-------
Today in Jewish History:
Spanish Expulsion Rescinded (1967)
The Spanish cabinet approved a bill which granted religious freedom to Spain's Jews as well as other religious minorities. Since 1492 it had been officially forbidden to practice Judaism in Spain -- though this law had not been enforced for many years before its official abolishment.
Link:
The Inquisition
-------
DAILY QUOTE:
When you arrive in the Land to which I am bringing you; and you eat from the bread of the Land, you shall set aside a gift for G-d. The first portion of your dough, you shall raise up as challah...(Numbers 15:18-20)
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: with Rashi
• Chapter 16
14. You have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, nor have you given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Even if you gouge out the eyes of those men, we will not go up." יד. אַף לֹא אֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ וַתִּתֶּן לָנוּ נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם תְּנַקֵּר לֹא נַעֲלֶה:
nor have you given us: This statement refers to the word “not” stated above; meaning, You have not brought us up, and You have not given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. You said to us, “I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt to a good land…” (Exod. 3:10). You did bring us out of there, but you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey. Instead, you have decreed upon us to kill us in the desert, as you said to us,“your corpses shall fall in this desert” (14:29).
ותתן לנו: הדבר מוסב על לא האמור למעלה, כלומר לא הביאותנו ולא נתת לנו נחלת שדה וכרם, אמרת לנו (שמות ג, יז) אעלה אתכם מעני מצרים אל ארץ וגו', משם הוצאתנו ולא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, אלא גזרת עלינו להמיתנו במדבר, שאמרת לנו (במדבר יד, כט) במדבר הזה יפלו פגריכם:
Even if you gouge out the eyes of those men…: Even if you send [messengers] to gouge out our eyes if we do not go up to you, we will not go up.
העיני האנשים ההם תנקר וגו': אפילו אתה שולח לנקר את עינינו אם לא נעלה אליך, לא נעלה:
those men: Like a person who attributes his own curse to his fellow.
האנשים ההם: כאדם התולה קללתו בחבירו:
15. Moses was exceedingly distressed, and he said to the Lord, "Do not accept their offering. I have not taken a donkey from a single one of them, and I have not harmed a single one of them." טו. וַיִּחַר לְמשֶׁה מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל יְהֹוָה אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶם:
Moses was exceedingly distressed: Heb. וַיִּחַר לְמשֶׁה מְאֹד, he was very grieved, [not that he was angry].
ויחר למשה מאד: נצטער עד למאוד:
Do not accept their offering: According to its simple meaning, [Moses said,] Do not accept the incense that they will sacrifice before You tomorrow. According to its Midrashic interpretation, he said: I know that they have a portion in the daily communal offerings. Let their portions not be accepted favorably before You. Let the fire leave it and not consume it. - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 7, Num. Rabbah 10]
אל תפן אל מנחתם: לפי פשוטו הקטרת שהם מקריבים לפניך מחר אל תפן אליהם. והמדרש אומר יודע אני שיש להם חלק בתמידי צבור, אף חלקם לא יקובל לפניך לרצון, תניחנו האש ולא תאכלנו:
I have not taken a donkey from a single one of them: I did not take a donkey from any one of them. Even when I went from Midian to Egypt, and I placed my wife and sons on a donkey to ride, and I should have taken that donkey from their property, I took only from my own property (Tanchuma Korach 7, Num. Rabbah 10). Onkelos renders it as שְׁחָרִית, ‘expropriated.’ In Aramaic, the king’s service is called שַׁחְוַור.
לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי: לא חמורו של אחד מהם נטלתי. אפילו כשהלכתי ממדין למצרים והרכבתי את אשתי ואת בני על החמור, והיה לי ליטול אותו החמור משלהם, לא נטלתי אלא משלי. ותרגום אנקלוס, שחרית, לשון ארמי, כך נקראת אנגריא של מלך שחוור:
16. Moses said to Korah, "You and your entire congregation should be before the Lord you, they, and Aaron tomorrow. טז. וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל קֹרַח אַתָּה וְכָל עֲדָתְךָ הֱיוּ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אַתָּה וָהֵם וְאַהֲרֹן מָחָר:
they: Your company.
והם: עדתך:
17. Let each man take his censer and place incense upon it, and let each man present his censer before the Lord; [there will thus be] two hundred and fifty censers, and let you and Aaron each [take] his censer. יז. וּקְחוּ | אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וּנְתַתֶּם עֲלֵיהֶם קְטֹרֶת וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם מַחְתֹּת וְאַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ:
and let each man present his censer before the Lord…: The two hundred and fifty men among you.
והקרבתם וגו' איש מחתתו: החמשים ומאתים איש שבכם:
18. So each man took his censer, and they put fire upon it and placed incense upon it, and they stood at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron. יח. וַיִּקְחוּ אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וַיִּתְּנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֵשׁ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶם קְטֹרֶת וַיַּעַמְדוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּמשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן:
19. Korah assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the Lord appeared before the entire congregation. יט. וַיַּקְהֵל עֲלֵיהֶם קֹרַח אֶת כָּל הָעֵדָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד יְהֹוָה אֶל כָּל הָעֵדָה:
Korah assembled… against them: with words of mockery. All that night, he went to the tribes and enticed them [saying,] “Do you think I care only for myself? I care for all of you. These [people] come and take all the high positions: the kingship for himself and the kehunah for his brother,” until they were all enticed. - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 7, Num. Rabbah 10]
ויקהל עליהם קרח: בדברי ליצנות. כל הלילה ההוא הלך אצל השבטים ופתה אותם כסבורין אתם שעלי לבדי אני מקפיד, איני מקפיד אלא בשביל כלכם. אלו באין ונוטלין כל הגדולות, לו המלכות ולאחיו הכהונה, עד שנתפתו כלם:
and the glory of the Lord appeared: He came in a pillar of cloud.
וירא כבוד ה': בא בעמוד ענן:
-------
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 88 - 89
• Chapter 88
The psalmist weeps and laments bitterly over the maladies and suffering Israel endures in exile, which he describes in detail.
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach, for the Conductor, upon the machalat le'anot; 1 a maskil2 for Heiman the Ezrachite.
2. O Lord, God of my deliverance, by day I cried out [to You], by night I [offer my prayer] before You.
3. Let my prayer come before You; turn Your ear to my supplication.
4. For my soul is sated with affliction, and my life has reached the grave.
5. I was reckoned with those who go down to the pit, I was like a man without strength.
6. [I am regarded] among the dead who are free, like corpses lying in the grave, of whom You are not yet mindful, who are yet cut off by Your hand.
7. You have put me into the lowest pit, into the darkest places, into the depths.
8. Your wrath has weighed heavily upon me, and all the waves [of Your fury] have constantly afflicted me.
9. You have estranged my friends from me, You have made me abhorrent to them; I am imprisoned and unable to leave.
10. My eye is afflicted because of distress; I call to You, O Lord, every day; I have stretched out my hands [in prayer] to You.
11. Do You perform wonders for the deceased? Do the dead stand to offer You praise? Selah.
12. Is Your kindness recounted in the grave, your faithfulness in the place of perdition?
13. Are Your wondrous deeds known in the darkness [of the grave], or Your righteousness in the land of oblivion?
14. But, I, to You, O Lord, I cry; each morning my prayer comes before You.
15. Why, O Lord, do You forsake my soul? Why do You conceal Your countenance from Me?
16. From my youth I have been afflicted and approaching death, yet I have borne the fear of You which is firmly established within me.
17. Your furies have passed over me; Your terrors have cut me down.
18. They have engulfed me like water all day long, they all together surrounded me.
19. You have estranged from me beloved and friend; I have been rejected by my intimates.
Chapter 89
This psalm speaks of the kingship of the House of David, the psalmist lamenting its fall from power for many years, and God's abandonment and spurning of us.
1. A maskil1 by Eitan the Ezrachite.
2. I will sing of the Lord's kindness forever; to all generations I will make known Your faithfulness with my mouth.
3. For I have said, "The world is built with kindness; there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness.”
4. I have made a covenant with My chosen one; I have sworn to David, My servant:
5. "I will establish Your descendants forever; I will build your throne for all generations," Selah.
6. Then the heavens will extol Your wonders, O Lord; Your faithfulness, too, in the congregation of the holy ones.
7. Indeed, who in heaven can be compared to the Lord, who among the supernal beings can be likened to the Lord!
8. The Almighty is revered in the great assembly of the holy ones, awe-inspiring to all who surround Him.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, who is mighty like You, O God! Your faithfulness surrounds You.
10. You rule the vastness of the sea; when its waves surge, You still them.
11. You crushed Rahav (Egypt) like a corpse; with Your powerful arm You scattered Your enemies.
12. Yours are the heavens, the earth is also Yours; the world and all therein-You established them.
13. The north and the south-You created them; Tabor and Hermon sing of [the greatness] of Your Name.
14. Yours is the arm which has the might; strengthen Your hand, raise high Your right hand.
15. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; kindness and truth go before Your countenance.
16. Fortunate is the people who know the sound of the shofar; Lord, they walk in the light of Your countenance.
17. They rejoice in Your Name all day, and they are exalted through Your righteousness.
18. Indeed, You are the splendor of their might, and in Your goodwill our glory is exalted.
19. For our protectors turn to the Lord, and our king to the Holy One of Israel.
20. Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones and said: "I have granted aid to [David] the mighty one; I have exalted the one chosen from among the people.
21. I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil.
22. It is he whom My hand shall be prepared [to assist]; My arm, too, shall strengthen him.
23. The enemy shall not prevail over him, nor shall the iniquitous person afflict him.
24. And I will crush his adversaries before him, and will strike down those who hate him.
25. Indeed, My faithfulness and My kindness shall be with him, and through My Name his glory shall be exalted.
26. I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers.
27. He will call out to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, the strength of my deliverance.’
28. I will also make him [My] firstborn, supreme over the kings of the earth.
29. I will maintain My kindness for him forever; My covenant shall remain true to him.
30. And I will bestow [kingship] upon his seed forever, and his throne will endure as long as the heavens last.
31. If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My ordinances;
32. if they profane My statutes and do not observe My commandments,
33. then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their misdeeds with plagues.
34. Yet I shall not take away My kindness from him, nor betray My faithfulness.
35. I will not abrogate My covenant, nor change that which has issued from My lips.
36. One thing I have sworn by My holiness-I will not cause disappointment to David.
37. His seed will endure forever and his throne will be [resplendent] as the sun before Me.
38. Like the moon, it shall be established forever; [the moon] is a faithful witness in the sky for all time.”
39. Yet You have forsaken and abhorred; You became enraged at Your anointed.
40. You annulled the covenant with Your servant; You have profaned his crown [by casting it] to the ground.
41. You shattered all his fences; You turned all his strongholds into ruin.
42. All wayfarers despoiled him; he has become a disgrace to his neighbors.
43. You have uplifted the right hand of his adversaries; You have made all his enemies rejoice.
44. You also turned back the blade of his sword, and did not sustain him in battle.
45. You put an end to his splendor, and toppled his throne to the ground.
46. You have cut short the days of his youth; You have enclothed him with long-lasting shame.
47. How long, O Lord, will You conceal Yourself-forever? [How long] will Your fury blaze like fire?
48. O remember how short is my life span! Why have You created all children of man for naught?
49. What man can live and not see death, can save his soul forever from the grave?
50. Where are Your former deeds of kindness, my Lord, which You swore to David in Your faithfulness?
51. Remember, my Lord, the disgrace of Your servants, that I bear in my bosom from all the many nations;
52. that Your enemies have disgraced, O Lord, that they have disgraced the footsteps of Your anointed.
53. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.
-------
Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 6
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya
• Monday, 18 Sivan 5774 - June 16, 2014
• Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, middle of Chapter 6
והנה מהתכללות המדות זו בזו, נראה לעין דאיהו וגרמוהי חד, שהן מדותיו
From the mutual inclusion of the attributes, their opposite natures notwithstanding, it is evident that “He and His causations” — i.e., His attributes — “are One,”
כי מאחר שהן ביחוד גמור עמו, לכן הן מתייחדות זו בזו וכלולות זו מזו
for since they are in complete unity with Him, they therefore unite with each other and are comprised of each other.
כמאמר אליהו: ואנת הוא דקשיר לון ומייחד לון וכו׳ ובר מינך לית יחודא בעילאי כו׳
As Eliyahu said, in the passage beginning Patach Eliyahu, in the introduction to Tikkunei Zohar, “And You are He Who binds them (i.e., the Sefirot and the attributes) together and unites them...; and apart from You there is no unity among those [attributes] above….”
The Alter Rebbe will say a little later that since the Divine Name Elokim, signifying the attribute of tzimtzum and concealment, is one with the Name Havayah, it follows that the concealment brought about by the Name Elokim is not a true concealment, for “an entity cannot conceal its own self.” Created beings are therefore absolutely nullified in relation to their source.
וזהו שכתוב: והשבות אל לבבך כי ה׳ הוא האלקים
This, then, is the meaning of the Scriptural phrase,1 “and take it unto your heart that Havayah is Elokim.”
Concerning this verse the question was asked in the first chapter: “Would it occur to you that there is a god dwelling in the waters beneath the earth, so that it is necessary to caution so strongly [and negate this thought by stating that one should] ‘take it unto your heart’?”
According to the explanation given here this question is answered: The statement that “in the heavens above and upon the earth below, there is no other,” is not intended to negate the existence of another god. Rather, the verse is telling us that there is nothing else besides G‑d: He alone enjoys true existence; everything else is totally nullified in relation to Him. And for this concept to be understood well, one must indeed “take it unto his heart.”
פירוש: ששני שמות אלו הם אחד ממש
That is, these two Names are actually one; i.e., although Havayah represents Chesed and revelation, and Elokim represents tzimtzum and concealment, they are nevertheless truly one,
שגם שם אלקים, המצמצם ומעלים האור, הוא בחינת חסד כמו שם הויה
for even the Name Elokim, which conceals and contracts the light of the Divine life-force that is responsible for creation, is a quality of Chesed, just like the Name Havayah.
משום שמדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא מתיחדות עמו ביחוד גמור
For the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, unite with Him in a complete unity,
והוא ושמו אחד, שמדותיו הן שמותיו
and “He and His Name are One,” for His attributes are His Names; i.e., the attributes correspond to His specific Names.
ואם כן
Since this is so, i.e., once you understand that Elokim is one with Havayah,
ממילא תדע שבשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד
you will consequently know that “in the heavens above and on the earth below, ein od” — there exists nothing else besides G‑d.
פירוש: שגם הארץ החומרית, שנראית יש גמור לעין כל, היא אין ואפס ממש לגבי הקב״ה
This Hebrew phrase means that even the material earth, which appears to everyone’s eyes to be actually existing, is naught and utter nothingness in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He.
כי שם אלקים אינו מעלים ומצמצם אלא לתחתונים
For the Name Elokim obscures and contracts the light and life-force only for the nether creatures, so that they perceive themselves as possessing independent existence,
ולא לגבי הקב״ה, מאחר שהוא ושמו אלקים אחד
but not for the Holy One, blessed be He, since He and His Name Elokim are One. Hence the Name Elokim cannot possibly act as a concealment for Him.
ולכן גם הארץ ומתחת לארץ הן אין ואפס ממש לגבי הקב״ה
Therefore, even the earth and that which is below it are naught and utter nothingness in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He,
ואינן נקראות בשם כלל, אפילו בשם עוד, שהוא לשון טפל
and are not called by any name at all, not even by the name od (“else”), which would indicate a subordinate status,
כמאמר רז״ל: יהודה ועוד לקרא
as in the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory:2 Yehudah ve‘od likra — “Does a verse in the Torah require secondary (od) substantiation from [the customs of] the Land of Judah?!”
We thus see that the term od signifies secondary status.
וכגוף שהוא טפל לנשמה וחיות שבתוכו
This too is the case with the body, which is subordinate to the soul and life-force within it, for which reason it is referred to as od.
וזהו שכתוב: אהללה ה׳ בחיי, אזמרה לאלקי בעודי
(3And this is the meaning of the verse,4 “I will praise Havayah with my life, i.e., with my soul; I will sing to Elokai (”my L‑rd“) be‘odi, i.e., with my body.”
We thus see that the body is termed od, inasmuch as it is subservient to the soul. The reason the term Elokai is used in connection with the body’s song is this:
שהחיים נמשכים משם הויה, והעוד, שהוא הגוף הטפל, משם אלקים
For the life, i.e., the soul, is derived from the Name Havayah, and the od, which is the body, its subordinate, from the Name Elokim.)
We thus see that the body is nullified in relation to the soul to the extent of od, i.e., it is subordinate to it; it is not, however, nullified out of existence in relation to the soul. The reason for this:
לפי שהנשמה אינה מהוה הגוף מאין ליש
For the soul does not bring the body into existence ex nihilo: it only provides it with life. The body is therefore called od, i.e., secondary to the soul, inasmuch as it is the soul that provides the body with life.
אבל הקב״ה, המהוה את הכל מאין ליש, הכל בטל במציאות אצלו, כמו אור השמש בשמש
But as to the Holy One, blessed be He, Who brings everything into existence ex nihilo, everything is absolutely nullified in relation to Him, just as the light of the sun is absolutely nullified in the sun.
FOOTNOTES
1.Devarim 4:39.
2.Kiddushin 6a.
3.The parentheses are in the original text.
4.Tehillim 146:2.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Sivan 18, 5774 • June 16, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 60
Minimum Age for Animal Sacrifices
"It shall remain under its mother for seven days, and from the eighth day onwards, it shall be accepted as a sacrifice"—Leviticus 22:27.
When bringing an animal sacrifice, we are commanded to bring animals that are in the eighth day of their lives and onwards.
Minimum Age for Animal Sacrifices
Positive Commandment 60
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 60th mitzvah is that we are commanded that every animal we sacrifice must be no less than eight days old. This is known as being m'chusar z'man b'gufo (itself lacking time).1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "It must remain with its mother for seven days; then, after the eighth day, it shall be acceptable as a sacrifice." This commandment is repeated in other words in the verse,3 "It shall be with its mother for seven days [; from the eighth day you may offer it to Me]."
This mitzvah covers all sacrifices, with all the various categories of individual and communal offerings.
The expression, "After the eighth day, it shall be acceptable," implies that beforehand it is not acceptable. This clearly indicates a prohibition against bringing the sacrifice before the proper time. But the prohibition is derived from a positive commandment (lav haba mik'lal aseh), and is therefore not punishable by lashes. Therefore, one who sacrifices an animal before the proper time does not receive lashes, as explained in the chapter Oso v'es b'no:4 "Omit [from the list of prohibitions punishable by lashes] m'chusar zman which Scripture expresses as a positive commandment."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in Sifra5 and in the end of tractate Zevachim.6
FOOTNOTES
1.This is in contrast with something which is m'chusar z'man b'balav (its owners lacking time), i.e. invalid because the owner has not yet completed the waiting period required for purification.
2.Lev. 22:27.
3.Ex. 22:29.
4.Chullin 80b.
5.Parshas Emor.
6.112b.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 100
Sacrificing an Animal that has been Obtained through a Disrespectful Exchange
"You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog"—Deuteronomy 23:19.
It is forbidden to bring as a sacrifice an animal that was given to a harlot as payment for services or an animal acquired in exchange for a dog.
Sacrificing an Animal that has been Obtained through a Disrespectful Exchange
Negative Commandment 100
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 100th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering a prostitute's fee or price of a dog on the altar.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not bring a prostitute's fee2 or the price of a dog3 [to the Temple of G‑d]."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the sixth chapter of tractate Temurah. One who offers either of them, although the sacrifice is invalid, receives lashes, as if [he sacrificed] a blemished animal.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 23:19.
2.I.e. an animal (or anything else fit for an offering, such as wine) which was used to pay a prostitute. See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 4:8ff.
3.I.e. an animal that was given, instead of money, as payment for a dog. Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 4:16.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 98
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
"For you shall not cause to [go up in] smoke any leavening or any honey, [as] a fire offering to G d"—Leviticus 2:11.
It is forbidden to offer on the altar any honey or leavened item.
Offering Honey or Leaven on the Altar
Negative Commandment 98
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 98th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering leaven or honey on the altar.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not burn any leaven or honey as a burnt-offering to G‑d." This prohibition is repeated in other words in the verse,2 "Do not make any meal offering that is sacrificed to G‑d out of leavened dough."
We explained in the Ninth Introductory Principle that one who offers leaven and honey receives one set of lashes, not two. This is because it is a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition], as we explained there; and we have also explained that one receives only one set of lashes for a lav she'b'klalus.3 An example of this is that one who offers honey is lashed once; one who offers leaven is lashed once; and so too one who offers leavened dough and honey together.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 2:11.
2.Ibid.
3.See also N94.
________________________________________
Positive Commandment 62Offering Salt with Every Sacrifice
"With all your offerings you shall offer salt"—Leviticus 2:13.
We are commanded to offer a salt accompaniment together with every sacrifice.
Offering Salt with Every Sacrifice
Positive Commandment 62
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 62nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to bring salt with every offering.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You must salt every offering."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in Sifra and a number of passages in Menachos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid., 2:13.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 99
Offering a Saltless Sacrifice
"Neither shall you omit salt, the covenant of your G d"—Leviticus 2:13.
It is forbidden to offer any sacrifice – whether animal or of meal – without an accompaniment of salt.
Offering a Saltless Sacrifice
Negative Commandment 99
Translated by Berel Bell
And the 99th prohibition is that we are forbidden from bringing an offering without salt.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not leave out the salt of your G‑d's covenant [from your meal offerings]." This warning not to leave out the salt implies that it is prohibited to bring an unsalted offering. One who does bring an unsalted offering — whether an animal or a meal offering — is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the seventh chapter of Zevachim.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.Our print of the Talmud contains this discussion in tractate Menachos 20ff.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter a Day: Shechenim Shechenim - Chapter Eight Shechenim - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
When a person desires to build a projection from his property - regardless of its size - extending over the space above a courtyard belonging to his colleague, his colleague may prevent him from doing so, for he will invade his privacy by looking at him when he hangs articles on the projection or uses it in any way.
If he built the projection and the owner of courtyard did not protest immediately, the builder of the projection establishes his right to it.
Halacha 2
If the projection was a handbreadth wide, the owner of the projection has established his right to the empty space of the courtyard. If the owner of the courtyard desires to build under the projection and as a result nullify its usefulness, the owner of the projection may prevent him from doing so.
If the projection is not a square handbreadth, the owner of the projection does not establish his right to the empty space of the courtyard. Whenever the owner of the courtyard desires, he may build under the projection and as a result nullify its usefulness. The owner of the projection may not prevent him from doing so.
Halacha 3
When the projection that was constructed was one handbreadth wide and extended out four handbreadths into the space of his colleague's courtyard, and the owner of the courtyard did not protest against this, the owner of the projection establishes the right to a space four handbreadths by four handbreadths. If the owner of the projection desires, he may widen the projection until it is four handbreadths by four handbreadths.
The owner of the courtyard may not build anything in the space of his courtyard below the projection unless he leaves a space of ten handbreadths below the projection so that the owner of the projection may make use of it.
Halacha 4
When a person sets up a small ladder that has fewer than four rungsin a courtyard or a field belonging to a colleague next to his own wall, he has not established a right to use his colleague's property in this manner. Whenever the owner of the courtyard desires, he may build next to the ladder and nullify its usefulness.
If by contrast the ladder is large - possessing four rungs or more - the owner of the ladder establishes his right to maintain it. If the owner of the courtyard desires to build a structure that would nullify its usefulness, the owner of the ladder may prevent him from doing so unless he moves a sufficient distance away. For he granted him the right of constructing a large ladder.
For this reason, if an owner of a roof comes to set up a large ladder in an adjacent courtyard, the owner of the courtyard may protest and prevent him from doing so, so that he does not establish this right. If, however, he sets up a small ladder, the owner of the courtyard may not prevent him from doing so. For we tell him: "You are losing nothing from this. Whenever you desire, you may move it away."
Halacha 5
The following rules apply when a person desires to extend a drainpipe from his roof over a courtyard belonging to a colleague so that water will flow unto his colleague's property, or he made a gutter on his wall, so that the water will drain off and descend into his colleague's courtyard. The owner of the courtyard can prevent him from doing so. If the owner of the courtyard does not protest, the neighbor establishes his right to the drainpipe.
If, afterwards, the owner of the pipe desires to close it, the owner of the courtyard can prevent him from doing so. For just as the owner of the roof established his right to have his water flow into the courtyard belonging to his colleague, the owner of the courtyard established his right to have the water from his colleague's roof flow into his garden.
If the owner of the roof desired to move the drainpipe from one corner of the roof to the other or the drainpipe was long and he desired to shorten it, the owner of the courtyard may not prevent him from doing so. For the right that he established was merely that the water flow into his property.
Similarly, if the owner of the courtyard desires to build under the drainpipe, the owner of the projection may not prevent him from doing so. For a drain pipe is not made for use like a projection, so that it could be said that the owner of the roof has established his right to the open space of the courtyard. For a drainpipe is made only for the purpose of letting water flow through it.
Halacha 6
The following rules apply when a person caused the water from his roof to descend unto the courtyard of his colleague and established his right to this privilege. If the water was dripping in several places and he desired to have it collect to one place and make a drainpipe, he may. Similarly, if the water would descend in one place, and the owner of the roof wanted it to flow in several different places, he may.
He may even build a slanted canopy on his roof, so that the water will flow speedily into the courtyard of his colleague, for he has established the right to have water descend into the courtyard of his colleague.
Halacha 7
When there is a wall between the properties of Reuven and Shimon, and they share its ownership, both may use it. One may hollow out space from one side and insert his beams, regardless of their size, and the other may hollow out space from the other side and insert his beams.
If the wall belonged to Reuven alone, Shimon may not make use of it. If, however, Shimon hollowed out space in the wall and inserted one beam, and Reuven remained silent and did not protest, he established his right to the place of that beam. Even if his original beam was small and Shimon desired to change it to a big and thick beam, he may.
If the beam was part of a temporary sukkah, he does not establish the right to maintain it for 30 days. For Reuven will say: "I did not waive my right to protest. I allowed it merely because it was temporary." If the owner of the beam maintains the sukkah for 30 days, he establishes his right to it, for that is no longer considered temporary.
Different rules apply if he constructed a sukkah for the holiday. Within all the seven days of the holiday, he does not establish his right to maintain it. After the seven days are completed, he does establish his right.
If he joins the end of the beam to the wall with mortar, he establishes his right immediately, provided he brings proof that Reuven helped him in the construction or saw and did not protest.
Halacha 8
If a person established a right to insert one beam into a wall, he does not have a right to insert a second beam. For the owner of wall waived his right to protest with regard to only one beam.
When does the above apply? When the person inserting the beam admitted that the wall did not belong to him, and the owner waived his right to protest with regard to the insertion of this beam. If, however, he claimed, "I am a partner in this wall," since he made use of it for one beam, his word is accepted and he is allowed to insert all his beams. He takes a sh'vuat hesset that he is a partner in the entire wall.
Halacha 9
When one of the colleagues builds the wall without the participation of the other, only he has the right to it. If beams belonging to Reuven were placed within the wall, and there was also space hollowed out on Shimon's side for him to place his beams, Shimon has not established his right to it. Shimon may not insert his beams into the wall, nor may he claim that he is a partner in it, for he has no right to use it.
Reuven can refute Shimon's claims, stating: "Before building the wall I hollowed out these places on your side, so that they will be prepared for you so that when you will purchase a share from me, or when you will request me to waive my right to protest and allow you to insert your beams, you will be able to do so without hollowing out the wall, so that the wall will not be shaken when it is hollowed out.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters a Day: Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5, Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6, Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
Even the slightest amount1 of a leavening agent and sweet entity2 is forbidden [as an offering] for the altar, as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "For no leavening agent or honey shall be kindled... [as a fire-offering]."3 One is liable only if he set them afire together with a sacrifice or for the sake of a sacrifice.4
Whether one sets afire these entities themselves or a mixture of them, he is liable for lashes for each one individually. If he set afire both of them at the same time, he is liable for only one set of lashes, because both of them are mentioned in the same prohibition.5
Halacha 2
If even the slightest amount of these substances fell into the incense offering, it is disqualified.6 If one set [the mixture] afire in the Sanctuary,7 he is worthy of lashes. Setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion.
Halacha 3
If one brought a leavening agent or a sweetener on the altar alone8 as kindling fuel, he is exempt, as [ibid:12] states: "They should not be brought to the altar as a pleasant fragrance." [Implied is that] they should not be brought as "a pleasant fragrance," i.e., as a sacrifice, but they may be brought as kindling fuel. Even if one set afire an entity that is not ordained to be set afire9 together with a leavening agent or with a sweetener, he is liable since it is part of a sacrifice.
Halacha 4
What is implied? When one causes [the following entities] to be consumed [by fire on the altar]:10the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,11 the meat of sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity,12 the remains of the meal offering,13 what is left-over from the omer14 or from a sin-offering from fowl,15 the showbread,16 the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],17 the log of oil brought by a leper18 - if one were to cause an olive-sized portion of any one of these entities to be consumed on the altar or on its ramp with a leavening agent or a sweetener,19 he is liable for lashes. Even though none of these entities are fit to be consumed by fire on the altar, since they are called sacrifices, one is liable for them, as [indicated by the initial clause of the verse cited above]: "You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering to God."20
Halacha 5
Similarly, it is forbidden21 to offer on the altar22 any entity from all those listed that is not fit to be consumed by fire, e.g., the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, the remains of the meal offering, or the like. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when there is an entity from which a portion is designated to be consumed by fire, it is forbidden to have the remainder [of that entity]23 consumed by fire.
Halacha 6
A person who has the limbs of an impure24 animal consumed by fire on the altar is liable for lashes despite the fact that the prohibition against offering it is [merely] derived from a positive commandment.25 [This is derived as follows:] The Torah teaches us to partake of pure animals26 and to offer pure animals as sacrifices.27 One may conclude that an impure animal should not be eaten and should not be offered. Just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of an impure animal [although it is a prohibition] derived from a positive commandment as explained in the appropriate place,28 so too, he is liable for lashes for offering it.29 When, by contrast, one offers the limbs of a kosher wild beast,30 he violates a positive commandment, but he is not liable for lashes. What is the source that teaches that he violates a positive commandment? [Leviticus 1:2] states: "You shall offer your sacrifices from the domesticated animals: from cattle and flocks."31 From this, one can derive that one should not offer wild beasts as sacrifices. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.32
Halacha 7
When one steals or obtains an object through robbery and offers it as a sacrifice, it is invalid33 and the Holy One, blessed be He, hates it, as [Isaiah 61:8] states: "[I am God Who...] hates a burnt offering [obtained] through robbery." Needless to say, it is not accepted. If the owner despairs of its return, the sacrifice is acceptable.34[This applies] even35 if it is a sin-offering and thus the priests partake of its meat.
For the sake of the enhancement of the altar's [honor], it was decreed that if it became public knowledge that a sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not bring about atonement even if the owner despaired of its return, so that it will not be said that the altar consumes stolen property.36 Similar laws apply with regard to a burnt offering.
Halacha 8
When a person steals an animal consecrated to be offered as a burnt- offering37 by a colleague and has it offered without any further explanation,38 the original owner receives atonement.39
Halacha 9
Meal offerings and wine libations may not be brought from tevel,40from chadash before the omer was offered,41 or from miduma.42 Needless to say,43 they may not be brought from orlah44or from mixed species in a vineyard,45 for that would be a mitzvah that comes as a result of a sin which God despises.46 If one brings such [an entity as a sacrifice], it is not sanctified to become fit to be offered as a sacrifice, but it is sanctified to be disqualified as are other consecrated entities that are disqualified.47
Halacha 10
As an initial preference, none of the meal offerings should be brought from chadash before the two breads [are brought on Shavuot], for [Leviticus 23:17]48 refers to them as "the first fruits unto God."49 If, however, [such a meal offering] was brought, it is acceptable.50 Wine libations may be brought from wine that was set aside51 on a festival.52
Halacha 11
It is a positive commandment to salt all the sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar,53 as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "On all of your sacrifices you shall offer salt."54 There are no entities that are offered on the altar without salt except the wine libations, the blood, and the wood. This matter was conveyed by the Oral Tradition, but there is no explicit verse to rely on.55
It is a mitzvah to salt the meat very thoroughly like one salts meat before roasting it, in which instance one turns over the limbs and salts it.56 If, however, one applies even the slightest amount of salt, even one grain, it is acceptable.
Halacha 12
If one offered a sacrifice without any salt at all, he is liable for lashes,57as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God."
Even though he receives lashes, the sacrifice is valid and is accepted [Above] with the exception of the meal offering. For salt is an absolute necessity when taking a fistful of the meal offering,58 as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God from your meal offering."
Halacha 13
The salt which is used to salt all of the sacrifices should be communal property like the wood. A private individual should not bring salt or wood for his sacrifice from his home.59
There are three places where salt is stored for the sacrificial service:60 in the Chamber of Salt,61 on the ramp [ascending to the altar], and on the top of the altar itself. In the Chamber of Salt, the hides of the sacrificial animals would be salted. On the ramp, the limbs would be salted and on the top of the altar, the fistful of meal [taken from the meal offering], the frankincense [from the Showbread], the meal offerings which are burnt, and a fowl brought as a burnt offering are salted.
FOOTNOTES
1.For the prooftexts says "No...." Although setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion (as stated in Halachah 3), if one mixes a small amount of a leavening agent or a sweetener together with other substances the size of an olive, one is liable for setting the mixture on fire.
2.Divash, the term used by the prooftext and the Rambam, means "honey." Here it is interpreted in a broader sense applying to date honey, bee-honey, and sweet sap from other fruits.
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 98) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 117) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.If, however, he sets them afire for the sake of fuel, he is not liable as stated in Halachah 3.
5.Although one is liable for lashes for each individually, since both transgression are mentioned in the same verse, one is liable for only one set of lashes. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that he is liable for two sets of lashes. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the standard printed text of Menachot 58b appears to follow the Ra'avad's understanding, but a more comprehensive understanding of the issue would favor the Rambam's view.
6.The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:5) states that honey would greatly enhance the aroma of the incense offering. Nevertheless, it is forbidden by Divine decree.
7.On the Inner Altar where the incense offering is brought. If he would offer the incense on the Outer Altar, he would not be liable for lashes, because that is not the place of its where it is burnt (Kessef Mishneh).
8.I.e., not together with a sacrifice.
9.As explained in the following halachah.
10.All of the entities the Rambam mentions are sacrifices or portions of sacrifices that were intended to be eaten and not offered on the altar.
11.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:1; 9:1, which outlines the portions of the sacrifices that were eaten.
12.Ibid. 10:1.
13.Ibid. 12:9.
14.Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.
15.Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:7.
16.Ibid. 12:3.
17.Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:11.
18.Hilchot Mechusrei Kapprah 4:2-3.
19.From the exegesis of Leviticus 2:12, the Sifra and Menachot 57b derive that the altar's ramp is equivalent to the altar in this context.
20.The verse speaks about the two loaves offered on Shavuot and from them, inference is drawn to other sacrificial entities.
21.Although the Rambam considers this prohibition as Scriptural in origin, he does not consider it as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, Moreover, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that although this prohibition is derived from the exegesis of the verse cited above, since it is not explicitly stated in a verse, lashes are not given for its violation.
22.Here the prohibition applies only to the altar and not to the ramp.
23.Which was designated to be eaten and not consumed.
24.I.e., non-kosher. Conversely, in this context, "pure" means kosher.
25.And generally, lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated and not when a positive commandment is violated.
26.As stated in Deuteronomy 14:6; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1.
27.In the verse stated at the conclusion of this halachah.
28.Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1-2. There the Rambam explains that "with regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: 'These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.' From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut." And he concludes "Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut." Thus although other non-kosher animals are not specifically mentioned in the prohibition, since they are included in the converse of the positive commandment, we conclude that the negative commandment applies to them as well.
29.The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that just as one does not receive lashes for offering an animal with a blemish, so too, he does not receive lashes for offering an impure animal. His objection appears to be based on the principle that punishment is not given for transgressions that are derived by logical inference. Accordingly, since the obligation for lashes is explicit, even though it could be derived by logical inference, we should not make such a conclusion. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's perspective: these cannot be considered as prohibitions derived from logical inferences, because they are forbidden due to the positive commandment. Logic only expands the scope of the person's liability.
30.All sacrifices are brought from behemot, domesticated animals, or fowl, not from chayot, wild beasts.
31.The term tzon, translated here as "flocks," can be used in reference to both sheep and goats. This is the intent here.
32.This is a general principle, applicable in many different contexts. See Chapter 3, Halachah 8, Hilchot Ishut 1:8, et al.
33.The Radbaz quotes Bava Kama 66b which explains that this refers to an instance where a person steals an animal set aside as a sacrifice and offers it as that sacrifice. It reaches that conclusion for it is obvious that if the animal was not consecrated beforehand, its offering is not acceptable, for a person cannot consecrate an object that does not belong to him.
34.When it comes to questions of monetary law, the owner's despair of the object's return is not enough to cause it to be acquired by the thief (Hilchot Geneivah 5:2-3; Hilchot Gezeilah VAveidah 2:1). Nevertheless, it is possible to say that according to Scriptural Law, the owner's despair is enough to effect the transfer of the property, further requirements are Rabbinic in origin and the Sages did not apply their decrees with regard to a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, with regard to questions of monetary law, a change of possession together with the owner's despair is sufficient to effect the transfer of the property (Hilchot Geneivah, loc. cit.). Similarly, in this instance, consecration of the animal is comparable to a change of possession (Lechem Mishneh, gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:14).
35.The Rambam's words imply that certainly the concept would apply if a burnt-offering was involved, but even when a sin-offering is involved, the principle is applied, implying that a sin-offering is a more severe issue than a burnt offering. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the word "even" should be omitted, implying that the two types of sacrifices are of equal standing.
(A similar concept applies with regard to the conclusion of the halachah: The Ma'aseh Rokeach suggests amending the text to read: "How much more so does this apply with regard to a burnt-offering?!" I.e., according to the Rambam, the sin offering is considered more severe, while the Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that the burnt offering deserves more weight.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam uses "even" in reference to the first clause, even though the priests partake of such a sacrifice, it is unacceptable.
36.The Radbaz asks: How can our Sages rule that the sacrifice is unacceptable and require that the person bring another offering? Since according to Scriptural Law, he has fulfilled his obligation, bringing the second sacrifice is in fact transgressing, for he is slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Shechitah 2:1). The Radbaz answers that from this we see the power of the Sages: that if there is a significant reason - as in this instance - their decrees can nullify the validity of the first sacrifice. Hence, when the person brings the second sacrifice, he is bringing a sacrifice required of him, not an ordinary animal.
37.But not a sin-offering, for a sin-offering must be brought explicitly for the sake of the person receiving atonement (Radbaz).
38.I.e., he did not specify the reason for which it should be offered.
39.I.e., it is as if he had the animal sacrificed himself.
40.Produce from which the agricultural obligations of terumah and the tithes were not separated. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19-21.
41.This refers to produce from the five species of grain which is forbidden before the offering of the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan or the passage of that day. See ibid.:2-5.
42.A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which may be eaten only a priest. See ibid. 15:13; Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2. This is unacceptable, because the offerings must come from produce which is permitted to every Jew, not only a priest (Pesachim 48a).
43.The substances mentioned in the first clause, though forbidden at present, will ultimately be permitted, while those in this clause will never be permitted. Moreover, it is forbidden not only to partake of them, but also to benefit from them.
44.Produce that grows during the first three years of a tree's growth or replanting. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:9-10.
45.When a species of grain or vegetable is sown together with a vineyard, both plants become forbidden (ibid.:6-8).
46.This is a principle applicable in many other contexts as well. For example, Hilchot Lulav 8:1 speaks of being unable to fulfill that mitzvah with a stolen lulav.
47.I.e., once it is consecrated, it may never be used for ordinary purposes again, but must be destroyed like consecrated property that was disqualified.
48.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:6), the Rambam uses the previous verse in that Biblical passage as a prooftext.
49.Implied is that these breads should be the first offerings brought from the new flour. Although it is permitted to be used by an ordinary person beforehand, it should not be used for sacrifices before then.
50.Since it is permitted to be used by a private person, after the fact, it is acceptable (op. cit.).
51.I.e., was placed with one's merchandise and was not intended to be used for one's individual purposes. Such wine is forbidden to be used on festivals, but not on the Sabbath. See Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 1:17.
52.Although the Rabbis forbade the use of such wine for private use, it is fundamentally permitted. Hence using it for a libation is not considering as bringing a forbidden substance as an offering. The Radbaz states that the Sages never extended their prohibition to encompass sacrifices.
53.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 119) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
54.This commandment is mentioned many times in this text; among the references: Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1; 6:4, 21-22; 7:1-2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10; 6:3; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16.
55.Although Menachot 21a explains that this concept can be derived from a verse, apparently, the Rambam does not accept the exegesis mentioned there.
56.See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:12.
57.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 118) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The question is raised: Why is he liable for lashes? Lashes are not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). In this instance, seemingly, the omission of salt does not involve a deed. In reply, it is explained that the offering of the sacrifice without salt is a deed and thus warrants lashes.
58.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16 where this concept is discussed. Salt is not placed on the entire meal offering, only on that fistful which is offered on the altar.
59.Although a private individual may donate wood for the altar (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9), he may not demand that this wood be used for his own sacrifice.
60.See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus.
61.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 where the chamber is mentioned.
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
Just as it is a mitzvah for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of the highest quality,1 so too, the accompanying offerings2 must be unblemished and of the highest quality, as [Numbers 28:31 states]: "They3 shall be perfect for you, as should be their accompanying offerings." Implied is that the accompanying offerings should also be unblemished. He should not bring wine libations that have been affected by smoke,4 nor flour that is worm-infested.5 Nor should he mix the flour with oil that is foul-smelling or foul-tasting.6
Halacha 2
Similarly, the wood for the arrangement [of the altar] should only be of the highest quality. They should not be worm-infested.7 Any tree that is worm-infested when it is fresh is unacceptable for the altar.8 If it became worm-infested after it dried out, one should scrape away the place that became worm-infested. Wood that comes from [a building that was] torn down is invalid. One should use only new wood.9
Halacha 3
There is an unresolved doubt when one consecrates invalid wine, flour, oil, or wood to the altar: Are they considered like a blemished animal in which instance, he would be liable for lashes10 or do they not resemble a blemished animal? Hence, he is not liable for lashes. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.11
Halacha 4
Fine flour, wine, oil, frankincense, fowl, wood, and sacred utensils that became invalid or impure should not be redeemed, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 27:11-12]: "He shall cause it to stand [before the priest]" and "have it evaluated." Whatever can be caused to stand [before a priest] can be evaluated. These cannot be caused to stand [before a priest]. Therefore they are never redeemed.12
Halacha 5
When does the above apply? When they became13 invalidated or impure after they became sanctified in a sacred vessel, but before they have been sanctified in a sacred vessel, they may be redeemed if they become impure or invalid. Pure objects, by contrast, should not be redeemed even if they were not consecrated in a sacred utensil with the exception of the flour brought as a sin-offering. [Concerning which] it is said [Leviticus 5:6] "of his sin-offering" and [ibid.:13] "concerning his sin-offering," as will be explained.14 [From the juxtaposition of the verses, it is inferred that] one may bring a sin offering from the money of his sin-offering. Therefore before it was consecrated in a sacred utensil it is considered as consecrated for its monetary value and it can be redeemed even though it is ritually pure.
A separate arrangement of wood should be made for all of the accompanying offerings15 that became impure and they should be burnt on the altar.16
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply with regard to] the water for the libation of Sukkot17 that became impure and then it was joined [to an acceptable mikveh],18 as will be explained with regard to [the Laws of] Purity.19If he purified it and then consecrated it, it may be used for a libation. If, however, it was consecrated and then became impure, since it was disqualified, it should remain disqualified.20
Halacha 7
When olives and grapes became impure, they should be crushed less than an egg-sized portion21 at a time.22 The liquids that emerge from them are acceptable for the accompanying offerings. For these liquids are considered as [distinct and] set aside in the foods and it is as if they are not from their body.23
Halacha 8
Our Sages established an additional safeguard with regard to consecrated objects: When seeds became impure, even if they are sown, [the produce] that grows from them is not acceptable for the accompanying offerings, for sowing produce is not effective [in restoring ritual purity] for consecrated entities.24
Similarly, with regard to wood and frankincense, even though they are inedible, they can become impure like foods with regard to the sacrifices.25 [In such an instance,] the wood and the frankincense become disqualified for the altar because of this impurity and they should not be offered.
Halacha 9
These are the types of wine that are invalid as [libations] for the altar: sweetened wine,26 smoked wine,27 wine cooked over fire or in the sun until its flavor was changed by the cooking. The types of wine [to be listed] should not be brought [as libations] as an initial preference, but if they were brought, they are acceptable. They include: wine was warmed in the sun,28 but its flavor did not change due to the cooking and similarly, raisin wine, wine from the vat that is less than 40 days old,29 wine from [grapes grown] on trellises, wine from a vineyard in an arid region or in a dungheap, wine from vines in which other produce was sown between them, or wine from a vineyard that was not tilled.30
Halacha 10
Wine that was left uncovered31 is not acceptable [as libations] for the altar. If one draped a vine over a fig tree, its wine is unacceptable for a libation, for its fragrance has changed and [Leviticus 23:37] states: "Sacrifice and libations," [equating the two]. Just as [the appearance of an animal offered as] a sacrifice may not have changed,32 the wine for libations may not have changed.
Halacha 11
When the majority of fine flour has become worm-ridden or the majority of the kernels of wheat have become worm-ridden33 and [flour] was made from them, it is unacceptable. If the majority of one kernel of wheat became worm-ridden, there is an unresolved doubt [with regard to its acceptability]. Whenever flour dust remains in the fine flour,34 it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
How is the matter checked? The treasurer inserts his hand into the fine flour. If dust clings to it as he removes it,35 it is unacceptable until he sifts it again.
Fine flour from wheat that grew in an arid land, a dungheap, in an orchard, on land that was not left fallow and tilled should not be brought as an initial preference,36 if it was brought, it is acceptable.
Halacha 13
When wheat kernels were collected from cattle feces and then sown in the ground, there is an unresolved doubt if their disgusting characteristic has departed because they were sown37 or they are still considered as disgusting. Therefore one should not bring meal offerings from [such flour] as an initial preference. If he brought, they are acceptable.
Halacha 14
These are the oils which are unacceptable: oil from olives soaked in water or of pickled38 or cooked olives, oil from olive dregs, or foul-smelling oil. All of these are unacceptable. In contrast, oil from olives that were planted in a dungheap, in an arid region, which had another crop sown between them, or oil that was produced from olives that have not ripened and are still immature39 should not be brought as an initial preference, but if it was brought, it is acceptable.
Halacha 15
All of the meal offerings and libations40 are acceptable whether from [produce grown in] Eretz [Yisrael] or from [produce grown in] the Diaspora. They are acceptable from fresh grain41 or grain from the previous years, provided it is of optimum quality. The only exceptions are the omer offering42 and the two loaves [brought on Shavuot]. They must be brought from fresh grain and from Eretz Yisrael.43
FOOTNOTES
1.See Chapter 1, Halachah 1; Chapter 2, Halachah 8; Chapter 3, Halachah 11; Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
2.As will be explained, every sacrifice must be accompanied by a meal offering that is mixed with oil and a wine libation.
3.The offerings.
4.See Halachah 9.
5.See Halachah 11.
6.See Halachah 14.
7.See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8 which explains that there was a special chamber set aside in the Women's Courtyard where the priests would check the wood to make sure it was not worm-infested.
8.Because then, it is impossible to scrape away the worm-infested portion in a desirable manner.
9.See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
10.As in Chapter 1, Halachah 2.
11.See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:7).
12.As explained in Hilchot Arachin 5:9, blemished animals are the subject of the above verse. They can be "caused to stand before a priest." All of the above are inanimate objects that cannot be "caused to stand before a priest."
13.The fine flour, wine, and oil. Wood, fowl, and sacred utensils may never be redeemed.
14.Hilchot Shegagot 10:12. The verses and the latter source refer to an adjustable guilt offering. If a person was poor and therefore set aside a meal offering as required of one of his financial status and then became wealthy, he may sell the meal offering and use it to be an animal as is required of him in his new financial position.
15.The flour, wine, and oil that accompany a sacrifice.
16.The Radbaz states that this refers to offerings that became impure while on the top of the altar. If they became impure beforehand, they should not be brought there to be burnt.
17.See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.
18.This is speaking about a situation in which the water that was taken for a libation before the Sabbath of the Sukkot and became impure on that Sabbath. We are forced to say this, for if we were speaking of an ordinary weekday, there would be no difficulty in going down to the Gichon Stream and getting new water. On the Sabbath, this is forbidden and the only alternative is restore the ritual purity of the water (Rashi, Meiri, Pesachim 34b).
19.Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 2:21 which explains that when a receptacle containing water has an ordinary sized opening and is submerged in a mikveh, the water can regain its status of ritual purity.
20.Even though the water regained its purity, it is no longer acceptable as an offering. This is a Rabbinic stringency (Pesachim, loc. cit.; see Halachah 8). Instead, water for the libation should be taken from the basin (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:10).
21.57 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 100 cc according to Chazon Ish.
22.The rationale is that as stated in Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:1, impure food will not cause other foods or liquids to contract ritual impurity unless the impure food is the size of an egg sized portion.
23.I.e., were the liquids to be of the body of the fruit, they would be considered impure like the fruit itself. It is, however, considered as if they are distinct entities (ibid. 1:2) and they do not have the possibility of becoming impure until they emerge from the fruit. Hence, if there is less than an egg-sized portion, the liquids will not become impure.
24.Even though it is acceptable with regard to terumah.
25.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:5) the Rambam writes that the only unfashioned wood which ever contracts ritual impurity is wood used for the altar.
26.Wine sweetened due to exposure to the sun; alternatively, wine to which a sweetener was added (see Hilchot Shabbat 29:14).
27.Wine stored in a utensil with a foul odor [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:6)].
28.This improves the flavor of the wine. See Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).
29.Grape juice that has not fermented.
30.All of these types of wine have an inferior flavor.
31.As explained in Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:6-8:10, when wine was left uncovered, it is forbidden because it is possible that a snake might have deposited venom in it. Hence, it is forbidden for the altar.
32.See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
33.Even slightly worm-ridden.
34.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 5:14), the Rambam defines solet, translated as "fine flour," as the flour of substance that remains in the process of refinement and kemach, translated as "flour dust," as the dust that is cast off.
35.Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2).
36.All of these types of flour are of inferior quality (ibid.).
37.And the grain growing from them is an entirely new entity. Were they not to have been sown, flour made from them would not be acceptable.
38.In vinegar or in brine.
39.As explained above, fruit grown under these conditions is of inferior quality.
40.Both individual and communal offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:1)].
41.Grown in the present year.
42.The offering of barley brought on the second day of Pesach.
43.These concepts are evident from Leviticus 23:10 and, 16-17. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:5-6; 8:2.
Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
Not every entity that is not unacceptable may be brought [as a sacrifice] as an initial preference.1
What is implied? If one is obligated to bring a burnt offering, one should not bring a weak and unattractive sheep and [justify oneself saying]: "It does not have a blemish." Concerning this, can be applied [the words of censure, Malachi 1:14]: "Cursed be the deceiver... [who sacrifices a blemished animal to God]." Instead, anyone who brings a sacrifice should bring from the highest quality.2
Halacha 2
This is the practice that was observed in the era of the Temple: They would bring rams from Moab, broad-backed sheep3 from Chebron, calves from Sharon, young doves from Har HaMelech, wine from Korchayin and Chalutin, flour from Michmash and Yochanah and oil from Tekoa.4
Halacha 3
All virgin wood5 is acceptable for the altar. They would not bring wood from olive trees or grape vines [in consideration of] the settlement of Eretz [Yisrael].6 They would frequently use boughs of fig trees that grow in forests of unsettled areas,7 those of nut trees, and those of fast-burning8 trees. The logs that Moses made [for the altar in the Sanctuary] were a cubit long and a cubit wide.9 Their thickness was like that of the leveling rod for an overflowing se'ah. In future generations,10 [logs] of the same measurements were used.
Halacha 4
What would they do when sowing wheat for meal offerings and accompanying offerings?11 They would leave half a field fallow in the first year12 and sow the other half.13 In the second year, he should leave the portion he sowed in the first year fallow and he should sow the second half seventy days before Peach.14 If the field had not been tilled, he should plow it twice and then sow it. He should choose the kernels of wheat carefully15 and then he should strike them16 and tread on them17 until their shells are removed.
Halacha 5
All of the wheat used for the meal offerings must receive 300 blows and be tread on 500 times. He should give [the kernels] one blow and then tread on them twice; give them two blows and tread on them three times. Thus they will have received three blows and will have been tread on five times. He should then repeat the pattern until he completes all 300 blows and 500 treadings so that much of the shells will have been removed. As a stringency, extending and drawing back his arm is considered as one blow. After this process, he should grind and sift the flour very thoroughly.
Halacha 6
Wine [should be made by] bringing grapes from vines growing at foot level from vineyards that were tilled twice a year.18 He should crush the grapes and collect [their juice] in small jugs. They should not be stored individually or in pairs, but instead in groups of three.19 The jug should not be filled to its rim in order that its fragrance will be perceived.20 He should not bring [libations] from the wine near the rim, because of the specks resembling flour21 that rise to the surface of the wine, nor from the bottom, because of the dregs. Instead, he should take from the middle third and from its middle portion.
Halacha 7
A treasurer would sit [and watch] as the wine flowed from a hole on the side of a jug [of wine]. If he sees dregs flow out, he stops [the flow of wine] and does not complete the purchase.
At what point [in the aging process of wine] should it be brought? From 40 days after the grapes were tread upon22 until after two years and even slightly longer than that. If one brings wine that is even older, it is acceptable, provided its flavor has not spoiled.23
Halacha 8
There are nine categories of oil, depending on the process in which they were prepared. What is implied? When one picks olives at the top of an olive tree, selects them one by one,24 crushes them and puts them into a basket, the oil that flows from them is considered in the first category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them],25 the oil which flows from them is of the second category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time,26 the oil which flows from them is of the third category.
When he picked olives in a mixture,27 brought them to the roof, selected them one by one, crushed them, and placed them into a basket, the oil which flows from them is of the fourth category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them], the oil which flows from them is of the fifth category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time, the oil which flows from them is of the sixth category.
When he picks olives28 and loads them in the vat until they begin to decompose, he then takes them up [to the roof], dries them, and places them in a basket.29 The oil which flows from them is of the seventh category. If, afterwards, he loads a beam upon them [to press them], the oil which flows from them is of the eighth category. If he loads [a beam upon them] a second time, the oil which flows from them is of the ninth category.
Halacha 9
Even though they are all acceptable [to be brought] with the meal offerings,30 there is nothing that surpasses the first category.31 Afterwards, the second and the fourth are of equal quality.32 After them, the third, fifth, and seventh are of equal quality.33 After them, the sixth and the eighth are of equal quality.34 There is nothing inferior to the ninth.35
Halacha 10
Only the first, fourth, and seventh categories are acceptable for the Menorah, for [Exodus 27:20] states: "crushed for the light," i.e., for the Menorah,36 only that which flows after [the olives] are crushed alone37 are acceptable. They are all acceptable for meal offerings.38
Halacha 11
Since all of these categories of oil are acceptable, why were they listed as separate categories? So that one would know the superior category that nothing surpasses, those which are equal, and those which are inferior. In this way, one who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing.39 For it is written in the Torah [Genesis 4:4]: "And Evel brought from his chosen flocks and from the superior ones and God turned to Evel and his offering."
The same applies to everything given for the sake of the Almighty who is good. It should be of the most attractive and highest quality. If one builds a house of prayer, it should be more attractive than his own dwelling. If he feeds a hungry person, he should feed him from the best and most tasty foods of his table. If he clothes one who is naked, he should clothe him with his attractive garments. If he consecrates something, he should consecrate the best of his possession. And so [Leviticus 3:16] states: "All of the superior quality should be given to God."40
FOOTNOTES
1.This chapter focuses on one fundamental concept: that ideally the entities used for the sacrifices should be of the highest quality.
2.As evident from Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:4, here, the Rambam is focusing on the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, not on the letter of the law.
3.Because of their fat (Rav Yosef Corchus).
4.All of the names mentioned here are regions or cities in Eretz Yisrael. Each respective was renown for the quality of the particular item associated with it.
5.I.e., wood that has not been used for any other purpose first.
6.Oil and wine are considered basic necessities and hence, the trees and vines from which they derive should not be cut down for use as fuel for the altar. The Radbaz explains that olive trees and grape vines also frequently have knots and produce smoke that is undesirable.
7.Which do not produce edible fruit [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid)]. This atoned for the Sin of the Tree of Knowledge which was a fig tree [Rashi (Yoma 58a)].
8.Our translation is based on Rashi's Commentary to Tamid 29b. Literally, the words would be translated as "oily trees."
9.For this was the size of the pyre.
10.Even though the size of the altar as a whole was increased.
11.I.e., the practice to be described delineates the optimum manner of preparing flour for the meal offerings. Flour which was prepared in another manner may also be acceptable.
12.Leaving the field fallow improved the quality of the grain it produces.
13.Plowing it each time [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2)].
14.Although this falls on 5 Shvat which is in the midst of winter. "the sun already has the power to shine upon it" (Rashi, Menachot 85a) and improve its growth.
15.To remove any other seeds and to select the highest quality wheat (Radbaz).
16.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:5) the Rambam interprets this as striking the wheat powerfully with one's hand so that the dust will be removed from them.
17.Crushing them with his feet to crack the shells (ibid.).
18.This is also the optimum manner to prepare wine. Wine prepared in other means is also acceptable.
19.The Radbaz explains that the more barrels are stored together, the less each one is exposed to air. Hence, there is less deterioration in the flavor of the wine.
20.If the jug is filled to the brim, the vapors from the wine will have no chance to rise. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:6).
21.In that source, the Rambam explains that in the wines that he is familiar with, this phenomenon takes place only in the superior wines. He supposes that in Eretz Yisrael, this phenomenon would occur only with the inferior wines.
22.Until then, the fermentation process will not be complete. The Radbaz writes that although the Rambam's wording does not imply this, from the beginning of the fortieth day onward, the wine is acceptable.
23.Once its flavor has begun to spoil, however, it is unacceptable. See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
24.Apparently, the Rambam is speaking about a situation when the majority of the crop are not ready to be picked and the ones he selects are those of the highest quality.
25.I.e., one of the techniques of pressing olives was to put them under pressure from a heavy beam. This would squeeze out more oil from them,.
26.Readjusting the beam will apply greater pressure and squeeze out more oil.
27.Without separated the good from the bad. This is speaking about the stage when most of the olives are ready for picking. Thus the ones he picks are not necessarily the most choice.
28.These are olives which grew late and never ripened sufficiently.
29.Although they were crushed and thus dregs will be produced, they were not, however, pressed with a beam, which would produce more dregs.
30.Menachot 86b states that the Torah allowed the inferior types of oil to be used, so that the price of superior oil would not rise and thus be prohibitively expensive for the people at large.
31.For the olives are superior and they are not pressed, so that few dregs will be included.
32.The second category uses superior olives, but they are pressed, so that they will have dregs. The fourth uses inferior olives, but they are not pressed, so there will be no dregs.
33.Even though the olives of the third category will have been pressed twice, because they are of a superior quality, they are equal to those of a lower quality that were pressed less. Similarly, those of the seventh category, though pressed only once are of inferior quality to those of the fifth category.
34.Even though those of the sixth category have been pressed twice, they are of a higher quality than those of the eighth.
35.For they are both of a lower category and have been pressed twice.
36."The light."
37.I.e., excluding oil produced by pressing.
38.Even though the Rambam mentioned this point in the previous halachah, he mentions it again here to emphasize that this concept is also derived from the exegesis of the verse. It is necessary that the oil flow from crushing only "for the light," and not for the meal offerings.
39.See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 16:3-4.
40.See also Hilchot Terumah 5:1 which states that the finest grain should be separated as terumah.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Monday, Sivan 18, 5774 • 16 June 2014
"Today's Day"
Monday, Sivan 18, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'lach, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 88-89.
Tanya: From the inclusion (p. 303)...in the sun. (p. 305).
This is the actual time of the "footsteps of Mashiach."1 It is therefore imperative for every Jew to seek his fellow's welfare - whether old or young - to inspire the other to teshuva (return), so that he will not fall out - G-d forbid - of the community of Israel who will shortly be privileged, with G-d's help, to experience complete redemption.
FOOTNOTES
1.The final age prior to Mashiach's advent.
-------
Daily Thought:
Purpose of a Leaf
As a young boy, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak (the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe) would go with his father on walks through the woods. One time, as they talked, the boy absent-mindedly plucked a leaf off a tree and began to shred it between his fingers. His father saw what his son was doing, but he went on talking. He spoke about the Baal Shem Tov, who taught how every leaf that blows in the wind—moving to the right and then to the left, how and when it falls and where it falls to—every motion for the duration of its existence is under the detailed supervision of the Almighty.
That concern the Creator has for each thing, his father explained, is the divine spark that sustains its existence. Everything is with Divine purpose, everything is of concern to the ultimate goal of the entire cosmos.
”Now,” the father gently chided, “look how you mistreated so absent-mindedly the Almighty’s creation.”
”He formed it with purpose and gave it a Divine spark! It has its own self and its own life! Now tell me, how is the ‘I am’ of the leaf any less than your own ‘I am’?”
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment