Chabad - Today in Judaism - Today is: Shabbat, 16 Sivan, 5774 - 14 June 2014

Chabad - Today in Judaism - Today is: Shabbat, 16 Sivan, 5774 - 14 June 2014
Torah Reading

Shlach (Numbers-Bamidbar 13:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
2 Send thou anashim, that they may spy out Eretz Kena’an, which I give unto the Bnei Yisroel: of every tribe of their avot shall ye send a man, every one a nasi among them.
3 And Moshe by the mouth of Hashem sent them from the Midbar Paran; all those men were Roshei Bnei Yisroel.
4 And these were their shmot: of the tribe of Reuven, Shammua ben Zaccur.
5 Of the tribe of Shim’on, Shaphat ben Chori.
6 Of the tribe of Yehudah, Kalev ben Yephunneh.
7 Of the tribe of Yissakhar, Yigal ben Yosef.
8 Of the tribe of Ephrayim, Hoshea ben Nun.
9 Of the tribe of Binyamin, Palti ben Raphu.
10 Of the tribe of Zevulun, Gaddiel ben Sodi.
11 Of the tribe of Yosef, namely, of the tribe of Menasheh, Gaddi ben Susi.
12 Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel ben Gemalli.
13 Of the tribe of Asher, Setur ben Michael.
14 Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nachbi ben Vophsi.
15 Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel ben Machi.
16 These are the shmot of the men which Moshe sent to spy out the land. And Moshe called Hoshea ben Nun Yehoshua [See Zecharyah 6:11-12 on the personal name of Moshiach in prophecy].
17 And Moshe sent them to spy out Eretz Kena’an, and said unto them, Get you up to the Negev, and go up into the mountain;
18 And see the land, what it is like, and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many;
19 And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strongholds;
20 And what the land is, whether it be fertile or barren, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the first ripe grapes.
21 So they went up, and searched the land from the midbar of Tzin unto Rechov, as men come to Chamat.
22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Chevron; where Achiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Anak, were. (Now Chevron was built seven shanim before Tzoan in Mitzrayim.)
23 And they came unto the Wadi Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with cluster of anavim echad, and they bore it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.
24 The place was called the Wadi Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the Bnei Yisroel cut down from thence.
25 And they returned from searching of the land after arba’im days.
26 And they went and came to Moshe, and to Aharon, and to all the congregation of the Bnei Yisroel, unto the Midbar Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto Kol HaEdah, and showed them the pri ha’aretz.
27 And they told him, and said, We came unto ha’aretz where thou didst send us, and truly it floweth with cholov and devash; and this is the fruit of it.
28 Nevertheless the people are strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and gedolot me’od; and moreover we saw the Anak there.
29 The Amalek dwell in the eretz of the Negev; and the Chitti, and the Yevusi, and the Emori, dwell in the hills; and the Kena’ani dwell by the yam, and by the bank of the Yarden.
30 And Kalev silenced HaAm before Moshe, and said, Let us go up at once, and take possession of it; for we are well able to overcome it.
31 But the anashim that went up with him said, We are not able to go up against the people; for they are chazak (stronger) than we.
32 And they spread an evil report of HaAretz which they had explored unto the Bnei Yisroel, saying, HaAretz, through which we have gone to explore it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the Bnei Anak, which come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
14:1 And Kol HaEdah lifted up their voice, and cried; and HaAm wept that night.
2 And Kol Bnei Yisroel murmured against Moshe and against Aharon: and the Kol HaEdah said unto them, If only we had died in Eretz Mitzrayim! Or if only we had died in this midbar!
3 And why hath Hashem brought us unto this land, to fall by the cherev, that nasheinu (our wives) and our children should be as plunder? Were it not better for us to go back unto Mitzrayim?
4 And they said one to another, Let us make a Rosh (Leader), and let us go back unto Mitzrayim.
5 Then Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces before Kol Kehal Adat Bnei Yisroel.
6 And Yehoshua ben Nun, and Kalev ben Yephunneh, which were of them that explored HaAretz, tore their clothes:
7 And they spoke unto Kol Adat Bnei Yisroel, saying, HaAretz, which we passed through to explore it, is a tovah haaretz me’od me’od.
8 If Hashem delight in us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land zavat cholov udevash.
9 Only rebel not ye against Hashem, neither fear ye the Am HaAretz; for they are lachmeinu (our bread): their protection is departed from them, and Hashem is with us: fear them not.
10 But Kol HaEdah talked of stoning them with avanim. And the Kavod Hashem appeared in the Ohel Mo’ed before Kol Bnei Yisroel.
11 And Hashem said unto Moshe, How long will this people treat Me with contempt? And how long will it be until they believe in Me, for all the otot which I have performed among them?
12 I will strike them down with dever (pestilence), and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.
13 And Moshe said unto Hashem, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for Thou broughtest up this people in Thy ko’ach [might] from among them;)
14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land; for they have heard that Thou Hashem art among this people, that Thou Hashem art seen eye to eye, and that Thy Anan standeth over them, and that Thou goest before them, by day in an Ammud Anan, and in an Ammud Eish by night.
15 Now if Thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the Goyim which have heard the fame of Thee will speak, saying,
16 Because Hashem was not able to bring this people into HaAretz which He promised them by oath, therefore He hath slaughtered (shachat) them in the midbar.
17 And now, I beseech thee, let the Ko’ach Adonoi be great, according as Thou hast spoken, saying,
18 Hashem is slow of anger, and of rav chesed, forgiving avon and peysha, and by no means exonerating the guilty, visiting the avon of the avot upon the banim unto the third and fourth generation.
19 Selach (forgive!), I beseech thee, the avon of this people according unto the greatness of Thy chesed, just as Thou hast forgiven this people, from Mitzrayim even until now.
20 And Hashem said, I have pardoned according to thy word [of petition]:
21 But as surely as I live, Kol HaAretz (all the Earth) shall be filled with the Kavod Hashem.
22 Because all those men which have seen My kavod, and My otot (miraculous signs), which I performed in Mitzrayim and in the midbar, and have tested Me now these ten times, and have not paid heed to My voice;
23 Surely they shall not see HaAretz which I swore unto their avot, neither shall any of them that treated Me with contempt see it:
24 But Avdi Kalev, because he hath a ruach acheret in him, and hath followed after Me fully, him will I bring into HaAretz whereinto he went; and his zera shall inherit it.
25 (Now the Amaleki and the Kena’ani dwelt in the valley.) Tomorrow turn and get you into the midbar by the way of the Yam Suph.
26 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe and unto Aharon, saying,
27 How long shall I bear with this Edah Hara’ah, which murmur against Me? I have heard the murmurings of the Bnei Yisroel, which they murmur against Me.
28 Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith Hashem, as ye have spoken in Mine ears, so will I do to you:
29 Your corpses shall fall in this midbar; and all that were numbered of you, according to your entire mispar (number, census), from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against Me.
30 Not one of you shall come into HaAretz, concerning which I swore to make you dwell therein, except for Kalev ben Yephunneh, and Yehoshua ben Nun.
31 But your little ones, which ye said would be plunder, them will I bring in, and they shall know HaAretz which ye have rejected.
32 But as for you, your corpses, they shall fall in this midbar.
33 And your banim shall wander [wandering ro’im] in the midbar arba’im shanah, and bear [the penalty of] your whoredoms [zenut, spiritual disloyalty and rebellion], until the last of your corpses lies in the midbar.
34 After the number of the days in which ye explored HaAretz, even arba’im, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even arba’im shanah, and ye shall know My Tenu’a (Opposition).
35 I, Hashem, have spoken, I will surely do it unto this Kol HaEdah, that are gathered together against Me: in this midbar they shall come to an end, and there they shall die.
36 And the anashim, which Moshe sent to spy out the land, who returned, and made Kol HaEdah to murmur against him, the ones spreading a dibbah (bad report, slander) about HaAretz,
37 Even those anashim that did bring up the evil report of HaAretz, died by the maggefah before Hashem.
38 But Yehoshua ben Nun, and Kalev ben Yephunneh survived of the anashim that went to explore HaAretz.
39 And Moshe told these sayings unto Kol Bnei Yisroel: and HaAm mourned greatly.
40 And they rose up early in the boker, and went up into the height of the hill country, saying, Behold, we are here, and will go up unto the place which Hashem hath promised: for we have sinned.
41 And Moshe said, Why now do ye transgress the utterance of Hashem? This will not succeed.
42 Go not up, for Hashem is not among you; that ye be not struck down before your enemies.
43 For the Amaleki and the Kena’ani are there before you, and ye shall fall by the cherev: because ye are turned away from Hashem, therefore Hashem will not be with you.
44 But they presumed to go up unto the ridge of the mountain: nevertheless the Aron Brit Hashem, and Moshe, departed not out of the machaneh.
45 Then the Amaleki came down, and the Kena’ani which dwelt in that hill country, and struck them down, and put them to rout, even unto Chormah.
15:1 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
2 Speak unto the Bnei Yisroel, and say unto them, When ye be enter into Eretz Moshevoteichem (Land of your Homes), which I give unto you,
3 And will make an offering by eish unto Hashem, an olah or a zevach in performing a neder, or in a nedvah or in your mo’adim, to make a re’ach nichoach unto Hashem, of the herd or of the flock;
4 Then shall he that offereth his korban unto Hashem bring a minchah of a tenth ephah of flour mixed with the fourth part of a hin of shemen.
5 And the fourth part of a hin of yayin for a nesekh shalt thou prepare with the olah (burnt offering) or zevach, for one keves (lamb).
6 Or for a ram, thou shalt prepare for a minchah twotenths ephah of flour mixed with the third part of a hin of shemen.
7 And for a nesekh thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of yayin, for a re’ach nichoach unto Hashem.
8 And when thou preparest a bull for an olah (burnt offering), or for a zevach in fulfilling a vow, or shelamim unto Hashem:
9 Then shall he bring with a bull a minchah of three-tenths ephah of flour mixed with half a hin of shemen.
10 And thou shalt bring for a nesekh half a hin of yayin, for an offering made by eish, a re’ach nichoach unto Hashem.
11 Thus shall it be done for one bull, or for one ram, or for a seh from the lambs, or from the goats.
12 According to the number that ye shall prepare, so shall ye do to every one according to their mispar.
13 All that are native-born shall do these things after this manner, in offering an offering made by eish, of a re’ach nichoach unto Hashem.
14 And if a ger stays temporarily with you, or whosoever be among you in your derot, and will offer an offering made by eish, of a re’ach nichoach unto Hashem; as ye do, so he shall do.
15 One chukkah shall be both for you of the Kahal, and also for the ger that sojourneth with you, a chukkat olam in your derot; as ye are, so shall the ger be before Hashem.
16 One torah and one mishpat shall be for you, and for the ger that sojourneth with you.
17 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
18 Speak unto the Bnei Yisroel, and say unto them, When ye come into HaAretz whither I bring you,
19 Then it shall be, that, when ye eat of the lechem HaAretz, ye shall offer up a terumah unto Hashem.
20 Ye shall offer up a challah (loaf, cake) of the first of your kneading for a terumah; as ye do the terumat goren (gift of the threshing floor), so shall ye set it aside.
21 Of the first of your kneading ye shall give unto Hashem a terumah in your derot.
22 And if ye have sinned unintentionally, and not observed all these mitzvot, which Hashem hath spoken unto Moshe,
23 Even all that Hashem hath commanded you by the hand of Moshe, from the day that Hashem commanded Moshe, and henceforward among your derot;
24 Then it shall be, if it be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of HaEdah, that Kol HaEdah shall offer one young bull for an olah, for a re’ach nichoach unto Hashem, with its minchah, and its nesekh, according to the mishpat, and one kid of the goats for a chattat.
25 And the kohen shall make kapporah for Kol Adat Bnei Yisroel and it shall be forgiven them; for it is shegagah (inadvertence); and they shall bring their korban, a sacrifice made by eish unto Hashem, and their chattat before Hashem, for their shegagah;
26 And it shall be forgiven Kol Adat Bnei Yisroel, and the ger that sojourneth among them; seeing Kol HaAm were in shegagah.
27 And if any nefesh sin through shegagah, then he shall bring a she-goat of the first year for a chattat.
28 And the kohen shall make kapporah for the nefesh that was inadvertant, since he sinneth by shegagah before Hashem, to make kapporah for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
29 Ye shall have one torah for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the Bnei Yisroel, and for the ger that sojourneth among them.
30 But the nefesh that sinneth with a yad ramah (high hand, defiantly), whether he be born in the land, or a ger, the same blasphemes Hashem; and that nefesh shall be cut off from among his people.
31 Because he hath despised the Devar Hashem, and hath broken His mitzvah, that nefesh shall utterly be cut off; his avon shall be upon him.
32 And while the Bnei Yisroel were in the midbar, they found a man that gathered sticks on Shabbos.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moshe and Aharon, and unto Kol HaEdah.
34 And they put him under custody, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And Hashem said unto Moshe, The man shall be surely put to death; Kol HaEdah shall stone him with avanim outside the machaneh.
36 And Kol HaEdah brought him outside the machaneh, and stoned him with avanim, and he died; as Hashem commanded Moshe.
37 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,
38 Speak unto the Bnei Yisroel, and bid them that they make them tzitzis on the corners of their garments throughout their derot, and that they put upon the tzitzis of the corners a thread of turquoise wool;
39 And it shall be unto you for a tzitzit, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the mitzvot Hashem, and do them; and that ye follow not after your own lev and your own eyes, after which ye used to go a-whoring:
40 That ye may remember, and do all My mitzvot, and be kadoshim unto Eloheichem.
41 I am Hashem Eloheichem, Who brought you out of Eretz Mitzrayim, to be for you Elohim: I am Hashem Eloheichem.)
Today's Laws and Customs:
Ethics: Chapter 2
During the summer months, from the Shabbat after Passover until the Shabbat before Rosh Hashahah, we study a weekly chapter of the Talmud's Ethics of the Fathers ("Avot") each Shabbat afternoon; this week we study Chapter Two.
Link: Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 2
Today's Study:
Chumash with Rashi Parshat Shlach, 7th Portion (Numbers 15:27-15:41)
Chapter 15
27. But if an individual sins inadvertently, he shall offer up a she goat in its first year as a sin offering. כז. וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה וְהִקְרִיבָה עֵז בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ לְחַטָּאת:
sins inadvertently: By worshipping idols. - [Sifrei Shelach 41]
תחטא בשגגה: בעבודה זרה:
she-goat in its first year: For any other transgression an individual could bring [either] a ewe-lamb or a young she-goat, but in this case Scripture designates a she-goat for it. - [Sifrei Shelach 40]
עז בת שנתה: שאר עבירות יחיד מביא כשבה או שעירה ובזו קבע לה שעירה:
28. And the kohen shall atone for the erring soul which sinned inadvertently before the Lord, so as to atone on his behalf, and it shall be forgiven him. כח. וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו וְנִסְלַח לוֹ:
29. One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently from the native born of the children of Israel and the proselyte who resides among them. כט. הָאֶזְרָח בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה:
30. But if a person should act highhandedly, whether he is a native born or a proselyte, he is blaspheming the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among its people. ל. וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה | בְּיָד רָמָה מִן הָאֶזְרָח וּמִן הַגֵּר אֶת יְהֹוָה הוּא מְגַדֵּף וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּהּ:
highhandedly: Intentionally. — [Jonathan ben Uzziel, Onkelos (See Mechokekei Yehudah)]
ביד רמה: במזיד:
is blaspheming: Heb. מְגַדֵּף, reviles (מְחָרֵף), as in“it shall be a reproach (חֶרְפָּה) and a taunt (וּגְדוּפָה) ” (Ezek. 5: 15);“which the servants of the King of Assyria have blasphemed (גִּדְפוּ)” (Is. 37:6). Furthermore, our Sages (Ker. 7b) derived from here that someone who blasphemes [lit., blesses] the Name [of God] is subject to spiritual excision.
מגדף: מחרף, כמו (יחזקאל ה, טו) והיתה חרפה וגדופה, (ישעיה לז, ו) אשר גדפו נערי מלך אשור. עוד דרשו רבותינו מכאן למברך את השם שהוא בכרת:
31. For he has scorned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off for its iniquity is upon it. לא. כִּי דְבַר יְהֹוָה בָּזָה וְאֶת מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר הִכָּרֵת | תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא עֲו‍ֹנָה בָהּ:
the word of the Lord: The warning against idolatry was [heard directly] by the word of the Divine; the rest was by the word of Moses. - [Hor. 8a]
דבר ה': אזהרת עבודה זרה מפי הגבורה, והשאר מפי משה:
its iniquity is upon it: During the time the iniquity is with him, namely, if he has not repented. — [Sanh. 90b, Sifrei Shelach 51]
עונה בה: בזמן שעונה בה שלא עשה תשובה:
32. When the children of Israel were in the desert, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. לב. וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מְקשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת:
[When the children of Israel] were in the desert, they found: Scripture speaks disparagingly of Israel, for they had kept only one Sabbath, yet on the second one, this man came and desecrated it. — [Sifrei Shelach 52]
ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו: בגנותן של ישראל דבר הכתוב, שלא שמרו אלא שבת ראשונה, ובשניה בא זה וחללה:
33. Those who found him gathering wood presented him before Moses and Aaron and before the entire congregation. לג. וַיַּקְרִיבוּ אֹתוֹ הַמֹּצְאִים אֹתוֹ מְקשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל כָּל הָעֵדָה:
Those who found him gathering: [This redundant clause means to say that] they warned him, but he did not stop gathering even after they found him and warned him. — [Sanh. 90a, Sifrei Shelach 55]
המצאים אתו מקושש: שהתרו בו ולא הניח מלקושש אף משמצאוהו והתרו בו:
34. They put him under guard, since it was not specified what was to be done to him. לד. וַיַּנִּיחוּ אֹתוֹ בַּמִּשְׁמָר כִּי לֹא פֹרַשׁ מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ:
since it was not specified what was to be done to him: With which method he should be executed. But they did know that one who desecrates the Sabbath is put to death. — [Sifrei Shelach 57]
 
כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו: לא היו יודעים באיזו מיתה ימות, אבל יודעים היו שהמחלל שבת במיתה:
35. The Lord said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; the entire congregation shall pelt him with stones outside the camp. לה. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה מוֹת יוּמַת הָאִישׁ רָגוֹם אֹתוֹ בָאֲבָנִים כָּל הָעֵדָה מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה:
pelt: Heb. רָגוֹם, ‘doing,’ [which] in French [is], faisant. Similarly, ‘going,’ in old French, allant. Likewise, זָכוֹר, remember, (Exod. 20:8), and שָׁמוֹר, keep (Deut. 5:12)
רגום: כמו עשה פיישנ"ט בלע"ז [בעשות] וכן הלוך אלנ"ט [בהלוך] וכן כור ושמור:
36. So the entire congregation took him outside the camp, and they pelted him to death with stones, as the Lord had commanded Moses. לו. וַיֹּצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל הָעֵדָה אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתוֹ בָּאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
took him outside: From here we derive that the place of stoning was outside, and distant from the courthouse. — [Sifrei Shelach 59]
ויציאו אותו: מכאן שבית הסקילה חוץ ורחוק מבית דין:
37. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: לז. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
38. Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them that they shall make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall affix a thread of sky blue [wool] on the fringe of each corner. לח. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת:
that they shall make for themselves fringes: Heb. צִיצִת, [so named] because of the threads suspended from it, as in,“he took me by a lock of (בְּצִיצִת) my hair (lit., by the fringes of my head)” (Ezek. 8:3) (Men. 42a). Another interpretation: [It is called] צִיצִת because of the [command], “you shall see it” (verse 39), as in,“peering (מֵצִיץ) from the lattices” (Song 2:9).
ועשו להם ציצת: על שם הפתילים התלוים בה, כמו (יחזקאל ח, ג) ויקחני בציצית ראשי. דבר אחר ציצית על שם וראיתם אותו, כמו (שה"ש ב, ט) מציץ מן החרכים:
blue: The green-blue dye obtained from the chillazon [See Aruch Hashalem under חִלָּזוֹן, Yehudah Feliks, Nature & Man in the Bible (New York: Soncino Press, 1981, pp. 18-20].
תכלת: צבע ירוק של חלזון:
39. This shall be fringes for you, and when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the Lord to perform them, and you shall not wander after your hearts and after your eyes after which you are going astray. לט. וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹת יְהֹוָה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם:
you will remember all the commandments of the Lord: because the numerical value of the word צִיצִית is six hundred (צ = 90, י = 10, צ = 90, י = 10, ת = 400). [Add to this the] eight threads and five knots, and we have [a total of] six hundred and thirteen [the number of commandments in the Torah]. - [Num. Rabbah 18:21]
וזכרתם את כל מצות ה': שמנין גימטריא של ציצית שש מאות, ושמונה חוטים וחמשה קשרים הרי תרי"ג:
and you shall not wander after your hearts: Heb. וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ, like“from scouting (מִּתּוּר) the Land” (13:25). The heart and eyes are the spies for the body. They are its agents for sinning: the eye sees, the heart covets and the body commits the transgression. - [Mid. Tanchuma 15]
ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם: כמו (לעיל יג כה) מתור הארץ. הלב והעינים הם מרגלים לגוף ומסרסרים לו את העבירות, העין רואה והלב חומד והגוף עושה את העבירות:
40. So that you shall remember and perform all My commandments and you shall be holy to your God. מ. לְמַעַן תִּזְכְּרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת כָּל מִצְו‍ֹתָי וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם:
41. I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your God; I am the Lord, your God. מא. אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
I am the Lord: Faithful to pay reward. — [Sifrei Shelach 75]
אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר:
your God: Faithful to exact punishment. — [Sifrei Shelach 75]
אלהיכם: נאמן ליפרע:
Who took you out: I redeemed you on condition you accept My decrees upon yourselves. - [Sifrei Shelach 73]
אשר הוצאתי אתכם: על מנת כן פדיתי אתכם שתקבלו עליכם גזרותי:
I am the Lord, your God: Why is this repeated? So that the Israelites should not say, “Why did the Omnipresent say this? Was it not so that we should perform [the commandments] and receive reward? We will not perform [them] and not receive reward!” [Therefore, God says,] “I am your King, even against your will.” Similarly, it says, “[As I live, says the Lord God,] surely with a strong hand…will I reign over you” (Ezek. 20:33). Another interpretation: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned? It was I who distinguished between the drop [of sperm] of a firstborn and of that which was not of a firstborn. So in future will I distinguish and punish those who attach indigo-dyed [fringes, which is extracted from a vegetable] to their garments, claiming that it is sky-blue [dye extracted from the chillazon]. - [B.M. 61b] From the commentary of R. Moshe Hadarshan [the preacher] I transcribed [the following:] Why is the passage of the wood gatherer juxtaposed with the passage addressing idolatry? To inform [you] that one who desecrates the Sabbath is regarded as one who worships idols, for it [namely the Sabbath] too [just like the prohibition against idolatry] is as important as [the sum of] all the commandments. So Scripture says in Ezra (Neh. 9:13-14, which is strictly part of Ezra. See Rashi on Neh. 1:1), “You descended upon Mount Sinai… and you gave Your people the Law and the commandments (sic). And Your holy Sabbath You made known to them.” Likewise, the passage of fringes; why is it juxtaposed with these two [passages]? Since it too is equally important as [the sum of] all the commandments, as it states, “and perform all My commandments.”
אני ה' אלהיכם: עוד למה נאמר, כדי שלא יאמרו ישראל מפני מה אמר המקום, לא שנעשה ונטול שכר, אנו לא עושים ולא נוטלים שכר, על כרחכם אני מלככם. וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל כ, לג) אם לא ביד חזקה וגו' אמלוך עליכם. דבר אחר למה נאמר יציאת מצרים, אני הוא שהבחנתי במצרים בין טפה של בכור לשאינה של בכור, אני הוא עתיד להבחין ולהפרע מן התולה קלא אילן בבגדו ואומר תכלת הוא. ומיסודו של רבי משה הדרשן העתקתי למה נסמכה פרשת מקושש לפרשת עבודה זרה, לומר שהמחלל את השבת כעובד עבודה זרה, שאף היא שקולה ככל המצות, וכן הוא אומר בעזרא (נחמי' ט, יג - טו) ועל הר סיני ירדת ותתן לעמך תורה ומצות ואת שבת קדשך הודעת להם, ואף פרשת ציצית לכך נסמכה לאלו לפי שאף היא שקולה כנגד כל המצות, שנאמר ועשיתם את כל מצותי:
on the corners of their garments: Corresponding to [the verse said in connection with the exodus from Egypt]“I carried you on the wings (כַּנְפֵי) of eagles” (Exod. 19:4). On the four corners, but not on a garment of three or five [corners]. [This] corresponds to the four expressions of redemption that were said in Egypt:“I will take you out…I will save you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exod. 6:6-7). - [Mid. Aggadah]
על כנפי בגדיהם: כנגד (שמות יט, ד) ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים. על ארבע כנפות ולא בעלת שלש ולא בעלת חמש, כנגד ארבע לשונות של גאולה שנאמר במצרים (שמות ו, ו - ז) והוצאתי והצלתי וגאלתי ולקחתי:
a thread of sky-blue [wool]: Heb. פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, so called because of the bereavement [suffered by the Egyptians] over the loss of their firstborn. The Aramaic translation of שִׁכּוּל, bereavement, is תִּכְלָא [a word similar to תְּכֵלֶת]. Moreover, the plague struck them at night, and the color of תְּכֵלֶת is similar to the color of the sky, which blackens at dusk; its eight threads symbolize the eight days that Israel waited from when they left Egypt until they sang the song at the [Red] Sea. - [Mid. Aggadah]
פתיל תכלת: על שם שכול בכורות. תרגומו של שכול תכלא. ומכתם היתה בלילה וכן צבע התכלת דומה לצבע רקיע המשחיר לעת ערב. ושמונה חוטים שבה, כנגד שמונה ימים ששהו ישראל משיצאו ממצרים עד שאמרו שירה על הים:
-------
Tehillim Psalms Chapters 79-82
Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.

8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
-------
Tanya Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 5
Lessons in Tanya:
Today in Tanya:
Shabbat, 16 Sivan 5774 - June 14, 2014
Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 5
Thanks to G‑d’s attribute of Gevurah and His capacity for tzimtzum — so the Alter Rebbe explained in the foregoing chapter — created beings live in the illusion that they possess an independent and tangible existence: they are unaware of the Divine life-force continuously found within them.
Being thus insensitive to the force that animates them, they are able to think of themselves as existing independently of their source. They fail to perceive that in truth they are but a diffusion of the rays of their source, like the diffusion of the sun’s rays as they are found within the sun.
והנה על זה אמרו רז״ל
Concerning this i.e., concerning the concept that all of creation came about through the process of tzimtzum, which enables created beings to believe that they enjoy an independent form of existence, our Sages, of blessed memory, said:1
בתחלה עלה במחשבה לברוא את העולם במדת הדין
“Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment, through the attribute of tzimtzum and Gevurah;
ראה שאין העולם מתקיים
He saw, however, that in this manner the world could not endure,
שתף בו מדת רחמים
so He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation].“
At first glance this is incomprehensible: G‑d “desires to act with goodness,” to treat His creatures benevolently. Why, then, did He first plan to create the world through the attribute of strict justice?
According to what has been explained above, this is entirely understandable: In order for created beings to believe that they possess independent existence there must be the process of tzimtzum, which is an expression of the stern attribute of Gevurah. Without it, all of creation would be completely nullified within its source.
G‑d, however, desired that created beings maintain that they possess independent existence, in order for them to be able to serve Him and ultimately be rewarded for their service. Thus, it is specifically Gevurah and tzimtzum that enable them to realize the ultimate purpose of creation.
The original plan for creation, therefore, was that it should be dominated by the attribute of stern judgment. When, however, G‑d saw that if He created the world in this manner it could not endure, He tempered it by the attribute of mercy.
Why, indeed, would the world not be able to endure otherwise? — Because if creation had come about under such auspices alone, the life-force of holiness would have been utterly hidden. Accordingly, the spiritual task of revealing G‑dliness in such a world would have been inordinately arduous. G‑d therefore involved the attribute of mercy in the creation of the world, so that holiness and G‑dliness could be revealed within it.
דהיינו: התגלות אלקות על ידי צדיקים, ואותות ומופתים שבתורה
That is, i.e., “He combined with it the attribute of mercy” means: the revelation within the world of G‑dliness and of supernatural power through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles recorded in the Torah.
It was stated in the previous chapter that both the expansive and creative attribute of Chesed and the concealing and constrictive attribute of Gevurah transcend the grasp of created beings. Here the Alter Rebbe adds that these attributes transcend even the comprehension of those souls that proceed from the level of Atzilut. Even so lofty a soul as Moses‘, which is a soul of the World of Atzilut, cannot fathom the Supernal attributes which are One with G‑d Himself.
והנה על זה אמרו בזהר, דלעילא, בסטרא דקדושה עילאה, אית ימינא ואית שמאלא, דהיינו חסד וגבורה
Regarding this, i.e., regarding the fact that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah transcend intellect, it was stated in the Zohar:2 “Above, in the ‘Side of Supernal Holiness,’ i.e., in the World of Atzilut, which is far superior to the three lower Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, there is right and left,” namely, Chesed and Gevurah.
פירוש: דשתיהן הן מדות אלקות למעלה משכל הנבראים והשגתם
This statement was surely not written simply to inform us that Chesed and Gevurah exist, for this is already well-known; rather: This means that both — Gevurah as well as Chesed — are attributes of G‑dliness that transcend the intellect and comprehension of created beings,
The fact that they are Supernal attributes also helps us understand how they are able to combine, when by definition they are opposites. Within the “Side of Supernal Holiness” there is no dissonance, G‑d forbid, for all its components are complementary and integrated. At that level, Chesed and Gevurah, though opposed by nature, coexist and conjoin as “two opposites within a unity.” This is possible because of their complete and total union with G‑d.
דאיהו וגרמוהי חד בעולם האצילות
for3 “He and His attributes are One in the World of Atzilut,” both Chesed and Gevurah being thus wholly united with Him.
ואף השגת משה רבינו עליו השלום בנבואתו לא היתה בעולם האצילות
Even the comprehension of Moses our Teacher (peace unto him) in his prophetic vision did not extend to the World of Atzilut itself,
אלא על ידי התלבשותו בעולם הבריאה
except through its being clothed in the World of Beriah;
ואף גם זאת, לא בשתי מדות אלו, חסד וגבורה
and even then, [his comprehension of the World of Atzilut did] not [extend] to these two attributes, viz., Chesed and Gevurah,4
אלא על ידי התלבשותן במדות שלמטה מהן במדרגה, שהן מדות נצח הוד יסוד
but only insofar as they were previously clothed in attributes which are of lower levels than themselves, viz., the attributes of Netzach (“victory”, “eternity”), Hod (“splendor”), and Yesod (“foundation”), the attribute of Netzach being merely an offshoot of Chesed, and Hod an offshoot of Gevurah, so that through them Chesed and Gevurah percolate down into Yesod, which in turn transmits its influence to yet lower levels.
(כמו שכתוב בשער הנבואה)
(5as is explained in Shaar HaNevuah) concerning the level of Moses‘ prophecy.
רק שמתן שכרם של צדיקים בגן עדן הוא השגת התפשטות החיות ואור, הנמשך משתי מדות אלו, חסד וגבורה
It is only the tzaddikim in Gan Eden who are granted the reward of comprehending the spreading forth of the life-force and light which issues from these two attributes, Chesed and Gevurah.
והוא מזון נשמות הצדיקים שעסקו בתורה לשמה בעולם הזה
This comprehension of the spreading forth of life-force and light which issues from these two attributes is the “food” of the souls of the tzaddikim who, in this world, engaged in the study of Torah for its own sake.
כי מהתפשטות שתי מדות אלו, נמתח רקיע על הנשמות שבגן עדן
For from the diffusion of these two attributes, a firmament i.e., an or makkif, a transcendental (lit., “encompassing”) degree of illumination is spread over the souls in Gan Eden, and it is this firmament that empowers them to receive this diffusion.
ורקיע זה נקרא רזא דאורייתא
This firmament is called Raza deOrayta (“the secret of the Torah”); i.e., the mystical dimension of the Torah.
ובו סוד כ״ב אותיות התורה, הנתונה משתי מדות אלו
Within this firmament is the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah (which derive from an even higher level than the rational and comprehensible aspect of the Torah), which was given as an expression of these two attributes,
כדכתיב: מימינו אש דת למו
as it is written,6 “From His right hand [He gave] unto them a fiery Law.” The “right hand” represents Chesed, while “fiery” alludes to the element of Gevurah that is present in the Torah.
ומרקיע זה נוטף טל למזון הנשמות
From this firmament, from this transcendental illumination, drops dew, symbolic of the esoteric insights of the Torah, as food for the souls,
I.e., an or pnimi, a degree of illumination that can be internalized and comprehended, issues forth from the firmament. Being comprehensible, this level of perception is likened to food, which is ingested internally.
דהיינו ידיעת סוד כ״ב אותיות התורה
i.e., a knowledge of the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah.
כי הרקיע הזה הוא סוד הדעת
For this firmament is the secret and level of knowledge (Daat), and the “dew” that issues forth from it is the knowledge of the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah,
והתורה היא מזון הנשמות בגן עדן, והמצות הן לבושים
and the Torah is the “food” of the souls in Gan Eden, and the commandments are [their] “garments”,
כמבואר כל זה (בזהר ויקהל דף ר״ט ור״י, ובעץ חיים שער מ״ד פרק ג׳)
as all this is explained (7in Zohar, Vayakhel, pp. 209-210, and in Etz Chayim, Shaar 44, ch. 3).
We thus see that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah of the World of Atzilut transcend not only the comprehension of created beings, but even souls of the level of Atzilut cannot comprehend them. Only as a reward are the souls in Gan Eden enabled to comprehend a mere diffusion of these two attributes.
Commentary of the Rebbe on End of Chapter Four and Chapter Five
...The entire fifth chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah as well as the conclusion of the fourth chapter do not at all appear to advance our understanding of the concept of Divine Unity.
Ch. 4 concludes by explaining that the life-force is termed or (“light”) and the tzimtzum is termed kelim (“vessels”). It goes on to state that the kelim originate from the five consonants מנצפ"ך, and that they have an additional, even higher source: Gevurah of Atik. Correspondingly, Chesed of Atik is the source of the attribute of Chesed [of Atzilut].
At first glance, these seem to be strictly kabbalistic concepts that have absolutely no bearing on our understanding of Divine Unity, especially as the Alter Rebbe endeavors to explain it in a manner that will make it “very near to you.”
(Although the conclusion of ch. 4 is enclosed in brackets, the Alter Rebbe nevertheless chose to incorporate it in the body of Tanya rather than relegating it to a marginal note (as with many comments in the first part of the book, as well as in the second part8). This indicates that even the bracketed text must be directly related to the general theme of this work.)
The same question applies to the whole of the fifth chapter: it deals throughout with matters that seemingly have no connection with the concept of Divine Unity. The Alter Rebbe first explains a Midrash, then the level of Moses‘ apprehension of Divinity, and finally the level of Gan Eden. Since none of this seems to be related to Divine Unity, why did the Alter Rebbe include it in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah?
It is indeed true that many subjects obliquely alluded to in Tanya are not directly related in their simple context to making its stated goal “very near,” nor do they appear to be directly related to the subject of “Unity and Faith.” (Witness the many points quoted from Tanya and explained in various chassidic discourses at length, whereas in Tanya itself they are only hinted at.)
Nevertheless, these are matters which are only alluded to obliquely. Those topics, however, that are plain for all to see, must clearly be connected to the overall theme of the book.
This is similar to the written Torah in general, and especially according to the commentary of Rashi on the Chumash. Although many interpretations are alluded to there on the homiletical and mystical levels of Remez, Derush and Sod, it is nevertheless a principle sanctioned by law that in the revealed context “a verse does not depart from its plain meaning.” And it is this Pshat, this plain or literal meaning, that the commentary of Rashi seeks to explain.
The same is true of Tanya, which is the Written Torah of Chassidut. Although all aspects of Torah are to be found within it, it always retains its simple meaning (as Pshat is to be understood in the context of the esoteric dimension of Torah).
Hence all subjects appearing in Tanya must be connected with the general theme of the book. They must all be “very nigh”; they must all explain “Unity and Faith”; and they must do so in a manner that enables one to “train a child” in them all. Those subjects that do not meet these criteria never found their way into Tanya. In the words of the Rebbe Rashab, of blessed memory,9 “Tanya is like the Chumash..., which is understood.”
Accordingly, it is very difficult to understand how the topics discussed at the conclusion of ch. 4 and throughout ch. 5 found a place in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah. We must therefore say that they deepen our understanding of the theme of Unity, as shall soon be explained.
* * *
The first chapter of this book explains how each individual created being has within it letters of the Ten Divine Utterances, which continuously create it and provide it with life.
The third chapter goes on to explain that since these creative letters are constantly found within the created being, it is always in a state of absorption within them, similar to the light of the sun within the sun-globe. The created being is thus completely nullified out of existence.
The reason that the created being perceives itself as possessing independent existence is explained by the Alter Rebbe in the fourth chapter. Only because of the tzimtzum, by which G‑d conceals and contracts His life-force so that the created being should not be aware of it, does that being appear — and perceive itself — to be a separate entity. “If, however, the eye were permitted to see..., then the physicality, materiality and tangibility of the creature would not be seen by our eyes at all.”
However, this does not suffice. Although it is true that G‑d caused this concealment, yet man, as an intelligent being, should surely use his mind’s eye to see through the concealment; his understanding should inevitably lead him to the realization and the sensation that he is completely nullified within his source.
The Alter Rebbe answers this question by stating (in ch. 3) that a created being feels that he exists because “we do not comprehend nor see with our physical eyes the power of G‑d and the ‘breath of His mouth’ which is in the created thing.” Thus it is man’s very corporeality that blinds him to the Divine life-force contained within every created being.
This whole subject as explained until the end of the fourth chapter poses numerous difficulties regarding fundamental aspects of Divine Unity. And without the explanations furnished at the end of the fourth chapter and the whole of the fifth chapter these questions cannot be answered.
* * *
The following are the questions:
(a) Each creature is animated by different letters from among the Ten Utterances, for, as explained in ch. 1, the life-force descends through numerous combinations and substitutions of these Divine creative letters until it is clothed in each particular creature. It would therefore seem that there exists (G‑d forbid) a multiplicity of G‑dliness, with the number of letters equalling the number of creatures. In fact, the multitude of letters is even greater than the number of created beings, for, as explained in ch. 1, many letters are invested within each creature. This seeming multitude of G‑dliness would appear to be the very antithesis of Divine Unity.
Moreover, the above question specifically arises out of the Alter Rebbe’s explanation!
There are those who mistakenly understood the doctrine of tzimtzum in a literal sense, as if G‑d actually removed His Presence from this world. If we were to assume their view then there would be no problem, for we could then say (as they do) the following: G‑d is indeed a complete Unity, but his relation to the proliferation in the created universe is that of a king who sits in his palace and gazes at a garbage heap outside.
However, according to the explanation in Tanya — that “Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands firm in the heavens,” i.e., that letters of the Ten Utterances are clothed within each individual creature — there arises the question: how can there possibly be a multiplicity in G‑dliness?
We cannot answer that the multiplicity results from the attribute of Gevurah of the Divine Name Elokim. For as explained in ch. 4 (until the bracketed ending), the tzimtzum which comes from the Name Elokim adds nothing to creation itself: it merely acts as a barrier and concealment so that the life-force will not be felt by the created being. (This prevents the creature from being wholly nullified within its source, enabling it instead to feel its own separate and distinct existence.) The life-force itself emanates strictly from the utterance of the Divine Name Havayah. (This is also why in ch. 3 the Alter Rebbe likens the created being to the sun’s rays, and the life-force to the sun itself — for the source of the life-force within the creature (i.e., the letters) is the “sun” of Havayah.)
It would thus seem that the multiplicity in the universe does not result from the Name Elokim, a name which utilizes the plural form, but from the Name Havayah itself. This would seem to imply that in Havayah as well there is multiplicity. This prompts the question: “How many suns (Divine Presences) are there?” [Cf. Likutei Amarim, end of ch. 35.]
(b) According to the Alter Rebbe’s explanation, created beings are in reality found within their source. They perceive themselves as existing separately from it merely because of the concealment of the tzimtzum; in reality, however, they are G‑dliness. Therefore, “if the eye were permitted to see,” we would perceive that they are G‑dly.
This gives rise to a cataclysmic question regarding the entire essence of Torah and mitzvot.
The purpose of Torah and mitzvot is to draw down G‑dliness into the physical substances with which the mitzvot are performed. This is what is meant by the teaching that only by performing a mitzvah does the physical object become holy. Indeed, this concept is implicit in the recitation of blessings before the performance of mitzvot, for the Hebrew word for blessing (ברכה) implies the drawing down of G‑dliness within the object with which the mitzvah is performed.
The mitzvah of tefillin, for example (and so, too, all other mitzvot, all of which are likened to tefillin), is intended to draw down G‑dliness into the physical parchment and ink, etc.
Now, since the parchment is G‑dly (even before the performance of the mitzvah), how is it possible for a mitzvah originating in the “Torah of truth” to imply by its effect (and by its inherent truth) that the parchment is in fact mundane, and only by virtue of what is inscribed on it, and so on, does it begin to become G‑dly? In fact it is G‑dly even before this; it is only the corporeal eyes of man that fail to perceive it to be so.
We mortals fail to perceive the truth. Torah, however, is truth, and its mitzvot are true. How, then, can there possibly be a mitzvah (and the very fact that there is such a mitzvah indicates the truth of the matter) of taking parchment and transforming it into G‑dliness, when in reality it was G‑dly even before it was used for a mitzvah?
This difficulty too springs from the explanation of Tanya. Were we to say that the doctrine of tzimtzum is to be understood (as its erroneous exponents understand it) in its literal sense — as if G‑d literally withdrew His Presence from creation, thereafter gazing upon creation from a distance like the proverbial king through his palace window — then there would be no difficulty.
However, according to the concept of Unity as explained here in Tanya, whereby the King Himself is found in the place of the parchment or whatever, then the difficulty manifests itself. For according to this explanation the place itself and all its aspects are themselves G‑dliness.
If so, what is the meaning of Torah study and performing precepts? What is the point of studying the law that applies to “one who exchanges a cow for a donkey,” what is the point of performing a mitzvah involving parchment and ink, when in reality there is no cow and no donkey, no parchment and no ink, but everything is G‑dliness? What is the significance of Torah and mitzvot?
(c) The question now becomes even greater. The reason we perceive the world to exist as an independent entity is that we view it with “physical eyes,” and “the eye [was not] permitted to see,” and so on; i.e., our tangible corporeality prevents us from beholding the truth.
It would therefore be logical to assume that tzaddikim, inasmuch as they are not hindered by the concealment occasioned by corporeal flesh and inasmuch as they transcend materiality, should be able to perceive the truth — that the world truly does not exist, for everything is G‑dliness alone. Those tzaddikim who are at the level of the World of Yetzirah or Beriah, and surely the truly great tzaddikim who have become a “chariot of Atzilut” (as explained in Likutei Amarim, ch. 39), should not be subject to the restrictions of the concealment. With regard to them the above question becomes even stronger: What is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot for them? Since the G‑dliness manifest in this world is revealed to them, there would seem to be no need for them (G‑d forbid) to perform Torah and mitzvot!
* * *
It was in order to answer all these questions that the Alter Rebbe wrote the end of ch. 4 and the whole of ch. 5, as shall soon be explained.
The Alter Rebbe explains at the conclusion of ch. 4 that the tzimtzum and concealment of life-force is termed kelim (“vessels”), while the life-force itself is called or (“light”). He then goes on to explain that “the kelim are verily the letters.”
This seems to contradict what was explained in the previous chapters. Earlier on, in the first chapter, the Alter Rebbe writes that the letters are the life-force of created beings. Here, however, he says that the life-force is the light, while the letters are the vessels, which contract and conceal the life-force. How is this to be reconciled with his previous statement that the letters are the life-force that reveal, as opposed to the kelim, which conceal?
But in truth, not only is the present statement not a contradiction to what was stated earlier: it is actually an explanation of the previous statement that the letters are the life-force.
The question was raised earlier that since the letters are the life-force of creatures, it would seem that there is a multiplicity of G‑dliness. For since tzimtzum itself is not a party to creation (but only conceals the Creator from the created), the multitude of letters is thus caused not by tzimtzum but by Elokut, by G‑dliness Itself. The question then is: How can there possibly be a multitude of G‑dliness?
The Alter Rebbe answers this in the bracketed text by stating that “the tzimtzum and concealing of the life-force is called kelim.” One of the novel insights contained in this statement is that tzimtzum is an actual entity.
Just as kelim are more than just a concealment of the light, being entities unto themselves, so, too, with regard to the tzimtzum and concealment which are deemed to be kelim; they too are an entity. And it is this entity that brings about the contraction and concealment of the light (just as an actual vessel, being an entity, conceals that which is found within it).
We are now able to understand the multiplicity of letters. The multitudinous letters are not intrinsic to the light itself; they are a result of its passage through the tzimtzum of the kelim.
This is illustrated by the well-known comparison with the sun’s rays that pass through white, green or red glass. The light itself remains simple, unaffected by its passage. However, there is an evident change with regard to its effect; after passing through red glass the light functions as red light, through green glass — as green light, and so forth.
This is what the Alter Rebbe means when he says that “the kelim are verily the letters”; i.e., the shaping of the life-force into letters is not a function of the life-force itself, for “the life-force itself is called or (light)” — and light itself is simple, transcending any particular form or shape. (For light is rooted in the “ ’sun‘ of Havayah,” and in the Name Havayah there can be no multiplicity, heaven forbid, as has been explained earlier.) The letters contained in the life-force result from the kelim, which cause the light clothed in them to be shaped (with regard to their effect).
Accordingly, the second question, regarding the relevance of Torah and mitzvot, is answered as well. Were tzimtzum to be a non-entity and only constitute a state of concealment, its sole purpose being to hide and act as a barrier to the light, then created beings that emerge as a result of this tzimtzum would in reality not exist at all. (It would only seem to corporeal eyes that they enjoy a true state of existence.)
Since tzimtzum does, however, constitute an entity — the entity of kelim, it possesses existence. As such, its effect in concealing is similar to its effect when bringing letters into being.
Regarding the latter, it was explained earlier that the effect of tzimtzum on the light was that it caused it to assume the “shape” of letters, even though the light itself is not affected; its effect exists only in relation to created beings. Thus it is similar to the sun’s rays which do not really change in themselves, although the effect of the colored glass on them is to produce red or green light, and so on.
The same is true with regard to the effect of tzimtzum in concealing the life-force so that it will not be perceived by created beings. The concealment itself is a real entity. It is true that in relation to the light, the tzimtzum does not conceal at all. From the perspective of created beings, however, the tzimtzum is truly an existing entity. It therefore follows that [since they were created through it] they have true tangible existence as well.
* * *
After the Alter Rebbe concludes his explanation that the tzimtzum and concealment of the life-force is termed kelim, which “are verily the letters,” he goes on to add that these letters derive from the five letters מנצפ"ך, which are the “five degrees of Gevurah.” He also states that their source in turn is the supernal Gevurah of Atik Yomin, etc.
What does this have to do with his previous statement that the tzimtzum and concealment is termed kelim, and so on?
By stating the above the Alter Rebbe forestalls a formidable problem: How is it possible for the tzimtzum to conceal the light? If we were to hold that the tzimtzum merely prevents the light from being revealed within creation, then there would be no problem. However, in the bracketed text the Alter Rebbe teaches us a novel concept — that the tzimtzum results from the kelim. Now since they are a separate entity distinct from the light, the question arises: How is it possible for the kelim (a distinct and separate entity from light) to effect a change, as it were, in the light?
The question is even greater: Light is the attribute of Chesed; tzimtzum is the attribute of Gevurah. In the order of the Sefirot, Chesed precedes Gevurah (qualitatively as well). How can Gevurah possibly cause a change in an attribute which is spiritually superior to it?
The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that the root of the letters is the “five degrees of Gevurah that divide and separate the breath and voice....” I.e., the Alter Rebbe is teaching us that the concept of letters is not found only within the Sefirot of Atzilut, but far higher, until ultimately the source of the Gevurot is the “supernal Gevurah of Atik Yomin,” while “correspondingly, the source of [the various levels of Divine] kindness is also Chesed of Atik Yomin.” Thus, both Gevurah and Chesed are rooted in Atik Yomin.
Since both attributes are rooted in Atik Yomin, the meaning of which is “removed (נעתק) and separated from ‘days’ [i.e., the attributes of Atzilut],” it follows that because of their common source they are indeed not opposites: they are one. For, as the Alter Rebbe will soon explain (in chs. 6 and 7), even in Atzilut “He and His attributes are One.” How much more certainly must this be the case insofar as they exist in their source in Atik Yomin, which is far superior to Atzilut. It is therefore possible for the light of Chesed to be modified by the tzimtzum of Gevurah.
* * *
In light of the above, we will understand why the Alter Rebbe opens ch. 5 by quoting the Midrashic statement, “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment.” Since this Midrash does not seem to offer any further explanation of the topic at hand, why quote it at all?
One reason the Alter Rebbe does so is that it enhances our understanding of the entire concept of tzimtzum. This will be understood after several prefatory remarks.
This Midrash is generally thought to be saying that G‑d originally planned that the world be conducted with the attribute of Gevurah, stern judgment. However, when He saw that the world could not endure this, He combined with it the attribute of mercy.
The wording of the Midrash, however, is not “to conduct the world” but “to create the world.” Clearly the Midrash refers to G‑d’s manner of creation — that He had originally planned to create the world solely through the attribute of Gevurah.
The question thus becomes: How is it possible for creation to come about from the attribute of Gevurah, an attribute of tzimtzum? I.e., how is it possible for tzimtzum to bring about creation, when (simplistically) tzimtzum is a non-entity, its function being only to contract and constrain the Divine life-force. How can the non-entity of tzimtzum create?
This serves to prove that tzimtzum is indeed an entity, for as explained previously tzimtzum corresponds to kelim.
This, then, is what the Midrash means when it says, “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment.” G‑d’s initial intention was that creation come about by means of the kelim, through the power of the light vested in them — that creation result from the letters that are formed in the light through its being clothed in kelim.
Accordingly, we will also understand the continuation of this passage — that “He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation]” refers to “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles....” Why must this necessarily be the explanation of the role of the attribute of mercy?
In light of the above, this is clearly understood: Since the “attribute of stern judgment” refers to the letters, we must therefore say that the “attribute of mercy” refers to the light as it transcends the shape of letters. This light finds expression in “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles...”— by effecting a change in the course of nature. (The letters cause each individual creature to have its own characteristics and nature; a change in nature must necessarily derive from the spiritually superior light.)
In explaining that the attribute of mercy refers to “the revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles,” the Alter Rebbe adds the words “recorded in the Torah.” At first glance, it is unclear what this phrase means; does the Alter Rebbe refer specifically to the Written Torah, or is the Oral Torah included as well? Furthermore, the miracles that occurred after the forty-year sojourn of the Jewish people in the desert; that occurred after the first Holy Temple (concluding the events and miracles recorded in the Written Torah); that occurred even after the Talmud (the Oral Torah) had been finally recorded; up to and including the miracles10 “witnessed by our own eyes and not by a stranger,” i.e., the miracles that occurred on the 12th and 13th of Tammuz 5687;11 — all these are “revelations of G‑dliness” emanating from the “attribute of mercy.” Why then does the Alter Rebbe specify the miracles “recorded in the Torah”?
The Alter Rebbe added this phrase in order to answer two very strong questions:
(a) Since the world was created from the letters (for which reason each individual creature has its own character and nature), how is it possible that there be revealed within the world (through signs and miracles that transcend nature) a light which is superior to letters? Inasmuch as the world was created through the letters, one would expect it to be incapable of housing a light that transcends letters, which would still continue to exist as tangible entities.
(b) As mentioned earlier, the Midrash addresses itself not to the manner in which the world is conducted, but to the manner of its creation. G‑d first intended to create the world through the attribute of stern justice. Thereafter — but prior to the actual creation — G‑d combined in it, i.e., within creation, the attribute of mercy. Thus the act of creation is brought about by the attribute of mercy as well as by the attribute of stern judgment.
This leads to the following question:
“The revelation of G‑dliness through the tzaddikim, and through the signs and miracles” took place long after creation. What then does the Midrash mean by stating that “He associated the attribute of mercy in it[s creation],” when this attribute was only revealed long after creation?
It is in order to answer these two questions that the Alter Rebbe adds the words, “recorded in the Torah.” One of the meanings of this phrase is: The G‑dliness that is revealed through tzaddikim and miracles (which emanate from the light that is superior to the letters, as has already been explained), — this too was first recorded in the Torah. It follows that it is found in creation as a whole, inasmuch as creation proceeds from the Ten Utterances recorded in the Torah, as explained above (at the end of the first chapter of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah).
Accordingly, we will also understand why the Midrash states that “Originally it arose in [G‑d’s] thought to create the world through the attribute of stern judgment”; it was only in thought that G‑d considered creating the world solely with the attribute of stern judgement, that is, from the letters themselves bereft of the light that transcends the kelim. When it came to actual creation, however, i.e., when it came to the speaking of the Ten Utterances that brought about creation, these letters were invested with the light that transcends kelim.
Since the letters contain this light, signifying the negation of the tzimtzum of these letters, it is then possible that at the appropriate time — preordained when the Utterances were first spoken — there occur the signs and miracles that signify the negation of the tzimtzum as found below.
Thus, all these miracles were not something that came about later; rather, they emanate from the light and G- dliness that transcend kelim and that were invested within the letters. This degree of G‑dliness is then revealed at a later time through the tzaddikim and through signs and miracles.
This, then, is what is explained here in Tanya — that at the very moment of creation G‑d combined and vested within creation the attribute of mercy; that in the letters of the Ten Utterances which are enclothed within every creature there is invested the light that transcends the kelim, this light to be later revealed through the signs and miracles.
* * *
One question, however, still remains: What of those great tzaddikim who are on the level of a “chariot of Atzilut,” for whom the corporeal eye of created beings does not conceal G‑dliness? How do Torah and mitzvot apply to them? It is concerning this that the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain “the comprehension of Moses our Teacher (peace unto him) in his prophetic vision.”
The above question applies primarily to Moses. His soul was always in a state of total revelation, and not at all concealed by his body, for it was completely penetrated and elevated by his Divine service. For a person such as Moses, for whom there is no concealment of G‑dliness, what is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot?
And with regard to Moses himself, the question stems not so much from his qualities in general as it does from the distinctive nature of “his prophetic vision.” Moses was unique among prophets in that not only his soul, but his very body too was equally a fit receptacle for prophecy. His body was not only able to understand G‑dliness, it could actually perceive the G‑dly prophetic vision. This being so, the question becomes all the more demanding of an answer: What is the meaning of Torah and mitzvot to so lofty an individual as Moses?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by saying: “Even the comprehension of Moses...in his prophetic vision did not extend to the World of Atzilut.” This means to say, that even for an individual as great as Moses the world could be said to exist. True it is that this manner of existence was ever so much higher than our own conception of existence, but existence it was. Torah and mitzvot thus applied to Moses as well, so that he could transform this existence (of his world) into G‑dliness.
Although [Moses was of the World of Atzilut, and] the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah as they exist within Atzilut are G‑dly attributes and wholly at one with G‑d Himself, and thus Gevurah does not conceal Chesed, nevertheless, Moses‘ comprehension “did not extend to the World of Atzilut, except through its being clothed in the World of Beriah.”
This, however, does not suffice. While it is true that Moses‘ comprehension of (the Chesed and Gevurah of) Atzilut extended to the degree that it clothed itself in the World of Beriah, it is only in the World of Beriah that creation first takes place. Moses was therefore able to see in prophetic vision the limitlessness of G‑dliness (as explained in ch. 4). And surely Moses did not behold creation there with corporeal eyes.
G‑d’s Gevurah even after being clothed in Beriah still remains G‑d’s Gevurah. Since Moses was not subject to the concealment inherent in corporeal eyes, he was able to perceive the attribute of Gevurah as clothed in the World of Beriah; he did not perceive a concealing attribute of Gevurah: he perceived a luminous Gevurah. The question thus remains: What was the meaning of Torah and mitzvot for Moses?
The Alter Rebbe answers this by adding that the attributes of Chesed and Gevurah as they were clothed in the World of Beriah were not themselves apprehended by Moses, but “but only insofar as they were clothed in attributes which are of lower levels than themselves, viz., the attributes of Netzach, Hod and Yesod.”
Thus when Moses apprehended Chesed and Gevurah of Atzilut, he apprehended Chesed insofar as it is clothed in Netzach, Gevurah insofar as it is clothed in Hod, and both of them insofar as they are clothed in Yesod. Since his comprehension of Chesed and Gevurah related to them only insofar as they were garbed in the concealing cloak of Netzach, Hod and Yesod, therefore even for Moses the world was endowed with existence. It was, to be sure, a very rarefied form of existence, but it was existence nonetheless. Torah and mitzvot thus applied to him as well.
* * *
According to the above it would seem that within the three lower Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, the comprehension of G‑dliness is an impossibility: all that there can be is G‑dly revelation. This, however, is not the case. For as explained in ch. 39 of Tanya, the distinctive quality of Gan Eden (whose place is in Beriah; ibid.) lies in the fact that there it is possible to12 “derive pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence”; the Divine Presence itself becomes revealed and accessible to comprehension, making it possible that pleasure be derived from it.
Now according to that which was just explained, how can it be possible to “derive pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence” in any of the Worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah or Asiyah?
The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that in Gan Eden there is an apprehension of the “spreading forth of the life-force and light which issues from these two attributes, Chesed and Gevurah”; i.e., in Gan Eden one is able to comprehend the life-force as it spreads forth from Chesed and Gevurah themselves, without the intermediacy of Netzach, Hod and Yesod. (The “spreading forth ” is to be understood as explained in Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 19.) This comprehension, the Alter Rebbe goes on to say, is “the food of the souls”; i.e., it is internalized, like food which is ingested internally.
However, this gives rise to yet another question: Would we not expect Gan Eden itself to be nullified out of existence, inasmuch as the radiance of the Divine Presence is revealed there? Moreover, Gan Eden has to do with comprehension.13 How does it relate to the emotive attributes of Chesed and Gevurah?
In answer to this the Alter Rebbe states: “For from the diffusion of these two attributes, a firmament is spread.... Within this is the secret of the twenty-two letters of the Torah.” Within these letters of the Torah which bring all created beings into existence, was clothed the Divine light which transcends the tzimtzum of these letters, as explained earlier.
From the perspective of Torah, these two attributes — the revelation of Chesed and the concealment of Gevurah — do not contradict one another. This is because Torah encompasses them both, [as the Alter Rebbe goes on to say:] “as it is written, ‘From His right hand [He gave] unto them a fiery Law.’ ” Torah is thus composed both of “right” (Chesed) and “fire” (Gevurah). It is therefore possible for these two opposites to coexist — Gan Eden existing as an entity, and within it, the revealed radiance of the Divine Presence.
The question of how Gan Eden, which is intellectual perception, relates to Chesed and Gevurah, which are emotive, is answered by the Alter Rebbe when he states: “For this firmament is the secret of knowledge (Daat).” This means to say that the one intellectual faculty of Daat encompasses both emotive attributes of Chesed and Gevurah, and yet Daat is a faculty of intellect.
But another matter remains to be understood. Gan Eden comprises two aspects: (a) In Gan Eden there is Torah study (see Likutei Amarim, ch. 41); (b) Though in Gan Eden there is no performance of mitzvot (as alluded to in the verse, במתים חפשי), there is, however, reward for prior performance.
Now it is understandable how Torah can be found in Gan Eden, for as explained previously, Torah is comprised of the harmonious conjoining of Chesed and Gevurah. Mitzvot, however, are individualized.
For it is known14 that Torah is likened to blood and the mitzvot to bodily organs; whereas blood courses throughout all parts of the body, the organs are separate from one another, each with its own individual function.
Since, from the perspective of mitzvot, Chesed and Gevurah are two separate attributes, it would seem that from this perspective Gan Eden could not possibly exist, inasmuch as it is a composite of both Chesed and Gevurah. Furthermore, if the light elicited by the performance of precepts would indeed be drawn down, this light being a manifestation of Chesed, would this not cause the very existence of Gan Eden, whose source is Gevurah, to be completely nullified?
The Alter Rebbe therefore says, “and the commandments are [their] garments.” Since the mitzvot comprise both Chesed and Gevurah, which are two distinct attributes, it is indeed impossible for the light elicited by the mitzvot to permeate [the souls in Gan Eden] inwardly, for if it were to do so they would be nullified out of existence.
For this reason, the reward in Gan Eden for the performance of mitzvot is granted only in the protective and auxiliary manner of a garment; this light is not drawn down into the souls in a permeating manner.
Torah, however, which is comprised of the conjoining of Chesed and Gevurah, is truly “food” for the souls in Gan Eden. It permeates them without causing their nullification, unlike the mitzvot, which are merely “garments”.
* * *
The Rebbe concludes that according to the above discussion another difficulty (not quite incidental) will be resolved, namely: Where is the concluding bracket at the end of ch. 4? (Even in the first edition of Tanya this bracket is missing.)
According to all the above-mentioned questions, whose answers are provided by the Alter Rebbe beginning with the bracketed text in ch. 4, and continuing until the final bracket of ch. 5, this difficulty finds the following simple resolution:
The bracketed text beginning near the conclusion of ch. 4 extends until the end of ch. 5. The worthy typesetter, however, seeing two brackets at the end of ch. 5, assumed that one of them was surely superfluous — not taking into consideration that one of them possibly marked the conclusion of the bracketed passage beginning in ch. 4.
Excerpted from a Sichah delivered on Shabbat, Parshat Mishpatim, 5727.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Rashi on Bereishit 1:1; Bereishit Rabbah 12:15.
2.I, 53a.
3.Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar.
4.Note of the Rebbe: “According to that which is explained in Iggeret HaKodesh (Epistle 19), it is clear that this does not preclude [comprehension of] a higher level (for there have been souls whose comprehension has reached up to Chochmah and Binah). Rather, the comprehension of Chesed and Gevurah (the source of creation and its tzimtzum), which is the matter at hand, became possible only through their being clothed in Netzach, Hod and Yesod.”
5.Parentheses are in the original text.
6.Devarim 33:2.
7.Parentheses are in the original text.
8.Chs. 9 and 12.
9. He‘arot VeKitzurim, p. 126.
10.Cf. Iyov 19:27.
11.I.e., the release of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, from incarceration and capital sentence in Leningrad in 1927.
12.Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 5.
13.Tanya, ch. 39, et passim.

14.Explained at length in Likkutei Torah, Parshat Bamidbar.
-------
Rambam:
Daily Mitzvah N74, P61, N91, N92, N93 - Sefer Hamitzvot
Shabbat, 16 Sivan 5774 - June 14, 2014
Negative Commandment 74 (Digest)
A Non-Priest Serving in the Holy Temple
"And a stranger shall not come near to you"—Numbers 18:4.
It is forbidden for anyone not of the seed of Aaron [i.e. a non-priest] to serve in the Holy Temple in the capacity of a priest.
And the 74th prohibition is that a zar is forbidden from serving [in the Temple]. The term zar refers to anyone who is not a descendant of Aharon [i.e. a non-Kohen].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "A zar may not come close to you [to perform the Temple service]."
Scripture states explicitly that one who transgresses this prohibition is punished by a heavenly death penalty in the verse,2 "A zar who performs the service shall die." The Sifri says, "The verse 'A zar who performs the service shall die,' refers to one who performs the Temple service. This teaches the punishment, but what is the actual prohibition? That is the verse, 'A zar may not come close to you.' " Both the prohibition and the punishment are repeated in the verse,3 "The Israelites shall therefore no longer come forth to the ohel moed, since they can then become guilty of sin and die."
In tractate Yoma,4 it is explained for which types of service a zar is punished by death: "A zar is punishable by death for the following four types of service — sprinkling [the blood on the altar], burning [the fats, etc. on the altar], spilling wine [on the altar], and spilling water [on the altar]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained there and in the last chapter of tractate Zevachim.5
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. 18:4.
2.Ibid., 18:7.
3.Ibid., 18:22.
4.24a.
5.113b.
-------
Positive Commandment 61 (Digest)
Unblemished Sacrifices
"It shall be perfect to be accepted"—Leviticus 22:21.
When offering a sacrifice, we are required to ensure that it is "complete"—devoid of any of the blemishes enumerated in the Torah (as well as those blemishes not written explicitly in the Torah, but included by Mosaic tradition).
The same is true regarding the wine libations and the oil and flour used in the meal offerings—they are to be of premium quality and free of any defect.
And the 61st mitzvah is that we are commanded that every sacrifice that we bring must be complete, i.e. clean of any blemish as defined by Scripture and the Oral Tradition.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "It must be unblemished in order to be acceptable."
The Sifra says, "The verse, 'It must be unblemished in order to be acceptable,' constitutes a positive commandment." From the verse,3 "These [sacrifices] and their libations must be without blemish for you [to present them]," our Sages derived that the wine used for libations, their oil, and their flour must be the finest and free of any imperfection.4
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the eighth chapter of Menachos.5
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.Scripture mentions 12 blemishes that invalidate an animal for a sacrifice, and the Sages enumerate a total of 73. See chapters 6 and 7 of Bechoros, Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, chapter 7, Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach, chapter 2.
2.Lev. 22:21.
3.Num. 28:31.
4.E.g. wine which has been affected by smoke or flour which has become wormy. See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach Ch. 6.
5.87a. In our versions, this is chapter 9.
-------
Negative Commandment 91 (Digest)
Designating a Blemished Animal for a Sacrifice
"Whatever has a blemish you shall not offer"—Leviticus 22:20.
It is forbidden to designate (i.e. sanctify) an animal with a permanent blemish for a sacrifice.
And the 91st prohibition is that we are forbidden from designating a blemished animal as a sacrifice for the altar.
And the source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not offer any blemished animal."
The Sifra says, "The verse, 'Do not offer any blemished animal' means that you may not designate it."
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:20.
-------
Negative Commandment 92 (Digest)
Slaughtering a Blemished Animal for a Sacrifice
"You shall not offer these to G‑d"—Leviticus 22:22.
It is forbidden to slaughter an animal with a permanent blemish for a sacrifice.
And the 92nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering a blemished animal as a sacrifice.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), regarding blemished animals, "Do not offer them to G‑d."
The Sifra says, "The verse, 'Do not offer them to G‑d' means that you may not slaughter them."
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 22:22.
-------
Negative Commandment 93 (Digest)
Sprinkling the Blood of a Blemished Animal on the Altar
"You shall not offer to G‑d"—Leviticus 22:24.
It is forbidden to sprinkle the blood of an animal with a permanent blemish on the altar.
And the 93rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from sprinkling the blood of a blemished animal on the altar.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's additional statement1 regarding blemished animals, "Do not offer them to G‑d."
The Oral Tradition explains that this prohibition forbids sprinkling the blood of blemished animals. This is the first opinion quoted [in the Talmudic passage], and is the final conclusion. R. Yossi the son of R. Yehudah, however, says that it prohibits receiving the blood [in a pan immediately after slaughter]. This corresponds to the statement of the Sifra, "The verse, 'Do not offer them to G‑d' means that you may not receive the blood."
Our Sages said in tractate Temurah,2 "According to the first opinion quoted, what is the meaning of the verse, 'Do not offer them to G‑d'? [If he holds] it teaches that you may not sprinkle the blood — didn't he derive this from the phrase,3 'on the altar'?!"
The meaning of this objection is that the verse, "Do not place any of them on the altar as a burnt-offering to G‑d," implies that anything that is placed on the altar may not come from [blemished animals].4
The answer is given, "It is normal for Scripture to speak in this way."
This means that the prohibition, "Do not place any of them on the altar as a burnt-offering" comes only to prohibit burning the fats. Nothing additional can be derived from the phrase, "on the altar" because the verse would not make sense without them. How else could it have been written? To write, "Do not place any of them as a burnt-offering" [leaving out "on the altar"] would leave the statement incomplete!
From this discussion it is clear that the verse, "Do not offer th
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 22:24. All three verses (Lev. 22:20,22,24) all use the same phrase "Do not offer" (lo takrivu).
2.7a. The following discussion from tractate Temurah demonstrates that the prohibition involves sprinkling the blood, not receiving the blood.
After an animal is designated as a sacrifice, it is slaughtered, its blood is received in a vessel and then sprinkled on the altar. In addition, certain fats (cheilev) are burned on top of the altar.
If the animal was blemished, there are separate prohibitions for the designation (N91), slaughter (N92), and burning (N94). The question here is what does our verse (Lev. 22:24) come to prohibit, receiving the blood or sprinkling the blood.
The Talmud first tries to say that the verse must refer to both, because if it only meant the fats, it could have omitted the words, "on the altar." This phrase, the Talmud suggests, must come to include something that is placed "on the altar" but not burnt, i.e. the blood. And if this verse prohibits sprinkling blood, then our verse, "Do not offer them to G‑d" is extra — and can therefore serve as a source to prohibit receiving the blood.
The Talmud concludes that the phrase "on the altar" is not extra, and therefore sprinkling the blood must be learned from our verse, "Do not offer them to G‑d." Since it needs a separate verse, sprinkling the blood must be counted as a separate mitzvah.
3.Lev. 22:22. See N94.
4.Without the words, "on the altar," the verse clearly prohibits burning parts of the offering. The attempt here is to portray these words "on the altar" as teaching us something additional, i.e. that the blood may not be sprinkled, since it is also placed "on the altar."
-------
Rambam:
1 Chapter a Day Shechenim - Chapter Six
Shechenim - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
The inhabitants of a city may compel each other to participate in the building of a wall, gates, a bolt, to build a synagogue for the inhabitants and to purchase a Torah scroll, and scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, so that any member of the community who desires may read from it.
Halacha 2
When a person buys a city in Eretz Yisrael, the court may compel him to purchase a path to the city from all four directions for the sake of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael.
People who own fields among a stretch of fields in a valley may compel each other to dig a trench and a smaller trench around the valley.
Halacha 3
Although a person owns a courtyard in one city, if he also owns property in another city, the inhabitants of the latter city can compel him to participate in the digging of cisterns, caverns and irrigation ditches. He is not, however, compelled to join in other communal matters. If he dwells together with them in that city, he is compelled to participate in all matters.
Halacha 4
When a levy is placed upon a city's inhabitants for the construction of the wall, the levy is made according to the proximity of the houses to the wall. Those whose homes are closer to the wall must pay more.
Halacha 5
Whenever a person lives in a city for twelve months or buys a dwelling there, he must contribute together with all the inhabitants of the city for the improvements that must be made - e.g., the walls, the gates, the wages of the soldiers who guard the city and all similar matters that are necessary for the protection of the city.
Halacha 6
Payment for all the things necessary for the protection of a city is collected from all of its inhabitants, even from orphans, with the exception of Torah scholars. For Torah scholars do not require protection; their Torah study protects them. Payment for the improvement of the thoroughfares and the streets, by contrast, is collected even from the scholars.
If the people go out and fix the streets themselves, the Torah scholars should not go out to work with them. For it is not the practice of Torah scholars to demean themselves in the presence of common people.
Halacha 7
If the inhabitants of a city contracted workers to dig a river to bring water to a city, we collect even from orphans. For this is to their benefit, so that their fields and vineyards are watered.
Therefore, if it transpired that despite the work, the water did not come, since the orphans did not benefit, everything that was taken from them should be returned to them. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 8
The inhabitants of a lane can compel each other to prevent a tailor, a leather craftsman or any other craftsman from opening a business in the lane.
If a craftsman lived in the lane, and no protest was lodged against his practice of his craft, or there was a bathhouse, a store or a mill in the lane, and another person came and built another bathhouse opposite it or built another mill, the owner of the first establishment cannot prevent him, claiming: "You are destroying my livelihood."This applies even if he comes from another lane, for this trade is already practiced in this lane.
If, however, a stranger from another city comes to establish a store next to a person's store, or a bathhouse next to this person's bathhouse, they can prevent him from doing so. If, however, he pays the head-tax of the king together with them, they cannot prevent him from establishing his business.
Halacha 9
When perfume merchants travel from city to city, the inhabitants of a city may not prevent them from selling their wares. For it is one of the ordinances established by Ezra for these merchants to travel in this manner so that perfume will be easily available for Jewish women. They may not, however, establish a fixed place where they sit and sell their wares unless the inhabitants of the city consent. If, however, the merchant is a Torah scholar, he may establish a fixed place wherever he desires.
Halacha 10
When merchants bring their wares to sell in cities, the inhabitants of the city may prevent them from doing so. If, however, they would sell their wares only on the market day, they cannot prevent them, provided they sell their wares only in the marketplace. They may not, however, go from door to door selling them, even on the market day.
If they have an outstanding loan in the city, they are permitted to sell what is necessary for their livelihood, even on days other than market day, until they repay their loan and move on.
Halacha 11
When one of the inhabitants of a lane that ends in a cul-de-sac desires to open up a profession as a blood letter, a weaver or a teacher of gentile children, the inhabitants of the lane may prevent him, for he increases the number of people coming in and going out of the lane.
Similarly, a person who owns a house in a courtyard shared by others may not rent it to a doctor, a blood letter, a weaver, a Jewish scribe who writes legal contracts or a teacher of gentile children.
Halacha 12
When a store is located in a courtyard, the neighbors can protest, telling the owner: "We cannot sleep because of the noise made by the people going in and out. " Instead, he should perform his work at home and sell it in the marketplace.
They may not, however, protest against him and say: "We cannot sleep because of the noise made by your hammer, " or "your mill, " for he has already established his right to perform these activities.
Similarly, a person may teach Jewish children Torah in his house. The other partners in his lane may not protest against him, saying: "We cannot sleep because of the noise made by the school children."
Halacha 13
When one person owns a cistern within a house belonging to a colleague, he may enter only when it is customary for people to enter, and must depart when it is customary for people to depart. He may not bring his animal through his colleague's home to provide him with water from the cistern. Instead, he should fill up buckets with water and water it outside.
They both are entitled to make a lock on the entrance to the cistern: the owner of the cistern to protect his water, and the owner of the home, because of his suspicions concerning his wife, so that she will be able to enter there only when he knows.
Halacha 14
When one person owns a garden whose entrance is within a garden belonging to a colleague, he may enter only when it is customary for people to enter, and must depart when it is customary for people to depart. He may not bring merchants through his colleague's garden, nor may he enter it to go to another field. The owner of the outer garden may sow vegetables on the path.
If both agree to move the path to the side of the garden, the owner of the inner garden may enter and depart when he desires, and he may bring merchants in. He may not, however, enter it to go to another field, Either of the parties can prevent the other from sowing vegetables in the path that was placed on the side,
-------
Rambam:
3 Chapters a Day Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8, Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9, Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
There are a total of 90 physical blemishes that [disqualify] humans alone. In particular, they are: There are eight involving the head:
a) one who has the center of his forehead depressed below as if it was pushed down with one's hand;
b) one who has the center of his forehead raised up above, like an egg;1
c) one who has the sides of his head emerge toward his face like a hammer;
d) one whose head projects outward abnormally from his neck;
e) one whose head is abnormally large to the extent that it sits on his neck like a turnip on top of its leaves;2
f) one who is bald and has no hair whatsoever on his head. If, however, he has a row of hair extending across the back of his head from ear to ear, it is acceptable.
g) a person's whose hair extends from ear to ear on the front of his head, but he is bald on the remainder of his head, he is unacceptable;
h) a person whose hair extends around his entire head from the front and the back, but he has no hair on the top of his head. He also is deemed bald and is unacceptable.
Halacha 2
There are two involving the neck. They are:
a) one whose neck is sunk [into his trunk] so much that it appears to be placed on his shoulders;
b) one whose neck is so long that it appears unconnected with his shoulders.
Halacha 3
There are four involving the ears. They are:
a) one whose two ears are very small;
b) one whose two ears are very swollen like sponges;
c) one whose ears hang down low;
d) one who has one ear differ from another in appearance.3
Halacha 4
There are five involving the eyebrows. They are:
a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyebrows. This is the meaning of the term gibein mentioned in the Torah; 4
b) one whose eyebrows hang low;5
c) one who has only one eyebrow;6
d) one who has more than two eyebrows;
e) one who has one eyebrow that is different in appearance than the other, whether the hair on one is long and on the other, short, or the hair on one is black and, on the other, white or red, since there is a difference in appearance, he is unacceptable.
Halacha 5
There are four involving the eyelids. They are:
a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyelids;
b) one who has very thick hair on his eyelids;
c) one who has an eyelid whose hair is different from that of the other eyelid, e.g., one is black and the other white, one is thin and the other is thick;
d) one whose eyelids are closed slightly and do not open wide like those of other people.
Halacha 6
There are eleven involving the eyes. They are:
a) one whose two eyes are positioned above their appropriate place, close to his forehead;
b) one whose two eyes are positioned below their appropriate place;
c) one whose two eyes are round and are not extended slightly as other eyes are;
d) one whose eyes pop out like the eyes of a tiger and like the eyes of a person who looks at someone when he is very angry;
e) one whose eyes are very large, like those of a calf;
f) one whose eyes are small, like those of a duck;
g) one who is continuously tearing;
h) one who has fluid [continuously]7 dripping from the tip of his eyes near his nose or the ends of his eyes near his temples;
i) one who contracts his eyelids and squints slightly when he sees light or when he wishes to look at something carefully;
j) a person who is cross-eyed to the extent that he sees two storeys of the same building as one.8 This defect can be noticed when such a person is speaking with one person and it appears that he is speaking with another;
k) one who has one eye that is different than the other, whether in place, in appearance, e.g., one is black and the other is of mixed color, or one is small and one is large. Since there is a difference between them, he is unacceptable.
Halacha 7
There are six involving the nose. They are:
a) one whose bridge of the nose is sunken, even [if it is not sunken] to the extent that he can apply ointment to both of his eyes at once.9 This is the meaning of the term charum mentioned in the Torah;10
b) one whose middle of the nose projects upward;
c) one whose tip of the nose points downward;
d) one whose tip of the nose is crooked;
e) one whose nose is disproportionately large;
f) one whose nose is disproportionately small. How is this measured? With one's pinky. If one's nose is larger or smaller than his pinky, it is considered a blemish.
Halacha 8
There are three involving the lips. They are:
a) one whose upper lip extends beyond his lower lip;
b) one whose lower lip extends beyond his upper lip;
c) one whose mouth [hangs] loosely and [hence,] spittle is continually descending from his mouth.
Halacha 9
There are three involving the belly. They are:
a) one whose belly is swollen;
b) one whose navel projects outward, rather that being concave like that of other people;
c) one whose breasts are extended and lie on his stomach like the breasts of a woman.
Halacha 10
There are three involving the back. They are:
a) one whose spine is crooked;
b) one who has a vertebra that slipped out of the spinal column, regardless of whether it projected outward, penetrated inward, or slipped to the side. This is included in the term baal chatoteret11;
c) a person with a hunchback. Even though a vertebra has not slipped from its place, this is still considered a blemish.
Halacha 11
There are six involving the hands. They are:
a) one who has an extra finger on his hands, even if he has six on each hand.12 If he cuts the extra finger off, he is acceptable. If, however, it had a bone, he is unacceptable, even if he cuts it off;
b) one who is lacking one of the fingers of his hand;
c) one who has two fingers webbed and connected until below the joint.13 If he cut and separated them to the joint, he is acceptable. Which joint is implied? The first joint that is next to the palm of one's hand;
d) one whose fingers are bent over each other;
e) one who has a projection emerging from his thumb;
f) a left-handed person. If he is ambidextrous, he is acceptable.
Halacha 12
There are four involving the reproductive organs. They are:
a) one who has a very large and long scrotum that reaches his knees;
b) one whose organ is so long it reaches his knees;
c) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles were crushed;
d) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles are inflated. This is the meaning of the term miruach ashech mentioned in the Torah;14
Halacha 13
There are fifteen involving the thighs and the legs. They are:
a) one who is bow-legged to the extent that even when he stands with his feet together, his knees will not touch each other;
b) one whose ankle-bone projects outward. The ankle bone is the round bone that is above the heel, toward the inside of the body. It resembles the weaving needle with which women weave;
c) one whose heel juts outward to the extent that his shin appears to be in the center of his foot;
d) some whose feet are wide like a duck's even though they are not webbed like a duck's;
e) one who has a projection emerging from his large toe;15
f) one who has an extra toe on his feet, even if he has six on each foot. If he cuts the extra toe off, he is acceptable, provided it does not have a bone;
g) one who is lacking one of the toes of his hand;
h) one whose toes are bent over each other;
j) one whose are webbed until below the joint. If they were connected and he cut and separated them, he is acceptable;
k) one whose foot is entirely straight; i.e., the width of his forefoot and his toes is the same as the width of his heels, and they appear as one straight unit;
l) one whose foot is curved so that his forefoot and toes and his heel appears as the two ends of a bow;
m) one whose foot is hollow; i.e., his mid-foot is upraised above the earth and it is as if he is standing on his heel and his toes;
n) one whose ankles click with each other when he walks;
o) one whose knees click with each other when he walks;
p) one who is left-footed.
Halacha 14
There are four that involve the entire body:
a) one whose trunk is disproportionately larger than his limbs;
b) one whose trunk is disproportionately smaller than his limbs;
c) one who is extremely tall;16
d) a dwarf, i.e., one who is extremely short, so that they are distinguished from people at large.
Halacha 15
There are eight involving the skin. They are:
a) a negro;
b) an albino whose skin is white like cheese;
c) one who is red-skinned like scarlet;
d) one who has pure blotches on his skin,17 i.e., [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an internal factor, like a bohak;18
e) [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an external factor, like the scarring of a burn; this is also one of the distinguishing marks that are pure [with regard to tzara'at];19
f) one who has a facial mole that has hair, even if it is not the size of an isar,20 but rather of the smallest size;21
g) one who has a facial mole the size of an isar or more;22h) one afflicted with warts, [when] a person's flesh or skin should distend or the fluids in the skin should distend to any part throughout the body, this is a blemish.
Halacha 16
There are four other blemishes possible for a human:
a) one who is deaf;
b) one who is intellectually or emotionally unstable;
c) an epileptic, even if his seizures come at far intervals;
d) one who suffers from severe depression,23 whether on a consistent basis or from time to time.
Halacha 17
Thus there are a total of 140 blemishes that may disqualify a priest.24 They are: eight involving the head, two involving the neck, nine involving the ears, five involving the eyebrows, seven involving the eyelids, nineteen involving the eyes, nine involving the nose, nine involving the mouth, three involving the belly, three involving the back, seven involving the hands, sixteen involving the reproductive organs, twenty involving the legs, eight involving the entire body, eight involving the skin, seven involving the body's strength and odor. They have all been outlined one by one.
The following disqualify [a priest] because of the impression they may create:25
a) one who has lost the hair of his eyelids even though the roots remain;
b) one whose teeth have been removed.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Ra'avad (and this is also Rashi's interpretation of Bechorot 43a) differs with the Rambam's interpretation of this disqualifying factor. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.
2.The accompanying drawing is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:1). Similarly, all of the disqualifying factors mentioned here are discussed there and in the following mishnah.
3.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:3), the Rambam explains that when a person has a pair of organs, it is expected that they be identical and a deviation is considered a blemish.
4.Leviticus 21:20. The Rambam chooses the first interpretation of this term offered by Bechorot 7:2. Rashi follows the second interpretation, overly long eyebrows. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the two opinions both agree that these two conditions are blemishes, the difference of opinion between them concerns only the definition of the term gibein in the Torah.
5.Reaching his eyelids [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].
6.Some interpret this simply. Others understand it as meaning that the person's two eyebrows are connected above his nose so that they appear as one long eyebrow.
7.The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:3).
8.I.e., while focusing on one storey, he will see the other.
9.I.e., for most people, the bridge of the nose interposes between one eye and the other and it is impossible to apply ointment to them both in one motion. There are certain individuals whose bridge of the nose is so sunk that they can do so.
Bechorot 7:3 defines charum as having a bridge of the nose sunk to the extent that the above is possible. Nevertheless, in the Talmud, another opinion is cited which states that as long as the bridge is sunken more than what is ordinary, it is considered a blemish even if it does not reach such an extreme state. The Rambam accepts this view, because it appears to be favored by the Talmud (Kessef Mishneh).
10.Leviticus 21:18.
11.This term is used by the Mishnah (Bechorot 7: 1). Although the term is generally interpreted as meaning a hunchback in contemporary Hebrew, the implication above is also included in the Talmudic term.
12.And thus the two hands appear the same.
13.I.e., to the end of one's fingers.
14.Leviticus 21:20.
15.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's view.
16.Bechorot 45b explains that although a tall person is considered attractive, if he is exceptionally tall, people consider it objectionable.
17.I.e., blotches that are not associated with the impurity resulting from tzara'at.
18.See Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 1:1 for a definition of this term.
19.With regard to the impurity of tzara'at. See ibid. 6:4.
20.An isar is a Roman coin that the Talmud mentions in various halachic contexts (Kiddushin 2a, Bava Metzia 51b, Mikvaot 9:5, et al.). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) quotes Rashba as stating that in his (medieval) times the size of an isar was already not known. More recently, Middos VeShiurei Torah, p. 169, gives the diameter of an isar as 23 mm. Thus its area would be slightly more than 3.6 cm.
21.Since it has hair, it is considered objectionable, regardless of its size.
22.If it smaller, it is not that noticeable, and hence, it is not considered a blemish.
23.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 7:5), the Rambam describes this condition as severe melancholia to the extent that the person's physical functioning is impaired.
24.I.e., the total of those mentioned in this and the previous chapter.
25.See Chapter 6, Halachot 5-6.
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 9
Halacha 1
When a non-priest serves in the Temple, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Numbers 18:7] states: "A non-priest who draws close will die." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that one does not become liable unless he draws close to perform service.1 Where is the warning concerning this?2 [Ibid.:4] states: "A non-priest shall not draw close to you."3
What is meant by a non-priest? Anyone who is not a male descendant of Aaron, as [Leviticus 1:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall arrange" and [Leviticus 3:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall set afire." [These service are performed by] "the sons of Aaron" and not the daughters of Aaron.4
Halacha 2
Although non-priests are warned not to perform any of the services associated with offering sacrifices, they are liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] only for performing "complete service,"5 not on service that is followed by other service.6 [Thus] a non-priest is liable for death only for four services: a) sprinkling;7 b) setting afire [sacrifices on the altar];8 c) pouring water [on the altar] on Sukkot, and d) pouring wine on the altar at all times.
Halacha 3
How is one liable for sprinkling? Whether he dashed [blood] inside [the Temple building]9 or outside, [in the Temple Courtyard],10 performed sprinkle one of the sprinklings of blood or performed one of the sprinklings of the sacrifices brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at,11 he is liable for death.
Halacha 4
How is one liable for setting afire [sacrifices on the altar]? Whether he set afire limbs [of animal sacrifices], a handful of floor, or of frankincense12 on the altar - or even if he turned over limbs that had not been consumed by fire and hastened their being burnt,13 he is liable for death, provided he set afire an olive-sized portion of these entities. Similarly, if one sets afire incense on the golden altar, when he sets afire an olive-sized portion,14 he is liable. In contrast, one who sets fire to incense on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies is not liable for death for this until he sets fire to a handful, for that is the measure explicitly [required] by the Torah.15
Halacha 5
[A non-priest] who arranges two logs of wood on the altar's pyre is considered comparable to one who set [sacrificial] limbs afire and he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven for doing so]. For the wood is also considered as a sacrifice.16
In contrast, [a non-priest] who pours [oil onto the flour offerings], one who mixes [the flour offerings with oil],17 one who breaks [the wafers of meal offerings] into pieces, one who salts [the sacrifices], one who waves [the sacrifices], one who brings [a meal offering] close to the altar, one who arranges the showbread or the bowls of incense on the [golden] table, one who prepares the lamps [of the Menorah],18 one who kindles light on the altar, one who takes a fistful [of flour or incense], and one who receives the blood [of a sacrifice], even though he disqualifies his service, he is warned against doing so and is liable for lashes for doing so, he is not liable for death at the hand [of Heaven]. [The rationale is that] all of these services are followed by another service and they do not represent the completion of the offering [of a given sacrifice].
Halacha 6
The slaughter of sacrificial animals is acceptable if performed by non-priests.19 [This applies even to] sacrifices of the most holy order, both individual sacrifices and communal sacrifices, as [Leviticus 1:5] states: "And he shall slaughter the bull before God and the sons of Aaron shall offer it." Implied is that from receiving [the blood], the mitzvah belongs to the priesthood. Similarly, skinning an animal, cutting it up, and bringing wood to the altar are acceptable when performed by non-priests, for with regard to the limbs, [ibid.:9] states: "And the priest shall set afire everything on the altar," this refers to bringing limbs [from sacrificial animals] to the [altar's] ramp. [We may infer that] bringing such limbs requires a priest, but not bringing wood.
Halacha 7
Similarly, the kindling of the lamps [of the Menorah] is acceptable20 if performed by a non-priest. Therefore, if a priest cleaned the lamps and brought them outside,21 a non-priest is permitted to kindle them.
Halacha 8
The removal of the ashes [from the altar] must be performed by a priest,22as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And the priest will put on his linen fit tunic...." If an Israelite removes [the ash], he is liable for lashes.
He is not liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] even though this is a service that is not followed by another service.23 [This is derived as follows. The verse that speaks of the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, Numbers 18:7,] speaks of "work of giving."24 [Implied is that] the work of giving must be performed by a priest alone. If a non-priest offered [a sacrifice], he is liable for death. The service of removal25 does not make a non-priest liable for death. Similarly, if a non-priest cleaned the inner altar or the Menorah, he is not liable for death.
Halacha 9
[If a non-priest] arranged the wood on the altar, the arrangement should be taken apart and rearranged by a priest, because the [initial] arrangement is unacceptable.26
Halacha 10
An impure [priest], one with a disqualifying physical blemish, and one who did not wash his hands or feet27 are not liable28 except for services that a non-priest is liable for death.29 For other services, he [violates merely] a warning.
Halacha 11
A priest who immersed that day30 who is lacking atonement,31who became impure,32 who did not wash his hands and feet and yet served [in the Temple] is liable for each transgression.33 If he was a non-priest,34he is liable for lashes only for serving as a non-priest.35
Halacha 12
When a non-priest performs [Temple] service on the Sabbath, he is liable for violating the Sabbath laws36 and for serving as a non-priest.37 Similarly, when a priest with a physical blemish serves while ritually impure, he is liable [both] for [serving] while impure and for serving with a blemish.38
Halacha 13
Any priest who served a false deity, whether willingly or inadvertently - even if he repented completely - may never serve in the Temple,39 as [Ezekiel 44:13] states: "They40 shall not draw near to Me, to serve Me." [This prohibition applies] whether [a priest] serves the false deity in its rites, e.g., he became a priest to the false deity, he bowed down to it, or acknowledged its [divinity] and accepted it as god. [In all these instances,] he is disqualified [to serve in the Temple] forever.
If [such a priest] transgressed and performed service, his sacrifice is not considered as a pleasing fragrance41 even if he acted inadvertently when he served, bowed down to, or acknowledged [the false deity]. If, by contrast, one slaughtered an animal for a false deity inadvertently and then transgressed and offered a sacrifice [in the Temple], the sacrifice is considered a pleasing fragrance and is accepted, for he did not perform service for the false deity or become its priest; all he did was slaughter an animal for it42 and that was performed inadvertently. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, he should not perform service [in the Temple].
Halacha 14
If one transgressed and built a shrine outside the Temple and offered a sacrifice to God there,43 it is not considered as a Temple to a false deity. Nevertheless, any priest who serves in such a shrine should never serve in the Temple. Similarly, utensils that were used there should never be used in the Temple. Instead, they should be entombed. It appears to me44 that if a priest who served in such [a shrine] performs service in the Temple, it does not invalidate it.45
Halacha 15
Thus there are eighteen factors that disqualify [a person] from serving [in the Temple]. They are: a) one who served a false deity;46 b) a non-priest;47 c) one with a disqualifying physical blemish;48 d) one who is uncircumcised;49e) one who is impure;50 f) one who immersed that day [and must wait until nightfall to become pure];51 g) one who is lacking atonement;52 h) one who is in a state of acute mourning;53 i) one who is intoxicated;54 j) one who is lacking the priestly garments;55 k) one who is wearing extra garments;56 l) one whose garments were torn;57 m) one whose hair has grown long;58 n) one who did not wash his hands and feet;59 o) one who sits;60 p) one who had an entity intervening between his hand and the sacred utensil [he is using];61 q) one who had an entity intervening between his foot and the earth;62 r) one who served with his left hand.63
All of the above are disqualified from serving and if they serve, they invalidate their service with the exception of those with long hair, those with torn garments, and one who slaughtered for a false deity inadvertently. If these individuals serve, their service is acceptable.
Blessed be God who offers assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., and it does not forbid merely entering the Temple or ascending the Altar.
2.I.e., where is stated the prohibition for which this punishment is given? (Sifri)
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 74) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 390) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.Thus restricting the priestly service to males and excluding females. The Radbaz questions why two verses are necessary to exclude the women of the priestly family. He explains that since they are permitted to part of terumah and certain sacrificial foods, they are not entirely similar to Israelites. Hence, a second verse is necessary.
5.Service which is the final stage in a sacrifice being brought to the altar (Yoma 24a).
6.E.g., receiving the blood, carrying the blood or the limbs to the altar.
7.See Halachah 3.
8.See Halachah 4.
9.As performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and also when offering certain atonement offerings.
10.The sprinkling or dashing of blood on the external altar.
11.See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2 where these sprinklings are mentioned. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the water libations and the wine libations are considered as separate categories and the sprinkling of blood and oil are not. He explains that the two different libations stem from entirely different commandments. The sprinkling of the oil, by contrast, is not a commandment in its own right, but an ancillary element to the offering of a sacrifice and that sacrifice also involves sprinkling blood. Hence, the two are included in the mitzvah.
12.I.e., entities that are usually set afire on the altar.
13.As Sh'vuot 17b states, this applies even if the entity would have ultimately been consumed by fire without his activity, but his act hastens its consumption.
14.For one to be liable, a portion of this minimum size is necessary, for an incense offering may not be smaller, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:2. Hence, if he sets afire less, he is not performing service. Even though a larger amount of incense is offered each day, that is a Rabbinic enactment and not a Scriptural requirement (Radbaz).
15.Leviticus 16:12; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 5:26. If he sets fire to a lesser amount, he is not performing service. Hence, he is not liable.
16.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:1. Arranging these two logs is the final stage in the arrangement of wood on the altar. Hence a non-priest is liable (Radbaz).
17.Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23 which states that the preliminary stages of the offering of a meal offering may be performed by a non-priest.
18.See Halachah 7.
19.Se also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:1; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:1.
20.Even as an initial preference (Radbaz). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that, after the fact, if a non-priest kindled the lamps, it is valid, but as an initial preference, he is not allowed to kindle them. The Radbaz brings support for the Rambam's position from Yoma 24b which states that kindling the lamps of the Menorah is not an act of service. Since it is not an act of service, asks the Radbaz, why should a non-priest be restricted from performing it? How is it different from the slaughter of an animal?
The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 98) reinforces the Ra'avad's question, asking how is it possible for the Menorah to be lit outside its proper place? The Rambam LeAm explains that the mitzvah is not lighting the lamps, but rather putting the lamps in their place.
21.I.e., out from the Temple building to a place in the courtyard where a non-priest is allowed to stand. Note the discussion of the meaning of the term hatavah in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:12 and notes.
22.See ibid. 2:10.
23.See Halachah 2.
24.I.e., the verse has two connotations: a) that the priestly service is a gift to the priests, b) (and this is the focus here), that the priestly service involves giving: offering sacrificial substances on the altar.
25.I.e., the removal of the ashes.
26.Because arranging the wood is considered sacrificial service (Radbaz). The Kessef Mishneh points out that from Yoma 27-28a, one might conclude that it is permitted for a non-priest to arrange the wood of the altar. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam that passage only absolves a non-priest from the punishment of death. It does not grant him permission to arrange the wood.
27.The commentaries question why the Rambam omits a priest who does not wear the priestly garments. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that it is not necessary to mention such a person because in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4, the Rambam stated that a priest who does not wear the priestly garments is considered as a non-priest.
28.I.e., each one is liable according to the punishment appropriate for him. An impure priest and one who did not wash his hands and feet are liable for death and one who is physically blemished is liable for lashes (Kessef Mishneh).
29.I.e., services that are not followed by other services which involve giving.
30.And must wait until the evening before performing service.
31.E.g., a person afflicted with tzara'at who must bring an atonement offering before serving.
32.With another type of impurity.
33.Since he violated many prohibitions with one act of service, he is liable for a sacrifice for each violation.
The Ra'avad cites a Tosefta that does not accept the Rambam's ruling on this point and instead, maintains that he is liable for only one sacrifice. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, support the Rambam's ruling, explaining that each of the prohibitions expands the scope of the obligation. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 7:2 and Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 which discusses the ground rules for these concepts.
34.Even if he also possessed all the other disqualifying factors.
35.For all of the other prohibitions were given only to a priest. They do not apply to a non-priest (Kessef Mishneh).
36.For the Temple services involve performance of forbidden labors. These prohibitions are superseded by the obligation to offer the sacrifices, but since a non-priest's service is not valid, he is considered as liable for these prohibited acts.
37.Here also although a single act is performed, since two different prohibitions are involved, he is liable for both of them. We do not follow the principle: One prohibition does not fall on another prohibition, because the prohibition against performing the Sabbath labors is greater in scope, encompassing other acts besides the Temple service.
38.For the ritual impurity increases the scope of his liability, making him liable also for entering the Temple and partaking of sacrifices. Since it is of a greater scope, we do not follow the principle, one prohibition does not fall on another (Radbaz).
39.A parallel also exists with regard to the recitation of the priestly blessing. See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:3. There the Rambam also excludes a priest who was compelled to serve idols and he cites a different prooftext, II Kings 23:9.
40.The priests who "who distanced themselves from Me during Israel's straying, when they strayed after false deities" (Ezekiel 44:10).
41.I.e., though it is not disqualified, it is not considered as desirable.
42.Note a parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:15.
43.The Rambam is not speaking about a mere hypothetical situation. As he relates in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:10), Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just entered into a power struggle with his brother Shimi to inherit his father's position as High Priest. Chonio incurred the people's wrath, because he brought about a very deprecating situation in the Temple. He fled to Alexandria where he established a following, constructed a temple to God resembling the Temple in Jerusalem, and offered sacrifices there just like those offered in Jerusalem. Needless to say, our Sages shunned Chonio's shrine, because its sacrificial worship violated the prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple. Indeed, the majority of those who worshiped there were non-Jewish Egyptians whom Chonio had attracted to God's service.
44.This represents a conclusion reached by the Rambam on the basis of deduction without a prior Rabbinic source.
45.Since they were disqualified by Rabbinic decree, after the fact, their service is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
46.Halachah 13.
47.Halachah 1.
48.Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2.
49.Ibid.:8.
50.Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
51.Ibid.:4.
52.Ibid.:5.
53.Chapter 2, Halachah 7.
54.Chapter 1, Halachah 1.
55.Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 10:4.
56.Ibid.:5.
57.Chapter 1, Halachah 14.
58.Ibid.:8-9.
59.Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
60.Ibid.:17.
61.Ibid.
62.Ibid.
63.Ibid.:18.
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of choice quality,1 as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "unblemished to arouse favor."2 This is a positive commandment.3
Halacha 2
[Conversely,] anyone who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar violates a negative commandment4 and is liable for lashes5 for consecrating it, as [ibid.:20] states: "Whatever has a blemish should not be sacrificed." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against consecrating a blemished animal. Even one who consecrates such an animal for the money to pay for libations6 is liable for lashes, for this represents a disgrace to the sacrifices.7
Halacha 3
[When a person consecrates an animal and] intends to say [that it is consecrated as] a peace offering, but actually says "as a burnt offering," or [intended to consecrate it] as a burnt offering, but said, "a peace offering," his statements are of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are identical.8 Therefore if one intended to consecrate a blemished animal as a burnt offering, but consecrated it as peace offering or intended to consecrate it as a peace offering, but consecrated it as burnt offering, he is not liable for lashes even though he intended to perform a transgression.
If someone thought that it was permitted to consecrate a blemished animal for the altar and did so, the consecration is effective and he is not liable for lashes.9
Halacha 4
One who slaughters a blemished animal for the sake of a sacrifice10 is liable for lashes,11 for [ibid.:22] states: "Do not offer these12 to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who slaughters.
Similarly, one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar is liable for lashes,13 for, with regard to them,14 [ibid.:24] states: "Do not offer to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar.
And also one who sets afire the selected portions of blemished sacrifices on the altar is liable for lashes,15 for, with regard to them,16 [ibid.:22] states: "Do not place them as a fire offering on the altar." This refers to the fats. Thus we can deduce that one who consecrates a blemished animal, slaughter it, poured its blood [on the altar], and set afire its selected portions is worthy of four sets of lashes.
Halacha 5
One transgresses the above commandments whether the animal has a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish, he violates all of these commandments, as [Deuteronomy 17:1] states: "Do not sacrifice to God your Lord an ox or a sheep that has a blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning [against offering] an animal with a temporary blemish,17 for example, an animal had a moist skin eruption or a boil.18 If he sacrificed, it, he is liable for lashes.
Halacha 6
[The above applies], not only to sacrifices of the Jewish people, but also to the sacrifices brought by gentiles.19 If [a priest] offered [such sacrifices] and the animals were blemished, he is liable for lashes,20 as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "From the hands of foreigners, you may not offer the food of your God from all of these."21
Halacha 7
One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand,22 is liable for lashes.23 For with regard to a sacrifice, [Leviticus 22:21] states: "It shall not have any blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning not to cause a blemish."
Lashes are given [for the violation of this prohibition] only when the Temple was standing, for then [the animal] was fit to be offered a sacrifice and [the person] disqualified it. In the present age, by contrast, even though one transgressed a negative commandment, he is not liable for lashes.24
Halacha 8
If a person brought about a blemish25 in a sacrificial animal and another person came and brought about a second blemish, the second person is not liable for lashes.26
Halacha 9
[This prohibition applies] both with regard to one who causes a blemish in sacrificial animals themselves or in animals to which their holiness was transferred27with the exception of a firstborn or a tithed animal. In those instances, one who causes a blemish in an animal to which their holiness was transferred is not liable for lashes, for they are not fit to be sacrificed, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28 Similarly, one who causes a blemish in the ninth animal which was mistakenly called the tenth,29 is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 10
Although one who consecrates a blemished animal30 [for the sacrifices of] the altar is liable for lashes,31 [the animal] becomes consecrated. It must be redeemed [after] evaluation by a priest.32 It then reverts to the status of an ordinary [animal]33 and its money should be used to purchase [an animal for the same type of] sacrifice. This law also applies when a consecrated animal contracts a disqualifying blemish.34
It is a positive commandment to redeem sacrificial animals that contracted disqualifying blemishes and cause them to revert to the status of an ordinary animals so that one may partake of them,35 as [Deuteronomy 12:15] states: "Nevertheless, whenever your heart desires, you may slaughter and partake of meat." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that must be redeemed.36We already explained in [Hilchot] Arachin37 that [Leviticus 27:11]: "With regard to any impure animal38 of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, [you shall have the animal stand before the priest...]",39 is speaking about blemished animals that have been redeemed.
Halacha 11
What are the differences between [the laws pertaining to an animal] with a permanent blemish and one with a temporary blemish? If an animal with a permanent blemish40 gives birth while it is consecrated,41 the offspring must be redeemed; it then receives the status of an ordinary animal even if it is unblemished.42[The rationale is that] a secondary entity should not be treated with greater severity than the primary entity.43 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth after it was redeemed, the offspring has the status of an ordinary animal.44If [the consecrated animal that was blemished] died before it was redeemed, it should be redeemed after it died.45 [The rationale is that] holiness never encompassed its actual body only on its worth, because it had a permanent blemish.46
If, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that possesses a temporary blemish or he consecrates an unblemished animal and after he consecrated it, it contracted a permanent blemish [different laws apply]. If it died before it was redeemed, it should be buried like other unblemished consecrated animals,47 because it must be stood before the court and evaluated,48 as we explained in [Hilchot] Arachin.49 If it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, it may be redeemed as long as it is making convulsive motions.50 Afterwards, one may partake of it. If it gave birth, its offspring may be sacrificed.51 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed52and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden.53 It may not be redeemed. What should be done? Before the mother is redeemed, the offspring should be dedicated to the same [type of] sacrifice as its mother,54 because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.55
Halacha 12
Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified56 is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers' market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat.57 [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes.58
[The rationale for the distinction is that] selling the animal in the market causes its price to rise. Therefore other sacrifices whose value remains consecrated - for they are sold and the proceeds of the sale are used to bring another animal as a sacrifice - it should be sold in the market like an ordinary animal.59 In contrast, with regard to a first born animal and a tithed animal - since the proceeds of their sale do not remain consecrated, instead, the animals may be eaten [as ordinary meat,] because of the blemish, as will be explained60 - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers' market or sold there.61 Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated,62 it should not be weighed in a scale and sold in a market.63 [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.64
FOOTNOTES
1.See the conclusion of these halachot (Chapter 7, Halachah 11).
2.The Sifra explains that the phrase should be understood, not only as a description.
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 286) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 285) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable for merely consecrating such an animal even if it is never actually offered on the altar (Sefer HaChinuch).
5.The Sefer HaChinuch questions why lashes should be given, because the transgression does not involve a deed, but explains that it can be considered comparable to temurah, exchanging an animal for a sacred animal. There too the exchange/consecration of the animal is considered as significant enough to warrant lashes.
6.And thus the animal will be sold, rather than offered on the altar itself.
7.For as above, the sacrifices should be associated only with perfect and unblemished animals. Anything less is an insult to He to Whom they are offered.
8.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:12; Hilchot Nizirut 9:8. This is a general principle: Whenever a person wants to take a vow, consecrate an article, or set it aside as holy, his statements must reflect the will of his heart.
9.Since he did not know of the prohibition involved, his act does not minimize the holiness of the sacrifices. Hence the consecration is effective. And since, he did not act intentionally. He is not liable for lashes. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, based on his understanding of Temurah 17a. The commentaries elaborate on this difference of opinion.
10.The Kessef Mishnehemphasizes that he must slaughter the animal for the sake of a sacrifice to be liable.
11.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
12.The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.
13.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 289) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
14.The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.
15.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 290) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
17.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 95) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 494) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In his hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as a separate commandment, but rather as an element of the above commandments. Even according to the Rambam, this one negative commandment includes all of the three prohibitions mentioned above.
18.See Chapter 2, Halachah 7, where these blemishes are listed.
19.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2-3 for a description of these sacrifices.
20.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 96) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 292) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
21.The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.
22.The examples the Rambam gives are permanent blemishes. Generally, temporary blemishes cannot be brought about by human acts. Moreover, even if a person does cause a temporary blemish, he does not violate this prohibition. There is a logical basis for this conclusion, because as long as the animal is not permanently blemished, it is not disqualified as an offering (Radbaz; Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 287).
23.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 97) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 287) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.The Radbaz explains that this concept can be derived from the prooftext cited in Halachah 1: "unblemished to arouse favor." Implied is that when a sacrificial animal can arouse favor, i.e., when there is a Temple where it can be offered, it must be unblemished. If that is not the case, there is no penalty for causing such a blemish.
The Kessef Mishnehand other commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling appears to be in contradiction with Avodah Zarah 13b which implies that there is no prohibition at all in causing a blemish in the present era, because there is no Temple where the sacrifices can be offered. The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) and others explain that the difference can be resolved on the basis of the Rambam's ruling (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) that if the altar is constructed on the Temple Mount, sacrifices may be brought even if the entire Temple has not been rebuilt.
25.From Chapter 2, Halachah 15, it would appear that if the first merely brought about a temporary blemish, the second would be liable.
26.For the animal was already disqualified due to the actions of the first person. Although the second person is not liable for lashes, he is still considered to have violated a Scriptural prohibition.
27.Although it is forbidden to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to another animal, once that act has been performed, the second animal is consecrated and the prohibitions associated with a sacrifice apply to it.
28.Hilchot Temurah 3:1.
29.As explained in Hilchot Bechorot 8:1-2, when a person is tithing his flocks and he mistakenly calls the ninth animal to emerge, the tenth. In such an instance, a certain measure of holiness is conveyed upon that animal and it cannot be eaten until it becomes blemished. It should not, however, be offered on the altar. Since it is not fit to be offered, causing a blemish in it does not make one liable for lashes.
30.This is speaking about an animal with a permanent blemish. The laws that apply if it has merely a temporary blemish are mentioned in the following halachah.
31.As stated in Halachah 1.
32.As indicated by the sources cited by the Rambam at the conclusion of this halachah, the evaluation of the animal's worth must be made by a priest and not by any other person.
33.Once such an animal has been redeemed, it may be shorn or used for labor (Hilchot Me'ilah 1:9).
34.I.e., they should be redeemed and a sacrifice brought with the money, as stated in Hilchot Arachin 5:11.
35.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 86) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 441) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
36.I.e., the new concept taught by the verse is not that one may slaughter ordinary animals and partake of their meat, for there is no need for a verse to teach us that. Instead, the new idea is that consecrated animals can be redeemed and then used as food. It is, however, forbidden to shear them and perform work with them even after they have been redeemed (Hilchot Me'ilah, loc. cit.).
37.Hilchot Arachin, loc. cit.
38.Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals.
39.To be evaluated and then it may be redeemed.
40.It had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated.
41.I.e., before it was redeemed.
42.This represents a departure from the usual practice, because generally, unblemished animals are not redeemed, but are offered as sacrifices; see Teumrah 33b.
43.I.e., it would not be appropriate for the animal that was consecrated not to be offered as a sacrifice and its offspring, which was never directly consecrated, to be used for that purpose.
44.For it was redeemed together with its mother.
45.And then its meat can be used even as food for animals, and certainly for humans. Moreover, a formal process of evaluation by a court is not required before its redemption.
46.The Rambam is explaining why leniency is granted to redeem it after it died although generally we do not redeem a consecrated animal to feed its meat to the dogs (Chapter 2, Halachah 10; based on Temurah 6:5). In this instance, however, because the animal was blemished permanently, the consecration never affected its actual body, only its worth (i.e., it was not destined to be sacrificed itself, but rather to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice). Hence, after it dies, it can still be sold after it is redeemed.
47.Rather than redeemed. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11.
48.And this process of evaluation must be performed while the animal is alive.
49.Hilchot Arachin 5:12.
50.For as long as it is making convulsive motions, it is considered alive and the process of evaluation can take place (ibid.:13).
51.See Hilchot Temurah 4:9.
52.But after it contracted a permanent blemish.
53.To be used for ordinary purposes by Rabbinic decree. Although according to Scriptural Law, its holiness has departed, our Sages forbade its use, lest many such animals be maintained and flocks of them raised (Bechorot 15b).
54.It then receives holiness on its own accord, independent of its mother.
55.Since the mother was unfit to be sacrificed because of its blemish, its holiness is considered to be suspended. Because the holiness of the mother was suspended, the offspring is not considered to be consecrated to the complete extent. Hence it must be consecrated again.
(It must be noted that the commentaries have questioned this ruling, because in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4, the Rambam writes that the holiness of consecrated animals is never suspended. It can, however, be explained that a suspension stemming from a permanent blemish is different, because the animal can never be fit for sacrifice again. See a parallel in Hilchot Temurah 3:4.)
56.Because of a blemish or similar reason.
57.I.e., we do not say that since the animal was originally consecrated, it is disrespectful to treat it in this manner after it was redeemed. The Radbaz adds that the purchaser need not be notified that the meat came from a sacrifice that was disqualified.
58.See Hilchot Bechorot 1:18; 6:5-7 which mentions the restrictions against selling such meat.
59.So that the best price could be received for it.
60.Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:18; Hilchot Bechorot 1:3; 6:4; Hilchot Temurah 3:1-2.
61.For this represents disdain for consecrated property.
62.By the priest who received it after it was blemished.
63.One might think that since its value will be given to the Temple treasury, one would be allowed to sell it like normal meat to increase its price, as explained above.
64.In this instance, the priest cannot sell this animal in the market as private property. Hence he does not have the right to give this privilege to the Temple treasury (Rashi, Zevachim 75b).
-------
Hayom Yom
Today's Hayom Yom
Shabbat, 16 Sivan 5774 - June 14, 2014
Shabbat, Sivan 16, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Beha'alotecha, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82.
Tanya: Ch. 5. Concerning (p. 299)...Shaar 44, ch. 3). (p. 301).
The early sages, who were like angels1 (may their merit protect us) have already determined that the healing of the soul is like the healing of the body:
The crucial first step is to identify the location of the illness, whether it is caused by the crassness, grossness and corruption of his physical body or by a failing in his soul-powers, the person being inclined to undersirable traits like arrogance or falsehood and the like. Or, the source of the malady may be habit - inadequate rearing or unwholesome environment having brought on bad habits.
Without ascertaining the specific site of the illness and the cause of infection, it is impossible to embark on a cure. One can only prescribe an orderly proper conduct in all matters, what to do and what to avoid. To "do good"2 in terms of observing mitzvot, designating times for Torah-study and acquiring good character traits - and also to "turn away from evil."3
Most urgent of all, however, is that the patient make himself aware of two things: a) to know that he is ill, and desire most fervently to be cured of his malady; b) to know that he can be cured, with hope and absolute trust that, with G-d's help, he will indeed be cured of his sickness.
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.Allusion to the Talmudic statement: "If the first (or early ones, i.e. our predecessors) were like angels, then we are like men; if they were like men, we are like donkeys."
2.Tehillim 34:15.

3.Ibid.
-------
Daily Thought:
Wellsprings

Only pure water can purify. The further you wish to take that water, the deeper your wellspring must be. Those who wish to reach to the very outside and enlighten and purify that place, they must reach deep into the womb of truth.
-------