but a diffusion of the rays of its source, it is thus enabled to perceive itself to be an independently existing entity.
וזה אין בשכל שום נברא להשיג מהות הצמצום וההסתר
It is beyond the scope of the mind of any creature to comprehend the essential nature of the tzimtzum and concealment,
-ושיהיה אף על פי כן גוף הנברא נברא מאין ליש
and [to comprehend] that nonetheless — the tzimtzum notwithstanding — the creature itself be created ex nihilo.
But since creation is an act of revelation rather than concealment, creatio ex nihilo should surely consist of the revelation of the Divine life-force within the created being. How, then, do both these things manifest themselves at one and the same time? On the one hand, the revelation of the Divine life-force; on the other, the condensation and concealment of this life-force, so that created beings will be unaware of it and consider themselves to be independently existing entities, and not utterly nullified within their source.
Indeed, the paradox of tzimtzum defies the comprehension of mere created beings, —
כמו שאין יכולת בשכל שום נברא להשיג מהות הבריאה מאין ליש
just as it is not within the capacity of the mind of any creature to comprehend the essential nature of the creation of being out of nothing.
Since the capacity for tzimtzum emanates from the Divine attribute of Gevurah, one might erroneously infer that it actually serves to create an independently existing entity; i.e., not only does the created being regard itself as such, but the Creator views it so as well.
For inasmuch as G‑d causes this concealment, and His attribute of Gevurah, the ability to conceal, is as real and as effective as His attribute of Gedulah, His ability to reveal, we may mistakenly liken creation to the sun’s rays insofar as they exist beyond the confines of the sun-globe.
Forestalling this possible error, the Alter Rebbe now explains that G‑d’s power to reveal and His power to conceal are truly one and the same. For revelation and concealment are respectively “light” (or) and its “vessels” (kelim), which are fused in complete and total unity. Moreover, in the state in which they exist in their supernal source, they are not only united: they are one and the same.
Now it is axiomatic that “No entity can conceal itself from itself.”
An illustration of this concept is found in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, where it is stated that covering one’s head with one’s hand does not serve as a valid head-covering, because head and hand are part of the selfsame individual; the hand cannot be said to conceal that which the head itself reveals.
The same is true here too: Since the power to reveal and the power to conceal are essentially one and the same power, which is a manifestation of G‑d’s limitless ability, it is impossible for tzimtzum to bring about a real concealment that will be so regarded when viewed from the Divine perspective. Tzimtzum only enables created beings to perceive themselves as independently existing entities; G‑d does not view them this way at all.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin, beginning of ch. 7; Bereishit Rabbah 39:14; Sifri, Va‘etchanan 6:5.
2.Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar (3b).
3.Tehillim 89:3.
-------
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah N68, N165, P31, N77, N78 - Sefer Hamitzvot
Thursday, 14 Sivan 5774 - June 12, 2014
Negative Commandment 68 (Digest)
Off-Limits Areas for the Priests
"That he may not come at all times into the holy place"—Leviticus 16:2.
The high priest is forbidden from entering the Holy of Holies any time other than Yom Kippur, and only when he is then performing the special Yom Kippur service.
The regular priest is forbidden from entering the Holy Temple's sanctuary unless he is discharging a service there [e.g., kindling the menorah, offering incense, or simply entering to prostrate himself before G‑d].
The 68th prohibition is that [even] a kohen gadol may not always enter the Temple, due to its exalted status and the awe of the Divine Presence.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "He [Aaron] may not always enter the Sanctuary."
There are various categories within this prohibition: a kohen gadol may not enter the Holy of Holies even on Yom Kippur, expect for times designated for the service.2 Similarly, a regular kohen may not enter the Temple building (heichal) the entire year, expect for when he is performing the Temple service.
In summary, this prohibition says that if not performing the Temple service, a kohen may not even enter an area he would be allowed to enter, and at a time he would be allowed to enter, unless he is performing a Temple service — whether a kohen gadol inside the Holy of Holies or a kohen outside.3
The punishment for entering such an area without performing the Temple service [varies]: if he entered the Holy of Holies, there is a [Divine] death penalty. If he entered the Temple building (heichal), he receives lashes.
In the words of the Sifra: "The phrase 'He may not always enter' refers to Yom Kippur [— that he may not enter except for the designated times]. The phrase 'the Sanctuary' comes to include the rest of the year. The phrase 'from inside the partition' comes to include the rest of the Temple.4 One might think that the death penalty applies to the entire Temple — therefore the verse adds '[from inside the partition] which faces the Ark, so that he shall not die.' This means that [for entering the area] which faces the Ark [i.e. the Holy of Holies] the penalty is death, but [entering] the rest of the Temple is only a prohibition." Our Sages stated clearly in tractate Menachos,5 "One who enters the Temple building receives 40 lashes."
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 16:2.
2.The kohen gadol entered the Holy of Holies four times on Yom Kippur. Entering a fifth time is prohibited by this commandment.
3.By this statement, the Rambam evidently wishes to explain why this counts as just one commandment rather than two. See Yad Halevi, footnote 4.
4.See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 2:2 and commentaries. Heller, footnote 13.
5.27b.
-------
Negative Commandment 165 (Digest)
A Priest Leaving the Holy Temple Mid-Service
"And you shall not go out the door of the Tent of Meeting"—Leviticus 10:7.
It is forbidden for a priest to leave the Temple while he is in middle of performing his service.
A high priest may not leave the Temple even if he is an onen, i.e. he is informed that one of his next of kin has passed away.
The 165th prohibition is that the kohanim are forbidden from leaving the Temple when they are in the middle of performing the Temple service.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not go out from the entrance of the Communion Tent (pesach ohel moed)." The prohibition is repeated in reference to the kohen gadol in the verse,2 "He may not leave the Temple."
In the words of the Sifra: "From the phrase 'from the entrance of the ohel moed' I would think that the prohibition applies regardless of whether or not the Temple service was being performed. The verse,3 'He may not leave the Temple in order that he not profane' [the Temple service] teaches that the prohibition applies only when the Temple service is being performed. [What is the significance of the conclusion of the verse] 'because G‑d's anointing oil is upon you'? One might think that the death penalty for one who leaves while in the middle of the Temple service is only for Aaron and his sons — who were anointed with this special oil. What is the source to apply this law for all kohanim and for all generations? This verse 'because G‑d's anointing oil is upon you.' "
This law contains an extra stringency for a kohen gadol in that he may not [leave the Temple even to] attend the burial [of a close relative]. This is the meaning of the verse, "He may not leave the Temple." This is explained in the second chapter of Sanhedrin,4 which clearly derives the law that he may not attend a relative's burial from this verse, "He may not leave the Temple."
From here we learn that he may perform the Temple service even on the day of the relative's death. To quote the statement of our Sages from tractate Sanhedrin:5 "The verse states, 'He may not leave the Temple in order that he not profane' [the Temple service] — however there is someone else who would profane the Temple service if he would not leave [and instead continue the Temple service]." This refers to a regular kohen, who may not perform the Temple service when an onen. This law which prohibits an onen from performing the service is derived as mentioned above. This principle that a regular kohen is not allowed to perform the service when an onen, while a kohen gadol is allowed is explained in the end of tractate Horios.6
It7 has been made clear that the phrase v'lo y'chalel ("[he may not leave the Temple] in order that he not profane") is a statement that something will not happen [sh'lilah] rather than a prohibition, because his service is not profaned although he is an onen.8
On the simple level, the phrase v'lo y'chalel [has another interpretation: it] gives the reason for the prohibition which immediately precedes it — "He may not leave" in order that "he not profane." According to both interpretations9 this phrase is not counted as a separate commandment, as is clear to all who understand the principles which were given as the introduction to this work.10
We have explained that these three prohibitions — not to grow long hair, wear torn clothing, or leave the Temple — are repeated regarding the kohen gadol in order to convey a particular idea. This is similar to the verses which prohibit [a kohen from marrying] a divorcee, chalalah, or zonah, which are repeated [in reference to the kohen gadol] in order to convey a particular idea.
The three areas prohibited by these three laws are the same ones referred to in the verses, "Your heads al tifrau," "Your clothing lo tifromu," and "Do not go out from the entrance of the ohel moed." Moshe Rabbeinu, may he rest in peace, gave them over to Elazar and Isamar, saying, "in spite of your shock over this frightening event [i.e. the death of Nadav and Avihu], those things which are normally forbidden to you do not become permitted. Rather, you remain forbidden from doing all the things you were forbidden from doing beforehand, i.e. allowing the hair to grow long, wearing torn clothing, and leaving the Temple during the Temple service."
The repetition in reference to the kohen gadol teaches that the prohibition applies [only] at the time that the Temple service is being performed, and that only at such a time is the [Divine] death penalty in effect. This is similar to the way that the commandment, "Do not go out from the entrance of the ohel moed" is explained by the verse, "He may not leave the Temple."11
Although each repetition of these prohibitions in reference to the kohen gadol is used to derive an additional law, as explained above, nevertheless, they do not increase the total number of mitzvos — as is understood by anyone who understands our introduction.12 This is because each repeated verse is used to teach you that the act is prohibited specifically during the time of the Temple service. One should understand this well.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 10:7.
2.Ibid. 21:12.
3.Ibid.
4.18a.
5.84a.
6.12b.
7.The Rambam now proves that the phrase "he not profane" does not count as a separate prohibition, i.e. to not profane the Temple service.
8.Therefore, the verse means to say, "He may not leave the Temple, and may continue to perform the Temple service, and he still does not profane the service, although he is an onen."
9.1 — that it is a sh'lilah; 2 — that it gives the reason.
10.See Principle 8.
11.See Sifra, beginning of this mitzvah.
12.See the Ninth Introductory Principle.
-------
Positive Commandment 31 (Digest)
Ejecting the Ritually Impure from the Temple Area
"They shall send out from the camp all those afflicted with tzara'at or with a male discharge, and all those unclean through [contact with] the dead"—Numbers 5:2.
We are commanded to expel from the Temple area all those who are ritually impure.
The 31st mitzvah is that we are commanded to remove from the Temple people who are tameh.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Send out of the camp everyone who has a leprous mark or a male discharge, and all who are ritually defiled by the dead."
The camp referred to [in the desert] is the machaneh Shechinah, which in later generations corresponds to the Temple courtyard, as we explained in our commentary on the Mishneh, at the beginning of Seder Taharos.2 In the words of the Sifri, "The verse 'Send out of the camp' is a prohibition to those who are tameh, that they may not enter the Temple when still in a state of tumah."
This mitzvah is repeated in another form in G‑d's statement3 (exalted be He), "If a man is tameh because of a nocturnal emission, he must go outside the camp." The camp referred to in this phrase is the machaneh Shechinah, just as in [the passage quoted above as the source for] this same mitzvah,4 "Send them out of the camp." In tractate Pesachim,5 it is explained, "The verse 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Shechinah." In the words of the Mechilta,6 "The verse 'Command the Jewish people to send out of the camp,' constitutes a positive commandment. What is the source for the prohibition? The verse, '[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp.' "
The Sifra7 states, "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' constitutes a positive commandment."
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 5:2.
2.Keilim 1:8. There were three levels of holiness in the Mishkan that accompanied the Jewish people in the desert. The lowest was the machaneh Yisroel, the next, the machaneh Leviyah, and the highest, the machaneh Shechinah. In later generations they corresponded to the city of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple courtyard, respectively.
3.Deut. 23:11.
4.Num. 5:3.
5.68a.
6.See Kapach, 5731, footnote 62, that our versions of Mechilta do not have this passage. It can be found in Sifri Zuta.
7.Deut. 23:11.
-------
Negative Commandment 77 (Digest)
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Holy Temple
"They shall not defile their camp"—Numbers 5:3.
All ritually impure individuals are forbidden from entering the Holy Temple—i.e., any area in [the sanctuary and] the Holy Temple Courtyard, starting from the Nikanor Gate.
The 77th prohibition is that anyone who is tameh is forbidden from entering anywhere in the Temple. In later generations, this corresponds to the entire Temple courtyard, from the Gate of Nikanor and inward, which is the beginning of the Courtyard of the Israelites.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp," i.e. the machaneh Shechinah.
In tractate Makkos2 it is explained, "Regarding a person who enters the Temple when he is tameh, both the punishment and the prohibition are written. The punishment is from the verse,3 '[Any person who touches the corpse of a dead person...] shall receive kares if he defiles G‑d's Temple [by entering it].' The prohibition is derived from the verse, '[Send them out of the camp] and they shall not defile their camp.' "
The Mechilta4 says, "The verse 'Command the Jewish people to send out of the camp' constitutes a positive commandment. What is the source for the prohibition? The verse, 'and they shall not defile their camp.' "
This prohibition is repeated with different wording regarding a woman who has recently given birth, "She shall not enter the Temple."5
The Sifra says, "From the verse6 'You must warn the Jewish people about their impurity, so that it not cause them to die [if they defile the Temple that I have placed among them]' I would think that the same applies both from the inside and the outside," i.e. that if he is tameh, he receives kares even if he touches the Temple from the outside. [The Sifra concludes,] "The Torah therefore says regarding a woman who recently gave birth, 'She shall not enter the Temple.' "
There it is explained that the law regarding a woman who has given birth is identical to that of other individuals who are tameh as far as this law is concerned.7
The Sifra also comments on G‑d's statement8 (exalted be He), "If he does not immerse his clothing and body, then he will bear his guilt" — "What does this mean? For not immersing his body, he is punished with kares; for not immersing his clothing, he is punished by receiving 40 lashes. How do we know that this speaks exclusively about someone who is tameh and either enters the Temple or consumes holy offerings? From the fact that it warns, and then indicates the punishment."
We have already explained that one who intentionally transgresses this prohibition is punished with kares. If done unintentionally, the person must bring an offering of adjustable value, as we explained in P72.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the beginning of tractate Shavuos, in Horios,9 Kerisus,10 and a number of passages in Zevachim.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 5:3.
2.14b.
3.Num. 19:13.
4.See footnote to P31 above regarding our versions of the Mechilta.
5.Lev.12:4.
6.Ibid., 15:31.
7.We see from this that the law regarding a woman who recently gave birth is included in this commandment, and does not count as a separate commandment.
8.Ibid. 17:16.
9.9a.
10.2a.
-------
Negative Commandment 78 (Digest)
A Ritually Impure Person Entering the Temple Mount
"He may not enter this camp"—Deuteronomy 23:11.
All ritually impure individuals [with the exception of individuals impure due to contact with a corpse] are forbidden from entering the Temple Mount.
The 78th prohibition is that a person who is tameh is forbidden from entering the machaneh Leviyah, which later corresponded to the Temple Mount, as we explained in our commentary on the beginning of tractate Keilim.1 The prohibition against people who are tameh entering the Temple Mount is explained there.
The verse which serves as the source of this prohibition refers to a man who is tameh because of a nocturnal emission, "He may not enter inside the camp."2
The3 passage in tractate Pesachim4 reads: "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Shechinah," as we explained in positive commandment 31. [Pesachim continues,] "The phrase 'he must go outside the camp' refers to the machaneh Leviyah."
"Ravina then asked, 'perhaps both phrases refer to the machaneh Shechinah, and the repetition serves to cover both the positive and negative commandments?!'"
[The Gemara answers,] "If so, it could have just written, 'he may not enter inside,'" i.e. "he may not enter inside it."5 [The Gemara continues,] "Why is the word 'camp' repeated? To refer to a second type of camp, i.e. the machaneh Leviyah." This means that even this camp he may not enter.
The Sifri6 says [clearly that this phrase counts as a separate commandment]: "The phrase, 'He may not enter inside the camp, 'is a negative commandment."
The details of this mitzvah are also explained in our commentary to the beginning of tractate Keilim.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.See footnote to P31.
2.Deut. 23:11.
3.The full verse reads, "He must go outside the camp; he may not enter inside the camp." The Rambam proves that the "camp" referred to in the beginning of the verse refers to the machaneh Shechinah, which is positive commandment 31; while the second "camp" refers to the machaneh Leviyah, which is this commandment.
4.68a.
5.The Rambam makes this clarification because in Hebrew, removing the word hamachaneh ("the camp") would make the phrase non-sensical.
6.Deut. 23:11.
-------
Rambam:
1 Chapter a Day Shechenim - Chapter Four
Shechenim - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
The following rules apply when a person owns a loft that is situated above a house belonging to a colleague. If one of the walls of the house falls, the owner of the loft is not required to pay any of the costs incurred by the owner of the house in repairing it. And he may compel the owner of the house to repair it as it was originally. If, by contrast, one of the walls of the loft falls, the owner of the house cannot compel the owner of the loft to repair it.
The ceiling is the responsibility of the owner of the house. The plaster above it is the responsibility of the owner of the loft.
Halacha 2
If both the house and the loft fall, both owners share equally in the wood, the stones and the sand.
If some of the stones are broken, we determine which of the stones were more likely to have broken, the stones of the house or the stones of the loft. This can be determined by the manner in which the stones fell: whether the upper stones fell on the lower stones and destroyed them or the lower stones slipped out and the upper stones fell and were destroyed. If it cannot be determined how the stones fell, both the whole stones and the broken stones should be divided equally.
Halacha 3
The following rule applies when both structures fall, and the owner of the loft tells the owner of the house to rebuild his home so that he can build his loft upon it, but the owner of the home refuses to do so. The owner of the loft may rebuild the hometo its original size and live inside it until the owner of the home reimburses him for all his costs. Then he must leave, and he may build his loft upon it if he desires.
Halacha 4
If neither of them is able to rebuild the building, the owner of the loft receives one third of the land, and the owner of the house receives two thirds of the land.
Halacha 5
If the owner of the house desires to rebuild his home, he should rebuild it as it was originally. The following laws apply if he desires to change the structure of the walls: If he desires to strengthen them and increase their width beyond their previous measures, his desire is heeded. If he desires to make them narrower or weaker - e.g., originally, they had been made from stone, and now he wants to make them from bricks - his desire is not heeded.
If he desires to build the ceiling with heavier and stronger beams, his desire is heeded. If he desires to make them narrower than they were originally, his desire is not heeded.
If he desires to add more windows or increase the height of the house, his desire is not heeded. If he desires to reduce the number of windows or diminish the height of the house, his desire is heeded.
Similarly, the owner of the loft should rebuild it as it was originally. If he desires to change the structure of the walls, to increase their width and strengthen them, his desire is not heeded, because he places an additional burden on the lower walls. If he desires to make them narrower, his desire is heeded.
Similar laws apply with regard to the beams of the ceiling of the loft. If he desires to exchange them for lighter ones, his desire is heeded. If he desires to use heavier beams, his desire is not heeded.
If he desires to add more windows or diminish the height of the loft, his desire is heeded. If he desires to reduce the number of windows or increase the height of the house, his desire is not heeded.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply when the beams of the ceiling sink lower and descend into the space of the house. If they reach within ten handbreadths of the ground, the owner of the house may destroy and rebuild the entire structure. If they do not reach that low, the owner of the loft may prevent him from doing so. Even if the owner of the house tells the owner of the loft: "I will rent you another place to live until I repair the ceiling," his desire is not heeded. For the owner of the loft will tell him: "I do not want the difficulty of moving from place to place so that you can repair your home."
Halacha 7
If an agreement was made between the two of them that as long as the house is high enough that a person can enter while carrying an ordinary sized burden on his head despite the fact that the beams have bent lower, the owner may not tear it down. If, however, he cannot enter while carrying such a burden unless he bends his head, he may tear it down, repair it and rebuild it, then the owner of the loft may not prevent him. For this was the agreement they made at the outset.
Halacha 8
The following rule applies when an olive press is built in the midst of a mountain, a garden is located upon it, and then the top of the olive press becomes opened four handbreadths or more. The owner of the garden may descend and sow the earth of the olive press until the owner of the olive press makes a covering for the olive press, so that the owner of the higher property can restore the earth of his garden and sow it.
Halacha 9
The following rules apply when there are two gardens, one on top of the other on the slope of a mountain, and there are vegetables growing on the surface of the earth between them. Any vegetables to which the owner of the higher property can extend his hand and pull out by their roots belong to him, provided he does not strain himself. The remainder belong to the owner of the lower property.
If the owner of the higher property can reach the leaves of the vegetables, but cannot reach their roots, he should not take them. If, however, he does take them, they should not be expropriated from his possession.
Different laws apply with regard to a tree that stands on the boundary line between two properties. Even though it leans into the field belonging to one of them, both of them may divide the fruits.
Halacha 10
The following rules apply if a river washes away olive trees belonging to one person and plants them in a field belonging to another. If the owner of the trees says: "I want to take my olive trees, his desire is not heeded, in order that the land be settled. Instead, they should remain in their place.
If the river uproots the trees together with their earth when it replants them, the owner of the field and the owner of the olive trees should divide the fruit for the first three years. After three years, all the produce belongs to the owner of the field. If they were not uprooted together with their earth, the owner of the field is entitled to the entire benefit immediately.
Halacha 11
Similar concepts apply when a person sells his olive trees to be used as wood. If the agreement was that he would cut them down immediately, all the fruit they produce belongs to the owner of the land. If the agreement was that he could cut them down whenever he desires, all the fruit they produce belongs to the owner of the trees.
The following rules apply when the trees were sold without a specific agreement. If they produce no more than a revi'it per se'ah beyond the costs involved, they belong to the owner of the olive trees. If they produce more than a revi'it per se'ah beyond the costs involved, they should be divided.
-------
Rambam:
3 Chapters a Day Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2, Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3, Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
The High Priest enters the Holy of Holies each year only on Yom Kippur.1 An ordinary priest may enter the Sanctuary for service every day.2
Halacha 2
The priests were all3 warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies when they are not in the midst of the service,4 as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "He shall not come to the Holy Chamber at all time" - this refers to the Holy of Holies. "...Within the curtain" - this warns [the priests against unwarranted entry] into the entire Temple.5
Halacha 3
A priest - whether an ordinary priest or a High Priest - who enters the Holy of Holies on any of the other days of the year, or a High Priest who enters there on Yom Kippur outside the time of service, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.] states: "And he shall not die."
How many times does he enter on Yom Kippur? Four, as will be explained in the appropriate place.6 If he enters a fifth time, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven.
Halacha 4
One - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who enters the Sacred Chamber outside the Holy of Holies not for the sake of service, nor prostrating oneself7 is liable for lashes, but is not liable for death. [This is derived from the above verse which states:] "Before the covering [that is upon the Ark] so that he will not die." [Implied is that] for [unauthorized entry into] the Holy of Holies, he is liable for death, but [entering] the remainder of the Sanctuary is merely the violation of a negative commandment and is punishable by lashes.
Halacha 5
A priest - whether an ordinary priest of a High priest - who departs from the Temple is liable for death8 [at the hand of heaven] only in the midst of his service,9 as [ibid 10:7] states: "From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, you shall not depart, lest you die." Implied is that you should not abandon the service and leave hastily and in panic because of this decree.10 Similarly, the charge [issued to] the High Priest [ibid. 21:12]: "He shall not depart from the Temple," applies only in the midst of his service, i.e., that he should not abandon his service and depart.
Halacha 6
If so, why was this warning repeated for the High Priest? [Because there is a difference between the laws that apply to him and those which apply to an ordinary priest]. When an ordinary priest was in the midst of his service in the Temple and he heard that a person for whom he is obligated to mourn has died, he should not perform sacrificial service, even though he does not leave the Temple,11 because he is in an acute state of mourning.12 if he performed service while in an acute state of mourning, he profanes his service, whether he is offering an individual sacrifice or a communal offering. A High Priest, by contrast, performs sacrificial service while he is in a state of acute mourning, as [implied by ibid.]: "From the Temple, he should not depart and not profane." Implied is that he should remain [in the Temple] and perform the service with which he was involved and it does not become profaned.
Halacha 7
What is the source that teaches that the service of one in an acute state of mourning is invalid? [It is derived from] an inference from a less severe situation to a more severe one.13 A priest disqualified because of a physical deformity may partake of sacrificial foods.14 Nevertheless, if he performs service, he profanes it.15 How much more so should one who is in acute mourning and thus forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods16 - as [Deuteronomy 26:14] states: "I did not eat from it in a state of acute morning" - profane his service [if he performs it].
Halacha 8
Although a High Priest may perform service while he is in a state of acute mourning, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food, as [Leviticus 10:19] states: "If I had partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have found favor in God's eyes."17Similarly, he does not participate in the division of the sacrificial foods so that he could partake of the food in the evening.
When a person in an acute state of mourning performs sacrificial service, he is not liable for lashes. He is permitted to touch sacrificial foods even though he did not immerse himself [in a mikveh], for this safeguard was enforced only with regard to eating. With regard to touching [objects], he is considered as pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.18
Halacha 9
What is meant by a person in an acute state of mourning? One who lost one of the relatives19 for whom he is required to mourn. On the day of the person's death, he is considered in acute mourning according to Scriptural Law. And at night, he is in acute mourning according to Rabbinic Law.
Halacha 10
When [it was necessary] to wait several days and [only] afterwards, a corpse was buried, for all those days after the day of the deceased's passing, [his relative] is considered in an acute state of mourning according to Rabbinic Law. This also [applies] with regard to the day of burial, but not the following night.
Therefore if [a close relative of a priest] dies and he buries him after the day of his death, throughout the day of the burial, he may not offer or partake of sacrifices according to Rabbinic Law. He should then immerse himself and partake of sacrifices at night. The day on which a person hears a report that a relative of his died within 30 days20 and the day on which he gathers his bones21 is considered as the day of one's burial, but [the restrictions] do not apply at night. On the day of [a close relative's] death, by contrast, just as it is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods during the day according to Scriptural Law, so too, it is forbidden for him to partake of them that night according to Rabbinic Law. [The only] exception is the Paschal sacrifice which he may eat at night, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22
Halacha 11
Throughout the seven days of mourning, a mourner should not send sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple].23 [Indeed, he should not send] even wine, wood, or frankincense. Similarly, a person afflicted with tzara'at24 should not send his sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple]. For as long as he is not fit to enter the camp [of the Levites],25 he is not fit for his sacrifices to be offered. There is an unresolved question whether a person under a ban of ostracism26 may send his sacrifices [to be offered] or not.27 Hence, if they were offered on his behalf, [his obligation] is satisfied.
Halacha 12
A person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard or the like and an uncircumcised person may send their sacrifices28 and they are offered with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice. That sacrifice may not be offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard.29 Nor may a Paschal sacrifice be offered for an uncircumcised person, as will be explained.30 No sacrifices at all are offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a corpse until he becomes ritually pure.31
FOOTNOTES
1.As explained in Halachah 3.
2.I.e., to offer incense, kindle the menorah, or to bow.
3.According to its simple meaning, the prooftext cited below refers only to Aaron. Nevertheless, through the Biblical exegesis, the Sifra interprets it as referring to all priests (Kessef Mishneh).
4.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 68) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 184) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is an expression of honor and reverence toward the Temple.
5.The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's interpretation of the verse, for seemingly, "within the curtain" refers to the Holy of Holies. On the surface, the opposite would be more appropriate: "The Holy Chamber" could be interpreted as referring to the entire Temple and "within the curtain" to the Holy of Holies. He explains the verse as follows: Were the verse to have mentioned "the Holy Chamber" alone, we would have thought that it refers only to the Holy of Holies and not to the Temple at large. Since, however, the verse adds "within the curtain," we understand that it refers to the Holy of Holies" and "the Holy Chamber" refers to the entire Sanctuary.
There is, however, a difference in the punishments for which one is liable for the violation of the two aspects of this commandment, as the Rambam states in Halachah 4.
6.Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 4.
7.With regard to the priests' prostrating themselves, see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the priests were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary to prostrate themselves at all times. Instead, they would enter only at a specific time, when the service of the morning was completed.
8.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 151) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
9.If, however, he is not involved in the Temple service, he is not required to remain in the Temple.
10.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the prooftext the Rambam cites was directed to Aaron's sons and applied only at the time of the death of Nadav and Avihu at the dedication of the Sanctuary. In other instances, there is no prohibition for an ordinary priest to leave the Temple. The prohibition applies to the High Priest alone. The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Sifra which - as interpreted by the Ramban - serves as support for the Rambam's ruling.
11.The Ra'avad amplifies his difference of opinion with the Rambam, maintaining that the ordinary priest should certainly leave the Temple to participate in the funeral of a close relative. Indeed, he is forced to become impure to take part in the burial. Indeed, since he cannot complete the service, what value is there in him remaining?
The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that were he to depart from the Temple, it would be demeaning to the service that he had performed. The implication would be that it was not of serious importance to him. Also, there is a practical dimension; if he would depart, there might not be anyone to see that the service is in fact completed.
12.See Halachah 9 for a definition of this term. See also Hilchot Evel 4:6, 9, for particulars with regard to the state of aninut, acute mourning.
13.The Rambam's statements are taken from Zevachim 17b. The Talmud there offers another derivation. Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam uses that derivation and not the one mentioned here.
14.See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.
15.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.
16.See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:7.
17.Aaron asked this rhetorical question to Moses after serving in the Sanctuary, but not partaking of the offerings, on the day his sons died.
18.As explained in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:15, since a person who was in a state of acute mourning was forbidden to partake of holy objects, it is possible that he diverted his attention from his hands and touched a source of impurity unknowingly. Nevertheless, this is only a safeguard and applies only with regard to partaking of food and not to touching it.
[It must be emphasized that there is a difference in the versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1). Some versions of the text follow the ruling here, but others state that it is forbidden for a person to touch sacred food.]
19.A person's mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. One must mourn for his or her spouse according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Evel 2:1).
20.I.e., the person died beforehand and the priest heard the report within 30 days of his death. In that instance, he is required to observe a full week of shivah mourning (Hilchot Evel 7:1).
21.I.e., unearths his grave for the sake of reburying him in another place.
22.Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:9. There it is explained that our Sages did not wish to enforce their decree in a situation that would lead to the violation of a transgression punishable by karet.
23.See Mo'ed Kattan 16b which states that this is derived from the term shelamim ("peace-offerings"). That name implies that these offerings may only be brought when a person is at peace with himself.
24.A physical ailment similar to leprosy which causes one to become ritually impure.
25.I.e., the Temple Mount; see Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which explains these concepts.
26.See Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 7, for a definition of this term.
27.Mo'ed Kattan 15b explains this question as follows: During the 40 years between the sin of the spies and the entry of the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, they were considered as if they were under a ban of ostracism from God. Nevertheless, their sacrifices were offered. Hence one might conclude that even though a person is under a ban of ostracism, his sacrifices may be offered. That conclusion is not accepted unquestionably, however, because it is possible to make a distinction between one who is ostracized by God (as the Jews were in the desert) and one ostracized by man. It is possible that the latter situation is more severe.
28.They may not, however, enter the Temple themselves to take part in the offering.
The Kessef Mishneh raises a question for it is necessary to perform semichah (leaning on the sacrificial animal with all one's strength; see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3) on sacrifices. Since these individuals may not enter the Temple Courtyard, because of their impurity, they cannot perform semichah. Hence, seemingly, the sacrifices should not be offered. The Kessef Mishneh states that perhaps the Rambam is speaking only of certain sacrifices where semichah is not required.
29.Unless he has already immersed himself. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:1.
30.For as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 2:3, 5-6, the Paschal sacrifice should be sacrificed only on behalf of individuals who are fit to partake of it and a person who is ritually impure and an uncircumcised person are forbidden to do so.
31.I.e., he must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, and he must immerse in the mikveh.
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to send all impure persons away from the Temple,1 as [Numbers 5:2] states: "And they shall send away from the camp all those with tzara'at and zav2 [afflictions] and all those who are impure because of contact with a corpse.
Halacha 2
"The camp" cited refers to "the camp of the Divine presence," i.e., from the entrance to the Courtyard of the Israelites onward.3 Should one infer that a person with tzaraat or zav ailments and one impure due to contact with a corpse are all three sent to the same place? With regard to one inflicted with tzara'at, [Leviticus 13:46] states: "He shall abide alone outside the camp where he dwells." [The camp from which he is sent] refers to the camp of the Israelites which parallels the area from the entrance to Jerusalem and beyond.4 [From this we conclude,]5 just like a person who is afflicted with tzara'at, because his impurity is more severe, is sent away in a more severe manner than others,6 so too, any individuals whose state of impurity is more severe than others should be sent out in a more sever manner.7
Therefore a person afflicted with tzara'at is sent outside of all three camps, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [His impurity is considered more severe,] because he causes [a house] to be considered impure when he enters it.8 This does not apply with regard to a zav.
Halacha 3
Men with a zav condition,9 women with a zavah condition,10 niddot,11 and women who gave birth12 are sent outside two camps, i.e., outside the Temple Mount.13 [The rationale for this severity is that] they cause an entity upon which they are seated or upon which they are lying to become ritually impure,14 even if it is under a stone.15 [This does not apply] with regard to impurity [contracted] from a corpse.16
Halacha 4
A person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse - and even a corpse itself - is permitted to enter the Temple Mount. [This is derived from Exodus 13:19]: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him."17 "With him" [implies] into the camp of the Levites.18
Halacha 5
From the chayl,19 gentiles, those who contracted impurity from a human corpse, and those who had relations with a niddah20 are sent away.21 A person who immersed that day may enter there, for he has already immersed.22
Halacha 6
From the Women's Courtyard,23 one who immersed himself that day is sent away,24 but not one who has not completed the purification process.25 For [the day on which] a person who has not completed the purification process [immersed himself] has already passed.26 The prohibition against a person who has immersed himself entering [this portion of] the camp of the Levites is Rabbinic in origin.27
Halacha 7
From the Courtyard of the Israelites28 and onward even one who has not completed his process of purification should not enter, because his process of purification is not yet consummated. [This is evident from Leviticus 12:8 which, with regard to a woman who seeks purification after childbirth,]29 states: "And the priest will bring atonement for her and she will become pure." One can infer that until then, she was not pure.30
Halacha 8
An impure person who [must be] sent away from the Temple Mount, violates a negative commandment31 if he enters there, as [can be inferred from Deuteronomy 23:11 which] states: "And he shall go outside the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Shechinah - "and he shall not enter the midst of the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Levites.32 Similarly, a person afflicted by tzara'at who enters Jerusalem is liable for lashes.33 If, however, he enters any of the other walled cities34 [in Eretz Yisrael], although he is not allowed to,35 as [implied by the verse]: "He shall abide alone, he is not liable for lashes."
Halacha 9
If one afflicted with tzara'at entered the Temple Mount, he is liable for 80 lashes.36 If, however, one who is impure because of contact with a human corpse or one who immersed himself that day entered the Women's Courtyard,37 or one who has not completed his process of purification entered the Israelites' Courtyard,38 he is not given lashes.39 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.40
Halacha 10
Just as there is a positive commandment to send impure persons out from the Temple, so too, if they enter, they violate a negative commandment,41 as [Numbers 5:3] states: "They shall not make your camp impure." This refers to the camp of the Shechinah.42
Halacha 11
What source teaches that one does not violate the prohibition unless he enters [the Temple], but that he he is exempt43 if he touches the Temple Courtyard from the outside? [Leviticus 12:4] states with regard to a woman who gives birth: "She shall not enter the Sanctuary."44
Halacha 12
When an impure person willfully enters the Temple, he is punishable by karet,45 as [Leviticus 17:16] states: "If he will not clean [his garments] or wash his flesh, he will bear his iniquity."46 [If he enters] unknowingly, he is liable for an adjustable guilt offering,47 as [ibid. 5:2] states: "Or a soul that will touch any impure entity." One is liable for karet or a sacrifice only when one enters from the Israelites' Courtyard or onward or into an addition to the Courtyard that was sanctified in a consummate manner, as we explained.48
Halacha 13
What are the types of impurity for which one is liable [for entering] the Temple [while impure]?
a) Anyone who became impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner which would require a nazirite to shave [his head] because of them; these are explained in [Hilchot] Nizirut;49
b) one who touched a person or a utensil that became impure through those types of impurity for which a nazirite must shave [his head]; for such a person is considered as a second level of impurity to a primary object of impurity that touched a corpse;50
c) one who became impure through contact with another primary source of impurity as mandated by Scriptural Law,51 as will be explained in their appropriate places.52
Halacha 14
The general principle is: Anyone who is required to immerse himself in water53 according to Scriptural Law is liable for karet for entering the Temple [while impure] even after he immersed himself until nightfall [that day].54 If, however, one became impure due to impurity stemming from a human corpse that does not require a nazirite to shave [his head], he is exempt for entering the Temple, even though his impurity lasts for seven days.55
Halacha 15
Similarly, if one touches utensils that touched a human corpse or touches a person who is touching utensils that touch a corpse, even though he is considered as impure to the first degree with regard to terumah56 and with regard to imparting impurity to sacrificial foods, he is exempt for entering the Temple. For these matters are laws received through the Oral Tradition.57 Although he is exempt, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.58
Halacha 16
A person who brings a dead teeming animal59 or the like60 into the Temple or when he brings an impure person into the Temple, he is liable for karet, because he made God's sanctuary impure. If, however, he threw impure utensils into the Temple - even if they were utensils that touched a corpse61 - he is exempt from karet, but liable for lashes, as [implied by the prooftext cited above]: "If he will not clean [his garments]...."62 According to the Oral Tradition, [for entering the Temple without] washing his body, he is liable forkaret. [For entering without] cleaning his garments, he receives 40 lashes.
Halacha 17
It appears to me63 that he is liable for lashes only for his clothes that are a source of ritual impurity, i.e., clothes that were touched by a person who became impure through contact with a corpse that themselves become a source for ritual impurity, as will be explained.64 If, by contrast, one brings a garment which is of first degree impurity65 into the Temple, he is not liable for lashes.66 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 18
Similarly, when an impure person inserts his hand [alone] into the Temple,67 he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, anyone who purposely enters the Temple before immersing himself68 while he is impure because of contact with objects that are sources of ritual impurity by virtue of Rabbinic decree, because he ate impure foods, or because he drank impure beverages is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 19
When an impure person enters the Temple through the rooftops, he is exempt.69 [This is derived from the prooftext cited above:] "He shall not enter the Temple." [Implied is that] the Torah held him liable [only when he entered in] the way one usually enters.70Although he is exempt for karet, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
[This exemption applies] even if he enters in a compartment flying in the air,71 whether he entered the Temple in this compartment through the roofs or through the entrances.
Halacha 20
In all places where one is liable for karet72 for a willful transgression or a sacrifice for an unknowing transgression, should an impure object be found there on the Sabbath, it should be removed.73 In other places,74 it should be covered with a utensil until after the Sabbath.75 When it is removed, it should be removed only with flat wooden utensil which do not contract ritual impurity,76 so that there should not be an increase in ritual impurity.77
Halacha 21
Both an impure person who entered the Temple when it was pure78 and a pure person who entered the Temple when there was impurity within it - e.g., a corpse was lying under a shelter in the Temple and he entered under that shelter - are liable for karet. [In the latter situation,] his entrance and his impurity occur at one time.
If one enters the Temple and becomes impure there after he enters, even if he purposely made himself impure,79 he should hurry, and depart in the shortest way possible.80
Halacha 22
It is forbidden for him to tarry, to bow, or to depart via a longer way. If he tarried or departed via a longer way even though he did not tarry, or he turned his face to the Sanctuary and bowed even if he did not tarry, he is liable for karet. If he acted unknowingly, he must bring a sacrifice.81
Halacha 23
If he did not turn his face [toward the Sanctuary], but bowed as he was departing toward the outside area, he is not liable unless he tarrys.
How long a delay [creates a liability]? Enough time to read the verse:82 "And they bowed with their faces to the ground on the floor, prostrating themselves and giving thanks to God who is good and whose kindness is everlasting." This is the measure of the delay [for which one is liable].
Halacha 24
What is meant by [departing] via longer way? Any way for which it is possible to depart from the Temple via a shorter way.
If one departed via a shorter way, even if he did not run, but instead walked [slowly], positioning his heel by his toes,83 although it takes the entire day, he is exempt. If he took a longer path, even though he ran and pressed himself with all of his power and thus the amount of time it took for him to leave in this manner was less than it would take other men via the shorter way, he is liable, because he departed via the longer path.
If he departed via the shorter path, but walked some, then stood, tarried some, [and continued this pattern] until all of his delays together amount to the time it takes to bow, he is not liable for lashes if he acted willfully, nor is he liable for a sacrifice if he acted unknowingly, because there is an unresolved question concerning the matter.84 He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.85
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 31) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 362) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.
3.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11 which states:
The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert [was divided into] three areas:
the camp of Israel... the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50] states: "They shall camp around the Sanctuary;", and the camp of the Shechinah [which included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards.
Correspondingly, for [future] generations: [The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel. [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites. And [the area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah.
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8).
4.The verse implies that he must abide in a place where others do not dwell.
5.The Sifra understands this to be an example of the principle of Biblical exegesis: A subject (a person impure because of tzara'at) was included in a general category (impure people) and then was singled out to teach us a new law (that he must dwell separate from all others). This does not only teach us about this instance, but about the entire category (that there are distinctions in the extent people with impurity must distance themselves).
6.For in no other instance is an impure person required to depart from the camp of the Israelites. See also Halachah 8.
7.Thus as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachot, there are differences in the extent people with various types of impurities are forced to distance themselves.
8.Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:12.
9.A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.
10.I.e., they experience vaginal bleeding at times other than their ordinary monthly cycle. This causes them to be considered ritually impure.
11.Women who are impure because of menstrual bleeding.
12.This - or a miscarriage - renders a woman as ritually impure.
13.Since there is an added dimension to the severity of their impurity, they must distance themselves in a more sever manner.
14.See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1.
15.See ibid. 6:5, 7:1, which explains that even if there is a stone - which itself never contracts ritual impurity - intervening between the person's body and the entity, the entity becomes impure.
16.See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:14.
17.Joseph had asked the Jewish people to bring his body from Egypt to be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Moses brought his body with him from Egypt, transporting it on the entire journey through the desert.
18.For that is where Moses had his personal dwelling.
19.The rampart surrounding the walls of the courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3).
20.For through that act, the man also becomes ritually impure.
21.This is a Rabbinic restriction. According to Scriptural Law, these places are not on a different rung of holiness than the other portions of the Temple Mount. This and the restrictions mentioned in the next two halachot are also found in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:16-18.
22.When a person must immerse himself to ascend from ritual impurity, according to Scriptural Law, he does not achieve that status until nightfall. Nevertheless, since he has already immersed, our Sages relaxed this and several other of the prohibitions that they had placed upon such individuals.
23.A square courtyard outside the Temple Courtyard, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-9.
24.For he is still impure, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
25.This term refers to a zav,, a zavah, a woman who gave birth or miscarried, or a convert, who even after immersing themselves in the mikveh, must bring a sacrifice before their purification process is complete. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1.
26.The Sifri brings proof that one who has not yet completed the purification process is in a different category than a person who has immersed himself from the fact that the former is permitted to partake of terumah, while the latter is not.
27.Zevachim 32b relates that this restriction was imposed by Yehoshefat, King of Judah.
28.The first eleven cubits of the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:11). This area begins "the camp of the Shechinah" into which all of those who are impure may not enter according to Scriptural Law.
29.And from this example, we extrapolate with regard to others in that category.
30.Even though she had already immersed herself. Hence, she and others in the same category may not enter an area which is reserved for those who are ritually pure. This is a Scriptural restriction.
31.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 78) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 565) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Its violation is punishable by lashes.
32.Which, as mentioned above, parallels the camp of the Levites.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's interpretation of the verse reverses the order found in Pesachim 68a and the Sifri. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.
33.Significantly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4 where the Rambam lists those who are punished by lashes, he does not mention this instance.
34.See Hilchot Megilah 1:4 and Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 12:15 which explain that this term applies only to a city surrounded by a wall at the time when Joshua conquered the land. Even if the wall of such a city is destroyed, the city is still placed in that category. Moreover, if a city was not walled at the time of Joshua's conquest, even if it was walled afterwards, it is not placed in this category.
35.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:7. Based on Tosafot (Berachot 5b), Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that these restrictions apply only during the era when the Jubilee year was observed.
36.I.e., he violated two negative commandments: he entered Jerusalem and he entered the Temple Mount. Therefore he is liable for two sets of lashes. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8, based on the Tosefta to Keilim), the Rambam states these concepts slightly differently.
The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person afflicted with tzara'at enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for an addition set of lashes.
37.As mentioned in Halachot 5-6, this constitutes the violation of a Rabbinical commandment. The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for 120 lashes.
38.And thus violates a positive commandment, as indicated by Halachah 1.
39.For he does not violate a Scriptural prohibition.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that since the person is impure, his entry into the Temple Courtyard violates a Scriptural prohibition and is punishable by karet. The Kessef Mishneh cites a passage from Zevachim 17b which appears to support the Ra'avad's objection. To resolve the Rambam's ruling, the Kessef Mishneh, however, quotes Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14, where the Rambam distinguishes between an impure person who has immersed and one who has not done so as of yet. He also quotes other opinions in support of the distinction the Rambam makes.
40.A punishment instituted by the Rabbis for the violation of their decrees or positive commandments.
41.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 77) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 363) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
42.I.e., the area encompassed by the Temple Courtyard.
43.I.e., the act is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes or a sin-offering for its violation.
44.Implying that entry into the Temple area is what is forbidden.
45.Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
46.Har HaMoriah explains that the Rambam quotes this verse rather than Numbers 19:13-20 which is more explicit, because the latter passage speaks only about one who became impure due to contact with a human corpse and the prohibition applies even when one became impure for other reasons.
47.See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.
48.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:10-14 which describes the manner in which additions are made to the Temple Courtyard.
49.See Hilchot Nizirut 7:1-6 which describes this subject in detail. As stated in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." Implied is that since a nazirite is forbidden to cut his hair according to Scriptural Law, when he contracts ritual impurity stemming from a human corpse that is only Rabbinic in origin, he should not cut his hair, because then the Rabbinic safeguard would lead to the violation of Scriptural Law. Note also the commentary to Hilchot Nizirut which explains that the Rambam is referring to ritual impurity that is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis.
50.A person or an object that touches a human corpse becomes a source of impurity that can cause other people or objects to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4-5).
The Ra'avad states however that a nazirite is not obligated to shave his head if he touched a utensil or a person that became impure due to contact with a corpse. Hence, he concludes, one should not be liable for entering the Temple after having contracted impurity in this manner. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the simple meaning of the passage in Nazir 54a appears to support the Ra'avad's understanding. Nevertheless, he cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) which could be interpreted as supporting the Rambam's ruling.
51.There are entities that are considered sources of impurity according to Rabbinic Law. They do not make a person impure to the extent that he is liable for entering the Temple.
52.See Sefer Taharah.
53.I.e., in a mikveh.
54.For as stated in Halachah 6, one who has immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity is still impure until nightfall of that day. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such a person is not liable for karet. The Radbaz cites the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14 which would seem to support the Ra'avad's ruling. It states that a person who was ritually impure, then immersed himself, and then partook of sacrificial foods before nightfall is liable for lashes, but is not liable for karet. Nevertheless, the Radbaz explains that a distinction can be made between these two situations.
55.Although he is required to observe the strictures of someone who is ritually impure, he is not liable for entering the Temple.
56.In Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4, the Rambam describes the impurity caused by such situations.
57.In ibid.:5, the Rambam continues: "Even though according to the Oral Tradition [one is rendered impure for such matters], this is not Scriptural Law. For it is not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who becomes impure through contact with a human corpse becomes a source of impurity and one who touches him becomes impure to the first degree." In this instance, however, the Rambam is probably following his renown approach that any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah is considered as "from the Oral Tradition" even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai.
58.For the Rabbis instituted decrees to insure that the prohibitions established by the Oral Tradition were observed.
59.This is speaking about a situation where he brought the dead teeming animal into the Temple without touching it, since, as stated in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 4:1, a dead teeming animal imparts ritual impurity only when one touches it and not when one carries it. For if the person had touched it, he would become impure and be liable for karet entering the Temple in that state.
60.I.e., another source of impurity that imparts impurity through touch, but not when carried.
61.And thus serve as a source of impurity.
62.The verse concludes: "He will bear his iniquity." "Clean[ing] his garments" refers to immersing them to remove their impurity.
63.This expression implies that there is no Talmudic source for this ruling, but instead, it was derived by deduction.
64.Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:2. There the Rambam states that if a person touching the corpse touches any other utensil at the same time, that utensil is considered as if it touched the corpse itself.
65.I.e., the person touched the garments after he let go of the corpse.
66.Since the object brought into the Temple is not a source for ritual impurity, the person is not liable for karet. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even bringing an object that is not a source for ritual impurity into the Temple causes one to be liable for lashes. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view, explaining that there is a logical basis for his conclusion. Since the Torah was lenient with regard to utensils (and garments), absolving one from karet even when the utensil was a source of impurity, we can conclude that leniency would also be shown with regard to lashes.
67.I.e., he stands outside the Temple Courtyard and inserts only his hand. He is not given lashes, because his entire body has not entered the Temple Courtyard. Even the Rambam would agree that he is forbidden by Rabbinic decree to insert his hand. The Ra'avad is more stringent and rules that inserting part of one's body is equivalent to entering entirely. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling.
68.The Rambam's words imply that once he immersed himself, he is not liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for entering the Temple even if night has not yet fallen. Since his impurity is only Rabbinic in origin and he has immersed himself, he is not given punishment. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 9:1.
69.Such entry is, nevertheless, forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
70.I.e., on foot through the gate. The Mishneh LiMelech emphasizes that if he remains in the Temple for the amount of time for which he is liable (see Halachah 22), he is liable for karet even if he entered through the rooftops.
71.For this also is not the usual way of entry.
72.I.e., in the Temple Courtyard.
73.An object for which one has no purpose is muktzeh and there is a Rabbinic prohibition against transporting it on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature are not applied in the Temple (Rashi, Eruvin 104b).
74.I.e., in the chambers that are considered as being separate entities from the Temple Courtyard.
75.So that it will not be touched.
76.See Hilchot Keilim 1:10. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:6.
77.I.e., if a priest would carry it out in his garment, he would be causing his garment to become impure. Hence, it was desirable to use a flat wooden utensil even if it takes time to find such a utensil (Eruvin, loc. cit.).
78.As stated in Halachah 12.
79.There is an unresolved question concerning whether such a person is liable in Sh'vuot 17a. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh).
80.If he departs in this manner, he is not liable for karet.
81.An adjustable guilt offering.
82.The Rambam is citing Sh'vuot 16b which quotes the description of the people's bowing in II Chronicles 7:3.
83.I.e., taking very short steps. As long as he does not stop for the amount of time mentioned in the previous halachah, he is not liable.
84.See Sh'vuot 17a. Hence we rule leniently.
85.See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied.
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When an impure person serves in the Temple,1 he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there,2 as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure.3
Further on,4 [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.5
Halacha 2
Although one who serves in a state of impurity is liable only for lashes in court, his priestly brethren6 would not bring him to the court. Instead, they would take him outside7 [the Temple]8 and split open his brain. They would not be rebuked for this.9
Halacha 3
How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard10 and departed in the shortest way possible,11 but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames.12 [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service13 is considered as equivalent to that service.
Halacha 4
Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall of that day,14 his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their God."15 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid. 22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure.16 A person whose atonement process was not completed17 who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment]18 even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice].
Halacha 5
What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.19
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known,20 all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths,21 the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted.22 Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally.23 We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.
Halacha 7
Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure,24 as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation,25 in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.
Halacha 8
The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead,26 as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before God."
Halacha 9
[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath27 or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering,28 supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.29
Halacha 10
All30 of the communal sacrifices have a fixed time when they must be offered.31 Hence [offering them] supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.
Halacha 11
All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten.32 Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar].33 The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten34 are burnt in the same manner35 as are other sacrifices that became impure.36
Halacha 12
What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority37 of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse,38 or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure39 due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together40 and enter the Temple Courtyard.41
Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karet for entering [the Courtyard]42 or death [at the hand of Heaven]43 for [carrying out] the service.44 For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices].
Halacha 13
When a Paschal sacrifice45 is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard.46 Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.47
Halacha 14
If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day48 were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices.49If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve].50 If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.
Halacha 15
Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clain?51 Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation.52 We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.53
Halacha 16
What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because a [deceased] human soul."54 According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred.55 Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice:56 [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.
Halacha 17
This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure....57 For many of the people, may from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves."
What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"?58 Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month,59 because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves."60 As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh,61 as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.62
Halacha 18
There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh.63
Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions,64 as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May God Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'God heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.
2.As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard.
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.In reference to terumah.
5.See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above.
6.In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."
7.The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment to him. All they can do is bring him to the court.
8.I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.
9.The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken.
10.For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
11.In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.
12.See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act.
13.And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service.
14.As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe punishment.
15.See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in the mikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple.
17.I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure.
18.The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offence is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult.
19.I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted with tzara'at.
20.To even one person.
21.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.
Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about."
22.The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.
23.The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishneh explains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet.
24.I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34.
25.I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot.
26.There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist.
27.I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time.
28.I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices.
29.For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.
30.I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices, are not offered at a specific time.
31.And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).
32.With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim 7:5).
33.For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be offered on the altar.
34.Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omer offering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered on Rosh Chodesh.
35.Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.
36.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.
37.Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).
38.This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference whether or not the people at large are impure.
39.As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning.
40.I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).
41.I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).
42.See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.
43.As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.
44.They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).
45.Although this law also applies with regard to other communal sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of people in the Temple Courtyard.
46.Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the Sanctuary itself.
47.There is a question concerning this issue in Pesachim 95b. Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes. The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well.
48.See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term.
49.As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure.
50.For the reason stated in the following halachah.
51.And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).
52.The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely, with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Shabbat 2:1.
53.As stated in Halachah 7.
54.The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.
55.See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.
56.Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2 states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now since Numbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.
57.King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them an extra month.
58.I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).
59.I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap year.
60.Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav Yosef Corcus).
61.Chapter 4, Halachah 6.
62.For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.
63.Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before.
64.I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).
-------
Hayom Yom
Today's Hayom Yom
Thursday, 14 Sivan 5774 = June 12, 2014
Thursday, Sivan 14, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-77.
Tanya: Now this attribute (p.297)... out of nothing. (p. 299).
In putting on the tallit-katan in the morning, with "clean" hands1 and in a place where a b'racha may be said, recite al mitzv at tzitzit; (L'hitateif b'tzitzit is only said for a large tallit that has the size for "enwrapment.") If one may not say a b'racha when putting on a tallit-katan, then before davening, hold the four tzitzit and say the b'racha then. However, if one is wearing a large tallit as well, no b'racha is said for the tallit-katan.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1.Namely after the ritual handwashing (Sidur p. 6).
-------
Daily Thought:Paradise
Rabbi Sholom Ber of Lubavitch used to say that if the hedonists would know the ecstasy of mystic union, they would instantly drop all their worldly pleasures and chase after it.
It is not just pleasure. It is the source of all pleasures.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment